Trial lawyer Kyle Roche has led an interesting life, according to the New York Times. He once earned $100 million selling bitcoin. He helped win a case against Craig Wright (who claims to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto) through his law firm Roche Freedman. And Roche also founded a startup that lets people bet on the outcome of (civil) lawsuits, "to make access to justice more affordable."

But something very bad for his career happened in January of 2022 when two businessmen flew Roche from Miami to the U.K. to discuss an investment. When he woke up the next morning, Roche said, he felt groggy... The brain fog was odd because he didn't think he'd had all that much to drink. As he flew back to Miami a few days later, Roche couldn't shake the feeling that something was amiss.

Months passed. Then, one day last summer, Roche's world detonated. A website called Crypto Leaks posted two dozen videos of him that had been secretly recorded during his meetings with Villavicencio and Ager-Hanssen. The videos portrayed Roche and his law firm, Roche Freedman, as being in the pocket of one of their crypto clients [Ava Labs]... In other clips, Roche made it sound like his sole concern, even when representing other clients, was to promote Ava Labs' interests...

One after another, companies that Roche Freedman had sued filed motions to disqualify the firm from their cases. In October, the first of those motions succeeded: A federal judge in New York tossed Roche Freedman from a case it had filed against Tether, the operator of the world's most used "stablecoin." Within days, Roche was forced to resign from the law firm he had founded. With his career in tatters, he said, he enrolled in ethics classes and began to see a therapist.
Roche calls the recorded remarks baseless bluster to impress a prospective investor (and alleges in court there are signs of deep fake alterations). While Roche "was felled by his own loose lips and his overly cozy relationship with a client," the Times reports "he also was the victim of an elaborate international setup." On April 3, 2020, Roche Freedman filed lawsuits seeking class-action status against seven issuers of digital coins, alleging they had pumped what amounted to unregistered securities with false statements and then dumped them, leaving retail investors holding the bag... Those suits were just an opening salvo: Sixteen months later, Roche filed his biggest securities fraud case yet. It alleged that a British entrepreneur, Dominic Williams, and entities he controlled had swindled investors out of billions of dollars by aggressively promoting, and then dumping, a digital coin tied to a grandiose plan to revolutionize computing. Williams had boldly proclaimed that his Internet Computer blockchain — a decentralized network of computers powered by a digital token called ICP — would supplant the big cloud services offered by Amazon and Microsoft and become humanity's primary computing platform. But after an initial surge that briefly made it one of the most valuable cryptocurrencies, ICP had plummeted 92% — a collapse that Roche's lawsuit attributed to "massive" selling by Williams and other insiders. (Williams denied the allegations.)
The Times reports that Roche's prospective investor Ager-Hanssen, "in addition to running his venture capital firm, has long had a sideline digging up dirt on behalf of wealthy clients entangled in business disputes in Britain and Scandinavia. On multiple occasions, he has secretly recorded his targets. For example, in a 2014 interview, he recounted how he had snared the adversary of a Swedish financier with a hidden microphone and boasted that he employed former intelligence officers from the CIA, MI6 and Mossad..." Roche believes them because he thinks he knows who hired Ager-Hanssen: Williams, the British entrepreneur who was the target of Roche Freedman's biggest pump-and-dump lawsuit... On May 12, 2022, Williams wrote on Twitter that he was "coming for" his critics. That was the same day the cryptoleaks.info domain name was registered. That was the same day the cryptoleaks.info domain name was registered. Then, on June 9, 2022, the Crypto Leaks website went live. Billing itself as the defender of "the honest crypto community," it posted two reports that aligned with Williams' interests...

The first espoused a complicated theory about the ICP token crash that Williams had previously floated on Twitter. The second attacked the Times for an article it had published about the crash. Williams tweeted a link to that Crypto Leaks report, calling it "Gobsmacking." The Dfinity Foundation, a Swiss nonprofit that Williams created to oversee his blockchain, has since sued the Times for defamation in New York. The Times is seeking to dismiss the suit. The videos of Roche were the crux of Crypto Leaks' third exposé. After they were published, Williams and Dfinity filed a motion to disqualify Roche Freedman as plaintiffs' counsel in the pump-and-dump lawsuit, saying Roche's comments demonstrated "a disregard for the integrity of the judicial system...."

