Morning Wire - A.I. Warning Letter & Tik Tok Bill Scrutiny | 3.30.23

Episode Date: March 30, 2023

Various engineers, researchers, and tech innovators signed an open letter urging for a pause on A.I. work, a bipartisan group of senators have teamed up to support a bill to “ban” Tik Tok while others say it's a trojan horse, and a college professor is on leave after calling for the murder of racists and homophobes. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.  Black Rifle Coffee: Get 10% off your first order or Coffee Club subscription with code WIRE: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ Cynch: Download the Cynch app and get your first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WIRE. Visit http://cynch.com/offer for details. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At least a thousand researchers, engineers, and tech executives signed an open letter Wednesday, urging the global tech community to pause work on AI. What happens if you do create something that is very good at an analysis and manipulation online, but also totally divorced from any kind of human constraint? Who were the notable names? And why are they issuing such an urgent warning? I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley. It's Thursday, March 30th. And this is Morning Wire.

A bipartisan group of senators have teamed up to support the Restrict Act, saying it protects Americans from TikTok. But why are some calling the bill a Trojan horse? It's possibly the most freedom restricting law that's ever been put forth. And a college professor is on leave after calling for the murder of racist and homophobes. What did the Wayne State English professor say that got him suspended? Thanks for waking up with Morning Law. Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know.

Hey guys, producer Brandon here. You deserve the perfect balance of quality and convenience to kickstart your morning. Stock up on cans of Black Rifles ready to drink coffee at Black Rifle Coffee.com or grab an ice-cold can from a convenience store near you. For a more explosive energy boost, try ready to drink 300, available in caramel vanilla, rich mocha, salted caramel or vanilla bomb flavors. Go to Black Rifle Coffee.com and use promo code wire for 10% off your purchase. That's Black Rifle Coffee.com. promo code, Wire. Black Rifle Coffee, America's Coffee. In an unprecedented move, hundreds of tech executives, including Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak,

are now calling for a six-month government-mandated pause on all advanced AI development, while safeguards for the new technology are considered. Here with more as Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce. Hey, Tim. So this demand from some of the most influential people on the planet when it comes to technology has really turned some heads. First, tell us about this letter. Yeah, this isn't something we've exactly seen before. It really shows how alarm the signes, including Musk, as you mentioned, are. So the letter warns that the rapid expansion in AI that we're saying now

could have some very serious and potentially dangerous downstream effects. That includes a spread of fake information online, as well as the unforeseen impact this tool could have on certain industries and the potential for mass layoffs. They're also worried about the possibility that AI tech could outsmart humans. Here's how Douglas Murray framed it in a recent interview on Fox. The treadmill of technology is running fast so that we humans can run. We've known this for a long time.

But the fact that there has now been this stressing that we're, you know, we can be in trouble. And this letter that they've sent is demanding specific action. Right. The letter calls for a cautionary six-month pause on any AI development stronger than the latest version of ChatGBT, GPT4, which was released earlier this month. They say that decisions about AI that will impact the entire human race, quote, must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders. The signers are calling on governments to step in and help determine where the new tech should go. We spoke to James Paulus, an editor at the American Mind about this. Here's what he had to say.

The kind of legislation that is needed is, frankly, digital rights amendments at the state and the federal level, things that in a clear and broad language of the Bill of Rights protect the core fundamental rights to the use and the ownership of digital technology that is consistent with, and really emanates out of, I think, the First and Second Amendments in particular. So they're calling for some government intervention. Yeah. All right, Musk and Wozniak, the Apple co-founder, signed. Who else signed this?

Venture capital guru Andrew Yang, the co-founders of Pinterest and Ripple, and lots of researchers from schools like Harvard and Stanford. The number and breadth of the signers shows just how much concern there is here. We're seeing more and more studies warning that AI will impact not just a lot of jobs, but perhaps the vast majority of them. A study released this week by OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, estimated that up to 80% of jobs in the U.S. could have at least 10% of their work affected by AI learning language models. They also estimated that about one in five jobs could see half their work tasks affected by this new technology.

Then there are concerns about just how powerful this technology is and how it could be used to impact millions of people. Now, the cut off on technology is ChatGPT's new product. Why the focus on that? Well, probably because it's the first mass market AI language assistant. Companies are already plugging chatGBT or similar tools into their products. Microsoft, which poured billions into the company that made ChatGBT, BT, is using it for the search engine Bing. Google is doing the same thing with its own language AI called Bard.

As we've reported, ChatGBTGPT performed at or near the passing threshold for all three parts of the U.S. medical licensing exam and earned a passing scores on the multiple choice section of the bar exam. It also earned a B on a graduate-level management final at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. That's all turned a lot of heads in academia and beyond. Now, how would a pause like they're demanding here be enforced? Are companies expected to actually abide by it? They might, but they also have good reason to ignore the letter.

According to one analysis, chat GPT reached 100 million active users within two months of its release. That's a better growth trend than social media app TikTok and would make ChatGPT the fastest growing internet product in history. So it's really hard to see a company turning down that kind of potential, even if some of the most powerful figures in the industry are warning against it. But again, whether or not this letter has much of an impact, the very fact that this many influential people in the industry are sounding the alarm, signals that we're at a significant moment technologically that has a lot of people

very worried about what comes next. Well, this technology directly impacts all of us, so we'll be watching this very closely. Tim, thanks for reporting. Anytime. That was Daily Wire reporter. Tim Pierce. Coming up, a bipartisan bill that claims to ban TikTok is now being called a Trojan horse. Do you have all the supplies you need for this weekend's cookout?

