Artificial Intelligence

copyright-office-suggests-ai-copyright-debate-was-settled-in-1965

Copyright Office suggests AI copyright debate was settled in 1965


Most people think purely AI-generated works shouldn’t be copyrighted, report says.

Ars used Copilot to generate this AI image using the precise prompt the Copyright Office used to determine that prompting alone isn’t authorship. Credit: AI image generated by Copilot

The US Copyright Office issued AI guidance this week that declared no laws need to be clarified when it comes to protecting authorship rights of humans producing AI-assisted works.

“Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change,” the Copyright Office said.

More than 10,000 commenters weighed in on the guidance, with some hoping to convince the Copyright Office to guarantee more protections for artists as AI technologies advance and the line between human- and AI-created works seems to increasingly blur.

But the Copyright Office insisted that the AI copyright debate was settled in 1965 after commercial computer technology started advancing quickly and “difficult questions of authorship” were first raised. That was the first time officials had to ponder how much involvement human creators had in works created using computers.

Back then, the Register of Copyrights, Abraham Kaminstein—who was also instrumental in codifying fair use—suggested that “there is no one-size-fits-all answer” to copyright questions about computer-assisted human authorship. And the Copyright Office agrees that’s still the case today.

“Very few bright-line rules are possible,” the Copyright Office said, with one obvious exception. Because of “insufficient human control over the expressive elements” of resulting works, “if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.”

The office further clarified that doesn’t mean that works assisted by AI can never be copyrighted.

“Where AI merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output,” the Copyright Office said.

Following Kaminstein’s advice, officials plan to continue reviewing AI disclosures and weighing, on a case-by-case basis, what parts of each work are AI-authored and which parts are human-authored. Any human-authored expressive element can be copyrighted, the office said, but any aspect of the work deemed to have been generated purely by AI cannot.

Prompting alone isn’t authorship, Copyright Office says

After doing some testing on whether the same exact prompt can generate widely varied outputs, even from the same AI tool, the Copyright Office further concluded that “prompts do not alone provide sufficient control” over outputs to allow creators to copyright purely AI-generated works based on highly intelligent or creative prompting.

That decision could change, the Copyright Office said, if AI technologies provide more human control over outputs through prompting.

New guidance noted, for example, that some AI tools allow prompts or other inputs “to be substantially retained as part of the output.” Consider an artist uploading an original drawing, the Copyright Office suggested, and prompting AI to modify colors, or an author uploading an original piece and using AI to translate it. And “other generative AI systems also offer tools that similarly allow users to exert control over the selection, arrangement, and content of the final output.”

The Copyright Office drafted this prompt to test artists’ control over expressive inputs that are retained in AI outputs. Credit: Copyright Office

“Where a human inputs their own copyrightable work and that work is perceptible in the output, they will be the author of at least that portion of the output,” the guidelines said.

But if officials conclude that even the most iterative prompting doesn’t perfectly control the resulting outputs—even slowly, repeatedly prompting AI to produce the exact vision in an artist’s head—some artists are sure to be disappointed. One artist behind a controversial prize-winning AI-generated artwork has staunchly defended his rigorous AI prompting as authorship.

However, if “even expert researchers are limited in their ability to understand or predict the behavior of specific models,” the Copyright Office said it struggled to see how artists could. To further prove their point, officials drafted a lengthy, quirky prompt about a cat reading a Sunday newspaper to compare different outputs from the same AI image generator.

Copyright Office drafted a quirky, lengthy prompt to test creative control over AI outputs. Credit: Copyright Office

Officials apparently agreed with Adobe, which submitted a comment advising the Copyright Office that any output is “based solely on the AI’s interpretation of that prompt.” Academics further warned that copyrighting outputs based only on prompting could lead copyright law to “effectively vest” authorship adopters with “rights in ideas.”

“The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectable ideas,” the guidance said. “While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output.”

Hundreds of AI artworks are copyrighted, officials say

The Copyright Office repeatedly emphasized that most commenters agreed with the majority of their conclusions. Officials also stressed that hundreds of AI artworks submitted for registration, under existing law, have been approved to copyright the human-authored elements of their works. Rejections are apparently expected to be less common.

“In most cases,” the Copyright Office said, “humans will be involved in the creation process, and the work will be copyrightable to the extent that their contributions qualify as authorship.”

For stakeholders who have been awaiting this guidance for months, the Copyright Office report may not change the law, but it offers some clarity.

For some artists who hoped to push the Copyright Office to adapt laws, the guidelines may disappoint, leaving many questions about a world of possible creative AI uses unanswered. But while a case-by-case approach may leave some artists unsure about which parts of their works are copyrightable, seemingly common cases are being resolved more readily. According to the Copyright Office, after each decision, it gets easier to register AI works that meet similar standards for copyrightability. Perhaps over time, artists will grow more secure in how they use AI and whether it will impact their exclusive rights to distribute works.

That’s likely cold comfort for the artist advocating for prompting alone to constitute authorship. One AI artist told Ars in October that being denied a copyright has meant suffering being mocked and watching his award-winning work freely used anywhere online without his permission and without payment. But in the end, the Copyright Office was apparently more sympathetic to other commenters who warned that humanity’s progress in the arts could be hampered if a flood of easily generated, copyrightable AI works drowned too many humans out of the market.

“We share the concerns expressed about the impact of AI-generated material on human authors and the value that their creative expression provides to society. If a flood of easily and rapidly AI-generated content drowns out human-authored works in the marketplace, additional legal protection would undermine rather than advance the goals of the copyright system. The availability of vastly more works to choose from could actually make it harder to find inspiring or enlightening content.”

New guidance likely a big yawn for AI companies

For AI companies, the copyright guidance may mean very little. According to AI company Hugging Face’s comments to the Copyright Office, no changes in the law were needed to ensure the US continued leading in AI innovation, because “very little to no innovation in generative AI is driven by the hope of obtaining copyright protection for model outputs.”

Hugging Face’s Head of ML & Society, Yacine Jernite, told Ars that the Copyright Office seemed to “take a constructive approach” to answering some of artists’ biggest questions about AI.

“We believe AI should support, not replace, artists,” Jernite told Ars. “For that to happen, the value of creative work must remain in its human contribution, regardless of the tools used.”

Although the Copyright Office suggested that this week’s report might be the most highly anticipated, Jernite said that Hugging Face is eager to see the next report, which officials said would focus on “the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.”

“As a platform that supports broader participation in AI, we see more value in distributing its benefits than in concentrating all control with a few large model providers,” Jernite said. “We’re looking forward to the next part of the Copyright Office’s Report, particularly on training data, licensing, and liability, key questions especially for some types of output, like code.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Copyright Office suggests AI copyright debate was settled in 1965 Read More »

openai-teases-“new-era”-of-ai-in-us,-deepens-ties-with-government

OpenAI teases “new era” of AI in US, deepens ties with government

On Thursday, OpenAI announced that it is deepening its ties with the US government through a partnership with the National Laboratories and expects to use AI to “supercharge” research across a wide range of fields to better serve the public.

“This is the beginning of a new era, where AI will advance science, strengthen national security, and support US government initiatives,” OpenAI said.

The deal ensures that “approximately 15,000 scientists working across a wide range of disciplines to advance our understanding of nature and the universe” will have access to OpenAI’s latest reasoning models, the announcement said.

For researchers from Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Labs, access to “o1 or another o-series model” will be available on Venado—an Nvidia supercomputer at Los Alamos that will become a “shared resource.” Microsoft will help deploy the model, OpenAI noted.

