ready for a deep dive into some serious AI news.
Always.
What's on the docket for today?
Open AI's been making some moves, big moves.
Oh yeah, like what?
Well, they've been dipping their toes
into some pretty deep waters,
especially with the government military contracts,
to be exact.
Hold on, military contracts.
I thought open AI was all about ethical AI,
benefiting humanity, that whole thing.
Right, that's what they've been saying all along.
But it seems like they've had a bit of a change of heart,
or at least a change of strategy.
So what changed?
Well, for starters, they partnered with this company
called Kerasoft.
Kerasoft, that rings a bell.
They're like a middleman for selling tech
to the government, right?
Exactly.
They help businesses navigate all the red tape
and get their products in front of the right people,
including the Department of Defense.
Interesting, so how does open AI fit into all of this?
They're listed on this program called Chess,
which stands for Contract Hierarchy
for Enhanced Software Services.
Basically, it's a way to fast track software purchases
for the DoD.
So open AI is basically on a fast track
to getting their AI into the hands of the military.
Seems that way.
Wow, that's a big deal.
What kind of implications does that have?
Well, it's raising some eyebrows, that's for sure.
I bet.
Especially given open AI's previous stance
on ethical AI and avoiding military applications.
Yeah, it's a pretty stark contrast.
And it's not just talk, either.
They've already used Kerasoft to close deals
with other government agencies.
Really, like who?
Well, NASA for one.
And get this, the National Gallery of Art.
The National Gallery of Art.
What do they need with open AI?
Beats me.
Maybe they're gonna have AI curators or something.
But the point is, this isn't just a one-off with the DoD.
It seems like open AI is making a concerted push
into the government sector.
I see, and with that comes a whole other level of scrutiny,
especially when it comes to security.
We're talking about sensitive information,
government secrets, the whole nine yards.
And it seems like open AI is aware of that.
They recently hired a new
CHEF Information Security Officer,
someone with a pretty interesting background.
Oh yeah, who is it?
Dane Stuckey.
Wait a minute, Dane Stuckey,
the former CISO of Palantir.
The one and only.
Now that's a power move.
Palantir is like the big leagues
when it comes to data analytics and security,
especially for government agencies.
Exactly.
So, bringing in someone with his level of expertise,
especially someone who's worked with Palantir,
sends a clear message.
That they're serious about security
and ready to play ball at the highest level?
Absolutely.
But while they're busy making friends in high places,
it seems like they're also losing some key players.
Oh, how so?
Well, their former CTO, Mira Muradi,
just left to start her own AI company.
Interesting.
That's not entirely uncommon in Silicon Valley though,
is it?
People jump ship to start their own ventures all the time.
True.
But there's a bit more to it than that.
Rumor has it that she's been trying to poach
some of her old team from open AI.
Oh, wow.
So there might be more to this
than just the usual Silicon Valley shuffle.
It seems that way.
So is this just a case of a rising tide
lifting all boats?
Or is there something more, I don't know,
fundamental going on here?
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
On the surface, it's easy to see why someone like Muradi
would strike out on her own.
The AI world is exploding right now.
There's money pouring in, opportunities everywhere.
It's the Wild West out there.
And in the Wild West, everyone wants to be the sheriff,
or at least have their own posse.
Right.
And starting your own company,
it's like the ultimate badge of honor in Silicon Valley.
But it makes you wonder,
if everyone's so gung-ho about open AI's direction,
why are key people jumping ship?
It's definitely a point of contention.
Remember how open AI was initially all about
democratizing AI, making it accessible to everyone,
that kind of thing?
They were practically the poster child
for ethical AI development for a while there.
Exactly.
But this whole government contract thing,
it's left some people wondering if they've strayed
from those initial principles.
Especially with companies like Apple
taking a very different approach.
I mean, they just announced that new iPad mini
loaded with AI features, but it's all very much
within their own little ecosystem.
You hit the nail on the head.
Apple strategy is all about control.
They control the hardware, the software,
the user experience, the data, everything.
It's a closed loop.
Which seems like the exact opposite
of open AI's initial mission of making AI open and accessible.
To some extent, yes.
But it's a strategy that clearly resonates
with a lot of people.
Apple has built its reputation
on being user friendly and privacy focused.
And that extends to their approach to AI.
So it's a trade-off.
You get that ease of use in peace of mind,
but you're also limited to whatever Apple decides
you can do with their AI.
Precisely.
And that distinction, that philosophical difference
between open AI and Apple,
it goes beyond just software and ecosystems.
It extends to the hardware side of things too.
You're talking about NVIDIA, right?
Those super powerful chips they make specifically for AI.
I read that Dell's gonna start putting those chips
into their servers.
That's right.
NVIDIA's chips are the workhorses of the AI world.
They provide the raw computing power needed
to train and run those massive AI models.
And with Dell putting them into their servers,
it's gonna make that power accessible
to a much wider range of companies and organizations.
So it's like democratizing the tools of AI,
even if the AI itself isn't always so democratic.
I like that analogy.
But it also highlighted another crucial aspect
of this whole AI revolution, regulation.
