Jeff Bezos Met Gala; Sarah Paulson Protest Look; OpenAI Stalking Lawsuit; My Handbook App's Fake AI Black Woman Scam - NEWS ROUNDUP

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting? Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts, then add supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, iHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. Learn how podcasting can help your business. Call 844-844-IHEART. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at It podcast. 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam Jay and I'm Alex English each episode we pick a year unpack what went down and try to make sense of how we survived it with our friends fellow comedians and favorite authors like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s before it was a wild I mean it was a wild year it was a wild year I don't think there's a more important year for black people listen to Look Back At It on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts a win is a win a win is a win I don't care what y'all say yep That's me, Clifford Taylor IV. You might have seen the skits, my basketball and college football journey, or my career in sports media. Well, now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. So let's get to it. Listen to The Clifford Show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. There are no girls on the Internet as a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is there are no girls on the Internet. This is there are no girls on the Internet, a podcast where we cover tech, power and who gets left out. And this is our weekly news roundup where we dig into all the stories that you might have missed online this week so you don't have to. Okay, so you know this about me. I love a good AI-related rabbit hole. I should back up. I love a story where something is happening related to AI and people are trying to get to the bottom of it. I will dedicate my, I don't care what time it is, I'm going to get to, I will like throw away hours of my time. expanding comments, getting screenshots, checking out LinkedIn posts to get to the bottom of it. So this is like my personal Super Bowl when this kind of thing comes up. And we've got one. Can I tell you about it? Yeah, please. I saw you were pretty invested in something earlier. What is going on, Bridget? Okay, so this week, a post on Threads advertising a new book app for the reading community called My Handbook App was really popping off. This post showed a Black woman standing in what appeared to be the office of Penguin Random House. Like there's the wall behind her says Random House. It's meant to be a picture of a Black woman at Random House. The post from My Handbook app reads, Is this a safe space? My name is Miracle. I left Random House to build a sanctuary for book lovers like myself. I got tired of seeing our stories reduced to book talk and bookstagram hashtags, where algorithms decide what gets seen. So I built Handbook, a space where book lovers like us are centered, not filtered. I'm absolutely terrified because spaces like this are rarely built by Black women. But I'm building it anyway. Your support would mean the world. And a lot of folks really showed up. You know, I don't think I have to tell you from producing this podcast that if there's one thing Black women online are going to do with support each other. And like, this was no exception. A lot of people were showing support, especially after whoever was running the Handbook social media account said that Handbook has a policy where no AI posts or books are allowed on the platform ever. I checked it out on the App Store. It was number 16 on the Apple App Store for book apps, which is genuinely impressive. Now, if I stopped talking here, we would have like a great heartwarming story about the power of the black community lifting up a black woman tech founder. Right. It would be pretty nice. But that would be a different podcast because that post was a high. It sounded so nice. Yeah, this is if you stopped the story here, it would it would just be a nice story. It's like if you stop Scarface halfway through, it's just like a good story about success. If You Stop is the Amityville Horror. It's just a movie about a family that gets a great deal and a nice house. And they move in and it's great. So people started getting suspicious and doing some digging. So at first, people thought that these two white women were behind the app because they ran a business with a similar sounding name. So when folks were saying, oh, hey, this app is using AI to pretend that it's run by a black woman, but it's actually run by, we think, these two white women, whoever runs the handbook social media page posted another of what I believe to be an AI-generated video of a black woman saying, white women run this app. White women where? Get your facts straight. So it turns out that was actually incorrect. Those two white women had nothing to do with this app. They just happen to run a similar sounding business. But here's where it gets interesting because people looked up the app on LinkedIn and they realized there was only one person listed publicly on their LinkedIn page. And that person is a black man. People start leaving comments, asking what's going on. And eventually, the My Handbook app puts out a now deleted explanation. They say, hey, we used AI. My name is Miracle Oyanobi, and I am the founder and tech lead behind Handbook. My husband, Victor Oyanobi, is also part of this journey as the CEO and design lead. And together, we have built this company from the ground up. As a Black couple-led project, we want to address the confusion that's been circulating. For our very first post, our social media handler used my likeness in an AI-generated body background to create a promotional false image. And I'll be honest, we didn't handle the backlash thoughtfully. That was a mistake on our part and we take full responsibility and apologize for the mess. We understand how that could create misunderstanding and propaganda, especially in a space where trust matters deeply. That was never our intention. We're new to this. This is literally our first time putting something we've worked on for years out into the world. And we're still learning how to navigate all of this in real time. To be clear, Handbook is a real product, built over years of work, intention, and belief in creating a better space for writers and readers. There's absolutely no trace of AI in the app. This is a real company led by real people and rooted in real work. The AI-generated post does not reflect what Handbook by Bookable America, Inc. stands for. We are new to navigating public attention at this scale, learning as we grow, and are fully committed to doing better, being more transparent, more intentional, and more thoughtful in how we communicate moving forward. To everyone who has supported us, downloaded the app, shared feedback, or simply given us a chance, thank you. It truly means a lot. We're still here, still building, still improving. And then they posted a black and white image of a black family, like a black man and a black woman who looks sort of like the woman who was in the AI-generated image, I guess, and they're holding a baby. I will say, I'm not going to go as far as to say this black and white image that's like them showing their real selves is AI-generated, but I'm suspicious of the entire thing at this point. I'm very skeptical. And whether or not this picture is AI, once you start out by misrepresenting yourself using an AI photo, So you've simply lost my trust and that's your fault, not mine. It does seem like there is still a missing actual black woman in this story, right? Like, why doesn't she have a LinkedIn page? Great question. Why is the only person listed on the LinkedIn her husband? Yeah, and like, what about Random House? That was like a pretty clear claim that the woman who created this used to work at Random House. and then left to create this new app. That seems like a pretty easily verifiable claim, right? Like publishing is a world where people have names and know each other. There should be a trace of this person. It shouldn't be difficult or murky to figure out. They made it up. When asked, was the Random House story true? They admitted that that was not true. Honestly, I feel like lying about