OpenAI suggested this access could propel major “breakthroughs in materials science, renewable energy, astrophysics,” and other areas that Venado was “specifically designed” to advance.

Key areas of focus for Venado’s deployment of OpenAI’s model include accelerating US global tech leadership, finding ways to treat and prevent disease, strengthening cybersecurity, protecting the US power grid, detecting natural and man-made threats “before they emerge,” and ” deepening our understanding of the forces that govern the universe,” OpenAI said.

Perhaps among OpenAI’s flashiest promises for the partnership, though, is helping the US achieve a “a new era of US energy leadership by unlocking the full potential of natural resources and revolutionizing the nation’s energy infrastructure.” That is urgently needed, as officials have warned that America’s aging energy infrastructure is becoming increasingly unstable, threatening the country’s health and welfare, and without efforts to stabilize it, the US economy could tank.

But possibly the most “highly consequential” government use case for OpenAI’s models will be supercharging research safeguarding national security, OpenAI indicated.

OpenAI teases “new era” of AI in US, deepens ties with government Read More »

ai-haters-build-tarpits-to-trap-and-trick-ai-scrapers-that-ignore-robots.txt

AI haters build tarpits to trap and trick AI scrapers that ignore robots.txt


Making AI crawlers squirm

Attackers explain how an anti-spam defense became an AI weapon.

Last summer, Anthropic inspired backlash when its ClaudeBot AI crawler was accused of hammering websites a million or more times a day.

And it wasn’t the only artificial intelligence company making headlines for supposedly ignoring instructions in robots.txt files to avoid scraping web content on certain sites. Around the same time, Reddit’s CEO called out all AI companies whose crawlers he said were “a pain in the ass to block,” despite the tech industry otherwise agreeing to respect “no scraping” robots.txt rules.

Watching the controversy unfold was a software developer whom Ars has granted anonymity to discuss his development of malware (we’ll call him Aaron). Shortly after he noticed Facebook’s crawler exceeding 30 million hits on his site, Aaron began plotting a new kind of attack on crawlers “clobbering” websites that he told Ars he hoped would give “teeth” to robots.txt.

Building on an anti-spam cybersecurity tactic known as tarpitting, he created Nepenthes, malicious software named after a carnivorous plant that will “eat just about anything that finds its way inside.”

Aaron clearly warns users that Nepenthes is aggressive malware. It’s not to be deployed by site owners uncomfortable with trapping AI crawlers and sending them down an “infinite maze” of static files with no exit links, where they “get stuck” and “thrash around” for months, he tells users. Once trapped, the crawlers can be fed gibberish data, aka Markov babble, which is designed to poison AI models. That’s likely an appealing bonus feature for any site owners who, like Aaron, are fed up with paying for AI scraping and just want to watch AI burn.

Tarpits were originally designed to waste spammers’ time and resources, but creators like Aaron have now evolved the tactic into an anti-AI weapon. As of this writing, Aaron confirmed that Nepenthes can effectively trap all the major web crawlers. So far, only OpenAI’s crawler has managed to escape.

It’s unclear how much damage tarpits or other AI attacks can ultimately do. Last May, Laxmi Korada, Microsoft’s director of partner technology, published a report detailing how leading AI companies were coping with poisoning, one of the earliest AI defense tactics deployed. He noted that all companies have developed poisoning countermeasures, while OpenAI “has been quite vigilant” and excels at detecting the “first signs of data poisoning attempts.”

Despite these efforts, he concluded that data poisoning was “a serious threat to machine learning models.” And in 2025, tarpitting represents a new threat, potentially increasing the costs of fresh data at a moment when AI companies are heavily investing and competing to innovate quickly while rarely turning significant profits.

“A link to a Nepenthes location from your site will flood out valid URLs within your site’s domain name, making it unlikely the crawler will access real content,” a Nepenthes explainer reads.

The only AI company that responded to Ars’ request to comment was OpenAI, whose spokesperson confirmed that OpenAI is already working on a way to fight tarpitting.

“We’re aware of efforts to disrupt AI web crawlers,” OpenAI’s spokesperson said. “We design our systems to be resilient while respecting robots.txt and standard web practices.”

But to Aaron, the fight is not about winning. Instead, it’s about resisting the AI industry further decaying the Internet with tech that no one asked for, like chatbots that replace customer service agents or the rise of inaccurate AI search summaries. By releasing Nepenthes, he hopes to do as much damage as possible, perhaps spiking companies’ AI training costs, dragging out training efforts, or even accelerating model collapse, with tarpits helping to delay the next wave of enshittification.

“Ultimately, it’s like the Internet that I grew up on and loved is long gone,” Aaron told Ars. “I’m just fed up, and you know what? Let’s fight back, even if it’s not successful. Be indigestible. Grow spikes.”

Nepenthes instantly inspires another tarpit

Nepenthes was released in mid-January but was instantly popularized beyond Aaron’s expectations after tech journalist Cory Doctorow boosted a tech commentator, Jürgen Geuter, praising the novel AI attack method on Mastodon. Very quickly, Aaron was shocked to see engagement with Nepenthes skyrocket.

“That’s when I realized, ‘oh this is going to be something,'” Aaron told Ars. “I’m kind of shocked by how much it’s blown up.”

It’s hard to tell how widely Nepenthes has been deployed. Site owners are discouraged from flagging when the malware has been deployed, forcing crawlers to face unknown “consequences” if they ignore robots.txt instructions.

Aaron told Ars that while “a handful” of site owners have reached out and “most people are being quiet about it,” his web server logs indicate that people are already deploying the tool. Likely, site owners want to protect their content, deter scraping, or mess with AI companies.

When software developer and hacker Gergely Nagy, who goes by the handle “algernon” online, saw Nepenthes, he was delighted. At that time, Nagy told Ars that nearly all of his server’s bandwidth was being “eaten” by AI crawlers.

Already blocking scraping and attempting to poison AI models through a simpler method, Nagy took his defense method further and created his own tarpit, Iocaine. He told Ars the tarpit immediately killed off about 94 percent of bot traffic to his site, which was primarily from AI crawlers. Soon, social media discussion drove users to inquire about Iocaine deployment, including not just individuals but also organizations wanting to take stronger steps to block scraping.

Iocaine takes ideas (not code) from Nepenthes, but it’s more intent on using the tarpit to poison AI models. Nagy used a reverse proxy to trap crawlers in an “infinite maze of garbage” in an attempt to slowly poison their data collection as much as possible for daring to ignore robots.txt.

Taking its name from “one of the deadliest poisons known to man” from The Princess Bride, Iocaine is jokingly depicted as the “deadliest poison known to AI.” While there’s no way of validating that claim, Nagy’s motto is that the more poisoning attacks that are out there, “the merrier.” He told Ars that his primary reasons for building Iocaine were to help rights holders wall off valuable content and stop AI crawlers from crawling with abandon.

Tarpits aren’t perfect weapons against AI

Running malware like Nepenthes can burden servers, too. Aaron likened the cost of running Nepenthes to running a cheap virtual machine on a Raspberry Pi, and Nagy said that serving crawlers Iocaine costs about the same as serving his website.

But Aaron told Ars that Nepenthes wasting resources is the chief objection he’s seen preventing its deployment. Critics fear that deploying Nepenthes widely will not only burden their servers but also increase the costs of powering all that AI crawling for nothing.

