Tech Brew Ride Home - Wed. 10/23 - Google Says We've Achieved Quantum Supremacy!

Episode Date: October 23, 2019

Mr. Zuckerberg went back to Washington, Google claims “Quantum Supremacy,” Apple overtakes Starbucks, HireVue is a controversial AI hiring tool and is the influencer bubble on the wane? Sponsors: leap.Fidelitycareers.com Mealime.com Links: Zuckerberg, in Washington to Talk Cryptocurrency, Gets Grilled on Everything (NYTimes)  Snapchat beats in Q3, adding 7M users & revenue up 50% (TechCrunch) Apple Pay Overtakes Starbucks as Top Mobile Payment App in the US (eMarketer) Google Claims a Quantum Breakthrough That Could Change Computing (NYTimes) On “Quantum Supremacy” (IBM Research Blog) A face-scanning algorithm increasingly decides whether you deserve the job (The Washington Post) Online Influencers Tell You What to Buy, Advertisers Wonder Who’s Listening (WSJ) Classified: Upside.fm/subscribe Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the TechMeme right home for Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019. I'm Brian McCullough today. Mr. Zuckerberg went back to Washington. Google claims quantum supremacy. Apple overtakes Starbucks. Higher View is a controversial AI hiring tool and is the influencer bubble on the wayne. Here's what you miss today in the world of tech. Mark Zuckerberg did indeed go before the House Financial Services Committee today to talk largely about the Libra Cryptocurrency Project, but But also, of course, he ended up fielding tons of questions about all things Facebook. Small note that at the time of this recording, the hearings are still going on. But here are the highlights thus far. Quoting the New York Times, Zuckerberg ended up defending Facebook on a range of issues from political advertising to housing discrimination and child pornography. In a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Zuckerberg presented a rosy view of how the cryptocurrency would provide a safe way for millions of Americans without bank accounts. to exchange money affordably. And in a response to an outcry from financial regulators, he said Facebook

would not offer Libra, its cryptocurrency initiative, anywhere in the world, quote, unless all U.S. regulators approve it, end quote. Indeed, here is specifically that statement. Asked what happens if the Libra Association moves ahead without U.S. policymaker approval. Zuckerberg said Facebook would be, quote, forced to leave the group. Quote, if at the end of the day we don't receive the clearances, we will not be a part of the association, end quote. In prepared remarks, Zuckerberg said the following, at different points in his remarks, he said that the Libra cryptocurrency, quote, will extend America's financial leadership as well as our democratic values and oversight around the world, end quote.

While we debate these issues, the rest of the world isn't waiting. China is moving quickly to launch similar ideas in the coming months. Libra will be back mostly by dollars, and I believe it will extend America's financial leadership as well as our democratic values and oversight around the world. If America doesn't innovate, our financial leadership is not guaranteed, end quote. By design, we don't expect to be leading these efforts going forward. The Libra Association has been created, has a governance structure in place, and we'll be driving the project from now on, end quote. Finally, there's the question of whether Libra is intended to replace sovereign currency and whether it's appropriate for private companies

to be involved in this kind of innovation. I want to be clear, this is not an attempt to create a sovereign currency, like existing online payment systems. It's a way for people to transfer money, end quote. To say that the questioning today was contentious would be putting it mildly, Congressfolk seemed to take pains to rebuke Zuckerberg to his face about various topics, often cutting him off when he was answering or answering for him. It seems like the clueless starstruck questioning of past

appearances are no longer the way these things go. It's clear that politicians feel that Facebook and Zuckerberg specifically are good political punching bags at the moment. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina even said at one point, quote, maybe it's not about Libra. It's not about some housing ads. And maybe it's not even really about Facebook. It's that larger question. And fair or not, you're here today to answer for the digital age, end quote. But hey, I mean, somebody needs to, right? Zuckerberg himself acknowledged that maybe Libra's problem isn't Libra, it's him. Quote, I believe this is something that needs to get built, but I get that I'm not the

ideal messenger right now. We've faced a lot of issues over the past few years, and I'm sure people wish it were anyone but Facebook that we're helping to propose this, end quote. Some more specifics on the actual testimony about Libra, which is what this was supposed to be about. Zuckerberg continued to argue that U.S. policymakers should be in favor of Libra, because China will probably launch a national digital currency soon. Libra's partners jumped ship on the project because, quote, it's a risky project, and there's been a lot of scrutiny, end quote.

But then at the same time, at every opportunity presented, Zuckerberg continued to duck behind the argument that it's the Libra Association from here on out. Facebook doesn't control it, so he can't promise how the whole thing will work out or even if it will work out in the end. quote, we might be required to pull out if the association independently decides to move forward on something that we're not comfortable with, Zuckerberg said. Let me end with this quote from Ryan Mack, quote, with the hindsight bias of a congressional hearing that's gone off the rails, you have to wonder if Facebook regrets announcing Libre when it did and the way it did. You also have to wonder if its execs and controlling shareholder have a grasp of how it's viewed by the public, end quote.