working at Random House and Random House, this big, you know, flashy publisher, being part of the origin story for why you as a black woman felt compelled to create this app where black stories could really shine and get the respect they deserve. I feel like making that up is more damning than the AI-generated image. Their, like, apology post, explanation post really focused on the AI image. And I'm scared the fact that you started off your entire story with this lie to create authority, a connection with Random House that is fabricated, and to manipulate Black folks into supporting your book app fraudulently. I feel like that's so much worse than just making, than what you're saying is you just made an AI avatar for yourself for some reason. Right. So at this point, they've like lied about everything that can be verified, but they're still asking for trust. So how about the app? Does like, does the app work? Did you look? Speaking of lying about everything that can be verified, not for nothing, I downloaded the app. It's glitchy as hell. Things that they said that you could do on the app you simply cannot do. And the kicker is when I had had my phone, I felt like I had, you know, done enough clicking around that I had got enough information to talk about it on the podcast. I go to try to delete it. It would not let me delete it. It takes you to a delete page that says type in delete account into a little text bar and then hit confirm. I typed in delete account. I also typed in this delete. I typed in every like variation of delete account that I could just in case it would not let me delete my account, which, by the way, is a violation of Apple's App Store rules. I guess maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it wasn't intentional. It was just like incompetent because. This seems like a pretty perhaps not ready for primetime app. And, you know, I could imagine that the delete account functionality would not be top of the list for them to make work. Definitely the create account functionality work like they got your info. How much info did you have to give them? Oh, I used a fake picture and a fake name. Oh, not much. I don't trust these people. Like, that's what I'm saying. I'm on. It's nice that you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am not. And I that's their fault. Not my fault. You know, when you start out, the first time I'm hearing about you, it's you using an AI image, lying and not just lying, a racially like a lie that is coded in a kind of racial manipulation. You lose my trust and that's not my fault. You know, like that's that's on you. You're not cool with racial manipulation? No, I am not cool with racial manipulation. And I think why they do it is because they know that Black folks support each other, where we are a community that, you know, not always. We definitely have our intro community issues, but we go up for each other. We ride for each other. If you tell a story about, you know, you're a black woman who worked at a mostly white publishing space, you know, it's the way that that story was framed was clearly framed for black women who work in sometimes white spaces to feel a kind of way. And that's manipulation. I don't appreciate having these things that are intimate or delicate or sensitive or emotional being manipulated in this way using AI so that you can get more, I don't know, signups and more data for your glitchy app. I don't like it. And it really reminds me of the episode that we did recently with Jeremy Carrasco, the kind of guy who was known on social media as like the AI debunker. that episode, we only did it a few weeks ago, right? In that episode, we were talking about these social media, essentially drop shipping scams where someone is hawking a clearly mass-produced item and they have used AI to create some kind of a sob story where they can demonstrate that this clearly mass-produced piece of junk is actually their handmade thing that they've painstakingly made in their garage that they've been bullied for making or that they had a sale and nobody showed up or that people on the internet keep saying, Black women can't make handmade Michael Jackson lamps. You're stupid. Nobody's going to buy your stupid Black family business Michael Jackson lamp. Side note, as much as I hate these things, I did go down the rabbit hole of one where it's this clearly AI-generated Black woman. It'll say like, oh, people tell me that I'm a loser because I'm a 50-year-old Black woman who makes these ugly Michael Jackson lamps. And they told me that they're not art or these like fake mean bullying comments. And then the video shows her in a workshop wearing a red leather thriller jacket and one sparkly glove, supposedly dipping like a little Michael Jackson figurine into resin to make a handmade lamp. And then it'll show her with a handsaw kind of like painstakingly hand creating this item that it's so obviously mass produced. It's just so funny how literal. I want to show you one really quickly because it's just like I was laughing to myself watching these. I like the idea that she's in her workshop building Michael lamps while dressed as Michael from Thriller. Like that is her work uniform. Yeah, you would not be dipping things into resin while wearing a thriller jacket. You just wouldn't. But you would be wearing a glove. Yeah, latex gloves probably, or work gloves, not one sparkly Michael Jackson glove. All right, I'm going to put one in the doc. I want you to look at it. Okay, I'm going to take a look. Oh, yeah, there she is wearing the jacket. She's dipping him right in. He was fully painted. Oh, I see. Wow. So it's like miniatures. Okay, I thought it was like in the style of Michael Jackson. I didn't realize that it was representational. Yeah, it's like Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk in resin, but it's a lamp, so it looks glowy. If you go to her page, she has so many different lamps. She has like Lord of the Rings lamps and Harry Potter lamps. Also on her page is a Black man, presumably her husband, her AI husband in this scenario, who is a veteran, who also makes like military lamps. So it's like Bunker Hill in resin. And you'll never guess, he's also crying because people say, you old man, nobody wants your ugly old lamps. These aren't art. So much hate on lamps, you know, it's an underappreciated art form. Yeah. And I guess I say this to say, I mean, I say this to say because I was down a rabbit hole to the point where I was like, well, this whole enterprise almost feels like art to me in a kind of way. Like a big, horrible AI performance art piece. But so I bring this up because in that episode with Jeremy Carrasco about these handmade dropship AI scams. Basically, I just think it's wild that we did that episode not even a month ago about people using AI generated black people to create a compelling, emotional, often race motivated story about their their. quote, handmade product. And now we've had such an acceleration where people are using AI to create a fake sob story or a fake emotional story to have people download their app. Like we've gone from, you know, drop shipping physical goods to I'm trying to create a business out of this app and be a founder. And the foundation of my story as a founder is an AI generated lie. That's such a good point. And, you know, it really underscores one of the many ways that AI is just accelerating scams and increasing scammers' abilities to make increasingly sophisticated scams. You know, it wasn't that long ago that if you wanted to create an entire fake business with a fake app that was deployed to the app store, and I assume it had some working functionality, that would take like some actual effort. Now with AI, people can probably get that up and running in like a couple of days, if even that long. Exactly. And, you know, if people want an actual alternative to book websites like Goodreads, which is owned by Amazon, Storygraph exists. And it's owned and operated and founded by an actual Black woman, not an AI-generated Black woman. So, yeah, I like Storygraph. If you want to put metrics and a social network behind what you're reading, check it out. Oh, what a nice way to end. And will the audiobook, Love at First Prompt, be available on Storygraph, promoted on Storygraph? How does it work? If you read our forthcoming audiobook, Love at