Connect with us

Tech

The topics in ‘Chevalier’ that easy ring shining at the moment

Published

on

The topics in ‘Chevalier’ that easy ring shining at the moment

How some distance procure we the truth is arrive?

Basically the most attention-grabbing tales of the day delivered to your inbox.

By signing up to the Mashable e-newsletter you resolve to get electronic communications
from Mashable which will most frequently consist of adverts or backed narrate.

Thanks for signing up. Understand you at your inbox!

Sahil Sachdeva is the CEO of Level Up Holdings, a Personal Branding agency. He creates elite personal brands through social media growth and top tier press features.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Elon Musk releases chatbot code in the most recent escalation of the AI war

Published

on

00musk-grok-hjkq-superJumbo

 

On Sunday, Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world, escalated his fight for control over artificial intelligence by disclosing the source code for his version of a chatbot.

A creation of xAI, the business Mr. Musk created last year, Grok is meant to respond to questions with a tongue-in-cheek tone reminiscent of the science fiction book “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.” Despite being separate from X, xAI’s technology has been included in the social media network and is taught using user postings. Those with access to X’s premium features can inquire about Grok and get answers.

Through a practice known as “open sourcing,” which allows anybody to access and use the code, Elon Musk entered a contentious discussion within the artificial intelligence community about whether or not this makes the technology safer overall.

Although he hasn’t updated it since, Mr. Musk, a self-described supporter of open source, did the same thing with X’s recommendation system last year.

Although there is still work to be done, Mr. Musk wrote on Sunday in response to a comment about open-sourcing X’s recommendation algorithm, “This platform is already by far the most transparent & truth-seeking (not a high bar, I know).”

The switch to open-source chatbot technology is the most recent exchange of blows between Mr. Musk and OpenAI, the company that created ChatGPT and was recently sued by the volatile entrepreneur for violating its pledge to follow suit. After leaving OpenAI a few years after its founding, Mr. Musk made the case that Microsoft, Google, and other digital behemoths like them shouldn’t have complete control over such a significant technology. Microsoft is a close collaborator of OpenAI.

According to OpenAI, it will try to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Since the technology’s rise in popularity last year, there has been much debate about whether or not to make generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) open source. This technology can produce realistic images and videos as well as human-like text responses. The question of whether the coding that powers artificial intelligence should be made public is a contentious one in Silicon Valley. While some engineers contend that the technology is too powerful to be left unchecked, others maintain that there are more advantages to openness than disadvantages.

Mr. Musk solidified his position in the latter group by disclosing his A.I. code; this move may allow him to outpace rivals who have advanced the technology more quickly.

When the code is made public, other businesses and independent software developers will be able to use and adapt it to create their own chatbots and other artificial intelligence systems. Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta, has also made its LLaMA artificial intelligence technology publicly available. Open sourcing has also been used by Google and Mistral, a well-known French start-up.

As the CEO of Tesla and the owner of X and SpaceX, Mr. Musk established xAI last year with the goal of helping people “understand reality.” He stated in November that a quarter of xAI would be owned by investors in his $44 billion take-private agreement for X.

Mr. Musk has declared that chatbots should be able to handle any topic, branding as “woke” businesses that control their technology to steer clear of controversy.

In a statement published on Friday, Mr. Musk stated, “If an AI is programmed to push for diversity at all costs, as Google Gemini was, then it will do whatever it can to cause that outcome, potentially even killing people.”

Nonetheless, there is a strong commercial component to at least some of the rhetoric around open source. With the most potent and possibly most well-liked chatbot on the market, OpenAI leads the competition and has no incentive to make its code publicly available.

On the other side, Mr. Musk and xAI are attempting to catch up and may help level the playing field by making their code open source and encouraging others to further the technology.

Arizona State University computer science professor Subbarao Kambhampati has maintained that the safest course of action for current A.I. technology is to make it open source. However, he went on to say that for that reason, businesses like Meta and xAI weren’t necessarily making the technology open-source.

The main artificial intelligence scientists at Meta, Elon Musk, and Yann LeCun, he argued, “are not the best messengers for this argument.”

Continue Reading

Tech

Sam Altman Rejoins OpenAI’s Board and Takes Control of the Company

Published

on

08openai-lqch-superJumbo

The inquiry into Sam Altman’s dramatic termination from OpenAI more than three months ago has come to a close. This is a major win for the prominent CEO as he attempts to take back control of the AI startup he helped build.

In a press conference on Friday, OpenAI stated that Mr. Altman, who rejoined the business only five days after being fired in November, had done nothing to warrant his dismissal and would be able to reclaim the one position on the board of directors that remained unclaimed by him.

Silicon Valley was taken aback by Mr. Altman’s dismissal, which also threatened the survival of one of the most significant startups in the IT sector. It also questioned whether OpenAI was prepared to lead the tech industry’s fervent focus on artificial intelligence, with or without Mr. Altman at the helm.

Mr. Altman agreed to an inquiry into the board’s activities and his conduct when he returned to OpenAI in November, but he was not given back his board position. The two members who voted to remove him also decided to resign; their non-company replacements led the WilmerHale law firm’s probe. The much-awaited investigation regarding the occurrence was completed, according to OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor, however, the report was not made public by the business.

The legal firm’s assessment, according to the corporation, concluded that while the OpenAI board had the right to fire Mr. Altman, his actions did not require his dismissal.

Mr. Taylor mentioned Greg Brockman, the company president who resigned in protest after Mr. Altman was fired, saying, “The special committee recommended and the full board expressed their full confidence in Mr. Altman and Mr. Brockman.” “We are enthusiastic and fully behind Sam and Greg.”

In response to complaints regarding a lack of diversity on the board, OpenAI also added three women to the board: Fidji Simo, the CEO of Instacart; Sue Desmond-Hellmann, the former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Nicole Seligman, the former general counsel of Sony.

One of the replacements named to the OpenAI board in November, Mr. Taylor, predicted that the board will keep growing.

