And friend and contributor to the Electronic Intifada, we are very, very grateful for all the work that you have done over the decades and continue to do.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
All right. And the time now is 7 p.m., which means it's time for Off the Hook here on WBAI New York 99.5 FM and WBAI.org online.
Stay tuned.
Thank you for listening to Off the Hook.
Off the Hook.
Off the Hook.
Off the Hook.
Good evening for everybody. The program is Off the Hook.
Emmanuel Goldstein here with you on this Wednesday evening.
Joined tonight by Kyle.
Hi.
Out in Skypeland, we have Rob T. Firefly.
Good evening.
We have Gila.
Good evening.
And we have Alex.
Yes, you do.
Yes, you do. Good evening.
What part of space are you in this week, Alex?
Well, I'm currently in a cab crossing London at the moment.
So, hello to everybody.
Wow. Okay.
I don't think we've ever done that before.
So, you're in one of those big black cabs, right?
That are huge inside and they're everywhere in London.
Something like that.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Yeah.
I am heading from the west to the east.
And, yeah.
So, it'll be a journey.
You know, it's a long way to cross London these days.
I guess in any day.
It's such a big city from west to east.
I think it's always been the same size, I'm pretty sure.
But, yeah, these days especially.
I think it's expanded over the years, quite possibly.
But, it is, you know, from east to west, a lot bigger than New York.
New York is a north-south city.
London is east-west.
Well, many is the time I've walked from east to west in Manhattan.
But, we're not going to quibble over that.
But, you're going from west to east right now.
From the west end, I believe?
Yes.
I'm actually coming from kind of the Chelsea, Belgravia area.
And, heading over to Shoreditch, east London.
Ah, shortage.
I don't know it at all.
East London, it's where a whole bunch of things are going on.
Let me tell you, it's been a very, very long day.
Well, it's been pretty long here as well.
And, we have the spring equinox to thank for that.
Sure, why not?
But, since you're in London, Alex,
maybe this story will be particularly relevant.
It has to do with Julian Assange,
who is currently being held in prison somewhere in the United Kingdom.
According to this Wall Street Journal article,
which came out today,
the Justice Department is considering whether to allow WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange, to plead guilty
to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information.
The Wall Street Journal cites people familiar with the matter.
It says that DOJ officials and Assange's legal team have already had preliminary talks
on what a plea deal might look like.
However, Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Assange,
said he has been given no indication that the department will take a deal.
It's inappropriate for Mr. Assange's lawyers to comment while his case is before the UK High Court,
other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice
intends to resolve the case,
and the United States is continuing,
with as much determination as ever,
to seek his extradition on all 18 charges,
exposing him to 175 years in prison,
said Pollack.
Now, yeah, if Assange is convicted,
obviously it would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom,
since publishing information obtained by a source
is a standard journalistic practice,
whether classified or not.
But it would be interesting.
If he were to plead guilty,
if there was some kind of a plea deal,
it's possible that he could be
actually freed.
And that's something that many people have wondered.
Is that ever going to happen?
Have you heard anything about this, Alex?
I haven't heard anything specifically about this,
but it sounds like
people might have been listening to our show last week.
This is exactly what we were talking about.
I was arguing,
I can't remember if it was the actual off-the-hook show
or if it was overtime,
but I was arguing that the United States government
should have dropped all of these
additional 17 charges
that were part of the secondary indictment
and stuck to their guns
with respect to the first charge,
which was about,
it was actually more of a hacking,
quote-unquote.
I use that in air quotes
because obvious reasons here
with the word,
and the term hacking,
but it was a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charge
that had to deal with Julian Assange
crossing the line
and helping a journalist
and being a journalist
and helping Chelsea Manning
crack a hashed password
of a Department of Defense computer.
And that was the only charge
that seemed to me
to be reasonable to stick.
It's what I argued
in my first article
on CNN
in their opinion section
that this was a legitimate charge
against Assange.
And it seems like
they're coming to the same conclusion.
And now they're coming to
an actually even more lenient conclusion,
which is that
in pleading to this,
that should be it,
that he's suffered enough.