And that continues to be the overwhelming feeling I'm left with. Whenever Zuck does things like this, things like make that free speech earlier or go before Congress again, or even try to push through Libra or end-to-end encryption. Like, why do they need this? I don't just mean that in a why does Mark Zuckerberg still need to wake up and come to work every day in lieu of just buying an island to live on somewhere. I mean that in the sense of it seems like Facebook's business is firing on all cylinders right now. Why take these moves to blow things up and blow things up in a way that are so difficult and obviously going to court controversy? Obvious, at least to outsiders, I guess. Why lean into the difficult things instead of the things that are going well and have traction and momentum? Either Zuck sees things coming down the pike that makes him want to pivot so desperately,

or else this is just ambition to do something bigger. At which point, one wonders, when would enough be enough? When would bigger be enough? What is bigger than half the people on the planet using what you built every day? Maybe it's half the people on the planet moving money using what you built, I guess, but then what would be bigger beyond that? Real quick, earnings check-in. The rebound at Snap seems to be continuing, reporting its Q3 numbers last evening. Snap said it added 7 million daily active users to hit 210 million Dow's, which would be up

13% year over year. Snap also had revenue of $446 million, up 50% year over year, and its net loss of $227 million was down from a net loss of $325 million a year ago. Snap's stock was mixed to a little down on the news. But all of this does seem like good news, right? Quoting TechCrunch. CEO Evan Spiegel made his case in his prepared marks for why Snapchat's share price should be higher. Quote, we are a high-growth business with strong operating leverage, a clear path to profitability, a distinct vision for the future, and the ability to invest over the long-term, end quote. Snapchat's share price had closed down 4% at $14 and had fallen roughly 4.6% in after-hours trading as of 1.50 p.m. Pacific to $13.35, despite the earnings beat. It remains below its

$17. IPO price, but has performed exceedingly well this year, rising from a low of $4.99. in December, end quote. Apple Pay has overtaken Starbucks as the top mobile payment app in the U.S. with 27.7 million users. An e-marketer says it will grow to 30.3 million users by the end of this year, representing 47.3% market share. Starbucks, apparently, has 25.2 million users for 39.4% of the proximity mobile payment market.

Quote, Apple Pay has benefited from the spread of the market. of new point-of-sale systems that work with the NFC signals Apple Pay runs on, said e-marketer principal analyst Yuri Wormser. The same trend should also help Google Pay and Samsung Pay, but they will continue to split the Android market, end quote. Technology for proximity mobile payments is gaining traction, especially at frequently used retailers like grocery stores. According to digital trends, Apple Pay is expected to be available in 70% of U.S. retailers by the end of 2019. The strong uptake prompted e-marketer to revive. its figures upward. And while the Starbucks app has enjoyed around a 40% market share of mobile

payments users for a few years, its growth potential is more limited since it can only be used at Starbucks stores, end quote. Google is making it official, claiming quantum supremacy is here. It says its quantum computer performed a mathematical calculation at a speed that would be inconceivable if you tried to do the same calculation using today's existing technology, quoting the New York Times. In a paper published in the Science Journal, Nature, Google said its research lab in Santa Barbara, California, had reached a milestone that scientists had been working towards since the 1980s. Its quantum computer performed a task that isn't possible with traditional computers. In this case, a mathematical calculation that the largest supercomputers could not compete in under 10,000 years was done in three minutes, 20 seconds, Google said in its paper. Scientists likened Google's announcement to the Wright Brothers first plane flight in 1903. proof that something is really possible, even though it may be years before it can fulfill its potential. The original right flyer was not a useful airplane, said Scott Aronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, who reviewed Google's paper before publication. But it was designed to prove a point, and it proved the point, end quote.

A quantum machine, the result of more than a century's worth of research into a type of physics called quantum mechanics, operates in a completely different manner from regular computers. It relies on the mind-bending ways. Some objects act at the subatomic level, or when exposed to extreme cold, like the metal chilled to nearly 460 degrees below zero inside Google's machine, end quote. However, as it has done in the past, IBM got all snippy about this announcement, saying essentially that Google's experiment is an excellent demo of quantum computing progress, but not exactly proof that quantum computers are supreme over classical computers. yet, quoting from the IBM research blog. Recent advances in quantum computing have resulted in two 53-cubit processors, one from our group in IBM, and a device described in the leaked pre-print from Google. In the pre-print, it is argued that their device reached quantum supremacy and that a state-of-the-art

supercomputer would require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task. We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on a classical system in two and a half days and with far greater fidelity. This is, in fact, a conservative worst-case estimate, and we expect that with additional refinements, the classical cost of the simulation can be further reduced. Because the original meaning of the term quantum supremacy, as proposed by John Preskill in 2012, was to describe the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can't, this threshold has not yet been met, end quote. According to IBM, I guess. It then gets really into the weeds, and I'm not qualified to parse the argument, but check out the links in the show notes if you want to weigh the arguments for yourself.