The goal of the report and the new board members was for OpenAI’s management to put the turmoil surrounding Mr. Altman’s dismissal behind them. Numerous concerns concerning his leadership and the peculiar structure of the San Francisco company—a nonprofit board supervising a for-profit business—were raised by the occurrence.

However, OpenAI has left a lot of issues about the firm unanswered because it has not released the study. Insiders have questioned if Mr. Altman had an excessive amount of control over the conduct of the probe.

The two OpenAI board members who departed late last year, Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, issued a statement saying, “As we told the investigators, deception, manipulation, and resistance to thorough oversight should be unacceptable.” “We trust that the new board will effectively oversee OpenAI and ensure that it stays true to its goals.”

At the Friday press conference, Mr. Taylor made an appearance with Mr. Altman. He said the study concluded that the previous board removed Mr. Altman in good faith, but it did not foresee the legal problems that would follow his termination. This was followed by the announcement of the new board members.

According to the review, the board’s choice was not motivated by worries about the security or safety of the product, Mr. Taylor stated. “It was just a lack of trust between Mr. Altman and the board.”

Following Mr. Taylor’s prepared remarks, Mr. Altman commended the company’s and its partners’ tenacity both during and following his dismissal. He remarked, “I’m glad this whole thing is over.”

A six-paragraph summary of the report was made available by OpenAI. According to the report, WilmerHale interviewed numerous people, including former board members of OpenAI, and examined 30,000 documents.

It concluded that the prior board’s justification and public justification for Mr. Altman’s termination—that he was not “consistently candid in his communications with the board”—were accurate. Additionally, it stated that the board had not expected its actions to cause instability within the corporation.

WilmerHale, according to the firm, briefed Mr. Taylor and Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary who was also named to the board in November, orally about the study, which will not be made public.

According to Mr. Taylor, OpenAI has implemented several measures to enhance the way the business is managed, such as new board governance standards, a conflict of interest policy, and a whistleblower hotline.

The report summary from OpenAI failed to address the concerns raised by the company’s senior executives regarding Mr. Altman with the previous board. The chief technical officer of OpenAI, Mira Murati, and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever had concerns about Mr. Altman’s management style before his termination, citing what they described as his manipulative past.

Through an attorney, Dr. Sutskever has referred to the assertions as “false.” In a Thursday Slack message, Ms. Murati stated that she had given the board the same input that she had given Mr. Altman personally, but she had never contacted the board to voice those concerns.

“I am glad the independent review is over and we can all go forward together,” Ms. Murati wrote on X, the platform that was formerly known as Twitter, on Friday.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is still looking into OpenAI over the board’s conduct and the potential for Mr. Altman to have deceived investors. When a report is finished, companies that use outside legal firms frequently give it to public investigators.

The board spokesperson for OpenAI declined to comment on whether the report would be sent to the S.E.C.

In its most recent funding round, OpenAI, which was valued at over $80 billion, is at the forefront of generative A.I., or technology that can produce text, images, and sounds. Many think that the technology industry could see a similar profound transformation from generative AI as that of the web browser approximately thirty years ago. Some fear that technology could hurt society, contributing to the spread of false information online, eliminating a great number of employment, and possibly endangering humankind.

Mr. Altman embodied the industry’s drive toward generative artificial intelligence (AI) following the release of ChatGPT, an online chatbot by OpenAI in late 2022. Approximately a year later, the board abruptly fired him, stating that it no longer trusted him to lead the business.

Three founders and three independent members made up the remaining six members of the board. One of OpenAI’s founders, Dr. Sutskever, voted with the other three outsiders to remove Mr Altman from his positions as chairman and CEO, citing, without elaborating, his lack of “consistent candidness in his communications.”

Another founder, Mr. Brockman, left the company in disapproval. A few days later, Dr. Sutskever said that he had changed his mind about dismissing Mr. Altman and essentially resigned from the board, leaving Mr. Altman opposed by three independent members.

In 2015, OpenAI was established as a nonprofit organization. Three years later, Mr. Altman established a for-profit subsidiary and secured $1 billion from Microsoft. The nonprofit’s board, whose declared goal was to develop artificial intelligence for the good of humanity, kept total authority over the new division. Microsoft and other investors were not legally able to choose the company’s management.

Mr. Taylor, a former Salesforce executive, was chosen to take the position of two board members in an attempt to calm the chaos and get Mr. Altman back to the company. However, Mr. Altman did not get back on the board. In charge of managing the inquiry into Mr. Altman’s termination were Mr. Taylor and Mr. Summers.

Dee Templeton, vice president of technology and research partnerships at Microsoft, a key collaborator of OpenAI, holds a seat on the board as an observer. Microsoft refrained from commenting on the board and report on Friday.

Corporate governance experts criticized the new board for its lack of diversity. In November, Mr. Taylor stated to The Times that he would appoint “qualified, diverse candidates” to the board, candidates who represented “the fullness of what this mission represents, which is going to span technology, A.I. safety policy.”

 

Continue Reading

Tech

3 Side Initiatives For ChatGPT By 2024

Published

on

what-is-chatgpt-6393027101b3c-sej-1280x720

Side work as alternative or supplemental employment is nowhere near decline, contributing an astounding $1.27 trillion to the U.S. economy and accounting for an estimated 38% of the workforce (a figure that is set to rise as flexible working becomes the norm and younger generations enter the workforce). In fact, with the introduction of ChatGPT, they are about to explode.

According to projections from Statista experts, almost 86 million American workers will be self-employed by 2027, accounting for 50.9% of the country’s employment. This is consistent with the steady increase rate that we have seen over time. That statistic, however, may not accurately reflect the number of side gigs being pursued by professionals globally, as ChatGPT usage is rising in tandem with this trend.

ChatGPT is beneficial for anyone thinking about working for themselves since it lowers the initial entrance hurdles of time, money, and intelligence.

Technology is important to remember that, although being created by humans, technology lacks human common sense and is subject to false information, factual errors, and what are known as “hallucinations.” Because of this, it’s imperative that you already possess in-depth knowledge of the industry you want to make money from as a side gig. This will enable you to quickly identify any errors the chatbot may have made and to alter and personalize the results it produces with your unique inputs, skills, and style.