This is,
I think this is great.
I think this is
really wonderful progress
and I can appreciate Pollock,
Assange's attorney,
not counting his chickens
before they hatch,
so to speak,
because you really never know
where these negotiations
are going to go.
And this actually probably seems
a bit too good to be true,
but let's hold out hope.
Yeah, you see, Alex,
too good to be true,
that's not really something
that I see
because of what he has been through.
You know,
we were just going over
some records today
as far as health speakers
and we realized
it was 2010
when Julian Assange
was supposed to give
the keynote address
at the Hackers on Planet Earth
conference,
2010.
And, of course,
he wasn't able to do that
because of Chelsea Manning
being arrested
for the leaking of information
at that time
and it became, you know,
a bit hot to be in the United States
if your name was Julian Assange.
Obviously, he wasn't able
to be at the conference.
But think about it.
Since then,
since that point in time,
we're talking 14 years,
he has been avoiding
being extradited
to the United States
or being imprisoned
in one way or another
and obviously not successfully
since 2019
when he was thrown
into Belmarsh Prison,
which I believe
is not too far
from where you are
over there in London.
Is that right, Alex?
In fact,
maybe you could pass by
and shout something
out the window.
Yeah.
I'll tell you,
well,
I would prefer
not to pass by
that location
but given that
the Ecuadorian embassy
where Julian Assange
was holed up
for many years
was in Knightsbridge
next to Harrods,
I did work in luxury
for quite a while
so I did pass by
the Ecuadorian embassy
while he was there
for a number of times
and I always looked up.
I always wanted to see
if he was there
in the window
and I would give him
a wave or something.
I don't think
it ever worked out
but look,
Emmanuel,
I'm not arguing with you
that the last 14 years
during which time
he has spent
trying to evade extradition
to the United States
has been horrible
but you yourself
had mentioned
he was facing
a hundred something years
in prison here
and for the Department
of the Justice
and the United States
government
to change its tune
in terms of
what they plan
on doing with Assange
and there's a possible
deal here
this is a massive change
this is great
this is good news
I think we have to
build such.
If it's true
and yeah,
you know,
you would have to
really be
in my opinion
extremely callous
to think that
this guy has to
suffer any more
than he has already
suffered.
You know,
if you think
he's guilty of everything
you could possibly imagine
he certainly has
suffered quite a bit
and it's time
that people start
at least pretending
to be human
but in this particular case
if
from what I'm told
if
this were to take place
he would be charged
with mishandling
classified information
it's a much lesser charge
and that's a misdemeanor
after all this
a misdemeanor
and he could
potentially enter
that plea
without ever
having to go
to the United States
and the time
that he has spent
in Belmarsh prison
could count
towards a sentence
and he could be freed
and this nightmare
could end
and you know
who wants this nightmare
to continue?
Who wants this
to keep hanging over
so many people's heads
and especially
to be torturing him
like this?
No matter what you think
and believe me
I have some
harsh criticism
for some of the decisions
he made
but in no way
does it justify
treating somebody
like this
so
yeah
I guess
fingers crossed
you know
we'll see if
something actually happens
but it is
I think incumbent
upon the Biden administration
to
you know
to be
a bit merciful here
and to
you know
to put an end
to this already
they have the power
to do that
go ahead Rob
One thing I find
interesting
and you know
I don't consider
myself any great
fan of Assange
either
but as
as a case
this is fascinating
and there's one
part of this
Wall Street Journal
article
that I find
kind of
kind of
entertaining
to read
which is
an extradition
would throw
a political
hot potato
into the lap
of the Biden
administration
the Justice Department
has long struggled
with how to proceed
against Assange
because there are
some parallels
between his work
and that of the press
whose right to publish
is generally protected