Last month, the judge overseeing the pump-and-dump case granted Williams' motion and disqualified Freedman Normand Friedland as plaintiffs' counsel.

Slashdot reader rtfa0987 spotted this on the front page of the San Jose Mercury News. "Silicon Valley is poised once again to cash in on other people's products, making a data grab of unprecedented scale that has already spawned lawsuits and congressional hearings. Chatbots and other forms of generative artificial intelligence that burst onto the technology scene in recent months are fed vast amounts of material scraped from the internet — books, screenplays, research papers, news stories, photos, art, music, code and more — to produce answers, imagery or sound in response to user prompts... But a thorny, contentious and highly consequential issue has arisen: A great deal of the bots' fodder is copyrighted property...

The new AI's intellectual-property problem goes beyond art into movies and television, photography, music, news media and computer coding. Critics worry that major players in tech, by inserting themselves between producers and consumers in commercial marketplaces, will suck out the money and remove financial incentives for producing TV scripts, artworks, books, movies, music, photography, news coverage and innovative software. "It could be catastrophic," said Danielle Coffey, CEO of the News/Media Alliance, which represents nearly 2,000 U.S. news publishers, including this news organization. "It could decimate our industry."

The new technology, as happened with other Silicon Valley innovations, including internet-search, social media and food delivery, is catching on among consumers and businesses so quickly that it may become entrenched — and beloved by users — long before regulators and lawmakers gather the knowledge and political will to impose restraints and mitigate harms. "We may need legislation," said Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who as a member of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on copyright and generative AI last month. "Content creators have rights and we need to figure out a way how those rights will be respected...."

Furor over the content grabbing is surging. Photo-sales giant Getty is also suing Stability AI. Striking Hollywood screenwriters last month raised concerns that movie studios will start using chatbot-written scripts fed on writers' earlier work. The record industry has lodged a complaint with federal authorities over copyrighted music being used to train AI.
The article includes some unique perspectives:

• There's a technical solution being proposed by the software engineer-CEO of Dazzle Labs, a startup building a platform for controlling personal data. The Mercury News summarizes it as "content producers could annotate their work with conditions for use that would have to be followed by companies crawling the web for AI fodder."

• Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman "believes the law favors use of copyrighted material for training generative AI. 'All works build upon precedent works. We are all free to take pieces of precedent works. What generative AI does is accelerate that process, but it's the same process. It's all part of an evolution of our society's storehouse of knowledge...."

"I predict that Generative Artificial Intelligence is going to go a long way toward keeping Moore's Law in force," writes long-time tech pundit Robert X. Cringely, "and the way this is going to happen says a lot about the chip business, global economics, and Artificial Intelligence, itself." The current el cheapo AI research frenzy is likely to subside as LLaMA ages into obsolescence and has to be replaced by something more expensive, putting Google, Microsoft and OpenAI back in control. Understand, too, that these big, established companies like the idea of LLMs costing so much to build because that makes it harder for startups to disrupt. It's a form of restraint of trade, though not illegal...

[T]here is an opportunity for vertical LLMs trained on different data — real data from industries like medicine and auto mechanics. Whoever owns this data will own these markets. What will make these models both better and cheaper is they can be built from a LLaMA base because most of that data doesn't have to change over time... Bloomberg has already done this for investment advice using its unique database of historical financial information. With an average of 50 billion nodes, these vertical models will cost only five percent as much to run as OpenAI's one billion node GPT-4...

[I]t ought to be pretty simple to apply AI to chip design, building custom chip design models to iterate into existing simulators and refine new designs that actually have a pretty good chance of being novel.

And who will be the first to leverage this chip AI? China... Look for fabless AI chip startups to spring-up around Chinese universities and for the Chinese Communist Party to put lots of money into this very cost-effective work. Because even if it's used just to slim-down and improve existing designs, that's another generation of chips China might otherwise not have had at all.

An anonymous reader shared this report from The Penny Hoarder: If you Googled anything between 2006 and 2013, then Google owes you money for violating your privacy. Those are the terms of a class-action lawsuit that Google has settled for $23 million.