First Prompt, you can absolutely track that as a book that you read or engaged with on Storygraph. We'll have to do that. Absolutely. Mike, I don't know if this is something that you follow or that made it across your desk this week, This week was the Met Ball. I was aware. I have to admit, I did not see a lot of Met Ball content. That actually makes sense because I almost want to start with a question. I don't know if this was just my pocket of the internet. However, I feel like this year the Met Ball didn't really take. Coincidentally, this was also the year that Amazon's Jeff Bezos and his wife, Lauren Sanchez Bezos, served as honorary chairs for the Met Ball, reportedly spending at least $10 million to sponsor both the event and the accompanying Costume Institute exhibition. So I think maybe people were not really feeling the vibes. Usually, I mean, obviously, I don't think a person can be more removed from the Met Ball than me, but usually I'm seeing people, like, break down the different looks, you know, who wore what, that kind of thing. I feel like this year it was sort of just down to a trickle. My favorite comment was from Taraji P Henson DC native by the way always going to throw that in She left a comment on a post about different celebrities at the Met Ball saying I am so confused by some people that are going. I am just like, all caps, what the fuck are we doing? Question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark. That really, I feel like, sums up my, Taraji P. Henson, I'm with you, girl. I feel the exact same way. Yeah, that feels about right. Bunch of rich people getting all dressed up. I don't know, that just doesn't really feel like the vibe that people are looking for right now at this particular moment. I saw this fantastic breakdown from a YouTuber called Brianna Perez about Lauren Sanchez's dress and the word gauche, which is a word I really like, even though it's a word you don't hear a lot, and how gauche is just the perfect word to describe her styling at this event. You know, being gauche in the sense that it comes off as embarrassingly unsophisticated in a way that offends the sensibilities and importantly belies a general lack of belonging while simultaneously oozing desperation to belong. I had not seen it kind of put quite so well, but that's exactly what it is. You know, the Met Ball, for folks who don't know, it usually has some sort of big, grand theme. And people who attend are meant to really go all out and, like, essentially look like art yourself. And so people come in these, like, phenomenally ornate costumes. Lauren Sanchez, I do understand that her dress was meant to be a nod to a famous painting, but she looked like she was going to prom. So she wasn't even really on theme. And I guess that's what this YouTuber was saying when she said that she looked gauche. It's like misunderstanding the vibe that the event is supposed to be curated around and basically just advertising, yep, I'm only here because I gave $10 million. I'm only here because my husband is Jeff Bezos. I'm only here because I'm wealthy. I clearly do not belong. Like her whole outfit was sort of advertising that she really could not hang with the vibe and did not belong. Yeah, I saw it and it looked very different from what people typically wear, which like you said is, I think more typically aren't. People typically look wild, borderline ridiculous. and hers really looked, yeah, like sort of like prom, like a really nice prom dress. Okay, speaking of borderline ridiculous, we've got to talk about my girl Sarah Paulson's look. So I love Sarah Paulson. You might be able to tell that from the way that I speak about her, but she was wearing this dress and that she had this dollar bill, which I later learned was like a, like I thought it was a real dollar that she was wearing over her eyes, but it was like a dollar bill eye mask. The collection is known as the 1% collection. And the designer said, fashion is art and at its most daring, political. Sarah Paulson is wearing the blinded by money leather mask and the destroyed tall debutante ball gown. The collection was a reflection of the greed and corruption that comes with extreme power. On the red carpet, when Sarah Paulson was asked the name of her look, She just said the 1%. She's taking heat for this because people are sort of saying like, oh, this is so out of touch to be a rich, famous person at the Met Gala when it is being chaired by Jeffrey Bezos going to this event and trying to make this kind of a statement. I absolutely get that criticism. Is it wrong to say I kind of like this? No, it's art. You're entitled to your opinion. Here's my take. Here's my take. Obviously, a much better protest would have been to not go like my girl Taraji B. Henson, D.C. native. But it's just sort of comical to me to be a rich celebrity, go to this fancy gala, wear a dollar bill across your eyes and then say it's a protest when asked. Like, I don't know. It's just very funny. I can't. Don't make me explain it, but it's camp. You know what I mean? It's not a particularly sophisticated critique of capitalism Not a critique of capitalism? Did you not see the dollar bill on her eyes? I'm saying it is a critique, but it's, you know, not a particularly sophisticated one It reminds me of something I would have earnestly done in college And I think I probably did do a little stunt like this in college at some point during my time to, like, I want to come to the party, but I also want to make a little scene about it, you know? Yeah. Just to signal that I'm aware that there are concerns and I'm not totally on board with this party that I am now at and definitely going to have a really good time at. Yes. Yes. Okay. So let's talk about some folks who were actually protesting the Met Gala on the same night is the Met Gala in the same city, former and current employees of Amazon, as well as Whole Foods, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, The Post, my local paper. I always say this on the podcast, but Jeff Bezos is affiliated with where I get my groceries, my local newspaper, where I got my health care, you know, just really here in D.C. I feel like I'm living in a company town in a kind of way. That's America, baby. So while the Met Gala was taking place, all of these current and former employees of Bezos-owned or affiliated companies had their own gala called The Ball Without Billionaires. The magazine Harper's was there and wrote that the performance championed the idea that labor is art, which is a play on the Met Gala's dress code, fashion is art. So the models all held signs that read things like, labor is community, we are the culture. The event was organized by SEIU, the Strategic Organizing Center, Teamsters International, and the Amazon Labor Union, and other labor rights organizations. SEIU President April Verrett told Democracy Now!, quote, They can try to take our rights. They can try to redraw the lines. They can try to control the systems, but they will never, ever be able to replicate the brilliance, the creativity, the resilience of the people they are trying to hold down. So this ball without billionaires is not just about fashion. It's about power. It's about telling the truth that people who sew and care and drive and cook and clean and secure and those that create are the ones that make everything possible. Labor is art. What a beautiful sentiment for a protest. Well done. It's a much nicer statement to make in protest than, you know, putting a dollar bill over your eyes. Yeah, agreed. Let's take a quick break. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting? Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, iHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business? Think iHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartAdvertising.com. That's iHeartAdvertising.com. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. On Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. The worst singer in the group. The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation to the group the yard words right that's the name do you have a name suggestion since you guys are middle aged one erection listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts humor me I need some jokes to make me seem funny Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A win is a win. A win is a win. I don't care what y'all say. Yep, that's me, Clifford Taylor IV. You might have seen the skits, the reactions, my journey from basketball to college football, or my career in sports media. Well, somewhere along the way, this platform became bigger than I ever imagined. And now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with some of your favorite athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. One week, I'll take you behind the scenes of the biggest moments in sports and entertainment. And the next, we'll talk about life, mental health, purpose, and even music. The Clifford Show isn't just a podcast. It's a space for honest conversations, stories that don't always get told, and for people who are chasing something bigger. So if you've ever supported me or you're just chasing down a dream, this is right where you need to be. Listen to The Clifford Show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. And we're back. So speaking of AI, we were just talking about how more and more schools are using AI in the classroom. But this new study from Stanford suggests that it does not sound like AI is giving out feedback in the classroom equally. A team of Stanford researchers tested how four different AI models give writing feedback by running 600 middle school essays through those models. The essays were meant to sort of be argumentative essays on kind of quirky topics, the kind of thing a middle schooler would be writing about. One, on whether or not community service should be mandatory for schoolchildren. And then another about whether or not a hill on Mars had been built by aliens. I love when, like, rigorous scientific studies just, like, sneak in a little bit of humor that, like, just because they can. I like that, too. I like it when academics or professionals are a little bit silly, you know? Like, somebody was in a silly, goofy mood on this one. Yeah, like the essay could be about anything. Why not make it about something whimsical? I was once getting an x-ray and the x-ray tech, after she took my x-ray, said, should we do a silly one just for fun? I'm sure that's like her go-to little joke when people are unhappy because they think they broke their foot like I did. So each of these essays was submitted to the AI models more than a dozen times with different fictional student identity profiles attached. So you would say this student is black or white or male or female or motivated or unmotivated or has a learning disability or is a woman. To see whether or not those identity labels change the kind of feedback the AI would give this student. And it really did. This is from the Heshinger Report, an outlet that covers education. The researchers found consistent patterns across all the AI models. Essays attributed to Black students got more praise and encouragement, sometimes emphasizing things like leadership or power. So it would say things like, Your personal story is powerful. Adding more about how your experiences can connect with others could make it even stronger. Essays labeled as written by Hispanic students or English learners were more likely to trigger corrections about grammar and proper, in quotes, English. When the student was identified as white, the feedback more often focused on argument structure, evidence, and clarity, the kinds of feedback and comments that can push writers to really strengthen their ideas and their writing. The AI models addressed female students more affectionately and used first-person pronouns like, I love your confidence in expressing your opinion, girl. I added the girl, I didn't say that. Students labeled as unmotivated were met with upbeat encouragement. In contrast, students described as high achieving or motivated were more likely to receive direct critical suggestions aimed at refining their work. Wow, that is so interesting. Really a lot to think about there. Did the researchers have any ideas or thoughts about why the AI was behaving in this way? Essentially, because we behave this way, Mai Tan, who was the lead author on this study, said that, quote, they are picking up on the biases that humans exhibit. So on the surface, this might actually sound kind of OK, right? Like, what's wrong with giving, you know, Black students more encouraging feedback or giving, you know, students who are young women feedback that emphasizes their personal stories and them as people? but really when you think about it when AI tools soften criticism for some students but hold other students to a higher or different standard it can really deepen and create an uneven playing field in terms of growth opportunities like the white students were getting feedback that was meant to strengthen their arguments and strengthen their skills as critical thinkers and writers and so while it might maybe feel kind of nice or warmer fuzzy that, you know, minoritized students are getting, quote, nicer feedback, that nice feedback is not helping them become sharper writers and sharper thinkers. Yeah, it feels very wrong for them to be getting for students to be getting qualitatively different feedback for the same essay based on their identity, you know? And I can almost see some, like, nuance because, you know, one of the strengths that people will point to of AI is its ability to tailor stuff for individuals. But this study, I think, is a really good reminder or I guess maybe even like first time we're thinking about it. But just the idea that maybe that's not always good. Maybe you want everybody to get the same feedback on their essay for those reasons that you mentioned. If some of the students are getting feedback on the argument structure of their essay and others are getting feedback on their self-esteem and the difference is just driven by their race, that feels really problematic and is setting up to just replicate, not even replicate, but like perhaps even manifest prejudice beliefs about who needs what in a classroom. Yeah, the piece spoke to Tanya Baker, who leads the National Writing Project, And Baker came away from a presentation about this research deeply concerned about exactly that, that Black students and Hispanic students in particular might be essentially being let off the hook rather than being challenged to develop their writing skills in earnest. And I do think that it's, I mean, human teachers have those same biases as well. It seems like AI is just replicating them. And I want to be clear that, you know, you and I both have an education background. Encouragement absolutely has its place in a classroom setting, but encouragement is not a substitute for sharp, targeted, honest feedback, the kind of feedback that's actually going to make somebody a better writer. Yeah, and a human teacher who has a personal relationship with a student ideally can tell when a student needs a little bit more encouragement or when they might be able to handle a little tougher criticism. but if a human teacher was making that determination just entirely based off the race of the student nobody would look at that and say oh what a great teacher exactly exactly and this is kind of a non sequitur but I remember you and I going to the gym together and the trainer came over and was giving you all kinds of specific feedback on the way that you were lifting the kettlebell and it was like very like pointed feedback And then that same trainer came to me and was like, Bridget, great shoes. Just walked away. Really great shoes. I was like, okay, you've obviously identified that what I need in this moment is encouragement and not pointed feedback on my kettlebell lips. You know, maybe your form was perfect. That's definitely what it was. That's definitely what it was. I spend a lot of time reading about AI in educational settings and in classrooms. And I know I do feel that we are pushing it into classrooms faster than we can verify whether or not that's a good thing. I think last year I saw this piece in Nature. To be clear, I did not click into it. I just saw the headline that really made a very big point about how much of a positive impact AI, specifically ChatGPT, had had on student learning. And so I was like, wow, I must be coming at this from like a, you know, negative perspective. Like there seems to be a growing body of research that ChatGPT in classroom settings with students actually can improve learning impacts. Now, Mind you, I did not click into that study, but I remember thinking like, wow, I need to investigate this because I had this wrong. Well, the meta-analysis published in Nature last year, the one that claimed that ChatGPT had this large positive impact on student learning that got over 400,000 views, was just retracted this week because of serious methodology problems. The researchers who looked closely at it found that it had essentially aggregated low-quality studies from disreputable journals and then dressed those low-quality studies up as hard evidence of the positive impact ChatGPT has on students. As one researcher put it, it recycled junk science into headline grabbing claims. So I remember reading that and thinking, I must need to update my, you know, understanding of AI and educational systems. But now I'm realizing that not only is AI feedback maybe systemically shortchanging students of color, women, disabled students and other minoritized students, we don't even necessarily have as solid of evidence as we once thought that AI even improves learning in the first place. Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head that AI is being pushed into educational applications far in advance of us having a firm evidence understanding of what it doing whether it working and even how it should be working right Like you know the question of should it be considering a student profile and background information about a student when delivering feedback at this moment I'm not sure that we have like clear, non-controversial answer to that. Right. Like it's. it's very complicated and it just seems like the financial pressures from all sides of companies that make this educational software because education tech software is like a huge industry in and of itself. They're just trying to make it, trying to sell it. And then educators and administrators are getting squeezed by budgets on all sides. It really creates, I don't want to say like a perfect storm, but a pretty good storm for pushing untested, unproven, possibly dangerous technologies onto students. Stormy conditions indeed. More after a quick break. I'll see you next time. iHeart to get started. That's 844-844-IHEART. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. On Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Who's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. To the group? To the group. The Yardbirds, right? That's the name? The Harvard Yardbirds. But they're open to change. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged. One erection. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You love me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. One week, I'll take you behind the scenes of the biggest moments in sports and entertainment. And the next, we'll talk about life, mental health, purpose, and even music. The Clifford Show isn't just a podcast. It's a space for honest conversations, stories that don't always get told, and for people who are chasing something bigger. So if you've ever supported me or you're just chasing down a dream, this is right where you need to be. Listen to The Clifford Show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. Let's get right back into it. Okay, speaking of education and academia, I want to tell you about Dr. Ali Lux. So last year, Dr. Lux went viral when she posted a picture of herself holding her dissertation she had just received a PhD in English literature from Cambridge. And I heard in her post, her PhD dissertation needed no revisions. It was just, you did it. Good job. You're a doctor. Her field of study is genuinely fascinating. She studies smell. Her undergraduate project was on perfume marketing. And her dissertation, the one that she was photographed with, was about how the politics of smell is described and used in English literature. The full title is Olfactory Ethics, the Politics of Smell in Modern Contemporary Prose. Honestly, I had never really thought deeply about the power of smell before encountering her work. And I don't know, ever since I saw her online last year, I've become very aware, very attuned to how smell is everywhere. Smell is actually fascinating. It's one of our five senses. We don't have that many senses. And we so rarely talk about it. We might say that things smell bad. Or earlier today you said it smelled like somebody was cooking potatoes. So you might say it smells like something. But we just don't have great language to talk about different smells. it kind of like flies under the radar. And also, like you've probably heard this, that there's only three neurons between the olfactory sensors and your brain. So it is like the most closely connected sense to our brain. Like vision, by the time the signal, you know, light hits our retina and it gets transformed and really goes through a whole lot of rigmarole before it gets to our brain. and we're like, oh, there's like an object, a bird flying at me or something. But like smell is nearly instantaneous. I learned that from the song Perfume by the 80s band Sparks. I don't know if it's a little bit of a deep cut, but there's a line, the olfactory sense is the sense that most strongly evokes memory and the past. Like that's so I did know that only from hearing it on that song. Yeah, I think it's interesting. But anyway, we're not here to talk about smell. It is interesting. And I will say it's the it's the sense that, like, you know, I have I have like I have clothing that belonged to my parents. And my mom was known for wearing a lot of perfume and she only wore a certain kind of perfume. And when I smell that, it does it like it does really take you back. It really like transport. It's transportive. It is. Yeah, I have smells that will just instantly transport me back to like being a little kid, which was some decades ago now, you know, like it's just cooked in there before we even really had an understanding of the world. We were like smelling stuff. Oh, my God. I can. There are smells from my childhood that I can still the smell of being on the bus, especially when you sat on the part of the bus with a tire was, you know, you could sit. One of the seats was like the tire seat. That smell, the smell of these fruity markers, these scents. I don't know why they were making scented markers, encouraging kids to sniff markers. But we used to have these like fruit, these candy or food scented markers. And I remember the red one was cherry. They had a black one that was licorice. Oh, man, there are so many smells from primary school that just if I they take you right back. Yeah. Yeah, the smell of pool toys, like vinyl pool toys. Oh, yeah. The hot sun. Chlorine smell kind of mixed in with. This is not interesting to me. I'll go all day. No. Subscribe to my ASMR YouTube channel where it's just Bridget describing smells of her childhood. Yeah, that's a different show. Welcome to Scent of the Suburbs. I'm Bridget Todd. Pool toys, markers, tires. Anyway, I've taken us way off base. I apologize, listeners. So Dr. Lux wrote this very interesting dissertation on the politics of smell. She is an all-time social media follow, just super, super interesting. She said that most of the people who engaged with this post about her finishing her PhD last year were congratulating her. But then these big right-wing Twitter accounts, and this was around the time when Twitter was really becoming a cesspool for anybody who is, like, a woman or a Black person or a queer person or a trans person. This was when that was really taking root. And basically, these accounts got hold of what her dissertation was about and just flattened the entire thing and misrepresented it into this dumb girl says that smells are racist. And from there, it really snowballed. She was hit with personal attacks, sexist trolling, rape and death threats that were serious enough that she had to get the authorities involved. One viral post said, quote, this is why everything is falling apart. Another said, crows feed and no children and nothing of value to show for it. And it's like, OK, she has a PhD from Cambridge. That's not nothing. That's very much something. It reminded me of this report that came out of UN Women that looked at 600 women in public life and found that this kind of thing is not random. It is not incidental. You know, it is what we know to be