by the First Amendment
now the
calling
you know
WikiLeaks
for those unfamiliar
a long time ago
they used to
leak classified documents
and things
to journalists
and things
and I think
what they were doing
qualifies as
being
you know
an active force
in journalism
and to watch
the Wall Street Journal
you know
respected newspaper
kind of
start to begrudgingly
accept that
the work
of whistleblowing
and such
in the way
that WikiLeaks
used to
does share
some sort of
some sort of
thread
with what they do
for a living
and what
and the rights
that are really
important to preserve
of the freedom
of the press
it's
you know
of all things
this case
has to be
where that
particular battle
is fought
agreed
all right
well
we'll keep an eye
on that story
a couple of
programming notes
we are not
on next week
we are preempted
next week
so
we'll be back
again
in two weeks
also
this is the final
week
that we will be
on the air
in March
right
I think that's true
and that means
that we have to
reach that
$350 plateau
that we have been
handed
basically the challenge
has been handed
to us
where
in order for the show
to stay on the air
we have to raise
$350
a month
that is not much
at all
that is relatively
simple to do
and all it takes
is listeners
like you
calling in
or going to the website
the website
is give to
wbai.org
and on that website
you can do a number
of things
you can
you can
pick out
some gifts
from WBAI
that we will send you
in exchange
for your generous
support
and be sure
to say
that you're
pledging
in the name
of Off the Hook
so that
it gets credited
towards that
$350 level
that we are
trying to achieve
maybe we've already
achieved it
I don't know
I haven't heard
anything from management
and it's possible
we may
be over that
certainly in the past
we were able to raise
I mean
I would have raised
$350 by the time
I finish
this particular
spiel
right now
so it's possible
we're at that
but
it's also possible
we're not
and that's why
we need people
to call
and pledge
on that website
you can also
become a BAI buddy
which means
you pledge
a particular amount
every month
it can be something
like $5
$10
$20
and that amount
adds up
to a much bigger
amount
if you times it
by 12
i.e. in one year
you can also call
212-209-2950
and speak to somebody
directly there
and do the same thing
yeah
so
it's really important
WBAI is a non-commercial
radio station
we do not have commercials
yeah
that's what that means
we do not have
any commercials
and
if we did have commercials
we probably couldn't talk
about Julian Assange
we probably couldn't talk
about
how terrible
a company Verizon is
we probably couldn't
criticize Elon Musk
we probably couldn't do
all kinds of things
that we do
but
we're not commercial
we're non-commercial
and that means
that you
are the sponsors
you the listeners
are the sponsors
of this
radio station
not just this radio show
the entire radio station
and we are on the air
24 hours a day
7 days a week
bringing you all kinds
of alternative
news
information
music
arts
you name it
some material
you'll find
amazing
some material
will make you run
screaming out of the room
it's just the nature
of discourse
so
we need you
our listeners
to stand up
and show your support
again
give to WBAI
dot ORG
is the website
where you can pledge
and
212-209-2950
is the phone number
you can call
to pledge
and in both cases
please
mention
off the hook
say you are pledging
in the name of
off the hook
that way we make it
to the $350 level
and we continue
to have a show
next month
wouldn't that be nice
go ahead Gila
I just wanted to
throw something out there
a reminder
that
giving to WBAI
is completely
tax deductible
it only does
good things
for both
your karma
your radio
listening time
and your tax
returns
for next year
also
if you visit
the website
WBAI.org
slash
matching
dot PHP
you might be
eligible for
an employer
match
to your gift
to WBAI
thus doubling
your impact
for about
30 seconds
of search
so
if you want
to give
$175
to WBAI
in the name
of off the hook
and your employer
will match it
congratulations
you've done
what we need
to do
for the month
so
take a second
see if your
employer
will match
your gifts
WBAI.org
slash
matching
dot PHP
find out
about that
and
please
give what
you can
to keep