How much money does Google owe you? Well, it depends on how many people come forward to claim their share of the settlement. The current estimated payout is about $7.70 per person.

Of course, that number could go up or down before it's all over. If fewer people than expected file claims, the payout amount will go up. But if more people than expected file claims, the payout amount will go down because more people are sharing the settlement money... The deadline to file a claim is July 31...

Basically, the class-action lawsuit alleges that Google Search "improperly shared your search queries with third-party websites and companies" during the time period in question. This has to do with how Google allegedly included your search query in the link that's created whenever you click on a website in a Google search. This involves something called a "referrer header."

Even though Google settled the case, it still denies any wrongdoing or liability. As part of the lawsuit settlement, Google is updating its FAQ page.
Some interesting history from SFGate: The lawsuit was filed in 2010 over allegations that Google shared its users' search terms with third-party websites based on its use of referrer headers, which essentially shows websites how a user found them. In 2015, the case reached an $8.5 million settlement in the Northern District of California, with a vast majority of the settlement going to a collection of internet privacy groups, because the amount allocated for each individual would have been mere pennies. But the case was brought all the way up to the Supreme Court after Ted Frank, a conservative activist and vocal class action suit critic, disputed the settlement being sent to those nonprofit groups instead of the users affected by the suit. In 2019, the case made its way back down to the district court, where the preliminary settlement was approved in 2022...

The final approval hearing for the settlement, which includes whether the class action representatives will receive $5,000 and the representing attorneys will receive 25% of the $23 million sum, is scheduled for Oct. 12.
From the Settlement agreement: If the Settlement becomes final, Settlement Class Members will be releasing Google (and certain others related to Google, such as Google directors, officers and employees) from all of the settled claims. This means that you will no longer be able to sue Google (or the other released parties) regarding any of the settled claims if you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely and properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class...


YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

FILE A CLAIM BY JULY 31, 2023
This is the only way to get a payment under the Settlement.

DO NOTHING
Get no payment under the Settlement and give up your right to compensation for the claims and allegations in this case.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF BY JULY 31, 2023
Get no payment under the Settlement. This is the only option that allows you to be a part of any other lawsuit against Google about the claims and allegations in this case.

OBJECT BY JULY 31, 2023
Write to the Court about why you think the Settlement should not be approved. You may also ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.

New submitter ole_timer shares a report from Wired: TikTok to Huawei routers to DJI drones, rising tensions between China and the US have made Americans -- and the US government -- increasingly wary of Chinese-owned technologies. But thanks to the complexity of the hardware supply chain, encryption chips sold by the subsidiary of a company specifically flagged in warnings from the US Department of Commerce for its ties to the Chinese military have found their way into the storage hardware of military and intelligence networks across the West. In July of 2021, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security added the Hangzhou, China-based encryption chip manufacturer Hualan Microelectronics, also known as Sage Microelectronics, to its so-called "Entity List," a vaguely named trade restrictions list that highlights companies "acting contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States." Specifically, the bureau noted that Hualan had been added to the list for "acquiring and ... attempting to acquire US-origin items in support of military modernization for [China's] People's Liberation Army."

Yet nearly two years later, Hualan -- and in particular its subsidiary known as Initio, a company originally headquartered in Taiwan that it acquired in 2016 -- still supplies encryption microcontroller chips to Western manufacturers of encrypted hard drives, including several that list as customers on their websites Western governments' aerospace, military, and intelligence agencies: NASA, NATO, and the US and UK militaries. Federal procurement records show that US government agencies from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Drug Enforcement Administration to the US Navy have bought encrypted hard drives that use the chips, too. The disconnect between the Commerce Department's warnings and Western government customers means that chips sold by Hualan's subsidiary have ended up deep inside sensitive Western information networks, perhaps due to the ambiguity of their Initio branding and its Taiwanese origin prior to 2016. The chip vendor's Chinese ownership has raised fears among security researchers and China-focused national security analysts that they could have a hidden backdoor that would allow China's government to stealthily decrypt Western agencies' secrets. And while no such backdoor has been found, security researchers warn that if one did exist, it would be virtually impossible to detect it.