coordinated, systemic, misogynistic harassment, the kind of thing that platforms, especially X, are making very rewarding, this kind of misogynistic, frictionless hostility. and that all of this, according to the UN, is deeply, deeply suppressing women's participation in public and civic life. You know, these are attacks designed to push women out of visible roles and to undermine their credibility. And unfortunately, it is working. Forty-five percent of female journalists surveyed said that they self-censor on social media because of this. And their report was all about how AI is turbocharging this for women, pushing women out of public life. So that brings me to what is happening to Dr. Lux right now. It's still going on for her? This was like a year ago that she just posted a nice post saying like, hey, I finished my dissertation. Hooray me, right? Not only is this still going on for her, it has gotten worse and grosser. somebody is paying large accounts. The account that I saw on Instagram doing this was a, it looked to be like a Peter Dinklage fan account that has over 3 million followers. When I went to the account, I was shocked to see that people that I know in real life were following this account. And I gotta think that it's because I don't think that the real Peter Dinklage has Instagram. There is a verified Peter Dinklage page on Instagram. However, I don't think that is the real Peter Dinklage page because every post is like a giveaway. And I don't think the real Peter Dinklage would have like, I'm giving away 20 free swords. I think he has better stuff to do. So actually, I'm not even sure. That's the internet, you know? Who can be sure of anything? It has a verified check, but like, I guess I just don't believe that the real Peter Dinklage will be doing these like scammy, spammy giveaways. Anyway, my point is that... No, I don't think he's into like swords and stuff like this. Like he's talked about how he really didn't want to do Game of Thrones because he hates that kind of stuff. And he only did it because the writing was so good. Yeah. I don't know. I can't think of any reason why he would be giving away free swords. Although that is kind of a cool looking sword and it's free. They're going to get you, Mike. So my point is, is that I think that because he might not have a real Instagram page, people must follow this thinking, oh, that's the real Peter Dinklage. Well, this page that has over 3 million followers posted, I guess what you might describe as like a fictionalized AI generated version of Dr. Look's story, wherein they have taken parts that are clearly based on her life, her work, her academic field of study. They have added things that did not happen. They've taken things out of whole cloth that did not happen to her. And they're saying this is her. And they're doing it to promote a fetish marketplace website. So if you go to this fake Peter Dinklage page with three million followers, there is a post with a girl who looks like her. And it's one of those posts that's meant to look like some sort of a news story because it's got the picture and then it's got the big, bold text on the bottom. I've always said that if you make an Instagram post that has bold text on the bottom, you can get certain people to believe anything. So the post says, Ivy League doctor of smell crushes student death by selling $200 used leggings to men online. When you click through, this is what it says. it's meant to be like her tweets. They do use a different name. They use Dr. Sarah Sinclair, but this is obviously meant to be Dr. Lux. It says, I spent 10 years at $120,000 at an Ivy League school to become a doctor of smell. The return on investment, a dead-end museum internship paying $15 an hour and a mountain of student debt. I'd be paying off until I'm 80. I felt like the ultimate academic failure. At least that was the plan until I realized my laundry was worth more than my degree. I hit the gym to blow off steam and posted a TikTok video venting about the chemical composition of sweat and how biological markers define attraction. I was just trying to cope with my useless degree. I didn't think anything of it until I checked the comments and realized I'd accidentally summoned a very specific crowd. They weren't asking about the science. I'll pay you $200 for those leggings. How much for that sports bra? I need that post-workout musk. I thought it was a joke. Creepy bots, maybe. But with $43 in my bank account, I was desperate enough to do the unthinkable. I mailed the leggings. Ten minutes later, after he got the tracking number, a notification popped up. $200. I just made a week's worth of museum wages by selling a pair of $30 leggings I'd already worn out. She, in quotes, goes on to talk about how she wanted to do this, but she wanted a way to keep these requests professional and private. Then she found this Amazon for fetish enthusiasts where you could safely have a marketplace for these kinds of niche items where you could sell them and make money without compromising your social media or professional integrity. The post reads, I covered my entire $5,000 student loan payment in seven days. Suddenly that 120K degree wasn't a useless mistake. It was my market research. I went from a broke doctor, in quotes, to having a five-figure savings account, and my daily routine became a goldmine. So I don't think I need to tell anybody that story is bogus. It is, first of all, it's obviously written by AI. I think the image is, the whole thing is AI. The whole thing is AI, is like low effort AI. Like Cambridge is not an Ivy League school for one thing. Yeah. It's also so strange that it's posted on a Peter Dinklage fan account, which is just like extra bizarre. Like the text that you were reading, it was not screenshots. It was like images. Like when somebody wants to make an image and upload it as a carousel, that's what it was. And Mike, I don't want to say the name of the Peter Dinklage fan account because they don't want to give it any press. I'll just say the collection of posts on there, it's like the lowest of the low obvious AI posts. and I cannot believe that it has 3 million followers. I cannot believe that people I know follow it. I cannot believe that people would be like, wow, is this Peter Dinklage? She's really posted about, like, I cannot stress to you enough how low effort these low effort posts are. I'll just put it that way. So this story is using her face and aspects of her real identity to advertise this fetish marketplace, something that she never consented to. She posted about it on X writing, being a woman on the internet is a special kind of hell. We have laws against this in the UK and I still can't do anything to get these posts taken down. Reporting doesn't work. And the thing that like really pissed me off is that I was like looking at the comments of that tweet. I reposted it. And a lot of the comments are like, well, you know, you should reconsider being in public life. You should like just be out of public life. And mind you, she has a book coming out called Under Your Nose, which I'm absolutely going to buy and read because it sounds interesting as hell. She is a public intellectual. So being like, you should just log off. She used to be online promoting this book that she just finished and submitted so that she can promote that book. It can succeed. She can get paid and potentially write another one. Like being online as a public intellectual is part of her work. I watched another video of her that Cambridge put out where she was talking about how oftentimes when it comes to academics, your work is really gatecapped within academia. And she was like, well, I think it's important for knowledge to be disseminated all over the place, especially using social media, because knowledge has inherent value. Helping people understand the world around you has inherent value. And it's not really my vibe to keep it just like in academic texts and in academia. And so, like, not only is being a public intellectual part of her work, it's also part of her values as a fucking human being, as somebody who is curious about the world around them and wants to spread knowledge. So telling this woman to get offline, it just sucks. I just hate it. It's just so not a solution. And again, it reminded me of that U.N. report about how AI is turbocharging women