“That seems to be what they’re worried about more than anything,” Aaron told Ars. “The amount of power that AI models require is already astronomical, and I’m making it worse. And my view of that is, OK, so if I do nothing, AI models, they boil the planet. If I switch this on, they boil the planet. How is that my fault?”

Aaron also defends against this criticism by suggesting that a broader impact could slow down AI investment enough to possibly curb some of that energy consumption. Perhaps due to the resistance, AI companies will be pushed to seek permission first to scrape or agree to pay more content creators for training on their data.

“Any time one of these crawlers pulls from my tarpit, it’s resources they’ve consumed and will have to pay hard cash for, but, being bullshit, the money [they] have spent to get it won’t be paid back by revenue,” Aaron posted, explaining his tactic online. “It effectively raises their costs. And seeing how none of them have turned a profit yet, that’s a big problem for them. The investor money will not continue forever without the investors getting paid.”

Nagy agrees that the more anti-AI attacks there are, the greater the potential is for them to have an impact. And by releasing Iocaine, Nagy showed that social media chatter about new attacks can inspire new tools within a few days. Marcus Butler, an independent software developer, similarly built his poisoning attack called Quixotic over a few days, he told Ars. Soon afterward, he received messages from others who built their own versions of his tool.

Butler is not in the camp of wanting to destroy AI. He told Ars that he doesn’t think “tools like Quixotic (or Nepenthes) will ‘burn AI to the ground.'” Instead, he takes a more measured stance, suggesting that “these tools provide a little protection (a very little protection) against scrapers taking content and, say, reposting it or using it for training purposes.”

But for a certain sect of Internet users, every little bit of protection seemingly helps. Geuter linked Ars to a list of tools bent on sabotaging AI. Ultimately, he expects that tools like Nepenthes are “probably not gonna be useful in the long run” because AI companies can likely detect and drop gibberish from training data. But Nepenthes represents a sea change, Geuter told Ars, providing a useful tool for people who “feel helpless” in the face of endless scraping and showing that “the story of there being no alternative or choice is false.”

Criticism of tarpits as AI weapons

Critics debating Nepenthes’ utility on Hacker News suggested that most AI crawlers could easily avoid tarpits like Nepenthes, with one commenter describing the attack as being “very crawler 101.” Aaron said that was his “favorite comment” because if tarpits are considered elementary attacks, he has “2 million lines of access log that show that Google didn’t graduate.”

But efforts to poison AI or waste AI resources don’t just mess with the tech industry. Governments globally are seeking to leverage AI to solve societal problems, and attacks on AI’s resilience seemingly threaten to disrupt that progress.

Nathan VanHoudnos is a senior AI security research scientist in the federally funded CERT Division of the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, which partners with academia, industry, law enforcement, and government to “improve the security and resilience of computer systems and networks.” He told Ars that new threats like tarpits seem to replicate a problem that AI companies are already well aware of: “that some of the stuff that you’re going to download from the Internet might not be good for you.”

“It sounds like these tarpit creators just mainly want to cause a little bit of trouble,” VanHoudnos said. “They want to make it a little harder for these folks to get” the “better or different” data “that they’re looking for.”

VanHoudnos co-authored a paper on “Counter AI” last August, pointing out that attackers like Aaron and Nagy are limited in how much they can mess with AI models. They may have “influence over what training data is collected but may not be able to control how the data are labeled, have access to the trained model, or have access to the Al system,” the paper said.

Further, AI companies are increasingly turning to the deep web for unique data, so any efforts to wall off valuable content with tarpits may be coming right when crawling on the surface web starts to slow, VanHoudnos suggested.

But according to VanHoudnos, AI crawlers are also “relatively cheap,” and companies may deprioritize fighting against new attacks on crawlers if “there are higher-priority assets” under attack. And tarpitting “does need to be taken seriously because it is a tool in a toolkit throughout the whole life cycle of these systems. There is no silver bullet, but this is an interesting tool in a toolkit,” he said.

Offering a choice to abstain from AI training

Aaron told Ars that he never intended Nepenthes to be a major project but that he occasionally puts in work to fix bugs or add new features. He said he’d consider working on integrations for real-time reactions to crawlers if there was enough demand.

Currently, Aaron predicts that Nepenthes might be most attractive to rights holders who want AI companies to pay to scrape their data. And many people seem enthusiastic about using it to reinforce robots.txt. But “some of the most exciting people are in the ‘let it burn’ category,” Aaron said. These people are drawn to tools like Nepenthes as an act of rebellion against AI making the Internet less useful and enjoyable for users.

Geuter told Ars that he considers Nepenthes “more of a sociopolitical statement than really a technological solution (because the problem it’s trying to address isn’t purely technical, it’s social, political, legal, and needs way bigger levers).”

To Geuter, a computer scientist who has been writing about the social, political, and structural impact of tech for two decades, AI is the “most aggressive” example of “technologies that are not done ‘for us’ but ‘to us.'”

“It feels a bit like the social contract that society and the tech sector/engineering have had (you build useful things, and we’re OK with you being well-off) has been canceled from one side,” Geuter said. “And that side now wants to have its toy eat the world. People feel threatened and want the threats to stop.”

As AI evolves, so do attacks, with one 2021 study showing that increasingly stronger data poisoning attacks, for example, were able to break data sanitization defenses. Whether these attacks can ever do meaningful destruction or not, Geuter sees tarpits as a “powerful symbol” of the resistance that Aaron and Nagy readily joined.

“It’s a great sign to see that people are challenging the notion that we all have to do AI now,” Geuter said. “Because we don’t. It’s a choice. A choice that mostly benefits monopolists.”

Tarpit creators like Nagy will likely be watching to see if poisoning attacks continue growing in sophistication. On the Iocaine site—which, yes, is protected from scraping by Iocaine—he posted this call to action: “Let’s make AI poisoning the norm. If we all do it, they won’t have anything to crawl.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

AI haters build tarpits to trap and trick AI scrapers that ignore robots.txt Read More »

trump’s-reported-plans-to-save-tiktok-may-violate-scotus-backed-law

Trump’s reported plans to save TikTok may violate SCOTUS-backed law


Everything insiders are saying about Trump’s plan to save TikTok.

It was apparently a busy weekend for key players involved in Donald Trump’s efforts to make a deal to save TikTok.

Perhaps the most appealing option for ByteDance could be if Trump blessed a merger between TikTok and Perplexity AI—a San Francisco-based AI search company worth about $9 billion that appears to view a TikTok video content acquisition as a path to compete with major players like Google and OpenAI.

On Sunday, Perplexity AI submitted a revised merger proposal to TikTok-owner ByteDance, reviewed by CNBC, which sources told AP News included feedback from the Trump administration.

If the plan is approved, Perplexity AI and TikTok US would be merged into a new entity. And once TikTok reaches an initial public offering of at least $300 billion, the US government could own up to 50 percent of that new company, CNBC reported. In the proposal, Perplexity AI suggested that a “fair price” would be “well north of $50 billion,” but the final price will likely depend on how many of TikTok’s existing investors decide to cash out following the merger.

ByteDance has maintained a strong resistance to selling off TikTok, especially a sale including its recommendation algorithm. Not only would this option allow ByteDance to maintain a minority stake in TikTok, but it also would leave TikTok’s recommendation algorithm under ByteDance’s control, CNBC reported. The deal would also “allow for most of ByteDance’s existing investors to retain their equity stakes,” CNBC reported.

But ByteDance may not like one potential part of the deal. An insider source told AP News that ByteDance would be required to allow “full US board control.”