"If a company is on the Entity List with a specific warning like this one, it's because the US government says this company is actively supporting another country's military development," says Dakota Cary, a China-focused research fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington, DC-based think tank. "It's saying you should not be purchasing from them, not just because the money you're spending is going to a company that will use those proceeds in the furtherance of another country's military objectives, but because you can't trust the product." [...] The mere fact that so many Western government agencies are buying products that include chips sold by the subsidiary of a company on the Commerce Department's trade restrictions list points to the complexities of navigating the computing hardware supply chain, says the Atlantic Council's Cary. "At minimum, it's a real oversight. Organizations that should be prioritizing this level of security are apparently not able to do so, or are making mistakes that have allowed for these products to get into their environments," he says. "It seems very significant. And it's probably not a one-off mistake."

The new Mac Studio started shipping to customers this week, giving product reviewers a chance to test Apple's "most capable chip ever." According to new benchmarks by YouTuber Luke Miani, the M2 Ultra features nearly double the GPU performance of last year's M1 Ultra, with notable performance improvements in other areas. 9to5Mac reports: While the M1 Max and M1 Ultra are blazing fast, the difference between the two wasn't as notable as some expected. In many tasks, the much cheaper M1 Max wasn't too far off from the top-end M1 Ultra variant, especially in video editing, photo editing, and 3D rendering. Despite the M1 Ultra literally being 2 M1 Max's fused, the performance was never doubled. For the M2 series, Apple has made some significant changes under the hood, especially in GPU scaling. In Luke's testing, he found that in some GPU heavy applications, like Blender 3D and 3DMark, the M2 Ultra was sometimes precisely twice the performance of M2 Max -- perfect GPU scaling! In Final Cut Pro exports, it nearly doubled again. He also found that the M2 Ultra doubled the GPU performance of the M1 Ultra in these same benchmarks -- a genuinely remarkable year-over-year upgrade.

The reason for the massive performance improvement is that Apple added a memory controller chip to the M2 generation that balances the load between all of M2 Ultra's cores -- M1 Ultra required the ram to be maxed out before using all cores. M1 Ultra was very good at doing many tasks simultaneously but struggled to do one task, such as benchmarking or rendering, faster than the M1 Max. With M2 Ultra, because of this new memory controller, Apple can now achieve the same incredible performance without the memory buffer needing to be maxed out. It's important to note that some applications cannot take advantage of the M2 Ultra fully, and in non-optimized applications, you should not expect double the performance.

Despite this incredible efficiency and performance, the better deal might be the M2 Max. In Luke's testing, the M2 Max performed very similarly or outperformed last year's M1 Ultra. In Blender, Final Cut Pro, 3DMark, and Rise of the Tomb Raider, the M2 Max consistently performed the same or better than the M1 Ultra. Instead of finding an M1 Ultra on eBay, it might be best to save money and get the M2 Max if you're planning on doing tasks that heavily utilize the GPU. While the GPU performance is similar, the M1 Ultra still has the advantage of far more CPU cores, and will outperform the M2 Max in CPU heavy workloads.

The pitch for vertical farming had all the promise of a modern venture capital dream: a new way to grow crops that would use robots and artificial intelligence to conserve water, combat food insecurity and save the environment. But after firms poured billions of dollars into these startups, pushing valuations into the stratosphere, the industry is now facing a harsh new reality: funding is drying up, profits remain elusive, and creditors are circling. From a report: AeroFarms last week became the latest, most high-profile example of the challenges facing the business, filing for bankruptcy after building a massive new facility in Virginia that drained its cash, according to court papers. Its collapse comes on the heels of lettuce grower Kalera seeking court protection in April. And in May, publicly traded AppHarvest, which operates high-tech greenhouses, received a notice of default from one of its investors, according to a regulatory filing. The company contests the default notice, but if it can't reach an agreement with its creditors, the firm warned it could become "bankrupt or insolvent."

"We really were in a hype cycle," said Vonnie Estes, vice president of innovation for the International Fresh Produce Association. Venture capitalists entered the scene in a frenzy, likening these companies to software firms, and expecting comparable returns. "There was a lot of money that rushed in without really understanding that this is actually just farming." Industry experts still say that indoor farming is a crucial piece of agriculture's future, especially as climate change spurs more destructive wildfires and floods. Nonetheless, the ability of vertical farms to carve out meaningful market share on a national scale could be years away, they note.

Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his deputies want other companies to freely use and profit from new artificial intelligence software Meta is developing, a decision that could have big implications for other AI developers and businesses that are increasingly adopting it. The Information: Meta is working on ways to make the next version of its open-source large-language model -- technology that can power chatbots like ChatGPT -- available for commercial use, said a person with direct knowledge of the situation and a person who was briefed about it. The move could prompt a feeding frenzy among AI developers eager for alternatives to proprietary software sold by rivals Google and OpenAI. It would also indirectly benefit Meta's own AI development.

[...] Meta stands to gain from releasing open-source AI models. As developers adopt and improve those models or patch their security holes, Meta will be able to incorporate those improvements in AI models for its own consumer and advertising products, Zuckerberg said in an April call with stock analysts. For instance, Zuckerberg has said he wants small businesses and content creators that use Facebook's apps to have access to "AI agents" who can act on their behalf by automatically communicating with fans or customers. "LLaMA or the language model underlying this is basically going to be the engine that powers that," he said in an interview last week with podcaster Lex Fridman.

YouTube has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Invidious, an open-source "alternative front-end" to the website which allows users to watch videos without having their data tracked, claiming it violates YouTube's API policy and demanding that it be shut down within seven days. From a report: "We recently became aware of your product or service, Invidious," reads the letter, which was posted on the Invidious GitHub last week. "Your Client appears to be in violation of the YouTube API Services Terms of Service and Developer Policies." The letter then delineates the policies which Invidious is accused of having violated, such as not displaying a link to YouTube's Terms of Service or "clearly" explaining what it does with user information. Invidious is open-source software licensed under AGPL-3.0, and it markets itself as a way for users to interact with YouTube without allowing the site to collect their data, or having to make an account. "Invidious protects you from the prying eyes of Google," its homepage reads. "It won't track you either!" Invidious also allows users to watch videos without being interrupted by "annoying ads," which is how YouTube makes most of its money.

Two men who helped run the once wildly popular pirating website Megaupload were each sentenced by a New Zealand court on Thursday to more than two years in prison. From a report: The sentencing of Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk ended an 11-year legal battle by the men to avoid extradition to the United States on more serious charges that included racketeering. The men last year struck a deal with prosecutors from New Zealand and the U.S. in which they pleaded guilty to being part of a criminal group and causing artists to lose money by deception. Meanwhile Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload, is continuing to fight the U.S. charges and threat of extradition. He has said he expects his former colleagues to testify against him as part of the deal they struck.

U.S. prosecutors say Megaupload raked in at least $175 million -- mainly from people who used the site to illegally download songs, television shows and movies -- before the FBI shut it down in early 2012 and arrested Dotcom and other company officers. Ortmann was sentenced to 2 years and 7 months while van der Kolk was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months. Each had faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison but argued they should be allowed to serve their sentences in home detention.

mschaffer shares a report: Comcast and other ISPs have annoyed customers for many years by advertising low prices and then charging much bigger monthly bills by tacking on a variety of fees. While some of these fees are related to government-issued requirements and others are not, poorly trained customer service reps have been known to falsely tell customers that fees created by Comcast are mandated by the government. The FCC rules will force ISPs to accurately describe fees in labels given to customers, but Comcast said it wants the FCC to rescind a requirement related to "fees that ISPs may, but are not obligated to, pass through to customers." These include state Universal Service fees and other local fees. As Comcast makes clear, it isn't required to pass these costs on to customers in the form of separate fees. Comcast could stop charging the fees and raise its advertised prices by the corresponding amount to more accurately convey its actual prices to customers. Instead, Comcast wants the FCC to change the rule so that it can continue charging the fees without itemizing them..

I suppose it's just easier to grab people's money than it is to make up names for the fees, Mschaffer adds.

Federal Reserve officials paused on Wednesday following 15 months of interest-rate hikes but signaled they would likely resume tightening to cool inflation, projecting more increases than economists and investors expected. From a report: "Holding the target range steady at this meeting allows the committee to assess additional information and its implications for monetary policy," the Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement released in Washington Wednesday. Policymakers also adjusted the language in their post-meeting statement, referring to how they would determine "the extent of additional policy firming that may be appropriate," rather than "the extent to which additional policy firming may be appropriate."