being driven out of digital spaces and thus being driven out of public and civic life. And it was exactly what that UIN report was talking about. And, you know, yeah, it just infuriates me. It is infuriating. It's so stupid. And it's also such a choice. It's not surprising to me that they, that these schmucks chose to target her. Because I do think that the story that they've come up with is essentially erotic fan fiction about this woman. The fake tweets that are supposedly like by her. She like is putting quotes around doctor, kind of crapping on her own degree. Nobody I know with a PhD would do that. Even like if you have a PhD that is you have a PhD. If you if you were doing work that did not involve your PhD, you would never be like so-called doctor. Never. I think part of this is them using AI to create a world where you humiliate a woman that you want to feel badly because that woman got a degree that you don't respect. In reality, Dr. Looks, first of all, she just finished a book that I hope is going to be a bestseller. She is kicking butt in her field of study. Her dissertation had no changes and no edits needed to be made And she lives a beautiful life in the countryside with an adorable dog Like she winning on all fronts And so to use AI to create this world where this woman had the audacity to not have kids, to pursue academic study, pursue her career, get a degree that you idiots don't understand and couldn't understand and wouldn't even put in an ounce of work or curiosity to even attempt to understand, which is a shame for you because it might actually make you understand the world around you a little bit better. Instead of doing that, you have to use AI to sexually humiliate her because she is a woman and then create the conditions where she is renouncing this degree that is actually paying off in dividends. Like she's like a famous public intellectual right now. She's not like this, this reality where she's not making any money and she's got $43 in her bank account. It's like humiliation fan fiction because they can't stand the actual reality where this woman is actually living kind of a fucking great life. More after a quick break. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting? Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, iHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business? Think iHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-iHeart to get started. That's 844-844-iHeart. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. on Humor Me with Robert Smigel and Friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Who's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation? To the group? The Yardbirds, right? That's the name. The Harvard Yardbirds. They're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged. One erection. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A win is a win. A win is a win. I don't care what y'all say. Yep, that's me, Clifford Taylor IV. You might have seen the skits, the reactions, my journey from basketball to college football, or my career in sports media. Well, somewhere along the way, this platform became bigger than I ever imagined. And now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with some of your favorite athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. One week, I'll take you behind the scenes of the biggest moments in sports and entertainment. And the next, we'll talk about life, mental health, purpose, and even music. The Clifford Show isn't just a podcast. It's a space for honest conversations, stories that don't always get told, and for people who are chasing something bigger. So if you've ever supported me or you're just chasing down a dream, this is right where you need to be. Listen to The Clifford Show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. Let's get right back into it. Okay, I have one more kind of infuriating, upsetting AI story to tell you about, and that is a new Chad GPT lawsuit. There's a lawsuit working its way through the California courts right now that kind of reads to me like a warning sign about where AI could be headed. And it centers on one woman who spent months living in fear while OpenAI basically did nothing, while she begged OpenAI for help, and they basically did nothing. So a 53-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur, we don't know his name because the lawsuit does not name him. He spent months in what his ex-girlfriend says was deep, obsessive conversations with chat gbt so like high volume sustained use of the chat gbt 4.0 model the model that was very flattering very sycophantic that model is a big linchpin of our audiobook love at first prompt which if folks want to pre-order you can get it at love at first prompt.ai that model was the model that some folks were having like connections with to the point where it was like not safe Yeah, it's a good way to put it. Like unhealthy connections. When people talk about how AI will glaze people and be excessively complimentary and reinforce people's delusions, ChatGPT 4.0 was doing all of that in spades. Yes. That model has since been retired. But while this guy was having these back and forth with that model, somewhere along the way, he lost his grip on reality. He became very convinced that he had discovered a cure for sleep apnea. And when nobody took this seriously, he asked Chachi Pty and came to the idea that it was because powerful forces were surveilling him and tracking him. And so according to this lawsuit, the AI just kept like validating this and engaging him and egging him on. So as if that's not bad enough, then layer in this breakup. Him and his ex-girlfriend, who was referred to in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, they split up in 2024 and he uses Chad CPT to help him process this breakup. And instead of giving him like any kind of balanced perspective, Chad GPT continually cast him, according to this lawsuit, as the rational, reasonable one and the one who is being wronged and her as the one who is being manipulative and unstable. Now, this is someone who, mind you, who is already exhibiting behavior via Chad GPT that is like becoming increasingly erratic. So when his ex, you know, urged him to stop using ChachiBT and like talk to a mental health professional, he asked ChachiBT like, hey, Chachi, am I exhibiting the behavior of somebody who is mentally unwell? And he said that ChachiBT told him that he was, quote, a level 10 insanity. Sounds like something Trump would say. I almost said the same thing. I literally, when I read that, I was like, oh, that's like what Trump would say. So according to this lawsuit, he starts stalking and harassing her. He created these like psychological reports that he was trying to make look credible or official on her and distributed them to her friends, family and her employer. So according to this lawsuit, there were multiple layers of warnings. First, OpenAI's own automated safety system flagged his account for mass casualty weapons activity. They then deactivated his account, but a human safety team member reviewed it the next day and gave it back to him. This despite the fact that his chat history contained conversation titles like, quote, violence list expansion and, quote, fetal suffocation calculation. Those are unsettling titles. A human at OpenAI checked it out and said they were fine. So when his pro subscription was not reinstated alongside his account, he emailed OpenAI's trust and safety team directly, copying his ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe, on that message. The emails were frantic and disorganized. He tells them, listen, I'm in the middle of writing 200 scientific papers. He was writing so fast. He didn't have time to read these emails, writing things like, all caps, I need help very fast. Please, please call me. This is a matter of life or death. The kinds of emails that, according to the lawsuit, are, quote, unmistakable evidence of his mental instability. And yet OpenAI, according to this lawsuit, restored full access to its pro-ChatGPT account. At this point, Jane Doe is like, enough is enough. She herself submits a formal notice of abuse to OpenAI in November. She writes to them directly saying, quote, for the last seven months, he has weaponized this technology to create public destruction and humiliation against