Because the more powerful these tools become,
and the more widely available they are,
the more important it becomes
to have some rules of the road.
And it seems like the EU is trying to do just that
with that new tool they've developed.
You mean the LLM checker, right?
The one that's supposed to make sure AI models
are playing by the rules of the EU's AI Act?
It's the very same.
It's like a report card for AI,
grading how well different models measure
up to the EU's standards.
And how are those grades looking so far?
Any failing marks?
Let's just say there's definitely room for improvement.
Some AI models are falling short
when it comes to things like cybersecurity,
bias mitigation, transparency.
It sounds like the Wild West analogy still applies,
even with the EU trying to lay down the law.
It's a fast moving target, that's for sure.
And that's precisely why it's so important
to have these conversations,
to unpack these complexities,
and to think critically about the implications of all this.
Couldn't agree more.
So on that note, what's caught your eye
in the world of AI that's got you, well, thinking?
Well, there's this new technology
that's both fascinating and a little unsettling,
to be honest.
It's called Emotion Tracking Smart Glasses.
Emotion Tracking Smart Glasses?
Okay, I'm listening.
Yeah, a company called MTech Labs
is developing glasses that can actually
read your facial expressions,
and Sopresta Monte used that information
to provide insights into your emotional state.
Hold on, so you're telling me my glasses
could tell me if I'm stressed out,
or if I'm actually enjoying that kale smoothie
everyone pretends to love?
That's the idea.
They claim it has huge potential
for mental health applications,
helping people recognize and manage their emotions.
There's even talk of using it to track eating habits,
maybe even address things like overeating.
Okay, that's a lot.
On the one hand, if this technology actually works,
it could be huge for helping people
with their mental well-being.
Absolutely.
But on the other hand, the idea of my glasses basically,
reading my every emotion feels a little too
black mirror for comfort.
Yeah, the potential for misuse is a very real concern.
Think about the privacy implications alone.
Could your employer use this to track your stress levels?
Could marketers use it to gauge your reaction to ads?
It raises a lot of questions.
No doubt.
And speaking of ethical quandaries,
the New York Times is going after AI companies
that are using their content without permission.
They just hit that AI search engine
of perplexity with a lawsuit.
Yeah, that lawsuit gets right to the heart
of a huge issue in the AI world, intellectual property.
When AI models are trained on these massive data sets
of text and code, who owns the output?
That's a tough one.
I mean, if I wrote a screenplay based on
like every Quentin Tarantino movie ever made,
would that be considered fair use?
Or would I get sued into oblivion?
It's a legal gray area, that's for sure.
Creators deserve to be protected.
But AI companies argue that they're just
using publicly available data in a transformative way.
It's like how humans learn from previous works of art.
Sounds like a debate that's just getting started.
Definitely.
And speaking of debates that are just getting started,
the video game voice actors are back at the negotiating table
with those big game publishers
after that whole strike about AI.
Right.
It's easy to forget about the human cost
of all this AI advancement sometimes.
Those voice actors were worried
about losing their livelihoods to algorithms.
And it's not just voice actors, writers, musicians,
artists, all sorts of creative professionals
are grappling with what it means to have an AI
that could potentially do their job,
often faster and cheaper.
It really boils down to this question.
How do we balance the incredible potential of AI
with the very real need to protect people's livelihoods,
their creativity, their sense of purpose even?
And how do we balance AI with the delicate balancing act,
to be sure?
It feels like we're at a real crossroads.
This isn't just about cool new gadgets and futuristic
technology anymore.
This is about fundamental questions
of who we are, what we value, what kind of future
we want to build.
And those are questions that we all
need to be a part of answering.
So where do we even go from here?
It feels like we're barely scratching
the surface of something massive.
It is massive.
And honestly, I think that's the biggest takeaway here.
AI isn't some abstract concept anymore.
It's weaving itself into the fabric of our lives.
OK, I get that.
But what can any of us really do about it?
I mean, I'm not Elon Musk.
I can't just create my own AI to fight the other AIs.
No, it doesn't require that level of intervention.
It starts smaller with awareness.
We've done some of that today digging into the news.
Right.
But then what?
Then you take it further.
Every time you see that little label, AI-powered,
don't just glaze over it.
Ask yourself, AI-powered how?
What data is being used?
Who benefits from this?
So basically, be a more conscious consumer,
not just of products, but of the whole AI conversation.
Exactly.
And don't keep it to yourself.
Talk about this stuff with people, AI, ethics, regulation.
These aren't just tech issues.
They're human issues.
The more of us who understand that, the better.
You're right.
It's easy to get overwhelmed by the tech jargon
and forget that this is actually about how we want to live,
what we value.
That's it.
AI is like this mirror reflecting our choices back at us.
The question is, do we like what we see?
And if not, what are we going to do about it?
Well said.
I have to admit, I'm leaving our little deep dive
with more questions than answers,
but I think that's a good thing.
It means we're asking the right questions.
And that's what matters.
It's a journey, this whole AI thing, not a destination.
Well said.
A huge thank you to our expert for joining us today
and to all of you listening for taking this journey with us.
This is the deep dive, signing off.
Until next time, stay curious.