The decision left the benchmark federal funds rate in a target range of 5% to 5.25%. Fresh quarterly Fed forecasts showed borrowing costs rising to 5.6% by year end, according to the median projection, compared with 5.1% in the previous round of projections. The FOMC vote was unanimous. Of the 18 policymakers, 12 penciled in rates at or above the median range of 5.5% to 5.75%, showing most policymakers agree further tightening is needed to contain price pressures.

Alphabet's Google may have to sell part of its lucrative adtech business to address concerns about anti-competitive practices, EU regulators said on Wednesday, threatening the company with its harshest regulatory penalty to date. From a report: The European Commission set out its charges in a statement of objections to Google two years after opening an investigation into behaviours such as favouring its own advertising services, which could also lead to a fine of as much as 10% of Google's annual global turnover. The stakes are higher for Google in this latest clash with regulators as it concerns the company's biggest money maker, with the adtech business accounting for 79% of total revenue last year.

Its 2022 advertising revenue, including from search services, Gmail, Google Play, Google Maps, YouTube adverts, Google Ad Manager, AdMob and AdSense, amounted to $224.5 billion. EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said Google may have to sell part of its adtech business because a behavioural remedy is unlikely to be effective at stopping the anti-competitive practices.

New York City's food delivery workers will be guaranteed a minimum wage for the first time under new regulations announced by Mayor Eric Adams. Gothamist reports: Tens of thousands of delivery workers are slated to make at least $17.96 per hour plus tips by July 12, and at least $19.96 an hour by 2025, city officials said. That's a sharp increase from what delivery workers make now. Many take home less than the city's minimum wage of $15 an hour. The $19.96 hourly rate is less than the $23.82 the Department of Consumer and Worker Protections originally proposed last November -- but is still almost three times more than what delivery workers currently make, according to the city agency.

Sunday's announcement comes after months of back-and-forth between delivery workers, elected officials and app companies over the minimum wage rates. City officials blew past a Jan. 1 deadline set by City Council legislation to establish the new wage rules. Delivery companies, like Uber and DoorDash, argued that the new legislation will force a raise in prices and less schedule flexibility, while some advocates claim these companies are manipulating employees into testifying against the measure. DoorDash spokesperson Eli Scheinholtz said the company was considering litigation against the city over the new pay rules. "The ones that bring you pizza in the snow, and that Thai food you like in the rain," said Mayor Adams. "This new minimum pay rate will guarantee these workers, and their families, can earn a living. They should not be delivering food to your household, if they can't put food on the plate in their household."

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Biden administration is expected to allow leading semiconductor manufacturers from South Korea and Taiwan to continue and expand their chipmaking operations in China. From a report: Alan Estevez, undersecretary of commerce for industry and security, announced the decision at an industry gathering last week. The exemptions, initially granted for one year in October last year, were provided to several companies, including South Korea's Samsung Electronics and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, who have invested billions in building plants in China.

The decision to extend the exemptions reflects the challenges faced by U.S. authorities in isolating China from high-tech goods in a highly integrated global industry. The U.S. has been trying to keep advanced chips out of Chinese hands by limiting exports not only from American manufacturers but also those made by allies. However, U.S. and foreign chip makers have resisted these efforts, and governments in Asia and Europe have also pushed back. The most vocal criticism has come from South Korea, whose largest export market is China. Further reading: Ex-Samsung Executive Accused of Stealing Secrets for China Chip Factory

This week venture capitalist Marc Andreessen published "his views on AI, the risks it poses and the regulation he believes it requires," reports CNBC.

But they add that "In trying to counteract all the recent talk of 'AI doomerism,' he presents what could be seen as an overly idealistic perspective of the implications..." Though he starts off reminding readers that AI "doesn't want to kill you, because it's not alive... AI is a machine — it's not going to come alive any more than your toaster will." Andreessen writes that there's a "wall of fear-mongering and doomerism" in the AI world right now. Without naming names, he's likely referring to claims from high-profile tech leaders that the technology poses an existential threat to humanity... Tech CEOs are motivated to promote such doomsday views because they "stand to make more money if regulatory barriers are erected that form a cartel of government-blessed AI vendors protected from new startup and open source competition," Andreessen wrote...