us
in your
ear holes
do we really
make people
type the PHP
part of that
wow
it's so
unnecessary
you know
but okay
we're not
the webmasters
no we're not
we're not
no criticism
intended
but I'm just
you know
it sort of
jumps out at me
but yeah
that's the URL
and please
please visit that
Alex I was wondering
maybe you have
something to say
from overseas
to encourage
people to
pledge
well
I think that
they know
the value
of what
we bring
to the airwaves
here in New York
and
we always bring
I think
a unique
perspective
something
that they're
not going
to hear
anywhere else
anywhere on
the airwaves
anywhere else
I think
quite possibly
in the world
I think
WBII is a
really unique
animal
we have a
great following
we need
your support
we need
you to be
there for us
the station
needs us
we've been
on the air
how many
years now
Emmanuel
it's got
to be
34
35 years
oh more
than that
oh off
the hook
yeah we
started in
1988
with a special
but the
station's been
on the air
since 1960
and that's
quite a long
time
but where else
were you here
somebody riding
in a taxi cab
from West London
to East London
basically taking
time out of
your late night
to be a part
of this
it is a late
night but again
it is still
not yet
March 30th
where the
United Kingdom
pushes their
clocks forward
so we're
only four
hours ahead
that's right
it's not
that late
at all
I just
realized
thank you
for reminding
me of that
it's not
that bad
yes
go ahead
Rob and
then Kyle
yeah I mean
talking of
matching funds
I heard from
a friend of
mine who
listens to
the show
and I
don't have
permission to
say their
name on the
air but
they became
a buddy
which is
great and
thank you
very much
you know
who you
are and
they also
sent me
a screenshot
of their
employers
approving
a matching
donation
so now
we get
double that
buddy amount
every month
and that
is fantastic
and you know
Off the Hook
is their
favorite show
and that's
great
it's my
favorite too
but you
know you
can do
this
you can
whether
your
employee
whether
your
employer
matches
funds
and that's
searchable
on the
BAI site
if not
maybe you
could ask
somebody
who handles
such things
if you
have an
employer
who is
into that
action
yeah
matching funds
are great
being a
BAI buddy
is super
great
because it
gives us
something that
is really
hard to come
by in the
non-profit
sphere
which is
a dependable
income
and it's
really a
game changer
it's been a
game changer
in the time
I've been
involved with
this station
I've seen
how much
of a change
that makes
go ahead
Kyle
well
just a
reminder
it's
give
to
wbai.org
and
we're
all
volunteers
here
our
contribution
is
our
time
and
our
various
perspectives
and
gifts
that we
have
as a
part of
the
thank you
gifts
from
the
membership
with
Pacifica
and
becoming
a buddy
those
are all
just a
small
part of
it
but
as
much
as
we
can
contribute
we
just
ask
just
this
little
bit
any
amount
it
really
goes
a
long
way
and
it's
the
only
time
we
really
ask
anything
from
listeners
so
please
contribute
what
you
can
and
that'll
ensure
we
can
stay
on
are
you
being
pulled
over
by
the
police
Alex
I
see
all
these
flashing
lights
behind
you
in
the
cab
there
what
what's
going
on
I
don't
know
what
the
hell
is
going
on
here
I
think
those
are
construction
I
think
this
is
just
normal
London
traffic
yeah
yeah
there's
no
we
we
haven't
been
moving
but
we're
certainly
not
pulled
over
stick
your head
out
the
window
and
just
yell
what's
going
on
and
maybe
we'll
get
an
update
first
of
all
I
was
what's
going
on
over
there
keep
so
the
first
thing
Alex
is
that
I
am
shocked
how
much
better
your
signal
is
in
the
back
of
a
cab
than
it
is
in
the
rooms
where
you've
been
staying
that's
right
last
week
was
a
nightmare
you were
in
a
hotel
room
we could
barely
hear
you
now
you're
in
a
London
cab
and
it's
like
you're
in
the
studio
so
I
think
the
trick
is
you
should
be
in
cab
every
week
but
the
other
thing
I
was
going
to
say
going
back
to
fundraising
for
a
second
is
that
if
you
give
at
a
minimum
$25
level
or
you
become
a
B.A.I.
buddy
you
become
a
voting
member
of
W.B.A.I.
then
you
get
to
have
a
say
in
the
direction
of
the
station
somewhat
you
get
to
help
elect
the
leadership
and
you
can
maybe
help
avoid
a
situation
like
we
had
a
few
years
ago
you
mean
Pacifica
both
Pacifica
B.A.I.