According to AP News, US government ownership of a large stake in TikTok would include checks to ensure the app doesn’t become state controlled. The government’s potential stake would apparently not grant the US voting power or a seat on the merged company’s board.

A source familiar with Perplexity AI’s proposal confirmed to Ars that the reporting from CNBC and AP News is accurate.

Trump denied Oracle’s involvement in talks

Over the weekend, there was also a lot of speculation about Oracle’s involvement in negotiations. NPR reported that two sources with direct knowledge claimed that Trump was considering “tapping software company Oracle and a group of outside investors to effectively take control of the app’s global operations.”

That would be a seemingly bigger grab for the US than forcing ByteDance to divest only TikTok’s US operations.

“The goal is for Oracle to effectively monitor and provide oversight with what is going on with TikTok,” one source told NPR. “ByteDance wouldn’t completely go away, but it would minimize Chinese ownership.”

Oracle apparently met with the Trump administration on Friday and has another meeting scheduled this week to discuss Oracle buying a TikTok stake “in the tens of billions,” NPR reported.

But Trump has disputed that, saying this past weekend that he “never” spoke to Oracle about buying TikTok, AP News reported.

“Numerous people are talking to me. Very substantial people,” Trump said, confirming that he would only make a deal to save TikTok “if the United States benefits.”

All sources seemed to suggest that no deal was close to being finalized yet. Other potential Big Tech buyers include Microsoft or even possibly Elon Musk (can you imagine TikTok merged with X?). On Saturday, Trump suggested that he would likely announce his decision on TikTok’s future in the next 30 days.

Meanwhile, TikTok access has become spotty in the US. Google and Apple dropped TikTok from their app stores when the divest-or-ban law kicked in, partly because of the legal limbo threatening hundreds of billions in fines if Trump changes his mind about enforcement. That means ByteDance currently can’t push updates to US users, and anyone who offloads TikTok or purchases a new device can’t download the app in popular distribution channels.

“If we can save TikTok, I think it would be a good thing,” Trump said.

Could Trump’s plan violate divest-or-ban law?

The divest-or-ban law is formally called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. For months, TikTok was told in court that the law required either a sale of TikTok US operations or a US ban, but now ByteDance seems to believe there’s another option to keep TikTok in the US without forcing a sale.

It remains unclear if lawmakers will approve Trump’s plan if it doesn’t force a sale of TikTok. US Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who co-sponsored the law, issued a statement last week insisting that “ByteDance divesting remains the only real solution to protect our national security and guarantee Americans access to TikTok.”

Krishnamoorthi declined Ars’ request to comment on whether leaked details of Trump’s potential deal to save TikTok could potentially violate the divest-or-ban law. But debate will likely turn on how the law defines “qualified divestiture.”

Under the law, qualified divestiture could be either a “divestiture or similar transaction” that meets two conditions. First, the transaction is one that Trump “determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” Second, the deal blocks any foreign adversary-controlled entity or affiliate from interfering in TikTok US operations, “including any cooperation” with foreign adversaries “with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.”

That last bit seems to suggest that lawmakers might clash with Trump over ByteDance controlling TikTok’s algorithm, even if a company like Oracle or Perplexity serves as a gatekeeper to Americans’ data safeguarding US national security interests.

Experts told NPR that ByteDance could feasibly maintain a minority stake in TikTok US under the law, with Trump seeming to have “wide latitude to interpret” what is or is not a qualified divestiture. One congressional staffer told NPR that lawmakers might be won over if the Trump administration secured binding legal agreements “ensuring ByteDance cannot covertly manipulate the app.”

The US has tried to strike just such a national security agreement with ByteDance before, though, and it ended in lawmakers passing the divest-or-ban law. During the government’s court battle with TikTok over the law, the government repeatedly argued that prior agreement—also known as “Project Texas,” which ensured TikTok’s US recommendation engine was stored in the Oracle cloud and deployed in the US by a TikTok US subsidiary—was not enough to block Chinese influence. Proposed in 2022, the agreement was abruptly ended in 2023 when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) determined only divestiture would resolve US concerns.

CFIUS did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

The key problem at that point was ByteDance maintaining control of the algorithm, the government successfully argued in a case that ended in a Supreme Court victory.

“Even under TikTok’s proposed national security agreement, the source code for the recommendation engine would originate in China,” the government warned.

That seemingly leaves a vulnerability that any Trump deal allowing ByteDance to maintain control of the algorithm would likely have to reconcile.

“Under Chinese national-security laws, the Chinese government can require a China-based company to ‘surrender all its data,'” the US argued. That ultimately turned TikTok into “an espionage tool” for the Chinese Communist Party.

There’s no telling yet if Trump’s plan can set up a better version of Project Texas or convince China to sign off on a TikTok sale. Analysts have suggested that China may agree to a TikTok sale if Trump backs down on tariff threats.

ByteDance did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Trump’s reported plans to save TikTok may violate SCOTUS-backed law Read More »

couple-allegedly-tricked-ai-investors-into-funding-wedding,-houses

Couple allegedly tricked AI investors into funding wedding, houses

To further the alleged scheme, he “often described non-existent revenue, inflated cash balances,” and “otherwise exaggerated customer relationships,” the US Attorney’s Office said, to convince investors to spend millions. As Beckman’s accomplice, Lau allegedly manipulated documents, including documents allegedly stolen from the venture capital firm that employed her while supposedly hiding her work for GameOn.

The scheme apparently also included forging audits and bank statements, as well as using “the names of at least seven real people—including fake emails and signatures—without their permission to distribute false and fraudulent GameOn financial and business information and documents with the intent to defraud GameOn and its investors,” the US Attorney’s Office said.

At perhaps the furthest extreme, Lau allegedly falsified account statements, including once faking a balance of over $13 million when that account only had $25 in it. The FBI found that GameOn’s revenues never exceeded $1 million in any year, while Beckman allegedly inflated sales to investors, including claiming that sales in one quarter in 2023 got as high as $72 million.

Beckman and Lau allegedly went to great lengths to hide the scheme while diverting investor funds to their personal accounts. While GameOn employees allegedly sometimes went without paychecks, Beckman and Lau allegedly stole funds to buy expensive San Francisco real estate and pay for their wedding in 2023. If convicted, they may be forced to forfeit a $4.2 million house, a Tesla Model X, and other real estate and property purchased with their allegedly ill-gotten gains, the indictment said.

It took about five years for the cracks to begin to show in Beckman’s scheme. Beginning in 2023, Beckman increasingly started facing “questions about specific customers and specific revenue from those customers,” the indictment said. By February 2024, Beckman at last “acknowledged to at least one GameOn consultant” that a flagged audit report “did not contain accurate financial information,” but allegedly, he “attempted to shift blame to others for the inaccuracies.”

Couple allegedly tricked AI investors into funding wedding, houses Read More »

microsoft-sues-service-for-creating-illicit-content-with-its-ai-platform

Microsoft sues service for creating illicit content with its AI platform

Microsoft and others forbid using their generative AI systems to create various content. Content that is off limits includes materials that feature or promote sexual exploitation or abuse, is erotic or pornographic, or attacks, denigrates, or excludes people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability status, or similar traits. It also doesn’t allow the creation of content containing threats, intimidation, promotion of physical harm, or other abusive behavior.

Besides expressly banning such usage of its platform, Microsoft has also developed guardrails that inspect both prompts inputted by users and the resulting output for signs the content requested violates any of these terms. These code-based restrictions have been repeatedly bypassed in recent years through hacks, some benign and performed by researchers and others by malicious threat actors.