Andreessen claims AI could be "a way to make everything we care about better." He argues that AI has huge potential for productivity, scientific breakthroughs, creative arts and reducing wartime death rates. "Anything that people do with their natural intelligence today can be done much better with AI," he wrote. "And we will be able to take on new challenges that have been impossible to tackle without AI, from curing all diseases to achieving interstellar travel...." He also promotes reverting to the tech industry's "move fast and break things" approach of yesteryear, writing that both big AI companies and startups "should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can" and that the tech "will accelerate very quickly from here — if we let it...."

Andreessen says there's work to be done. He encourages the controversial use of AI itself to protect people against AI bias and harms... In Andreessen's own idealist future, "every child will have an AI tutor that is infinitely patient, infinitely compassionate, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely helpful." He expresses similar visions for AI's role as a partner and collaborator for every person, scientist, teacher, CEO, government leader and even military commander.

Near the end of his post, Andreessen points out what he calls "the actual risk of not pursuing AI with maximum force and speed." That risk, he says, is China, which is developing AI quickly and with highly concerning authoritarian applications... To head off the spread of China's AI influence, Andreessen writes, "We should drive AI into our economy and society as fast and hard as we possibly can."
CNBC also points out that Andreessen himself "wants to make money on the AI revolution, and is investing in startups with that goal in mind." But Andreessen's sentiments are clear.

"Rather than allowing ungrounded panics around killer AI, 'harmful' AI, job-destroying AI, and inequality-generating AI to put us on our back feet, we in the United States and the West should lean into AI as hard as we possibly can."

"Just days after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued crypto exchanges Binance and Coinbase for selling unregistered securities, crypto companies are already dealing with the fallout," reports Mashable: The popular stock trading app Robinhood announced on Friday that the company would be delisting all of the cryptocurrency tokens that trade on its platform that the SEC classified as unregistered securities. According to Robinhood, it will end support for the crypto tokens Cardano (ADA), Polygon (MATIC), and Solana (SOL) after June 27. Users can buy and sell these tokens until then, and can transfer these tokens to other crypto wallets as well. However, after that date, any account holding Cardano, Polygon, or Solana in their Robinhood account will automatically sell the tokens and be credited with the funds.

Also on Friday, the crypto exchange Crypto.com announced that it would be shutting down one of its services: its institutional exchange [which] provided services for institutional investors like pension funds, mutual funds, and university endowments.
"In a statement provided to the cryptocurrency media outlet Blockworks, Crypto.com claimed that the decision was made due to 'lack of demand due to the market landscape in the U.S.'"

TV's streaming model is broken. It's also not going away. For Hollywood, figuring that out will be a horror show. From a report: Across the town, there's despair and creative destruction and all sorts of countervailing indicators. Certain shows that were enthusiastically green-lit two years ago probably wouldn't be made now. Yet there are still streamers burning mountains of cash to entertain audiences that already have too much to watch. Netflix has tightened the screws and recovered somewhat, but the inarguable consensus is that there is still a great deal of pain to come as the industry cuts back, consolidates, and fumbles toward a more functional economic framework. The high-stakes Writers Guild of America strike has focused attention on Hollywood's labor unrest, but the really systemic issue is streaming's busted math. There may be no problem more foundational than the way the system monetizes its biggest hits: It doesn't.

Just ask Shawn Ryan. In April, the veteran TV producer's latest show, the spy thriller The Night Agent, became the fifth-most-watched English-language original series in Netflix's history, generating 627 million viewing hours in its first four weeks. As it climbed to the heights of such platform-defining smashes as Stranger Things and Bridgerton, Ryan wondered how The Night Agent's success might be reflected in his compensation. "I had done the calculations. Half a billion hours is the equivalent of over 61 million people watching all ten episodes in 18 days. Those shows that air after the Super Bowl -- it's like having five or ten of them. So I asked my lawyer, 'What does that mean?'" recalls Ryan. As it turns out, not much. "In my case, it means that I got paid what I got paid. I'll get a little bonus when season two gets picked up and a nominal royalty fee for each additional episode that gets made. But if you think I'm going out and buying a private jet, you're way, way off."

