Ben Schoon reports via 9to5Google: After first appearing earlier this year, YouTube once again appears to be rolling out a new redesign for its website that everyone hates. In mid-April, Google started testing a redesign to YouTube's website, which moved the title of the video, its description, and the comments to the side of the screen. In their place, video recommendations were moved directly underneath the video being watched with much larger thumbnails and titles. The change was widely hated by almost everyone who got it, but it didn't show up for all users. In the weeks to follow, YouTube reverted the redesign. Now, the YouTube redesign is back.

As spotted by many users, YouTube has started rolling out this redesign yet again. The new look has been appearing over the past few days, though it doesn't seem like it's a wide rollout. Rather, it appears to still be a test more than anything else. What does this second attempt mean? It's still unclear if YouTube intends to make this new look the default experience, but a second round of testing certainly implies more data is being gathered.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Did your company recently send you a phishing email? Employers will sometimes simulate phishing messages to train workers on how to spot the hacking threat. But one Google security manager argues the IT industry needs to drop the practice, calling it counterproductive. "PSA for Cybersecurity folk: Our co-workers are tired of being 'tricked' by phishing exercises y'all, and it is making them hate us for no benefit," tweeted Matt Linton, a security incident manager at Google.

Linton also published a post on the Google Security blog about the pitfalls of today's simulated phishing tests. The company is required to send fake phishing emails to its employees to meet the US government's security compliance requirements. In these tests, Google sends an employee a phishing email. If the worker clicks a link in the email, they'll be told they failed the test and will usually be required to take some sort of training course. However, Linton argues that simulated phishing tests can lead to harmful side effects, which can undermine a company's security. "There is no evidence that the tests result in fewer incidences of successful phishing campaigns," Linton said, noting that phishing attacks continue to help hackers gain a foothold inside networks, despite such training. He also pointed to a 2021 study that ran for 15 months and concluded that these phishing tests don't "make employees more resilient to phishing."

Google pays Reddit $60 million a year to train its AI on posts on Reddit, and it looks like Google's AI is now pulling directly from the dregs of the internet. Google's AI overview for "cheese not sticking to pizza" is brilliant information it got from an 11-year-old Reddit post.

iFixit and Samsung are parting ways. Two years after they teamed up on one of the first direct-to-consumer phone repair programs, iFixit CEO and co-founder Kyle Wiens tells The Verge the two companies have failed to renegotiate a contract -- and says Samsung is to blame. From a report: "Samsung does not seem interested in enabling repair at scale," Wiens tells me, even though similar deals are going well with Google, Motorola, and HMD. He believes dropping Samsung shouldn't actually affect iFixit customers all that much. Instead of being Samsung's partner on genuine parts and approved repair manuals, iFixit will simply go it alone, the same way it's always done with Apple's iPhones. While Wiens wouldn't say who technically broke up with whom, he says price is the biggest reason the Samsung deal isn't working: Samsung's parts are priced so high, and its phones remain so difficult to repair, that customers just aren't buying.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Krebs On Security: Apple and the satellite-based broadband service Starlink each recently took steps to address new research into the potential security and privacy implications of how their services geo-locate devices. Researchers from the University of Maryland say they relied on publicly available data from Apple to track the location of billions of devices globally -- including non-Apple devices like Starlink systems -- and found they could use this data to monitor the destruction of Gaza, as well as the movements and in many cases identities of Russian and Ukrainian troops. At issue is the way that Apple collects and publicly shares information about the precise location of all Wi-Fi access points seen by its devices. Apple collects this location data to give Apple devices a crowdsourced, low-power alternative to constantly requesting global positioning system (GPS) coordinates.

Both Apple and Google operate their own Wi-Fi-based Positioning Systems (WPS) that obtain certain hardware identifiers from all wireless access points that come within range of their mobile devices. Both record the Media Access Control (MAC) address that a Wi-FI access point uses, known as a Basic Service Set Identifier or BSSID. Periodically, Apple and Google mobile devices will forward their locations -- by querying GPS and/or by using cellular towers as landmarks -- along with any nearby BSSIDs. This combination of data allows Apple and Google devices to figure out where they are within a few feet or meters, and it's what allows your mobile phone to continue displaying your planned route even when the device can't get a fix on GPS.