Microsoft didn’t outline precisely how the defendants’ software was allegedly designed to bypass the guardrails the company had created.

Masada wrote:

Microsoft’s AI services deploy strong safety measures, including built-in safety mitigations at the AI model, platform, and application levels. As alleged in our court filings unsealed today, Microsoft has observed a foreign-based threat–actor group develop sophisticated software that exploited exposed customer credentials scraped from public websites. In doing so, they sought to identify and unlawfully access accounts with certain generative AI services and purposely alter the capabilities of those services. Cybercriminals then used these services and resold access to other malicious actors with detailed instructions on how to use these custom tools to generate harmful and illicit content. Upon discovery, Microsoft revoked cybercriminal access, put in place countermeasures, and enhanced its safeguards to further block such malicious activity in the future.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants’ service violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and constitutes wire fraud, access device fraud, common law trespass, and tortious interference. The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in “any activity herein.”

Microsoft sues service for creating illicit content with its AI platform Read More »

tech-worker-movements-grow-as-threats-of-rto,-ai-loom

Tech worker movements grow as threats of RTO, AI loom


Advocates say tech workers movements got too big to ignore in 2024.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

It feels like tech workers have caught very few breaks over the past several years, between ongoing mass layoffs, stagnating wages amid inflation, AI supposedly coming for jobs, and unpopular orders to return to office that, for many, threaten to disrupt work-life balance.

But in 2024, a potentially critical mass of tech workers seemed to reach a breaking point. As labor rights groups advocating for tech workers told Ars, these workers are banding together in sustained strong numbers and are either winning or appear tantalizingly close to winning better worker conditions at major tech companies, including Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

In February, the industry-wide Tech Workers Coalition (TWC) noted that “the tech workers movement is far more expansive and impactful” than even labor rights advocates realized, noting that unionized tech workers have gone beyond early stories about Googlers marching in the streets and now “make the headlines on a daily basis.”

Ike McCreery, a TWC volunteer and ex-Googler who helped found the Alphabet Workers Union, told Ars that although “it’s hard to gauge numerically” how much movements have grown, “our sense is definitely that the momentum continues to build.”

“It’s been an exciting year,” McCreery told Ars, while expressing particular enthusiasm that even “highly compensated tech workers are really seeing themselves more as workers” in these fights—which TWC “has been pushing for a long time.”

In 2024, TWC broadened efforts to help workers organize industry-wide, helping everyone from gig workers to project managers build both union and non-union efforts to push for change in the workplace.

Such widespread organizing “would have been unthinkable only five years ago,” TWC noted in February, and it’s clear from some of 2024’s biggest wins that some movements are making gains that could further propel that momentum in 2025.

Workers could also gain the upper hand if unpopular policies increase what one November study called “brain drain.” That’s a trend where tech companies adopting potentially alienating workplace tactics risk losing top talent at a time when key industries like AI and cybersecurity are facing severe talent shortages.

Advocates told Ars that unpopular policies have always fueled workers movements, and RTO and AI are just the latest adding fuel to the fire. As many workers prepare to head back to offices in 2025 where worker surveillance is only expected to intensify, they told Ars why they expect to see workers’ momentum continue at some of the world’s biggest tech firms.

Tech worker movements growing

In August, Apple ratified a labor contract at America’s first unionized Apple Store—agreeing to a modest increase in wages, about 10 percent over three years. While small, that win came just a few weeks before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that Amazon was a joint employer of unionized contract-based delivery drivers. And Google lost a similar fight last January when the NLRB ruled it must bargain with a union representing YouTube Music contract workers, Reuters reported.

For many workers, joining these movements helped raise wages. In September, facing mounting pressure, Amazon raised warehouse worker wages—investing $2.2 billion, its “biggest investment yet,” to broadly raise base salaries for workers. And more recently, Amazon was hit with a strike during the busy holiday season, as warehouse workers hoped to further hobble the company during a clutch financial quarter to force more bargaining. (Last year, Amazon posted record-breaking $170 billion holiday quarter revenues and has said the current strike won’t hurt revenues.)

Even typically union-friendly Microsoft drew worker backlash and criticism in 2024 following layoffs of 650 video game workers in September.

These mass layoffs are driving some workers to join movements. A senior director for organizing with Communications Workers of America (CWA), Tom Smith, told Ars that shortly after the 600-member Tech Guild—”the largest single certified group of tech workers” to organize at the New York Times—reached a tentative deal to increase wages “up to 8.25 percent over the length of the contract,” about “460 software engineers at a video game company owned by Microsoft successfully unionized.”

Smith told Ars that while workers for years have pushed for better conditions, “these large units of tech workers achieving formal recognition, building lasting organization, and winning contracts” at “a more mass scale” are maturing, following in the footsteps of unionizing Googlers and today influencing a broader swath of tech industry workers nationwide. From CWA’s viewpoint, workers in the video game industry seem best positioned to seek major wins next, Smith suggested, likely starting with Microsoft-owned companies and eventually affecting indie game companies.

CWA, TWC, and Tech Workers Union 1010 (a group run by tech workers that’s part of the Office and Professional Employees International Union) all now serve as dedicated groups supporting workers movements long-term, and that stability has helped these movements mature, McCreery told Ars. Each group plans to continue meeting workers where they are to support and help expand organizing in 2025.

Cost of RTOs may be significant, researchers warn

While layoffs likely remain the most extreme threat to tech workers broadly, a return-to-office (RTO) mandate can be just as jarring for remote tech workers who are either unable to comply or else unwilling to give up the better work-life balance that comes with no commute. Advocates told Ars that RTO policies have pushed workers to join movements, while limited research suggests that companies risk losing top talents by implementing RTO policies.

In perhaps the biggest example from 2024, when Amazon announced that it was requiring workers in-office five days a week next year, a poll on the anonymous platform where workers discuss employers, Blind, found an overwhelming majority of more than 2,000 Amazon employees were “dissatisfied.”

“My morale for this job is gone…” one worker said on Blind.

Workers criticized the “non-data-driven logic” of the RTO mandate, prompting an Amazon executive to remind them that they could take their talents elsewhere if they didn’t like it. Many confirmed that’s exactly what they planned to do. (Amazon later announced it would be delaying RTO for many office workers after belatedly realizing there was a lack of office space.)

Other companies mandating RTO faced similar backlash from workers, who continued to question the logic driving the decision. One February study showed that RTO mandates don’t make companies any more valuable but do make workers more miserable. And last month, Brian Elliott, an executive advisor who wrote a book about the benefits of flexible teams, noted that only one in three executives thinks RTO had “even a slight positive impact on productivity.”

But not every company drew a hard line the way that Amazon did. For example, Dell gave workers a choice to remain remote and accept they can never be eligible for promotions, or mark themselves as hybrid. Workers who refused the RTO said they valued their free time and admitted to looking for other job opportunities.

Very few studies have been done analyzing the true costs and benefits of RTO, a November academic study titled “Return to Office and Brain Drain” said, and so far companies aren’t necessarily backing the limited findings. The researchers behind that study noted that “the only existing study” measuring how RTO impacts employee turnover showed this year that senior employees left for other companies after Microsoft’s RTO mandate, but Microsoft disputed that finding.

Seeking to build on this research, the November study tracked “over 3 million tech and finance workers’ employment histories reported on LinkedIn” and analyzed “the effect of S&P 500 firms’ return-to-office (RTO) mandates on employee turnover and hiring.”