Ryan says he'll probably make less money from The Night Agent than he did from The Shield, the cop drama he created in 2002, even though the latter ran on the then-nascent cable channel FX and never delivered Super Bowl numbers. "The promise was that if you made the company billions, you were going to get a lot of millions," he says. "That promise has gone away." Nobody is crying for Ryan, of course, and he wouldn't want them to. ("I'm not complaining!" he says. "I'm not unaware of my position relative to most people financially.") But he has a point. Once, in a more rational time, there was a direct relationship between the number of people who watched a show and the number of jets its creator could buy. More viewers meant higher ad rates, and the biggest hits could be sold to syndication and international markets. The people behind those hits got a cut, which is why the duo who invented Friends probably haven't flown commercial since the 1990s. Streaming shows, in contrast, have fewer ads (or none at all) and are typically confined to their original platforms forever. For the people who make TV, the connection between ratings and reward has been severed.

OpenAI is facing a defamation lawsuit filed by Mark Walters, who claims that the AI platform falsely accused him of embezzling money from a gun rights group in statements delivered to a journalist. The lawsuit argues that ChatGPT is guilty of libel and alleges that the AI system "hallucinated" and generated false information about Walters. The Register reports: "While research and development of AI is worthwhile, it is irresponsible to unleash a system on the public that is known to make up 'facts' about people," his attorney John Monroe told The Register. According to the complaint, a journalist named Fred Riehl, while he was reporting on a court case, asked ChatGPT for a summary of accusations in a complaint, and provided ChatGPT with the URL of the real complaint for reference. (Here's the actual case [PDF] the reporter was trying to save time on reading for those curious.)

What makes the situation even odder is that the case Riehl was reporting on was actually filed by a group of several gun rights groups against Washington's Attorney General's office (accusing officials of "unconstitutional retaliation", among other things, while investigating the groups and their members) and had nothing at all to do with financial accounting claims. When Riehl asked for a summary, instead of returning accurate information, or so the case alleges, ChatGPT "hallucinated" that Mark Walters' name was attached to a criminal complaint -- and moreover, that it falsely accused him of embezzling money from The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the organizations suing the Washington Attorney General in the real complaint.

ChatGPT is known to "occasionally generate incorrect information" -- also known as hallucinations, as The Register has extensively reported. The AI platform has already been accused of writing obituaries for folks who are still alive, and in May this year, of making up fake legal citations pointing to non-existent prior cases. In the latter situation, a Texas judge said his court would strike any filing from an attorney who failed to certify either that they didn't use AI to prepare their legal docs, or that they had, but a human had checked them. [...] According to the complaint, Riehl contacted Alan Gottlieb, one of the plaintiffs in the actual Washington lawsuit, about ChatGPT's allegations concerning Walters, and Gottlieb confirmed that they were false. None of ChatGPT's statements concerning Walters are in the actual complaint.

The false answer ChatGPT gave Riehl alleged that Walters was treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of SAF and claimed he had "embezzled and misappropriated SAF's funds and assets." When Riehl asked ChatGPT to provide "the entire text of the complaint," it returned an entirely fabricated complaint, which bore "no resemblance to the actual complaint, including an erroneous case number." Walters is looking for damages and lawyers' fees. We have asked his attorney for comment. As for the amount of damages, the complaint says these will be determined at trial, if the case actually gets there.

Australia is set to be a cheque-less society by the end of the decade, if the federal government has its way. From a report Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced on Wednesday morning that his government would be moving to phase out cheques by no later than 2030. "We know that usage of cheques has been declining," he said. "This is largely because digital transactions are easier, cheaper and more accessible. "In fact, 98 per cent of retail cheques could be serviced through internet or mobile banking."

Because cheques only account for only 0.2 per cent of all payments, according to figures from an Australian Banking Association (ABA) report. Cheque payments are also more expensive to process compared to other payment types -- and it's been that way for some time. A report for the Reserve Bank of Australia in 2008 -- that's 15 years ago -- said it was costly then, saying it cost financial $4.22 to process cheques.