is a
part of
the Pacifica
network
and that
25
threshold
it allows
you
voting
position
as a
community
member
so
absolutely
that is
a
great
idea
and
you
can
do
that
from
anywhere
you
don't
have
to
be
in
New
York
yeah
and
it
can
be
a
one
time
thing
or
it
can
be
an
annual
thing
as
well
if
you
want
to
pace
out
your
payments
in
the
buddy
program
exactly
if
you
become
a
B.A.I.
buddy
at the
$2.50
level
congratulations
that's
more than
$25
a year
after the
10 months
goes by
once
you've
cumulatively
hit that
$25
mark
then
you become
the
voting
member
exactly
$25
or more
gives
you a
voting
member
and
also
if
your
employer
is
not
a
match
but
you
have
a
donor
advised
fund
you
can
give
us
money
that
way
if
you
are
over
the
age
of
70
and
a
half
and
need
to
make
a
required
minimum
distribution
from
your
individual
retirement
account
this is
also
a
great
option
wow
I
never
thought
of that
okay
hey
you know
we got
options
well
okay
and
please
write
to us
too
if you
want
to
share
your
donation
share
word
of
your
donation
with
us
OTH
at
2600
dot com
OTH
and
let us
know
that
you
pledged
in the
name
of
Off
the
Hook
and
that
will
make
us
feel
really
good
okay
getting
back
to
some
news
here
Alex
this is
the
longest
cab ride
I think
I've
ever
seen
you're
really
just
going
from
west
to
east
you're
sure
you're
not
going
to
Bristol
or
something
no
I'm
telling
you
this
is
a
you
know
this
is
a
very
wide
city
and
I
mean
you
can
see
it
from
space
it's
massive
and
there
isn't
even
a lot
of
traffic
on
the
road
right
now
but
this
is
just
how
long
it
takes
to
get
from
one
end
to
the
other
in
a
cab
if
you
had
taken
the
underground
I'll
bet
you'd
be
going
a
faster
well
I
tube
and
all
of
the
stairs
and
the
escalators
and
things
are
really
not
my
style
at
the
moment
so
I
am
having
to
cross
London
using
cars
I
wouldn't
ordinarily
be
doing
this
but
here
we
am
it's
making
for
somewhat
interesting
radio
I hope
well
that's
up
to
the
listener
to
decide
we'll
find
out
so
okay
we
have
some
interesting
news
in
the
world
of
YouTube
which
we're
going
to
be
moseying
on
over
to
YouTube
at
8
o'clock
if
people
want
to
join
us
in
overtime
you
can
even
call
us
through
YouTube
believe
it or
not
and
be
a part
of
off
the
hook
in
that
way
but
we're
familiar
with
AI
generated
videos
and
how
they're
starting
to
pop
up
all
over
the
place
well
there's
a
policy
a
new
policy
that
Google
is
going
to
start
implementing
was
compliance
tools
are
now
being
launched
because
Google
just
loves
making
the rest
of us
comply
with
its
arbitrary
rules
and
it will
continue
to roll
out
over
the next
few
weeks
they say
we're
introducing
a new
tool
in
creator
studio
that's
what you
use
to make
videos
on
YouTube
requiring
creators
to
disclose
to
viewers
run
realistic
content
content
a viewer
could
easily
mistake
for
a
real
person
place
or
event
is
made
with
altered
or
synthetic
media
including
generative
AI
so
YouTube
is
requiring
that
creators
mark
certain
AI
video
content
so
the
platform
can
affix
an
altered
or
synthetic
content
label
on it
however
there are
exceptions
not all
AI
video
content
will need
to be
labeled
cartoons
children's
cartoons
do not
have to
be
labeled
I guess
because
it's
pretty
obvious
that
that's
not
real
according
to YouTube
animated
content
is
clearly
unrealistic
so
it does
not
need
to
be
labeled
the
policy
is
meant
to
curb
misinformation
or
potential
legal
issues
which
could
arise
from
generated
versions
of
real
people
it is
not
meant
to be
quality
control
warning
users
when
low
effort
AI
generated
junk
starts
playing
on
their
screen
however
according
to
the
magazine
Wired
YouTube
is
arguably
dropping
the ball
here
because
the
policy
leaves
out
the
bulk
of
kids
content
which
is
animated
video
disturbing
kids
videos
on
YouTube