In this sense, ChatGPT is not your work; it is merely the framework. Your clients will be deceived if you use ChatGPT exclusively for work-related purposes, as they can obtain the same service by using it themselves. Thus, take care to make sure that the procedure is made as human as possible.

Keeping that in mind, here are three simple methods to profit from ChatGPT’s features:

1. Composing electronic books

ChatGPT is an excellent application for fast-authoring e-books that you can sell on websites like Amazon. Creating a series of more focused prompts for each section of your book can help you obtain the high-quality information you require for your e-book. Don’t give ChatGPT a general question like “Write a book about how to start software engineering.”

2. Class Schedule

Furthermore, ChatGPT is an invaluable resource for educators and tutors. It can be instructed to produce worksheets, tests, exercises, and other educational materials based on the subjects you give it or use to train it on. It might help you come up with innovative ideas for creating and organizing classes for your tutoring side business. Subsequently, you might earn money by selling other educators your lesson plans and lesson plan templates on online marketplaces such as Teachers Pay Teachers.

3. An anonymous YouTube channel

Did you know that you can build a successful YouTube channel using your passion or area of expertise and earn passive money without a camera? You don’t even need to worry about being camera shy because AI can still be used to start an educational channel.

Choose your channel’s theme and primary emphasis topic first. What are the people you are trying to get to your channel, what are their urgent queries, and what information do they require immediately? After completing the preliminary investigation and planning to determine a viable channel concept, you may utilize ChatGPT to develop scripts for educational videos and an AI video tool to produce scenes that correspond with the script. To eliminate the need to be seen or heard, you can even use AI voiceover technologies.

This year, whatever concept are you planning to try? With ChatGPT’s assistance, what side project will you start to change the world more quickly and earn a sizable income at the same time?

 

Continue Reading

Tech

Apple reaffirms its commitment to privacy, presenting a challenge to Samsung and Google

Published

on

Apple_announce-iphone12pro_10132020.jpg.og

The conflict between the iPhone and Android is about to heat up—possibly to a level never before seen. Additionally, if you use a premium Samsung device, a recent remark unexpectedly made by Apple should encourage you to consider switching.

This week, in a galaxy far, far away, Apple made a major announcement that will greatly affect the approaching battle between its iPhone and Android rivals, primarily Samsung, at the high end of the market.

Apple claimed that some businesses “regularly scan personal information in the cloud to monetize their users’ information.” Apple doesn’t. We’ve taken a completely different route, one that puts our users’ security and privacy first.

The claim was made in Australia, another country considering imposing a monitoring mandate on internet service providers to identify inappropriate activity within its user population.

The nation’s eSafety plans, which aim to prevent child sexual abuse and terrorism/radicalization, seem to contradict one another by protecting user privacy and security while actively tracking user content (in some capacity).

Apple said in a statement obtained by The Guardian that “scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud data would pose serious security and privacy problems.” “Bulk surveillance of communications and storage systems is made possible by scanning for specific content.

There are two noteworthy aspects to this statement. Apple is drawing attention to the risk that technology suppliers lose their main line of defense against scope creep when they technically violate the security of end-to-end encryption. To put it simply, political dissent and sexual liberty follow CSAM or radicalization.

Apple issued a warning, saying that “tools of mass surveillance have widespread negative implications for freedom of opinion and expression and, by extension, democracy as a whole.” For instance, there is a real risk that knowledge of the possibility that the government could order a provider to monitor user behavior could stifle acceptable political, expressive, and associational freedoms as well as economic activities.

This is noteworthy since, in 2021, I and others made the same point when Apple suggested device-side scanning for CSAM: “At the insistence of the governments where Apple sells its devices, Apple will be pressed into expanding its CSAM screening to look for other content.” Such demands have previously been denied by Apple because they are technically impractical. That has, however, abruptly changed.

Apple eventually changed its mind and abandoned its plans for device-side scanning because of the intense criticism that its intentions were so un-Apple.

Taking aside the irony of this much-needed retreat, Apple’s most recent privacy affirmation is noteworthy because it will soon become a major differentiation in the ecosystem between Apple and Google: private on-device processing versus open cloud processing. That implies a device-based competition between Apple and Samsung.

Google checks other stuff, including images saved in its cloud, for CSAM and other materials. For further categories of user data classification, it also leverages the cloud. As Gemini is being rolled out throughout Google’s ecosystem, along with several alerts informing users that their work will probably be saved in the cloud and might be reviewed by humans, this is also generating news right now.

This is not what Apple wants to do. Its strategy is to operate AI on its devices, within the applicable end-to-end encryption bubble, and to keep itself from accessing any content that is saved on the cloud. Although this is far more difficult than the economies of scale associated with cloud processing, Apple runs the theory if it can.

Apple seems to be comparing the effectiveness of device-side generative AI against top cloud-side options, as I revealed last month. We thus have a coming parallel universe wherein Google pushes its alternative, centered around privacy alerts and advice notifications over what data is utilized and kept online, and iOS pushes its inevitable generative AI based around device privacy and security.

Samsung is making a lot of noise about the Galaxy one day into the yearly Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, and it’s all about AI. The business released a statement saying, “The era of mobile AI has come, and early adopters are already riding the waves of the latest innovation.”

Through a “try before you buy” app, Samsung has been promoting Galaxy smartphones to iPhone customers for a long time. It is now making that available to Android users. “Samsung has made major updates to the Try Galaxy app to spark the conversation and enable those who are still undecided to experience Galaxy AI without switching phones.”

On the first day of MWC, however, the major news was the official launch of Gemini on Google Messages. The business said that “Gemini in Google Messages is being released gradually and only to Google Messages beta testers for now.” Nevertheless, “you can chat with Gemini in the Google Messages app to draft messages, brainstorm ideas, plan events, or simply have a fun conversation.”

But for Samsung, this resolves the conflict. Samsung has described Galaxy AI as a “hybrid approach” between device and cloud AI, and it is free to promote the technology as much as it wants. But in the end, they are Android gadgets, and given Google’s greater AI capabilities, its ecosystem control and AI will prevail. 