With Google's WPS, a wireless device submits a list of nearby Wi-Fi access point BSSIDs and their signal strengths -- via an application programming interface (API) request to Google -- whose WPS responds with the device's computed position. Google's WPS requires at least two BSSIDs to calculate a device's approximate position. Apple's WPS also accepts a list of nearby BSSIDs, but instead of computing the device's location based off the set of observed access points and their received signal strengths and then reporting that result to the user, Apple's API will return the geolocations of up to 400 hundred more BSSIDs that are nearby the one requested. It then uses approximately eight of those BSSIDs to work out the user's location based on known landmarks.

In essence, Google's WPS computes the user's location and shares it with the device. Apple's WPS gives its devices a large enough amount of data about the location of known access points in the area that the devices can do that estimation on their own. That's according to two researchers at the University of Maryland, who theorized they could use the verbosity of Apple's API to map the movement of individual devices into and out of virtually any defined area of the world. The UMD pair said they spent a month early in their research continuously querying the API, asking it for the location of more than a billion BSSIDs generated at random. They learned that while only about three million of those randomly generated BSSIDs were known to Apple's Wi-Fi geolocation API, Apple also returned an additional 488 million BSSID locations already stored in its WPS from other lookups. "Plotting the locations returned by Apple's WPS between November 2022 and November 2023, Levin and Rye saw they had a near global view of the locations tied to more than two billion Wi-Fi access points," the report adds. "The map showed geolocated access points in nearly every corner of the globe, apart from almost the entirety of China, vast stretches of desert wilderness in central Australia and Africa, and deep in the rainforests of South America."

The researchers wrote: "We observe routers move between cities and countries, potentially representing their owner's relocation or a business transaction between an old and new owner. While there is not necessarily a 1-to-1 relationship between Wi-Fi routers and users, home routers typically only have several. If these users are vulnerable populations, such as those fleeing intimate partner violence or a stalker, their router simply being online can disclose their new location."

A copy of the UMD research is available here (PDF).

Amazon is upgrading its decade-old Alexa voice assistant with generative AI and plans to charge a monthly subscription fee to offset the cost of the technology, CNBC reported Wednesday, citing people with knowledge of Amazon's plans. From the report: The Seattle-based tech and retail giant will launch a more conversational version of Alexa later this year, potentially positioning it to better compete with new generative AI-powered chatbots from companies including Google and OpenAI, according to two sources familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. Amazon's subscription for Alexa will not be included in the $139-per-year Prime offering, and Amazon has not yet nailed down the price point, one source said.

While Amazon wowed consumers with Alexa's voice-driven tasks in 2014, its capabilities could seem old-fashioned amid recent leaps in artificial intelligence. Last week, OpenAI announced GPT-4o, with the capability for two-way conversations that can go significantly deeper than Alexa. For example, it can translate conversations into different languages in real time. Google launched a similar generative-AI-powered voice feature for Gemini.

Meta's AI chief said the large language models that power generative AI products such as ChatGPT would never achieve the ability to reason and plan like humans, as he focused instead on a radical alternative approach to create "superintelligence" in machines. From a report: Yann LeCun, chief AI scientist at the social media giant that owns Facebook and Instagram, said LLMs had "very limited understanding of logicâ... do not understand the physical world, do not have persistent memory, cannot reason in any reasonable definition of the term and cannot planâ...âhierarchically."

In an interview with the Financial Times, he argued against relying on advancing LLMs in the quest to make human-level intelligence, as these models can only answer prompts accurately if they have been fed the right training data and are, therefore, "intrinsically unsafe." Instead, he is working to develop an entirely new generation of AI systems that he hopes will power machines with human-level intelligence, although he said this vision could take 10 years to achieve. Meta has been pouring billions of dollars into developing its own LLMs as generative AI has exploded, aiming to catch up with rival tech groups, including Microsoft-backed OpenAI and Alphabet's Google.

Android Authority's Mishaal Rahman reports that the group speaker volume controls feature is back in Android 15 Beta 2. "Google intentionally disabled this functionality on Pixel phones back in late 2021 due to a legal dispute with Sonos," reports Rahman. "In late 2023, Google announced it would bring back several features they had to remove, following a judge's overturning of a jury verdict that was in favor of Sonos." From the report: When you create a speaker group consisting of one or more Assistant-enabled devices in the Google Home app, you're able to cast audio to that group from your phone using a Cast-enabled app. For example, let's say I make a speaker group named "Nest Hubs" that consists of my bedroom Nest Hub and my living room Nest Hub. If I open the YouTube Music app, start playing a song, and then tap the cast icon, I can select "Nest Hubs" to start playback on both my Nest Hubs simultaneously.