have
made
headlines
over
the
years
and
the
company
has
made
moves
to
deal
with
the
problem
often
these
appear
to be
pumped
out
as
quickly
as
possible
without
any
educational
intent
or even
steps
to ensure
age
appropriateness
kid
oriented
content
on
YouTube
will
be
affected
by
this
policy
if
creators
push
misinformation
so
if
Bugs Bunny
says
that
the
election
was
a
lie
then
there
has
to
be
something
posted
there
I
guess
that
would
fall
under
the
realistic
portion
of
these
new
rules
however
bulk
generated
AI
animated
junk
usually
aimed
at
the
youngest
demographics
will
not
and
it
seems
YouTube
is
missing
out
on
opportunity
to
have
this
type
content
labeled
so
parents
can
easily
filter
it
out
so
interesting
steps
ahead
I
just
wonder
how
are
they
going
to
know
whether
something
has
been
altered
or
not
you know
you're
supposed
to
label
something
as
being
altered
or
synthetic
or
whatever
and
if
you
don't
how
does
Google
know
that
you
were
supposed
to
do
that
and
didn't
any
theories
I
mean
most
of
YouTube's
quote
unquote
moderation
system
is
just
anybody
can
upload
what
they
like
and
no
one's
paying
any
attention
to it
unless
someone
complains
so
you
would
have
to
see
AI
generated
content
out
in the
wild
probably
reported
to
them
and
then
wait
for
their
moderation
queue
to
reach
you
and
by
that
point
your
kids
are
grown
and
it
doesn't
matter
what
they're
watching
anymore
anyone
else
yeah
I'll
chime
in
here
I think
Rob
is right
about
that
I
also
think
that
the
point
of
this
policy
has
nothing
to do
with
animated
shorts
and
children
and
whatnot
it's
it's
to
give
them
the
right
to
say
that
somebody
who
posts
generative
content
like
this
content
that
is
false
misinformation
misleading
whatever
is AI
generated
in some
way or
another
is
and they
haven't
tagged it
as such
is violating
their terms
of service
and when
you're
violating
their terms
of service
that allows
them to
immediately
remove
whatever the
content
is
it's
essentially
granting
to
them
the
right
to
remove
that
particular
content
because
if
you
have
the
intention
of
posting
some
kind
of
disinformation
whether
it's
about
an
election
or
about
you
know
a
celebrity
or
a
member
of
the
royal
family
it
doesn't
matter
so
long
as
it's
not
flagged
in
that
way
they're
going
to
have
the
right
to
remove
this
that's
what
that
legal
change
does
well
interesting
there's
another
story
that
came
out
pretty
much
the
same
time
with
the
lighthearted
headline
you can
expect
even
more
AI
generated
YouTubers
in the
future
and
what
that
means
is
the
Google
research
team
has
officially
introduced
its
new
AI
power
generative
model
capable
of
creating
controllable
videos
of
variable
length
from
a
single
human
photo
yeah
the
project
is called
Vlogger
does
not
require
training
for
each
person
does
not
rely
on
face
detection
and
cropping
it's
capable
of
generating
the
complete
image
showing
a
target
human
talking
and
moving
including
head
and
gestures
our
framework
is a
two
stage
pipeline
based
on
stochastic
diffusion
models
to model
the
one
to
many
mapping
from
speech
to
video
the
first
network
takes
as
input
an
audio
wave
form
to
generate
intermediate
body
motion
controls
which are
responsible
for gaze
facial
expressions
and pose
over the
target
video
length
the
second
network
is a
temporal
image
to
image
translation
model
that
extends
large
image
diffusion
models
taking
the
predicted
body
controls
to
generate
the
corresponding
frames
to
condition
the
process
to a
particular
identity
the
network
also
takes
a
reference
image
of
a
person
so
yeah
so
that
means
that
you're
going
to be
watching
YouTube
videos
being
lectured
by
various
entities
and
they
won't
be
human
they'll
be
completely
artificial
and
the
thing
that
gets
me
about
this
the
story
I
just