Thus, Google’s problems turn become Samsung’s problems, and the Apple vs. Google argument never ends.

From a gadget standpoint, there has never been a closer comparison between iPhones and their Samsung counterparts in terms of functionality, features, and performance, in my opinion. However, a previously unseen degree of differentiation will be brought forth by the AI tidal wave. Furthermore, if you intend to spend $1000 to $2000 on a smartphone, I would need complete privacy features.

Outside of my encrypted cocoon, I would not want an ecosystem that might mistakenly identify content or provide a danger of cloud-side data intrusions. I would like to know exactly what the underlying principles are about the sovereignty and protection of my content. Furthermore, a non-compromising technological assurance is what I would prefer.Furthermore, Android security upgrades are similarly disorganized as Apple’s, and there are far more hazardous malware attacks (some of which have specifically targeted Samsung devices).

Therefore, in 2024, the case for iPhones at the high end of the market is stronger than ever, even with Google’s AI head start and rapid release of AI features, as generative AI strives to permanently alter our smartphones. Perhaps this helps to explain why all seven of the most well-liked high-end gadgets from the previous year were iPhones.

Continue Reading

Entrepreneurs

Apple departs the project for an electric car

Published

on

27apple-car-ltgk-superJumbo

Apple has scrapped its intentions to launch a self-driving electric car, a project that had been under development for almost ten years.

Based on a person briefed on the discussion, who requested anonymity because the announcement was not public, the company informed employees in an internal meeting on Tuesday that it had shelved the project and that members of the group would be shifted to different roles, including in Apple’s artificial intelligence division.

According to the individual, Kevin Lynch, an executive who worked on the automobile project, will be reporting to John Giannandrea, the head of artificial intelligence strategy at the firm, as part of the restructure.

Apple said it would not comment. Bloomberg had earlier broken the story that Apple was discontinuing its auto program.

Apple had not revealed their automobile to the public, but since it was being tested on public roads, it had been one of Silicon Valley’s worst-kept secrets for a long time. Apple rarely cancels initiatives of this magnitude since it usually doesn’t shelve projects with this level of public attention.

The company has had difficulty in recent years in identifying fresh growth opportunities since the market has become saturated with its crucial iPhone and consumers are not replacing their phones as frequently as they once did.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has made it known that the company is considering getting into the auto industry. Additionally, the business has been conducting long-term public testing of hundreds of cars with autonomous driving capabilities. Internally known as Titan and Project 172, the car proved to be a difficult product to create, resulting in the closure of some divisional operations, the reworking and scrapping of plans, and the layoff of numerous employees.

Apple invested billions of dollars in the development of the vehicle, which was meant to compete with Tesla’s electric cars, which have features for autonomous driving.

The product was crucial to Mr. Cook’s legacy because it dispelled the idea that Apple was no longer capable of inventing new ideas and creating the next big thing. The company has launched a limited number of new hardware products under Mr. Cook’s direction, such as the HomePod smart speaker, which was a failure, the $3,500 Vision Pro goggles that it released this month to compete with Meta’s virtual reality headsets, and the Apple Watch, which currently leads the smartwatch market.

The business has made significant investments in creating new technology. It has invested $113 billion in research and development over the past five years.

Continue Reading

Tech

Landmark Social Media Cases Set for US Supreme Court Hearing

Published

on

gettyimages-2003719864

 

This week, the US Supreme Court will consider two issues that have the potential to completely change the way the internet functions, and they will ultimately determine what content citizens can view on social media.

In light of the crucial role that social media platforms currently play in contemporary American life, the court will hear arguments on Monday over whether to grant Texas and Florida noticeably more power over these sites and their contents.

The main question is: Can these platforms determine what can be deleted off their sites and what should remain on them?

The states seek to prevent users’ posts from being removed from Facebook, Tik-Tok, YouTube, and other platforms; these messages may even encourage hate speech or eating disorders, mislead voters about elections, or do other illegal activities. However, the First Amendment is being pressed against by that push.

Even the way that Americans learn about the 2024 elections—from Instagram to X and beyond—may alter if the states win their case.

Officials from Texas and Florida contend that their laws restricting content moderation are lawful because they aim to control the business practices of social media platforms rather than the speech on them. However, opponents, such as the industry organization Net Choice, are trying to invalidate both measures on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment rights of the platforms themselves and that their scope may have far-reaching unforeseen repercussions.

For instance, a group of political scientists informed the court that the laws don’t provide social media platforms enough latitude to moderate threats against election officials and instead force them to consider “dangerous and violent election-related speech” the same as non-violent speech.

Is it constitutional to limit content moderation?

 

The Supreme Court will decide whether states can prevent social media companies from censoring or removing user content that violates platform rules on Monday in the cases of Net Choice v. Paxton and Moody v. Net-Choice.

Individuals may also file lawsuits against tech companies under the relevant state legislation for suspected infractions.

Although the legislation in Texas and Florida are somewhat wide, state representatives claim that the regulations will prevent social media platforms from unjustly suppressing conservatives. Social media companies have maintained for years that right-wing discourse is not subject to discrimination.

Florida’s SB 7072, which was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2021, forbids digital platforms from deleting or suspending political candidates’ accounts within the state. Violators risk harsh penalties of up to $250,000 a day. In addition, it gives users of social media the ability to legally sue platforms if they feel that they have been wrongfully restricted or “deplatformed.

Any major social media platform that wishes to “block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression” is in violation of a Texas legislation that was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott in 2021. Texas’ HB 20 allows individual internet users to sue social media companies for alleged infractions, much like the Florida legislation does.

ap21144629834897

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, center, gives his opening remarks flanked by local state delegation members prior to signing legislation that seeks to punish social media platforms that remove conservative ideas from their sites, inside Florida International University’s MARC building in Miami on Monday, May 24, 2021. Carl Juste/Miami Herald/AP

Even though the First Amendment only protects governments and not private companies, the states claim that social media platforms have become so significant as a new public square that new laws are required to force them to abide by the principles of free speech.