If I keep the YouTube Music app open, I can control the volume of my speaker group by pressing the volume keys on my phone. This functionality is available no matter what device I use. However, if I open another app while YouTube Music is casting, whether I'm able to still control the volume of my speaker group using my phone's volume keys depends on what phone I'm using and what software version it's running. If I'm using a Pixel phone that's running a software version before Android 15 Beta 2, then I'm unable to control the volume of my speaker group unless I re-open the YouTube Music app. If I'm using a phone from any other manufacturer, then I won't have any issues controlling the volume of my speaker group.

The reason for this weird discrepancy is that Google intentionally blocked Pixel devices from being able to control the volume of Google Home speaker groups while casting. Google did this out of an abundance of caution while they were fighting a legal dispute. [...] With the release of last week's Android 15 Beta 2, we can confirm that Google finally restored this functionality.

Alphabet's moonshot factory, X, is scaling back its ambitious projects amid concerns over Google's core search business facing competition from AI chatbots like ChatGPT. The lab, once a symbol of Google's commitment to innovation, is now spinning off projects as startups rather than integrating them into Alphabet. The shift reflects a broader trend among tech giants, who are cutting costs and focusing on their core businesses in response to the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Microsoft is planning to either add subtitles or even dub video produced by major video sites, using AI to translate the audio into foreign languages within Microsoft Edge in real time. From a report: At its Microsoft Build developer conference, Microsoft named several sites that would benefit from the new real-time translation capabilities within Edge, including Reuters, CNBC News, Bloomberg, and Coursera, plus Microsoft's own LinkedIn. Interestingly, Microsoft also named Google's YouTube as a beneficiary of the translation capabilities. Microsoft plans to translate the video from Spanish to English and from English to German, Hindi, Italian, Russian, and Spanish. There are plans to add additional languages and video platforms in the future, Microsoft said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Alphabet's Google has preemptively paid damages to the U.S. government, an unusual move aimed at avoiding a jury trial in the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit over its digital advertising business. Google disclosed (PDF) the payment, but not the amount, in a court filing last week that said the case should be heard and decided by a judge directly. Without a monetary damages claim, Google argued, the government has no right to a jury trial. The Justice Department, which has not said if it will accept the payment, declined to comment on the filing. Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it.

The Justice Department filed the case last year with Virginia and other states, alleging Google was stifling competition for advertising technology. The government has said Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite. Google, which has denied the allegations, said in a statement that the Justice Department "manufactured a damages claim at the last minute in an attempt to secure a jury trial." Without disclosing the size of its payment, Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million. The company said the government has said the case is "highly technical" and "outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors."

An anonymous reader shares a report: Google is pouncing on Microsoft's weathered enterprise security reputation by pitching its services to government institutions. Pointing to a recent report from the US Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) that found that Microsoft's security woes are the result of the company "deprioritizing" enterprise security, Google says it can help. The company's pitch isn't quite as direct as Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella saying he made Google dance, but it's spicy all the same. Repeatedly referring to Microsoft as "the vendor" throughout its blog post on Monday, Google says the CSRB "showed that lack of a strong commitment to security creates preventable errors and serious breaches." Platforms, it added, "have a responsibility" to hold to strong security practices. And of course, who is more responsible than Google?

"The computer scientist regarded as the 'godfather of artificial intelligence' says the government will have to establish a universal basic income to deal with the impact of AI on inequality," reports the BBC: Professor Geoffrey Hinton told BBC Newsnight that a benefits reform giving fixed amounts of cash to every citizen would be needed because he was "very worried about AI taking lots of mundane jobs".

"I was consulted by people in Downing Street and I advised them that universal basic income was a good idea," he said. He said while he felt AI would increase productivity and wealth, the money would go to the rich "and not the people whose jobs get lost and that's going to be very bad for society".
"Until last year he worked at Google, but left the tech giant so he could talk more freely about the dangers from unregulated AI," according to the article. Professor Hinton also made this predicction to the BBC. "My guess is in between five and 20 years from now there's a probability of half that we'll have to confront the problem of AI trying to take over".

He recommended a prohibition on the military use of AI, warning that currently "in terms of military uses I think there's going to be a race".

Jeremy Allison — Sam (Slashdot reader #8,157) is a Distinguished Engineer at Rocky Linux creator CIQ. This week he published a blog post responding to promises of Linux distros "carefully selecting only the most polished and pristine open source patches from the raw upstream open source Linux kernel in order to create the secure distribution kernel you depend on in your business."