me that would have been impossible otherwise. OpenAI responded to her saying the report was extremely serious and troubling and they were going to review it, but she says that she never heard back. He continues to escalate contact with her, threatening voicemails, harassment. And then in January, he got arrested for four felony counts, including communicating bomb threats and assault with a deadly weapon. All of these things that both Jane Doe and OpenAI's own system had been like flagging and warning OpenAI of. This is something that I don't fully understand. And I did a lot of digging and I couldn't find out more information about it. So he's arrested, but he is found incompetent to stand trial and instead submitted to a mental health facility. However, because of, quote, a procedural failure by the state, he will soon be released to the public, according to Jane Doe's lawyers. You're probably asking yourself, what does that mean? I was unable to find out more information. All I can tell you is what is said in the lawsuit. Doesn't sound great. Seems like a guy who, at minimum, needs some help and maybe needs to be kept away from other people until he gets that help. Well, so Jane Doe is like, well, now this guy is going to be out on the street soon. And she has no idea what all conversations he had with ChatGPT about her. Maybe he discussed plans. You know, she has no way of knowing what the full chat logs contain. OpenAI did agree to suspend his account, but in her lawsuit, she says that she feels like she needs more information about what, if any, plans he might have shared with ChatGPT that might pose a safety risk to her if he's going to be released. And now she is suing for exactly that. So she wants punitive damages. She wants his chat logs with OpenAI preserved for discovery. and she wants OpenAI to notify her if he ever tries to access Chad GPT again. So this case is being brought by Edelson PC, which is the same law firm behind the wrongful death suits involving a teenager who died by suicide after talking to Chad GPT. Mike and I are pretty familiar with cases like this. It is a, unfortunately, how would you describe it? I don't think I'm describing it well. Yeah, there were several of these high-profile cases. Most of the ones that we covered in the audiobook, Love at First Prompt, at the time that we were writing that, I think there were seven that were publicly known of people, mostly teenagers, who had died by suicide, and the family was alleging that it was because of conversations that they had had with ChatGPT. And, you know, this is happening against the backdrop of OpenAI backing this Illinois bill that would shield AI companies from legal liability, even in cases involving mass death or catastrophic harm. And so it is just I can't see those two things like this case working through the courts in California. an open AI backing this bill in Illinois that would shield it from exactly this kind of harm that she's suing for. I can't not see these two stories as sort of related. Yeah, well, certainly not the last time we're going to be hearing about this question of what is the liability of a company that produces a consumer-facing AI product when that product is used to harm somebody else. Like what, if any, responsibility do they have? It's a big question and it's not probably going to go away. Yes, but I can't let this be the last thing that we talk about because it's just very dark. So can I switch gears for just a moment? Sure, please. Yeah, let's please switch gears. This gear sucks. okay i must ask you a question that was a bad transition but do you remember back in the day when everybody was all of a sudden like obsessed with mustaches yeah this was like around 2010 i think mustaches really had a big resurgence i knew two separate people who had mustache tattoos on their finger to this day i mean back then they were just it was just cool and i don't know why I don't know why having a mustache on your finger that you could put over your lip to be like, oh, the mustache was a cool thing. But if for some reason you did a little kid had a mustache tattoo on their finger, they might be able to bypass a age verification check on social media. So now the fake mustaches are functional. They're like serving a purpose other than art. Yeah, getting around janky age verification. Y'all know that we are no big bands of laws that force you to show your government ID or things like that to verify your age. Even though these are laws that are rolling out all over the place, half of U.S. states have some version of this law now. The U.K. has it. It's a whole thing. So kids are getting around it. One of the reasons why I feel like this legislation is like not fully baked. It's like, oh, you know how kids always just follow the rules. They never find a workaround. When you make a rule, by golly, they follow it. And that's that. Yeah. The classic teenager stuff. Respecting rules. Patiently waiting until they're old enough to experience things that grownups tell them they're too young for. So they're able to get around it by drawing a fake mustache on their face using a makeup pencil. And it actually has worked. So a UK nonprofit called Internet Matter surveyed a thousand kids about age verification checks, and about half of them say they're very easy to get around. One technique brought up was that children are drawing facial hair on themselves so that tools verifying them would think they are older, which was reported as working in multiple instances. it added. That's so funny. Yeah, teens. Meanwhile, companies like Meta are thinking about using AI to analyze bone structure and height to see if people are underage, which we'll see if teens come up with a way of tricking that via fake mustache. Yeah, and we'll see if they ever actually even do it. That kind of seems like the sort of thing they just say they're thinking about doing as a way to make it seem like they care about anything other than making money. Yes. Ooh, this is actually a good segue that we're going to be dropping our social network episode soon. So you want to hear me? Just they just really just let me rip on this one. Just pure rigid talking crap on Mark Zuckerberg. That's your Sminty episode. We're going to put that in this feed. Yeah. Yeah, I listened. It's it's a good one. That movie really holds up. sequel coming out in October. I'm set. You know I'm set. Well, Mike, thank you for running through all these stories with me. Yeah, thanks for having me, Bridget. People can let us know what they think by emailing helloatangody.com, leaving a comment on Spotify, following Bridget on social media, Instagram. Yes. Speaking of Spotify, I did ask folks about direction for our Lena Dunham memoir episode. The people have spoken. They do not want Lena Dunham on the pod. Very emphatically. I've heard you loud and clear. Thank you for weighing in. One listener threatened that they would never listen to the show again if we had Lena Dunham on, which is a strong opinion. And we're not going to do it. Yeah. Heard. I'm glad I asked. Heard you loud and clear. Thank you for weighing in. But yeah, so I'll keep reading the memoir. We'll do a non-Lena Dunham deep dive. Thank you to folks who helped us. It's good to have this direction. So yeah, stay tuned. Coming soon. Well, thanks for being here, Mike. Thanks to all of you for listening. I will see you on the internet. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or just want to say hi? You can reach us at hello at tangody.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at Tangoody.com. There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. On Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A win is a win. A win is a win. I don't care what you're saying. Yep, that's me, Clifford Taylor IV. You might have seen the skits, my basketball and college football journey, or my career in sports media. Well, now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. So let's get to it. Listen to The Clifford Show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. On the Look Back at It podcast. 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam Jay. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it with our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to Look Back at It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.