The IT sector claims that the restrictions go against the corporations’ First Amendment freedom to select what speech is acceptable on their exclusive platforms.

Regarding the dispute, lower courts are divided.

The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that social media companies do not possess “a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say” in the Texas law case.

However, the same year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that Florida’s “restrictions are substantially likely to violate the First Amendment,” reasoning that governments are not allowed to “speak” on social media platforms, even when it is through user-generated content.

The Supreme Court could now definitively end that argument.

Do IT corporations resemble public utilities or publishers more?

 

The Net Choice cases demonstrate the stark differences in how different people view social media. The state regulations’ proponents contend that social media ought to tolerate all speech without censoring its content. The platforms should have the authority to choose what content they show, according to critics.

Roughly twelve states, headed by Republican attorneys general, have petitioned the Supreme Court to support the laws in Texas and Florida, claiming that social media businesses should be subject to the same regulations as utilities like the phone network.

In his own court filing, the former president Donald Trump contended that social media businesses “act like railroads carrying freight, telegraph companies transmitting messages, or airlines carrying passengers.”

However, the Biden administration stated in a brief from last year that social media businesses are more like cable and newspaper corporations in that they are free to select what they show and have the same constitutional safeguards against government speech regulations.

gettyimages-1237995869

A pedestrian uses a smartphone in front of a store in Walnut Creek, California, in January 2022. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The state laws, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a consumer advocacy organization, would have “absurd results” if they were implemented because they would provide con artists, trolls, and nasty radicals with a justification to bombard websites with claims of censorship.

“A major setback to efforts to combat spam,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “because every action to limit the spread of spam messages might be considered an impermissible ban’ under the law.”

Internet users ultimately gain by allowing social media services to remain free from government intervention in their content moderation, according to David Greene, senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at EFF, who spoke with CNN. “Platforms can create unique forums that accommodate a range of viewpoints, interests, and beliefs when they are granted the First Amendment right to curate the user-generated content they publish.”

Beyond what is seen on specific websites, the court’s ruling in the NetChoice cases may have far-reaching implications.

If Texas and Florida win, the precedent that forbids governments from “compelling speech”—that is, compelling private citizens to say something against their will—might be altered. For instance, a 1974 judgment found that a Florida statute that mandated the publication of a political candidate’s remarks in newspapers was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Critics of the Texas and Florida laws argue that forcing social media companies to post all speech, even if the platforms would prefer to remove it, would amount to coerced speech and would mark a major and dangerous shift in the interpretation of the First Amendment.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, it might result in the exact kind of government meddling that the First Amendment was intended to prevent.

In a brief, that group stated, “The larger the platform the state seeks to control, the greater will be the state’s influence on public and political discourse.”

Continue Reading

Tech

For the first time in years, Reddit files for an IPO on social media

Published

on

22REDDIT-bmwk-superJumbo

Reddit, a message board website with a community focus, filed to go public on Thursday. This makes it the first significant social media business to go on the stock market in years and a test for private companies following a decline in IPOs.

Reddit revealed its financial results in an offering prospectus before it started selling investors shares. The San Francisco-based business revealed that last year saw a decline in losses despite a more than 20% increase in revenue. It also said that there were over 100,000 active communities and 73 million daily users.

The 18-year-old company is scheduled to meet with possible investors to pique their interest in purchasing its shares, and the prospectus initiates a process to the stock market. In a few weeks, Reddit may list as a public company on the New York Stock Exchange with the ticker name RDDT. Two people familiar with the subject claim that Reddit’s financiers are attempting to value the company in its initial public offering (IPO) at least $5 billion. That is almost 50% of the $10 billion valuation that the business obtained in a private funding round in 2021. The pricing may possibly change in the coming weeks as the negotiations are still ongoing.

Reddit is the final social media company from a previous age to pursue the stock market, following the successful offerings of Facebook (2012), Twitter (2013), and Snap (2017). Since then, the social media landscape has evolved, coming under fire for spreading false information, inciting hate speech, and other issues. A few of the businesses have changed their names: Elon Musk purchased Twitter, renaming it X after taking it private in 2022, while Facebook changed its name to Meta.

Another highly anticipated move following a slowdown in initial public offerings is Reddit’s plan. Based on data provided by Renaissance Capital, only 108 companies in the US went public last year, or around 25% fewer than that of 2021. The largest tech products available at the end of the previous year included the supermarket delivery service Instacart and the chip designer Arm.

Reddit CEO Steve Huffman stated in a founder’s letter that was included with the prospectus, “We are going public to advance our mission and become a stronger company.” We anticipate that our community will gain significantly from going public as well. Our users feel a strong sense of responsibility for the communities they build on Reddit.

“This sense of ownership to be reflected in real ownership — for our users to be our owners,” Mr. Huffman continued, adding that “becoming a public company makes this possible.” Reddit announced that, should they choose to buy them, it will set aside a portion of its shares for 75,000 of its most active users at the I.P.O. price.

Reddit stated in its prospectus that its revenue for 2023 was $804 million, increasing around 21% from $666 million in the previous year. According to the prospectus, the company lost $90 million in 2023 as opposed to $158 million the previous year.

Advance Magazine Publishers, Tencent Cloud Europe, Vy Capital, Fidelity Management, and Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI and a former member of the Reddit board, are a few of its biggest investors.

Reddit has had a difficult and drawn-out journey to the public markets. Established in 2005 by Mr. Huffman and Alexis Ohanian in a University of Virginia dorm room, the website started out as a place where people could gather anonymously to talk about anything from guitars, makeup, and power washers to popular TV shows.

The website was distinctive in that it was primarily centered around close-knit, largely anonymous communities that were all supervised by volunteers who self-managed their forums, or “subreddits,” according to guidelines they had created. It gained notoriety for its “A.M.A.s,” or “ask me anything” sessions, in which popular personalities such as actor Nicolas Cage, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, and former President Barack Obama participated.

Over the years, the company has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, with two financing rounds in 2021 raising over $410 million and $250 million, respectively. Tencent Holdings, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, and Fidelity Investments are among the investors. Reddit initially rejected selling ads and turning a profit, much like other early social networking initiatives. Rather, it concentrated on revenue streams derived from community initiatives, such as an e-commerce system created by users and rewards that users could purchase from one another. Those concepts are still relevant.