But do carefully curated software patches (applied to a known "frozen" Linux kernel) really bring greater security? "After a lot of hard work and data analysis by my CIQ kernel engineering colleagues Ronnie Sahlberg and Jonathan Maple, we finally have an answer to this question. It's no." The data shows that "frozen" vendor Linux kernels, created by branching off a release point and then using a team of engineers to select specific patches to back-port to that branch, are buggier than the upstream "stable" Linux kernel created by Greg Kroah-Hartman. How can this be? If you want the full details the link to the white paper is here. But the results of the analysis couldn't be clearer.

- A "frozen" vendor kernel is an insecure kernel. A vendor kernel released later in the release schedule is doubly so.

- The number of known bugs in a "frozen" vendor kernel grows over time. The growth in the number of bugs even accelerates over time.

- There are too many open bugs in these kernels for it to be feasible to analyze or even classify them....

[T]hinking that you're making a more secure choice by using a "frozen" vendor kernel isn't a luxury we can still afford to believe. As Greg Kroah-Hartman explicitly said in his talk "Demystifying the Linux Kernel Security Process": "If you are not using the latest stable / longterm kernel, your system is insecure."
CIQ describes its report as "a count of all the known bugs from an upstream kernel that were introduced, but never fixed in RHEL 8." For the most recent RHEL 8 kernels, at the time of writing, these counts are: RHEL 8.6 : 5034 RHEL 8.7 : 4767 RHEL 8.8 : 4594

In RHEL 8.8 we have a total of 4594 known bugs with fixes that exist upstream, but for which known fixes have not been back-ported to RHEL 8.8. The situation is worse for RHEL 8.6 and RHEL 8.7 as they cut off back-porting earlier than RHEL 8.8 but of course that did not prevent new bugs from being discovered and fixed upstream....

This whitepaper is not meant as a criticism of the engineers working at any Linux vendors who are dedicated to producing high quality work in their products on behalf of their customers. This problem is extremely difficult to solve. We know this is an open secret amongst many in the industry and would like to put concrete numbers describing the problem to encourage discussion. Our hope is for Linux vendors and the community as a whole to rally behind the kernel.org stable kernels as the best long term supported solution. As engineers, we would prefer this to allow us to spend more time fixing customer specific bugs and submitting feature improvements upstream, rather than the endless grind of backporting upstream changes into vendor kernels, a practice which can introduce more bugs than it fixes.
ZDNet calls it "an open secret in the Linux community." It's not enough to use a long-term support release. You must use the most up-to-date release to be as secure as possible. Unfortunately, almost no one does that. Nevertheless, as Google Linux kernel engineer Kees Cook explained, "So what is a vendor to do? The answer is simple: if painful: Continuously update to the latest kernel release, either major or stable." Why? As Kroah-Hartman explained, "Any bug has the potential of being a security issue at the kernel level...."

Although [CIQ's] programmers examined RHEL 8.8 specifically, this is a general problem. They would have found the same results if they had examined SUSE, Ubuntu, or Debian Linux. Rolling-release Linux distros such as Arch, Gentoo, and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed constantly release the latest updates, but they're not used in businesses.
Jeremy Allison's post points out that "the Linux kernel used by Android devices is based on the upstream kernel and also has a stable internal kernel ABI, so this isn't an insurmountable problem..."

Starting this week millions will see AI-generated answers in Google's search results by default. But the announcement Tuesday at Google's annual developer conference suggests a future that's "not without its risks, both to users and to Google itself," argues the Washington Post: For years, Google has been shielded for liability for linking users to bad, harmful or illegal information by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But legal experts say that shield probably won't apply when its AI answers search questions directly. "As we all know, generative AIs hallucinate," said James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech. "So when Google uses a generative AI to summarize what webpages say, and the AI gets it wrong, Google is now the source of the harmful information," rather than just the distributor of it...

Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the nonprofit free-market think tank R Street, worries that innovation could be throttled if Congress doesn't extend Section 230 to cover AI tools. "As AI is integrated into more consumer-facing products, the ambiguity about liability will haunt developers and investors," he predicted. "It is particularly problematic for small AI firms and open-source AI developers, who could be decimated as frivolous legal claims accumulate." But John Bergmayer, legal director for the digital rights nonprofit Public Knowledge, said there are real concerns that AI answers could spell doom for many of the publishers and creators that rely on search traffic to survive — and which AI, in turn, relies on for credible information. From that standpoint, he said, a liability regime that incentivizes search engines to continue sending users to third-party websites might be "a really good outcome."