When was the last time you checked the levels on your propane tank? Don't panic, my friends at Cinch, deliver propane grill tanks right to your door in four easy steps. Just choose a date and they'll exchange any brand. No long-term commitments or subscription required. Plus, delivery can be completely contactless. Go online to Cynch.com. that's c-y-n-c-h.com or download the Cynch app to order. Use promo code wire to get your first tank exchange for just $10.

Visit cinch.com slash offer for details. A new bipartisan bill is being called the TikTok ban in the White House has already signaled its support. But conservative critics warn it's a Trojan horse that will give unelected bureaucrats enormous new powers over Americans. Here to tell us what's in the bill and why so many voices on the right are against it

is Daily Wire Culture Reporter, Megan Basham. So, Megan, what can you tell us about this legislation? Well, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner and South Dakota Republican John Thune introduced it to the Senate early in March. And it's looking like it has the support it needs to pass there. But I think it's important to stress that while some are calling this the TikTok ban bill and a lot of national security experts do say that's what needs to happen. We need to ban TikTok. That's not actually what the Restrict Act does. What it would do is empower the Commerce Department to surveil certain transactions between Americans and communications technologies from countries that it has deemed foreign adversaries. So that means it wouldn't necessarily be limited to China. It could also include Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, or really any country that could be added to the list at some point without any input from Congress.

So a pretty broad definition and power being enacted there. And it's not subject to Freedom of Information Act transparency. And then as far as the products and services, it can include anything from mobile or gaming apps, payment apps, mobile networks, cable access points. And more than that, it could conceivably even include things like video doorbell equipment or the use of VPNs to keep your online identity private. So really, nearly nearly any that functions on the web. So just to give you an idea of how broad these surveillance powers would be, here's an excerpt from this bill. The U.S. Secretary of Commerce would have the authority to, quote, and here we go, identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate any risk arising from any cover transaction by any person or with respect to any property that the secretary determines to pose an undue or unacceptable risk. And this applies to any technology associated with or controlled by a quote foreign adversary. So that could be TikTok or it could just be a knockoff ring doorbell you bought from China.

So it sounds like it gives the government very broad powers of surveillance over Americans' data and transactions. That's certainly a key component, but there's also the fact that it gives the Commerce Department considerable new powers over Americans. Here's what entrepreneur and IHeart radio host Mark Moss said about it. The Restrict Act is not just limiting TikTok. That's what it is on its face. What's really below this Restrict Act is it gives the government authority over all forms of communication, domestic and abroad. And it grants powers to enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk to national security now and in any potential. future transaction.

Another issue is that once the Commerce Department determines that an app or software is a threat, it would give the President its assessment of how to address it. And then the president would use executive authority to take action without any input from Congress. But maybe the biggest issue is that if the Commerce Secretary decides that an American is acting, quote, in the interest of a foreign adversary in using these technologies, that person could face penalties that would include fines up to a million dollars or 20 years in prison, but it doesn't define what it would mean to be acting in the interest of a foreign adversary. Could it mean someone who questioned the validity of election results and shared it on an app owned by China or Russia?

And the Commerce Department then decides that qualifies as acting in the interest of a foreign adversary. That's not really clear, but the bill specifically mentions undermining elections. Now, Senator Warner's office is saying that that 20-year prison sentence would not apply to individuals. But honestly, the language of the bill is pretty unclear on that point. And a number of legal experts are already saying that because this bill creates powers to regulate American speech, it will very likely run into legal challenges. All right. Well, another reminder to always read the fine print. Megan, thanks for reporting. Anytime.

That was Daily Wire Culture reporter, Megan Basham. An English professor at Wayne State University has been suspended for encouraging violence against ideological opponents online. The professor posted to Facebook that he thinks it is, quote, far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic person than it is to shout them down. This was in response to the shouting down of a supposedly anti-trans federal judge by Stanford Law Students earlier this month. Here to discuss this columnist David Marcus. Hey, Dave. So this is quite a thing. to post by this professor. Boy, is it. Even in our age of very heightened political rhetoric,

this is clearly extreme. And thankfully, not only did the university suspend the professor, but they also passed the post on to law enforcement. This is shocking, especially from a college professor, because for decades, calling for actual violence was an absolute social taboo. If we've arrived at a place where seemingly reasonable people want to kill those they disagree with, well, this is a big deal. Yeah, certainly is. Now, this comes at a time when many have suggested that rhetoric that argues against a specific ideology like critical race theory or radical gender theory is literally violence.

Is that playing into these kinds of attitudes? Absolutely. I mean, when the activists classify certain speech as actual violence, what are they really doing? They're really saying that such speech, because it is supposedly violent, may be fairly met with violence. In fact, statements such as the professor's calling for violence are a perverse kind of evidence that questioning trans ideology is a violent act. It was bad enough when the notion that speech can be violence was used to censor people.

Now it may be being used to physically attack them. History is replete with reminders that the road between hating one's political opponents and wishing them physical harm, it's never quite as long as we wish it was. No, it's not. So not only has the Wayne State professor been put on leave, but also the diversity, inclusion, and equity administrator from Stanford who participated in that initial shouting down of the federal judge. Are we seeing a change here on campuses? It seems that way. The leadership at our nation's colleges and universities have seemed almost handcuffed by the radical activists over the past several years, simply giving into progressive demands almost just as the path of least resistance. You know, but we've seen efforts such as those championed by, Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida to push back against the leftist hegemony and the universities. And these colleges are realizing that there really are two sides of this fight now.

Do we have any sense of whether this professor will be brought back after this suspension, or is this just a wait-and-see situation? I think it's wait-and-see. And look, there's real questions about whether one ill-advised social media posts should destroy a career, right? These are all new things that we're navigating as we go. but at least this time, a line was drawn in the sand against explicit calls for violence. Well, that's a good thing. Another chapter in the campus speech debate here.

David, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. That was Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.