Reddit’s topic-focused communities eventually led to the platform accepting advertising. For example, brands such as Laneige focused advertisements to one of the busiest subreddits, Makeup Addiction, where members talk about cosmetics and application techniques.

The website has also developed a growing data licensing business on the back of its massive chat data corpus, which has grown in significance among the AI craze. Massive amounts of this kind of data are used to train A.I. models, making them more sophisticated. Reddit and Google signed a licensing agreement on Thursday. Reddit data has been utilized by Google to train and develop its artificial intelligence systems.

In the letter, Mr. Huffman stated, “We expect our data advantage and intellectual property to continue to be a key element in the training of” future artificial intelligence models. According to the filing, the corporation expects to make upward of $203 million from many undisclosed licensing agreements for the use of its data over the next three years.

The website has experienced some difficulties. Its initial failure to accommodate moderate communities sparked scandal after controversy, including its part in disseminating false information during the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and its hosting of racist and misogynistic content in some of its smaller subreddits.When Reddit changed some of its policies and forbade outside developers from using the site’s material without paying for it, users revolted against the platform last year.

In recent years, Reddit has changed its stance on moderation and updated and enforced its standards more tightly, which has made it more appealing for advertisers to insert ads throughout the site.

Before Mr. Huffman rejoined the site’s leadership in 2015, the company had four chief executives over its first ten years of operation.

Reddit warned prospective investors about the difficulties and risks it might face as a publicly traded company. These risks included the emergence of massive language models and the underlying A.I. systems that might be used to synthesize and aggregate content from the site and allow users to view Reddit without ever visiting the website or seeing advertisements.

The market for digital ads, which is dominated by Google and Meta, may also make it tough for the startup to attract brands.

Given the difference between its platform’s capabilities and the best in class, Eric Seufert, an independent mobile analyst who keeps a close eye on social media businesses and advertising, believes Reddit may have a difficult time expanding its advertising business.

Additionally, the corporation issued a warning, stating that future uprisings or exits could negatively impact the platform since it was mostly relied on its community for platform moderation.

“We have a lot to do and a lot of opportunities,” Mr. Huffman stated.

 

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Plans to Increase Chip Manufacturing in the United States Are Facing Challenges

Published

on

00chips-cbfp-superJumbo

The primary manufacturer of the most advanced chips in the world, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, announced in December 2022 that it will invest $40 billion in Arizona to establish its first significant U.S. base for semiconductor production.

The much-heralded project in Phoenix, which includes two new plants, one of which has more sophisticated equipment, came to represent President Biden’s efforts to increase domestic chip production. Chips are silicon slices that are used in a wide range of devices to perform computations and store data.

Then, last summer, TSMC announced that local workers lacked the experience to install some advanced equipment, delaying the start of manufacture at its first Arizona factory until 2025 instead of this year.

The business stated last month that it will not be producing chips at the second factory until 2027 or 2028, instead of 2026, due to uncertainty around federal funding and tech choices.

In an investor call, TSMC chairman Mark Liu stated that the Arizona site’s progress is partially dependent on “how much incentives that the U.S. government can provide.”

TSMC is just one of numerous chip manufacturers that are encountering difficulties with their plans to expand into the United States. Due to pressure to control their expenditure on new infrastructure following a decline in sales of many different types of chips, businesses like Intel, Microchip Technology, and others have also modified their manufacturing schedules. The creation of new chip plants is extremely complex, requiring billions of dollars’ worth of machinery, thousands of personnel, and extended construction deadlines.

The delays occur as the Biden administration starts distributing the first significant grants from a $39 billion fund intended to strengthen the American semiconductor sector and lessen the country’s reliance on technology produced in East Asia. The administration announced on Monday that it would give the chipmaker GlobalFoundries $1.5 billion in incentives to modernize and expand its facilities in Vermont and New York, where it produces chips for the defense and automotive industries.

However, the problems that businesses like TSMC are having with their projects may overshadow this publicity and cast doubt on the viability of President Biden’s industrial policy agenda. Over the next months, Mr. Biden’s reelection campaign is anticipated to place a significant emphasis on the investments.

“As of yet, nothing has failed,” stated Emily Kilcrease, senior fellow and head of the energy, economics, and security program at the Washington-based think tank, Center for a New American Security. However, for the program to be deemed successful, some advancement and the actual opening of those plants within the following few years are required.

Federal funds under the 2022 CHIPS Act are to be distributed by the Commerce Department to promote domestic chip manufacturing. Apart from the funding given to GlobalFoundries, the government has already awarded two minor grants for production. In the upcoming weeks and months, chipmakers including TSMC, Intel, Samsung, and Micron are anticipated to get substantially greater awards totaling billions of dollars.

The quantity and timing of the awards are the subject of intricate discussions between the government and these large chipmakers. Businesses are still awaiting word from the Treasury Department over which investments will be eligible for a new advanced manufacturing tax credit, which was supposed to be announced before the end of 2023.

Analysts warned that as the world races to lessen its reliance on semiconductor manufacturing in China, South Korea, and Taiwan, any delays in the process could be detrimental to the United States. Competing nations are providing court chip producers with their own incentives. For instance, TSMC intends to increase production not only in the US but also in Germany and Japan.

According to Jimmy Goodrich, a senior adviser for technology analysis at the RAND Corporation, “the more other geographies are going to snap up these investments, and more leading-edge investments will be made in East Asia,” the longer the U.S. government delays in allocating benefits. Thus, the timer is running out.

Rejecting claims that the Department of Commerce had been tardy to provide incentives was a Commerce Department official. According to him, the department is taking its time to safeguard taxpayer interests and encourage businesses to take further steps to strengthen the local chip supply chain.

According to a White House official, the timetable modifications made by the semiconductor makers were small tweaks that were typical of intricate projects like the new production facilities. 

Forecasts, he continued, indicated that when the plants began producing these chips, there would be an enormous demand for them.