Meanwhile, some lawmakers are looking to ditch Section 230 altogether. [Last] Sunday, the top Democrat and Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft of a bill that would sunset the statute within 18 months, giving Congress time to craft a new liability framework in its place. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) argued that the law, which helped pave the way for social media and the modern internet, has "outlived its usefulness."

The tech industry trade group NetChoice [which includes Google, Meta, X, and Amazon] fired back on Monday that scrapping Section 230 would "decimate small tech" and "discourage free speech online."
The digital law professor points out Google has traditionally escaped legal liability by attributing its answers to specific sources — but it's not just Google that has to worry about the issue. The article notes that Microsoft's Bing search engine also supplies AI-generated answers (from Microsoft's Copilot). "And Meta recently replaced the search bar in Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp with its own AI chatbot."

The article also note sthat several U.S. Congressional committees are considering "a bevy" of AI bills...

Ars Technica looks at what happened after Google's answer to Amazon's cloud service "accidentally deleted a giant customer account for no reason..."

"[A]ccording to UniSuper's incident log, downtime started May 2, and a full restoration of services didn't happen until May 15." UniSuper, an Australian pension fund that manages $135 billion worth of funds and has 647,000 members, had its entire account wiped out at Google Cloud, including all its backups that were stored on the service... UniSuper's website is now full of must-read admin nightmare fuel about how this all happened. First is a wild page posted on May 8 titled "A joint statement from UniSuper CEO Peter Chun, and Google Cloud CEO, Thomas Kurian...." Google Cloud is supposed to have safeguards that don't allow account deletion, but none of them worked apparently, and the only option was a restore from a separate cloud provider (shoutout to the hero at UniSuper who chose a multi-cloud solution)... The many stakeholders in the service meant service restoration wasn't just about restoring backups but also processing all the requests and payments that still needed to happen during the two weeks of downtime.

The second must-read document in this whole saga is the outage update page, which contains 12 statements as the cloud devs worked through this catastrophe. The first update is May 2 with the ominous statement, "You may be aware of a service disruption affecting UniSuper's systems...." Seven days after the outage, on May 9, we saw the first signs of life again for UniSuper. Logins started working for "online UniSuper accounts" (I think that only means the website), but the outage page noted that "account balances shown may not reflect transactions which have not yet been processed due to the outage...." May 13 is the first mention of the mobile app beginning to work again. This update noted that balances still weren't up to date and that "We are processing transactions as quickly as we can." The last update, on May 15, states, "UniSuper can confirm that all member-facing services have been fully restored, with our retirement calculators now available again."

The joint statement and the outage updates are still not a technical post-mortem of what happened, and it's unclear if we'll get one. Google PR confirmed in multiple places it signed off on the statement, but a great breakdown from software developer Daniel Compton points out that the statement is not just vague, it's also full of terminology that doesn't align with Google Cloud products. The imprecise language makes it seem like the statement was written entirely by UniSuper.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader swm for sharing the news.

"We're migrating domains in batches..." announced web-hosting company Squarespace earlier this month.

"Squarespace has entered into an agreement to become the new home for Google Domains customers. When your domain transitions from Google to Squarespace, you'll become a Squarespace customer and manage your domain through an account with us."

Slashdot reader shortyadamk shares an email sent today to a Google Domains customer: "Today your domain, xyz.com, migrated from Google Domains to Squarespace Domains.

"Your WHOIS contact details and billing information (if applicable) were migrated to Squarespace. Your DNS configuration remains unchanged.

"Your migrated domain will continue to work with Google Services such as Google Search Console. To support this, your account now has a domain verification record — one corresponding to each Google account that currently has access to the domain."