Choosing to only analyze the firms requiring five days in office, the final sample covered 54 RTO firms, including big tech companies like Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. From that sample, researchers concluded that average employee turnover increased by 14 percent after RTO mandates at bigger firms. And since big firms typically have lower turnover, the increase in turnover is likely larger at smaller firms, the study’s authors concluded.

The study also supported the conclusion that “employees with the highest skill level are more likely to leave” and found that “RTO firms take significantly longer time to fill their job vacancies after RTO mandates.”

“Together, our evidence suggests that RTO mandates are costly to firms and have serious negative effects on the workforce,” the study concluded, echoing some remote workers’ complaints about the seemingly non-data-driven logic of RTO, while urging that further research is needed.

“These turnovers could potentially have short-term and long-term effects on operation, innovation, employee morale, and organizational culture,” the study concluded.

A co-author of the “brain drain” study, Mark Ma, told Ars that by contrast, Glassdoor going fully remote at least anecdotally seemed to “significantly” increase the number and quality of applications—possibly also improving retention by offering the remote flexibility that many top talents today require.

Ma said that next his team hopes to track where people who leave firms over RTO policies go next.

“Do they become self-employed, or do they go to a competitor, or do they fund their own firm?” Ma speculated, hoping to trace these patterns more definitively over the next several years.

Additionally, Ma plans to investigate individual firms’ RTO impacts, as well as impacts on niche classes of workers with highly sought-after skills—such as in areas like AI, machine learning, or cybersecurity—to see if it’s easier for them to find other jobs. In the long-term, Ma also wants to monitor for potentially less-foreseeable outcomes, such as RTO mandates possibly increasing firms’ number of challengers in their industry.

Will RTO mandates continue in 2025?

Many tech workers may be wondering if there will be a spike in return-to-office mandates in 2025, especially since one of the most politically influential figures in tech, Elon Musk, recently reiterated that he thinks remote work is “poison.”

Musk, of course, banned remote work at Tesla, as well as when he took over Twitter. And as co-lead of the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk reportedly plans to ban remote work for government employees, as well. If other tech firms are influenced by Musk’s moves and join executives who seem to be mandating RTO based on intuition, it’s possible that more tech workers could be forced to return to office or else seek other employment.

But Ma told Ars that he doesn’t expect to see “a big spike in the number of firms announcing return to office mandates” in 2025.

His team only found eight major firms in tech and finance that issued five-day return-to-office mandates in 2024, which was the same number of firms flagged in 2023, suggesting no major increase in RTOs from year to year. Ma told Ars that while big firms like Amazon ordering employees to return to the office made headlines, many firms seem to be continuing to embrace hybrid models, sometimes allowing employees to choose when or if they come into the office.

That seeming preference for hybrid work models seems to align with “future of work” surveys outlining workplace trends and employee preferences that the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) conducted for years but has seemingly since discontinued. In 2021, CTA reported that “89 percent of tech executives say flexible work arrangements are the most important employee benefit and 65 percent say they’ll hire more employees to work remotely.” The next year, which apparently was the last time CTA published the survey, the CTA suggested hybrid models could help attract talents in a competitive market hit with “an unprecedented demand for workers with high-tech skills.”

The CTA did not respond to Ars’ requests to comment on whether it expects hybrid work arrangements to remain preferred over five-day return-to-office policies next year.

CWA’s Smith told Ars that workers movements are growing partly because “folks are engaged in this big fight around surveillance and workplace control,” as well as anything “having to do with to what extent will people return to offices and what does that look like if and when people do return to offices?”

Without data backing RTO mandates, Ma’s study suggests that firms will struggle to retain highly skilled workers at a time when tech innovation remains a top priority for the US. As workers appear increasingly put off by policies—like RTO or AI-driven workplace monitoring or efficiency efforts threatening to replace workers with AI—Smith’s experience seems to show that disgruntled workers could find themselves drawn to unions that could help them claw back control over work-life balance. And the cost of the ensuing shuffle to some of the largest tech firms in the world could be “significant,” Ma’s study warned.

TWC’s McCreery told Ars that on top of unpopular RTO policies driving workers to join movements, workers have also become more active in protesting unpopular politics, frustrated to see their talents apparently used to further controversial conflicts and military efforts globally. Some workers think workplace organizing could be more powerful than voting to oppose political actions their companies take.

“The workplace really remains an important site of power for a lot of people where maybe they don’t feel like they can enact their values just by voting or in other ways,” McCreery said.

While unpopular policies “have always been a reason workers have joined unions and joined movements,” McCreery said that “the development of more of these unpopular policies” like RTO and AI-enhanced surveillance “really targeted” at workers has increased “the political consciousness and the sense” that tech workers are “just like any other workers.”

Layoffs at companies like Microsoft and Amazon during periods when revenue is increasing in the double-digits also unify workers, advocates told Ars. Forbes noted Microsoft laid off 1,000 workers “just five days before reporting a 17.6 percent increase in revenue to $62 billion,” while Amazon’s 1,000-worker layoffs followed a 14 percent rise in revenue to $170 billion. And demand for AI led to the highest profit margins Amazon’s seen for its cloud business in a decade, CNBC reported in October.

CWA’s Smith told Ars as companies continue to rake in profits and workers feel their work-life balance slipping away while their efforts in the office are potentially “used to increase control and cause broader suffering,” some of the biggest fights workers raised in 2024 may intensify next year.

“It’s like a shock to employees, these industries pushing people to lower your expectations because we’re going to lay off hundreds of thousands of you just because we can while we make more profits than we ever have,” Smith said. “I think workers are going to step into really broad campaigns to assert a different worldview on employment security.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Tech worker movements grow as threats of RTO, AI loom Read More »

openai-defends-for-profit-shift-as-critical-to-sustain-humanitarian-mission

OpenAI defends for-profit shift as critical to sustain humanitarian mission

OpenAI has finally shared details about its plans to shake up its core business by shifting to a for-profit corporate structure.

On Thursday, OpenAI posted on its blog, confirming that in 2025, the existing for-profit arm will be transformed into a Delaware-based public benefit corporation (PBC). As a PBC, OpenAI would be required to balance its shareholders’ and stakeholders’ interests with the public benefit. To achieve that, OpenAI would offer “ordinary shares of stock” while using some profits to further its mission—”ensuring artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity”—to serve a social good.

To compensate for losing control over the for-profit, the nonprofit would have some shares in the PBC, but it’s currently unclear how many will be allotted. Independent financial advisors will help OpenAI reach a “fair valuation,” the blog said, while promising the new structure would “multiply” the donations that previously supported the nonprofit.

“Our plan would result in one of the best resourced nonprofits in history,” OpenAI said. (During its latest funding round, OpenAI was valued at $157 billion.)

OpenAI claimed the nonprofit’s mission would be more sustainable under the proposed changes, as the costs of AI innovation only continue to compound. The new structure would set the PBC up to control OpenAI’s operations and business while the nonprofit would “hire a leadership team and staff to pursue charitable initiatives in sectors such as health care, education, and science,” OpenAI said.

Some of OpenAI’s rivals, such as Anthropic and Elon Musk’s xAI, use a similar corporate structure, OpenAI noted.

Critics had previously pushed back on this plan, arguing that humanity may be better served if the nonprofit continues controlling the for-profit arm of OpenAI. But OpenAI argued that the old way made it hard for the Board “to directly consider the interests of those who would finance the mission and does not enable the non-profit to easily do more than control the for-profit.