According to a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, officials there have clarified tax incentives for businesses preparing investments and are striving to release more guidelines as soon as feasible.

The CHIPS Act enabled tax credits for investments in factories and manufacturing equipment, along with grants and other incentives to increase U.S. chip production. According to the Commerce Department, over 600 businesses and organizations had expressed interest in receiving grants; thus far, the department has estimated that private investment pledges have totaled $235 billion.

However, the majority of expansion plans were made during a period of chip scarcity a few years ago, following a surge in consumer spending on electronics driven by the pandemic. Chip manufacturers were left with large stocks of unsold components and little urgent need for new factories when that market dried up.According to Thomas Sonderman, CEO of SkyWater Technologies, a Minnesota semiconductor company that has received Defense Department subsidies and is vying for CHIPS Act funds, “companies are rethinking how and what and when investments will occur.”

Microchip, an Arizona-based company, is one chip manufacturer that is struggling. Microchip was inundated with orders two years ago. 

It is eligible to receive $162 million after applying for CHIPS Act money to boost manufacturing. However, it has announced two separate two-week plant shutdowns as sales have declined.

According to its CEO, Ganesh Moorthy, Microchip still intends to modernize the plants in Oregon and Colorado that are going to get grants under the CHIPS Act. However, purchasing machinery to boost output will have to wait until things pick up for the company.

“We’ve put off expanding,” Mr. Moorthy declared.

In addition to increasing output, Intel has modified its procurement of expensive manufacturing equipment. The business recently stated that it had not anticipated beginning production in Ohio in 2025, as it had previously anticipated, despite investing $20 billion in two new factories there. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the adjustment.

00chips-jglb-superJumbo

Intel employees inside a “clean room” at a facility in Oregon in 2021.Credit…Philip Cheung for The New York Times

Intel reiterated that construction on the site and expansion plans in the United States and three other countries remained unaffected, despite external factors. Keyvan Esfarjani, the executive vice president overseeing Intel’s manufacturing operations, emphasized that the company’s strategy remained consistent over time.

While some chip manufacturers like Texas Instruments and Micron Technology are forging ahead with expanding chip production to maintain competitiveness, Intel remains committed to its course. Micron, for instance, is proceeding with the construction of a $15 billion factory in Boise, Idaho, and has plans for an even larger manufacturing complex near Syracuse, N.Y., despite market challenges in its memory chip segment.

00chips-hwgq-superJumbo

Construction in 2021 in Chandler, Ariz., where Intel is building two factories. Credit…Philip Cheung for The New York Times

Scott Gatzemeier, a Micron vice president overseeing expansion efforts, stressed the importance of aligning construction projects with future chip demand rather than current market conditions. He highlighted the significant expenses involved in renting equipment, securing construction workers, and emphasized the need to avoid halting projects once started due to the potential for increased costs.

Some chip manufacturers are hesitant to commence construction without government funding. For instance, Mr. Sonderman of SkyWater mentioned that his company’s plans for a $1.8 billion facility in Indiana are contingent on securing funds through a portion of the CHIPS Act dedicated to research.

At TSMC’s Arizona site, unforeseen challenges have arisen over the past year. Construction unions raised concerns about workplace safety and objected to the employment of workers from Taiwan to install sophisticated equipment in the first factory. Delays in machine installation prompted an announcement in July regarding production delays.

In December, TSMC and the Arizona Building and Construction Trades Council reached agreements on ground rules at the site to address safety, workplace training, staffing, and other issues. Mr. Liu, who recently announced plans to retire, expressed optimism that tensions among workers had eased.

While acknowledging challenges in building the first Phoenix factory, Mr. Liu emphasized that TSMC remains among the fastest in completing such projects compared to its peers. Although the start of production at the second factory may be delayed, Mr. Liu indicated that worker skills are unlikely to be a significant factor, expressing confidence that construction of the second fab will proceed more smoothly, citing the quick learning abilities of workers in Arizona.

 

Continue Reading

Tech

Gateway to the Moon: SpaceX’s Historic Commercial Lander Mission

Published

on

imrs

Early on Thursday, a robotic spacecraft was launched by a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to the moon, preparing it for a landing on February 22. Should the landing be successful, it would be the first commercial vehicle to set foot on the lunar surface and the first soft landing for the United States since the final Apollo missions.

Launchpad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center is where the Falcon 9 rocket took off at 1:05 a.m. Eastern time. This is the same pad from which a Saturn V rocket carried the astronauts of Apollo 17 on their mission to the moon in 1972. It carried a spacecraft built by the Houston-based business Intuitive Machines. Nobody was on board.

Under a contract with NASA, which is paying Intuitive Machines $118 million to send many payloads to the moon, the mission is being carried out. NASA views the project as a component of its Artemis campaign, which aims to return astronauts to the moon.

NASA program scientist Debra Needham stated in a pre-launch briefing that the Nova-C lander, named Odysseus, comes with instruments “to demonstrate technologies that will enhance the efficiency, precision and safety of future spacecraft landing as well as investigate the surface of the south polar region of the moon.”

However, NASA is really just a paying customer in a private sector-driven project that consists of a commercial spacecraft being launched by a commercial rocket. This is a model that NASA is depending more and more on for its exploration efforts both inside and outside of Earth orbit.

Joel Kearns, NASA’s deputy assistant administrator for exploration in the scientific mission directorate, stated that six years ago, American industry declared that they were prepared for NASA to hire them to perform robotic lunar landings as a service rather than having us do it ourselves. The initial missions “are an assessment of that.

The landing attempt by Intuitive Machines comes after that of Astrobotic, a private company that was contracted by NASA and launched its spacecraft to the moon last month. However, a propulsion system malfunction kept the spacecraft from reaching the moon, which foiled its effort to land.

NASA has stated that it is possible for some of the missions to fail. However, its founders assert that they plan to learn from even their mistakes and have arranged for businesses to attempt robotic landings, or as they put it, “take shots on goal.” As part of what it refers to as its Commercial Lunar Program, NASA officials have stated that they expect to have at least two robotic flights to the moon every year during the next few years.

