Lily Jamali

But the union said that they are worried that if Google were put in the same position as Anthropic has been, that they would actually capitulate.

And they wanted to have some clarity from Google as to what exactly its policy is.

We have contacted Google and have not heard back.

That's exactly right.

There are three other companies that have these $200 million contracts with the Pentagon, like what Anthropic had.

So that would be Elon Musk's XAI.

Google with its Gemini AI tool and OpenAI.

One of the analogies that's been used here is when the Pentagon goes out and buys a plane from Boeing, Boeing doesn't then get to say, here's how you can use the plane.

They're pretty much out of the game at that point once the plane changes hands.

What's different about this, why that analogy doesn't quite sit well with so many people in the AI context, is that this technology is evolving so quickly.

And we're talking about life and death decisions potentially.

So that's why there's been so much concern, especially from Anthropic, which has really positioned itself in the market as a safety first company.

That's what they're known for in Silicon Valley.

And this debate has actually been great from a public relations standpoint because it only bolsters that view of how they're regarded.

Olemme kuulleet aloittamista molempien puolueiden puolueiden puolueiden puolueiden puolueiden puolueiden puolueiden puolueiden

Ja siksi, että he tekevät tämän yksinkertaisesti, he ovat järjestäneitä. Tämä näkymätöntä ei ole kertonut Mettän tutkijat, jotka antoivat heidän aloituksensa. Olemme myös kuulleet paljon KGMin henkilöstä, hänen tarinaansa, hänen elämänsä. Kuulimme, että hänen tutkijan hän yrittää laittaa häneltä häneltä yllättävän avokaten.

While Mehta's lawyers really delved into her personal family history, the physical and emotional abuse that she allegedly suffered at the hands of her parents, saying that a lot of the mental health issues that she claims stemmed from social media use actually preexisted her interfacing with any of these platforms. Yeah, and a number of social media bosses will be appearing on the stand in court over the coming days.

That's correct. We expect to hear from Mark Zuckerberg, possibly by the middle of next week. He'll be here in Los Angeles to take the stand, and I think we'll probably hear echoes of what he told Congress a bit more than two years ago now, in January 2024, saying that there are no scientifically proven links between using social media and mental health issues. Also hear from Adam Masseri, probably this week, who is the head of Instagram,

And Neil Mohan, who is the head of YouTube, likely later in the month. And this case really does have wider implications.

It certainly does. This is a breakthrough for plaintiffs, because for a long time these companies have been able to hide behind a legal shield known as Section 230, this legal provision from 30 years ago, to say they're not responsible for what users post on their platforms. This case really looks at the issue of design choices made by the companies, how they configure their algorithms and other features to, in the argument of the plaintiffs, keep users, especially these young users, scrolling.