OpenAI defends for-profit shift as critical to sustain humanitarian mission Read More »

character.ai-steps-up-teen-safety-after-bots-allegedly-caused-suicide,-self-harm

Character.AI steps up teen safety after bots allegedly caused suicide, self-harm

Following a pair of lawsuits alleging that chatbots caused a teen boy’s suicide, groomed a 9-year-old girl, and caused a vulnerable teen to self-harm, Character.AI (C.AI) has announced a separate model just for teens, ages 13 and up, that’s supposed to make their experiences with bots safer.

In a blog, C.AI said it took a month to develop the teen model, with the goal of guiding the existing model “away from certain responses or interactions, reducing the likelihood of users encountering, or prompting the model to return, sensitive or suggestive content.”

C.AI said “evolving the model experience” to reduce the likelihood kids are engaging in harmful chats—including bots allegedly teaching a teen with high-functioning autism to self-harm and delivering inappropriate adult content to all kids whose families are suing—it had to tweak both model inputs and outputs.

To stop chatbots from initiating and responding to harmful dialogs, C.AI added classifiers that should help C.AI identify and filter out sensitive content from outputs. And to prevent kids from pushing bots to discuss sensitive topics, C.AI said that it had improved “detection, response, and intervention related to inputs from all users.” That ideally includes blocking any sensitive content from appearing in the chat.

Perhaps most significantly, C.AI will now link kids to resources if they try to discuss suicide or self-harm, which C.AI had not done previously, frustrating parents suing who argue this common practice for social media platforms should extend to chatbots.

Other teen safety features

In addition to creating the model just for teens, C.AI announced other safety features, including more robust parental controls rolling out early next year. Those controls would allow parents to track how much time kids are spending on C.AI and which bots they’re interacting with most frequently, the blog said.

C.AI will also be notifying teens when they’ve spent an hour on the platform, which could help prevent kids from becoming addicted to the app, as parents suing have alleged. In one case, parents had to lock their son’s iPad in a safe to keep him from using the app after bots allegedly repeatedly encouraged him to self-harm and even suggested murdering his parents. That teen has vowed to start using the app whenever he next has access, while parents fear the bots’ seeming influence may continue causing harm if he follows through on threats to run away.

Character.AI steps up teen safety after bots allegedly caused suicide, self-harm Read More »

report:-google-told-ftc-microsoft’s-openai-deal-is-killing-ai-competition

Report: Google told FTC Microsoft’s OpenAI deal is killing AI competition

Google reportedly wants the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to end Microsoft’s exclusive cloud deal with OpenAI that requires anyone wanting access to OpenAI’s models to go through Microsoft’s servers.

Someone “directly involved” in Google’s effort told The Information that Google’s request came after the FTC began broadly probing how Microsoft’s cloud computing business practices may be harming competition.

As part of the FTC’s investigation, the agency apparently asked Microsoft’s biggest rivals if the exclusive OpenAI deal was “preventing them from competing in the burgeoning artificial intelligence market,” multiple sources told The Information. Google reportedly was among those arguing that the deal harms competition by saddling rivals with extra costs and blocking them from hosting OpenAI’s latest models themselves.

In 2024 alone, Microsoft generated about $1 billion from reselling OpenAI’s large language models (LLMs), The Information reported, while rivals were stuck paying to train staff to move data to Microsoft servers if their customers wanted access to OpenAI technology. For one customer, Intuit, it cost millions monthly to access OpenAI models on Microsoft’s servers, The Information reported.

Microsoft benefits from the arrangement—which is not necessarily illegal—of increased revenue from reselling LLMs and renting out more cloud servers. It also takes a 20 percent cut of OpenAI’s revenue. Last year, OpenAI made approximately $3 billion selling its LLMs to customers like T-Mobile and Walmart, The Information reported.

Microsoft’s agreement with OpenAI could be viewed as anti-competitive if businesses convince the FTC that the costs of switching to Microsoft’s servers to access OpenAI technology is so burdensome that it’s unfairly disadvantaging rivals. It could also be considered harming the market and hampering innovation by seemingly disincentivizing Microsoft from competing with OpenAI in the market.

To avoid any disruption to the deal, however, Microsoft could simply point to AI models sold by Google and Amazon as proof of “robust competition,” The Information noted. The FTC may not buy that defense, though, since rivals’ AI models significantly fall behind OpenAI’s models in sales. Any perception that the AI market is being foreclosed by an entrenched major player could trigger intense scrutiny as the US seeks to become a world leader in AI technology development.

Report: Google told FTC Microsoft’s OpenAI deal is killing AI competition Read More »

recap:-our-“ai-in-dc”-conference-was-great—here’s-what-you-missed

Recap: Our “AI in DC” conference was great—here’s what you missed


Experts were assembled, tales told, and cocktails consumed. It was fun!

Photograph of the exterior of the International Spy Museum in DC

Our venue. So spy-ish! Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Our venue. So spy-ish! Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Ars Technica descended in force last week upon our nation’s capital, setting up shop in the International Spy Museum for a three-panel discussion on artificial intelligence, infrastructure, security, and how compliance with policy changes over the next decade or so might shape the future of business computing in all its forms. Much like our San Jose event last month, the venue was packed to the rafters with Ars readers eager for knowledge (and perhaps some free drinks, which is definitely why I was there!). A bit over 200 people were eventually herded into one of the conference spaces in the venue’s upper floors, and Ars Editor-in-Chief Ken Fisher hopped on stage to take us in.

“Today’s event about privacy, compliance, and making infrastructure smarter, I think, could not be more perfectly timed,” said Fisher. “I don’t know about your orgs, but I know Ars Technica and our parent company, Condé Nast, are currently thinking about generative AI and how it touches almost every aspect or could touch almost every aspect of our business.”

Photograph of a panel discussion

Ars EIC Ken Fisher takes the stage to kick things off.

Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Ars EIC Ken Fisher takes the stage to kick things off. Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Fisher continued: “I think the media talks about how [generative AI] is going to maybe write news and take over content, but the reality is that generative AI has a lot of potential to help us in finance, to help us with opex, to help us with planning—to help us with pretty much every aspect of our business and in our business. And from what I’m reading online, many folks are starting to have this dream that generative AI is going to lead them into a world where they can replace a lot of SaaS services where they can make a pivot to first-party data.”

First-party data and first-party software development, concluded Fisher, will be critically important when paired with generative AI—”table stakes,” Fisher called them, for participating in the future of business.

After Ken, it was on to our first panel!

“The Key to Compliance with Emerging Technologies”

Up first were Anton Dam, an engineering VP with Auditboard; John Verdi of the Future of Privacy Forum; and Jim Comstock, a cloud storage program director at IBM. The main concern of this panel was how companies will keep up with shifting compliance requirements as the pace of advancement continues to increase.

Each panelist had somewhat of a complementary take. AuditBoard’s Dam emphasized how quickly AI is shifting things around and pointed out the need for organizations to be proactive—to be mindful of regulatory changes before they happen and to have plans in place. “If you want to stay compliant,” Dam said, “you have to be proactive and not wait for, say, agency guidance.”

Photograph of panelists on a stage

Hutchinson, Comstock, Dam, and Verdi.

Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Hutchinson, Comstock, Dam, and Verdi. Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

FPF’s John Verdi dwelled for a bit on the challenge of doing just that and balancing innovation against the need to comply with regs. He noted that a “privacy by design” approach for products—where considerations about compliance are factored into something’s design from the very beginning rather than being treated as bolt-ons later—ultimately serves both the customer and the business.