Entering this… Since no American company has sent a robotic spacecraft to the moon since 1968 and the last Apollo mission took place in 1972, we didn’t think success was certain for these American firms making their first lunar landing, Kearns added. “I can assure you that with each endeavor, we gain knowledge and insight.

The goal of Intuitive Machines is thus a dangerous one. Furthermore, the launch of its fourteen-foot-tall, six-landing-leg Odysseus spacecraft is only the beginning of a dangerous, long head to the moon surface. If it is successful, it will land near the lunar south pole, an area NASA hopes to investigate with humans due to the potential existence of water in the form of ice in the craters that are continuously shaded there. Since water is necessary for human survival and because its constituent elements, oxygen and hydrogen, can be used as rocket fuel to enable further solar system research, it is essential to any extended lunar expedition.

China is also interested in exploring the area around the moon’s south pole, where NASA, unlike Apollo, hopes to establish a long-term presence.

Kearns stated, “We’re not trying to redo Apollo.” In an effort to address important scientific issues, we are pursuing technological and scientific research that was not even considered during the Apollo era, and we’re going to a section of the moon that neither humans nor robots have ever been, just for this mission with [Intuitive Machines] and Artemis, to really explore for new things, including whether there are actually useable volatiles like water ice on the moon’s south pole.

Furthermore, Odysseus is carrying NASA equipment made to take pictures of the particles the spacecraft’s engines create. The space agency wants to learn more about the impact of landings on the moon’s surface and ecosystem because it eventually hopes to land many spacecraft in close proximity to one another.

According to Susan Lederer, NASA’s project scientist for the Intuitive Machines mission, “it’s going to cause the dust to really churn up and create a big plume of dust.” “Therefore, it will involve utilizing a pair of cameras to observe the rising plume of dust.”

This will enable “future landers to be developed to better protect against the dust that’s being churned up,” according to her statement.

Additionally, the spacecraft is equipped with a camera system that was created by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University instructors and students. This camera system will be released from the spacecraft approximately 100 feet above the moon’s surface in order to capture pictures of the vehicle throughout the landing procedure.

Continue Reading

Tech

According to Mark Zuckerberg, Meta will ‘keep things lean,’ investing heavily in AI while holding down on staffing

Published

on

107307714-1695846630469-gettyimages-1693640169-AFP_33WW2FR

Mark Zuckerberg is extending his “year of efficiency” indefinitely because he is so happy with it.

 

After Meta revealed fourth-quarter financials that easily exceeded analysts’ projections, Zuckerberg stated he wanted to “keep things lean” and has no plans to increase hiring on Thursday’s earnings call.

 

The company’s headcount, which peaked well over 86,000 in 2022, decreased 22% to 67,317 last year as a result of massive expense reductions implemented by Meta to pacify investors who had lost faith in the company’s capacity to adapt to shifting market conditions. At the time, Apple’s 2021 iOS upgrade was still having an impact on Meta, and the digital ad industry remained competitive.

 

During an earnings call exactly a year prior, Zuckerberg informed analysts that the management’s focus for 2023 will be the “year of efficiency.”

 

Since then, Wall Street has rewarded him. The stock nearly tripled in value in the previous year, ranking second in the S&P 500 behind only Nvidia. Last month, it broke a record, and the market capitalization of Meta has already surpassed $1 trillion due to the ongoing upswing.

 

Meta revealed on Thursday that its fourth-quarter sales increased by 25% to $40.1 billion, the quickest rate of growth since mid-2021. Operating margin more than doubled to 41%, and net income shot up a massive 201% to $14 billion. Throughout prolonged trading, the stock rose 15%.

 

When all things are considered, Meta is demonstrating that it can develop at a healthy rate and drastically reduce costs—which decreased by 8% from the previous year. The firm is so sure of its financial standing that it approved a $50 billion share purchase and announced it would pay a 50-cent quarterly dividend for the first time.

 

Not that Zuckerberg isn’t prepared to spend cash. All he wants to do is avoid doing it on humans.

 

During the call, Zuckerberg explained that his roadmap calls for creating a “world-class compute infrastructure,” which entails shelling out billions of dollars for the AI chips from Nvidia that Meta needs to train its models.

 

“We intend to win this game, so we’ll keep investing heavily in this space to create the most cutting-edge clusters,” Zuckerberg stated. “We’re also creating our own custom silicon that is tailored for our workloads and designing innovative data centers.”

 

“Even after 2024”

 

According to Meta, annual spending will range from $94 billion to $99 billion, up from $88.15 billion in 2023. Capital expenditures will be between $30 billion and $37 billion, according to finance chief Susan Li, “a $2 billion increase of the high end of our prior range.”

 

However, Zuckerberg stated that the era of rapid expansion is now in the past when it comes to employment. Zuckerberg stated that while Meta still intends to hire this year for high-paying technical positions, the headcount growth will be “relatively minimal compared to what we would have done historically.”

 

“I think it’s the right thing for us to do culturally to keep things lean until we get to a point where we’re just really underwater on our ability to execute,” he continued.

 

If Zuckerberg is to be believed, that’s not just a tale for this year.

 

“I kind of anticipate that for the foreseeable future, even after 2024,” he remarked.

 

In the meantime, Meta’s Reality Labs division, which is in charge of creating technologies for augmented and virtual reality, is still losing money and doesn’t seem to be stopping. The division has lost more than $42 billion since late 2020, with a record operational loss of $4.65 billion in the fourth quarter. Revenue surpassed $1 billion for the first time, primarily due to Quest VR headset sales.

 

The fact that Meta stated that losses at Reality Labs will “increase meaningfully year-over-year” highlights the persistence of Zuckerberg’s conviction that the metaverse will be the computing platform of the future.

 

Zuckerberg said that the significant cost reductions have allowed Meta to make “different investments where that’s necessary,” thus he is no longer worried about turning off potential investors

 

“To strengthen us as a technology company and provide us with the flexibility and stability to achieve the long-term objectives is the theme I outlined at the beginning of the year of efficiency last year,” he stated

 

Continue Reading

Trending