If you are in the market for a new job these days, chances are you might be submitting your resume or submitting to an interview through an AI-driven face and voice scanning employability assessment tool, quoting the Washington Post. designed by recruiting technology firm Higherview, the system uses candidates' computer or cell phone cameras to analyze their facial movements, word choice, and speaking voice before ranking them against other applicants based on an automatically generated employability score. Higher View's AI-driven assessments have become so pervasive in some industries, including hospitality and finance, that universities make special efforts to train students on how to look and speak for best results. More than 100 employers now use the system, including Hilton, Unilever, and Goldman Sachs, and more than a million job seekers have been analyzed, end quote. What could possibly go wrong here? I mean, there is a reason why we have hiring laws that don't allow people to be judged by things like physical features. Quoting the post again, some AI researchers argue the system is digital snake oil, an unfounded blend of superficial measurements and arbitrary number crunches. that is not rooted in scientific fact.

Analyzing a human being like this, they argue, could end up penalizing non-native speakers, visibly nervous interviewees, or anyone else who doesn't fit the model for look and speech. The system, they argue, will assume a critical role in helping decide a person's career, but they doubt it even knows what it's looking for. Just what does the perfect employee look and sound like anyway? It's a profoundly disturbing development that we have proprietary technology that claims to differentiate between a productive worker and a worker who isn't fit based on their facial movements, their tone of voice, their mannerisms, said Meredith Whittaker, a co-founder of the AI Now Institute,

A Research Center in New York, end quote. As Toby Walsh tweeted, quote, if I was an ambulance chasing lawyer, I'd be putting together a million personal class action suit against Higher View. If I was a financier, I'd be selling their stock short. As it is, I'm an AI researcher, so I'm tweeting what a bad idea this use of computer vision is, end quote. Finally today, we're at peak influencer right now, right? Influencers run our world, or at least our social media world for sure. They're expected to make between $4.1 and $8.2 billion in 2019 for telling you what to buy and to make you jealous of them and vice versa. But are we at peak influencers right now in another way, according to the Wall Street Journal, with no good way to measure the sales

ginned up by influencers, some advertisers are beginning to question whether throwing money at influencers is really worth it. Quote, accurately tracking the effectiveness of influencer advertising is difficult. By one measure, their influence is waning. Engagement rates, which measure the number of likes a post generates as a percent of a person's followers, are down this year, compared with the same period last year, according to Influencer DB, which makes tools to help brands manage influencer campaigns. Consumers can see if somebody honestly cares about a product or whether they are just trying to push it, said Anders Arkland, Chief Executive of Online Stationery Retailer, A Good Company. The bubble is starting to burst, end quote. Despite questions about declining influence, the money-paid influencers keeps climbing.

Roughly 50% a year since 2017, according to media kicks, which helps match brands with influencers. Prices per Instagram post range from $200 for an influencer with as few as 10,000 followers to more than half a million dollars for celebrities with millions of followers, according to media kicks, end quote. But for how much longer will that be true is the question. If you read the history of any new advertising medium, the same cycle repeats. Any type of new advertising works gangbusters at the beginning and then everybody gets wise. The first television ads caused literal stampedes at stores in the 50s. The first banner ads on the web got something like an insane 50% click-through rate. But then the efficacy of the ads faded over time,

because advertising is like a drug. You end up chasing the dragon just to get the original high, but with diminishing returns. I'm not suggesting influencer marketing is going anywhere anytime soon, but as with anything else, the Wild West Times, the easy money, cannot last forever. That's all for today. The hearings are probably still going on at this point. They were endless. As always, I've been Brian McCullough.

Follow me on Twitter at Brian MCC. The show subreddit is R slash Ride Home. And if you want to buy a podcast Classified ad, go to ridehome.info forward slash classifieds. By the way, here comes a classified from a fellow listener right now. There is a movement percolating all across the country. Cities all over America are embracing their unique strengths and building their own startup communities. But these stories are rarely being told.

That's where Upside comes in. Upside is a podcast about startup investing outside of Silicon Valley. Over the last two years, Upside has spoken with more than 100 founders, investors, and community builders in cities including Tulsa, Memphis, Madison, and Jackson, and Jackson. and hole. On each episode of Upside, you'll learn about what makes communities, founders, and their businesses special. You may hear about the booming insurance scene in Columbus, how Memphis is leading in logistics, or the resurgence in Kansas City. Whether you're an investor, startup founder, employee, or someone living in the valley and looking to make a change, tune in to Upside by visiting upside.fm forward slash subscribe or by searching Upside in your preferred podcast player.