Bloomberg reports that self-driving car company Cruise "reached an $8 million to $12 million settlement with a pedestrian who was dragged by one of its self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, according to a person familiar with the situation." The settlement was struck earlier this year and the woman is out of the hospital, said the person, who declined to be identified discussing a private matter. In the October incident, the pedestrian crossing the road was struck by another vehicle before landing in front of one of GM's Cruise vehicles. The robotaxi braked hard but ran over the person. It then pulled over for safety, driving 20 feet at a speed of up to seven miles per hour with the pedestrian still under the car.
The incident "contributed to the company being blocked from operating in San Francisco and halting its operations around the country for months," reports the Washington Post: The company initially told reporters that the car had stopped just after rolling over the pedestrian, but the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates permits for self-driving cars, later said Cruise had covered up the truth that its car actually kept going and dragged the woman. The crash and the questions about what Cruise knew and disclosed to investigators led to a firestorm of scrutiny on the company. Cruise pulled its vehicles off roads countrywide, laid off a quarter of its staff and in November its CEO Kyle Vogt stepped down. The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating the company, adding to a probe from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In Cruise's absence, Google's Waymo self-driving cars have become the only robotaxis operating in San Francisco.

in June, the company's president and chief technology officer Mohamed Elshenawy is slated to speak at a conference on artificial-intelligence quality in San Francisco.
Dow Jones news services published this quote from a Cruise spokesperson. "The hearts of all Cruise employees continue to be with the pedestrian, and we hope for her continued recovery."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian, written by Caroline Haskins: On May 7th and 8th in Washington, D.C., the city's biggest convention hall welcomed America's military-industrial complex, its top technology companies and its most outspoken justifiers of war crimes. Of course, that's not how they would describe it. It was the inaugural "AI Expo for National Competitiveness," hosted by the Special Competitive Studies Project -- better known as the "techno-economic" thinktank created by the former Google CEO and current billionaire Eric Schmidt. The conference's lead sponsor was Palantir, a software company co-founded by Peter Thiel that's best known for inspiring 2019 protests against its work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) at the height of Trump's family separation policy. Currently, Palantir is supplying some of its AI products to the Israel Defense Forces.

The conference hall was also filled with booths representing the U.S. military and dozens of its contractors, ranging from Booz Allen Hamilton to a random company that was described to me as Uber for airplane software. At industry conferences like these, powerful people tend to be more unfiltered – they assume they're in a safe space, among friends and peers. I was curious, what would they say about the AI-powered violence in Gaza, or what they think is the future of war?

Attendees were told the conference highlight would be a series of panels in a large room toward the back of the hall. In reality, that room hosted just one of note. Featuring Schmidt and the Palantir CEO, Alex Karp, the fire-breathing panel would set the tone for the rest of the conference. More specifically, it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death. The vast majority of people there fell into group one. I've written about relationships between tech companies and the military before, so I shouldn't have been surprised by anything I saw or heard at this conference. But when it ended, and I departed DC for home, it felt like my life force had been completely sucked out of my body. Some of the noteworthy quotes from the panel and convention, as highlighted in Haskins' reporting, include:

"It's always great when the CIA helps you out," Schmidt joked when CIA deputy director David Cohen lent him his microphone when his didn't work.

The U.S. has to "scare our adversaries to death" in war, said Karp. On university graduates protesting Israel's war in Gaza, Karp described their views as a "pagan religion infecting our universities" and "an infection inside of our society."

"The peace activists are war activists," Karp insisted. "We are the peace activists."

A huge aspect of war in a democracy, Karp went on to argue, is leaders successfully selling that war domestically. "If we lose the intellectual debate, you will not be able to deploy any armies in the west ever," Karp said.

A man in nuclear weapons research jokingly referred to himself as "the new Oppenheimer."

Emilia David reports via The Verge: OpenAI has signed a deal for access to real-time content from Reddit's data API, which means it can surface discussions from the site within ChatGPT and other new products. It's an agreement similar to the one Reddit signed with Google earlier this year that was reportedly worth $60 million. The deal will also "enable Reddit to bring new AI-powered features to Redditors and mods" and use OpenAI's large language models to build applications. OpenAI has also signed up to become an advertising partner on Reddit.

No financial terms were revealed in the blog post announcing the arrangement, and neither company mentioned training data, either. That last detail is different from the deal with Google, where Reddit explicitly stated it would give Google "more efficient ways to train models." There is, however, a disclosure mentioning that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is also a shareholder in Reddit but that "This partnership was led by OpenAI's COO and approved by its independent Board of Directors." "Reddit has become one of the internet's largest open archives of authentic, relevant, and always up-to-date human conversations about anything and everything. Including it in ChatGPT upholds our belief in a connected internet, helps people find more of what they're looking for, and helps new audiences find community on Reddit," Reddit CEO Steve Huffman says.

Reddit stock has jumped on news of the deal, rising 13% on Friday to $63.64. As Reuters notes, it's "within striking distance of the record closing price of $65.11 hit in late-March, putting the company on track to add $1.2 billion to its market capitalization."