Cross-border compliance also came up—with big cloud providers and data that perhaps resides in different countries, different laws apply. Making sure you’re doing what all of those laws say is hugely complex, and IBM’s Comstock pointed out that customers need to both work with vendors and also hold those vendors accountable for where one’s data resides.

“Data Security in the Age of AI-Assisted Cyber Espionage”

Next, we shifted to an infosec outlook, bringing on a four-person panel that included former Ars Technica senior security editor Sean Gallagher, who is currently keeping the world safe at Sophos X-Ops. Joining Sean were Kate Highnam, an ML engineer at Booz-Allen Hamilton; Dr. Scott White, director of cybersecurity at George Washington University; and Elisa Ortiz, a storage and product marketing director at IBM.

Photograph of panelists on a stage

Hutchinson, Ortiz, White, Highnam, and Gallagher.

Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Hutchinson, Ortiz, White, Highnam, and Gallagher. Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

For this panel, we wanted to look at the landscape around us, and Sean kicked the session off with a sobering description of the most profligate cyber threats as they currently exist today. “Pig butchering” was at the top of his list—that is, a shockingly common romance scam where victims are tricked into an emotional connection with a scammer, who then extorts them for money. (As Sean explained, the scammers themselves are often also victims, typically being trapped without their passports in foreign countries and forced to engage in scamming as their only hope to escape back home.) Scams like this increasingly use AI to work around language barriers—if a scammer who only speaks Cantonese targets a victim who only speaks German, for example, the scammers have begun using LLMs to carry on the scam, with LLMs providing not just basic translation but also native colloquialisms and other human-like linguistic tweaks to help sell the scheme.

Dr. Scott White of GWU took us from scams to national security, pointing out how AI can and is transforming intelligence gathering in addition to romance scams. Booz-Allen Hamilton’s Kate Highnam continued this line of discussion, walking us through several ways that machine learning helps with detecting cyber-espionage activities. As good as the tools are, she emphasized that—at least for the foreseeable future—there will continue to need to be a human in the loop when AI is used for detection of crimes. “AI is really good for generalizing our directions,” she said, “but at the end of the day, we have to make sure that we are very clear with our assumptions.”

IBM’s Ortiz closed out the panel by reminding us that threats don’t just come in through the proverbial front door—one of the areas where companies can have significant vulnerabilities is via their backups. As attackers increasingly target backups, Ortiz advocated broad use of predictive analytics and real-time anomaly detection in order to spy out any oddness attackers might be up to.

“The Best Infrastructure Solution for Your AI/ML Strategy”

Our final panel had a deceptively simple title and an impossible task, because there is no “best” infrastructure solution. But there might be a best infrastructure solution for you, and that’s what we wanted to look at. Joining me on stage were Daniel Fenton, head of AI platforms at JLL; Arun Natarajan, director of AI innovation at the IRS; Amy Hirst, VP of site reliability engineering and user experience at IBM; and Matt Klos, an IBM senior solutions architect.

Photograph of panelists on a stage

Fenton, Natarajan, Hirst, and Klos. (You can’t see me, but I’m just off-stage to the left.)

Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

Fenton, Natarajan, Hirst, and Klos. (You can’t see me, but I’m just off-stage to the left.) Credit: DC Event Photojournalism

It’s always fascinating to get to ask the IRS anything, and Natarajan gave insightful answers. He opened by contrasting the goals and challenges of the IRS’s IT strategy as a government service organization to the goals of a typical enterprise, and there are obvious significant differences. Fancy features don’t count as much as stability, security, and integration with legacy systems. AI is being looked at where appropriate, but what the IRS needs from AI more than anything else is transparency, and that can sometimes be lacking. “We’re challenged with ensuring ethical AI and transparency to the taxpayer, which requires a different approach than private sector solutions.”

Other panelists, like JLL’s Fenton, emphasized the use of open architecture to ensure flexibility; IBM’s Klos also noted that often, even the best laid plans of data center engineers gang aft agley due not to architecture issues or poor design but to actual physical infrastructure not being what was expected. “One of the biggest pitfalls I see is power,” he explained. “Customers assume it’s everywhere, but it’s often a limiting factor, especially in high-demand AI infrastructure.”

Amy Hirst pointed out that when building one’s own AI/ML setup, traditional performance metrics still apply—and they apply across multiple stacks, including both storage and networking. Her advice sounds somewhat traditional but holds absolutely true, even now. “You have to consider both latency and throughput,” she said. “Both are key to establishing your system’s needs for AI workloads.”

Drinks and everything thereafter

And with that, our panel discussions were done. The group dispersed, with some folks heading downstairs for a private tour of the museum’s Bond in Motion exhibit, which featured the various on-screen rides of 007. Then there was a convergence on the bar and about an hour of fun conversations.

Cocktail time! Did our photographer snag you in a picture? Comment below and say hi! DC Event Photojournalism

For me, the networking and socializing are always the best parts of events like this, and getting to shake hands and swap business cards with Ars readers is one of the most exciting and joyful parts of this job. A special thank you to everyone who stuck around for the cocktail hour and who got a chance to say hi—you’re special, and I’m glad you came to the event!

And if you’re reading this and you’re sad that you didn’t get to make it to any of our events this year, that’s OK—we’ll do more next year. Stay tuned to the front page because Ars might be coming to your town next!

Photo of Lee Hutchinson

Lee is the Senior Technology Editor, and oversees story development for the gadget, culture, IT, and video sections of Ars Technica. A long-time member of the Ars OpenForum with an extensive background in enterprise storage and security, he lives in Houston.

Recap: Our “AI in DC” conference was great—here’s what you missed Read More »

don’t-fall-for-ai-scams-cloning-cops’-voices,-police-warn

Don’t fall for AI scams cloning cops’ voices, police warn

AI is giving scammers a more convincing way to impersonate police, reports show.

Just last week, the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) warned of an email scam using AI to convincingly clone the voice of Police Chief Mike Brown.

A citizen tipped off cops after receiving a suspicious email that included a video showing the police chief claiming that they “owed the federal government nearly $100,000.”

To dupe their targets, the scammers cut together real footage from one of Brown’s prior TV interviews with AI-generated audio that SLCPD said “is clear and closely impersonates the voice of Chief Brown, which could lead community members to believe the message was legitimate.”

The FBI has warned for years of scammers attempting extortion by impersonating cops or government officials. But as AI voice-cloning technology has advanced, these scams could become much harder to detect, to the point where even the most forward-thinking companies like OpenAI have been hesitant to release the latest tech due to obvious concerns about potential abuse.

SLCPD noted that there were clues in the email impersonating their police chief that a tech-savvy citizen could have picked up on. A more careful listen reveals “the message had unnatural speech patterns, odd emphasis on certain words, and an inconsistent tone,” as well as “detectable acoustic edits from one sentence to the next.” And perhaps most glaringly, the scam email came from “a Google account and had the Salt Lake City Police Department’s name in it followed by a numeric number,” instead of from the police department’s official email domain of “slc.gov.”

SLCPD isn’t the only police department dealing with AI cop impersonators. Tulsa had a similar problem this summer when scammers started calling residents using a convincing fake voice designed to sound like Tulsa police officer Eric Spradlin, Public Radio Tulsa reported. A software developer who received the call, Myles David, said he understood the AI risks today but that even he was “caught off guard” and had to call police to verify the call wasn’t real.

Don’t fall for AI scams cloning cops’ voices, police warn Read More »