read
before
this
requiring
all
of
us
all
of
us
poor
creators
out
there
to
label
anything
that
is
created
by
AI
anything
that
is
synthetic
in
nature
here
they
are
pretty
much
doing
the
exact
same
thing
but
no
they
don't
have
to
label
that
you
will
be
fooled
you
will
be
able
to
watch
people
who
are
not
people
talking
to
you
on
YouTube
about
various
things
don't
you
think
you
should
have
the
right
to
know
this
is
a
fake
person
this
is
not
real
many
times
I'm
watching
a
YouTube
video
and
I'm
listening
to
somebody
and
I
realize
this
person
is
not
human
nobody
talks
like
that
nobody
pronounces
words
in
that
particular
way
and
you
feel
kind
of
betrayed
you
feel
kind
of
like
wow
someone
couldn't
take
the
time
to
actually
read
something
themselves
or
inject
their
own
personality
into
it
sure
would
be
nice
to
know
that
yeah
this
is
fake
too
but
apparently
when
Google
does
it
Google's
rules
don't
apply
am
I
being
too
harsh
here
yeah
I
know
I
am
but
go
ahead
Rob
I
don't
think
you
are
being
too
harsh
I
mean
first
of
all
just
pointing
out
the
word
stochastic
that
you
used
for
those
unfamiliar
this
is
your
vocabulary
word
for the
day
it
is
it
comes
from
the
ancient
Greek
word
which
means
guess
and
all
you
know
it's
a
fancy
buzzword
that
people
use
a lot
nowadays
in
relation
to
AI
stuff
because
it
just
means
the
computer
is
guessing
so
when
you
stochastically
generate
a
video
it's
because
the
computer
is
guessing
what
a
video
of
that
scene
might
look
like
it
sounds
like
sarcastic
stochastic
you know
I could
use that
more than
once
I
think
but
in
terms
of
like
the
actual
value
of
the
content
one
of
the
best
arguments
I've
seen
regarding
generative
AI
based
content
whether
it be
video
images
whatever
is
you know
if
nobody
bothered
creating
the
thing
why
should
I
bother
consuming
it
it's
a good
question
one
thing
one
thing
I
think
that
this
is
going
to
affect
is
the
sort
of
traceability
or the
provenance
of
historic
media
and
it's
going
to
become
I
think
increasingly
important
to have
things
authenticated
in ways
that are
increasingly
sort of
a second
thought
or
not
front
of
mind
and
having
uniform
ways
of
describing
the
authenticity
of
a
particular
form
of
media
especially
if
it's
jumped
from
maybe
film
into
some
sort
of
streaming
file
and
then
put
into
a
segment
of
a
radio
show
and
then
that
snippet
of
audio
is
used
over
a
meme
a
graphic
and
then
that's
integrated
into
something
else
like
the
way
people
are
sort
of
wanting
to
reimagine
history
it
just
it
makes
me
wonder
if
stuff
that is
not
real
but
based
on a
historical
photo
is
amplified
as
a
historic
reality
like
like
videos
like
we've
seen
in
movies
or
in
an
archival
thing
or
even
things
that were
like
current
events
in the
last
couple
years
that
we
haven't
really
watched
if they're
repackaged
in this
way
and then
thought of
only in
the new
way they're
packaged
you forget
the actual
origin
or the
truth
a great
example of
this I think
or a way
to think
about is
sampling
this happens
all the
time
you and I
are talking
about music
I'll talk
about this
one song
that that
samples from
and you'll
be like
no no no
no that's
from like
two other
songs before
that and
I've
I realize
Roberta Flack
did Killing
Me So
I just want
to point that
out to
everybody
who thinks
it was
somebody else
no it
wasn't
and even
people that
are aware
that it's
not the
original
use it
was
sampled
and maybe
sampled
to death
but those
types of
things I
think are
occurring
with less
attribution
you know
it's interesting
too it
makes me
worry about
how things
will be
labeled in
the future
and who
will be
in charge
of labeling
what is
truth and
what is
not
you know
that's
an awful
lot of
responsibility
and trust
and an
entity that
surely does
not deserve
either
imagine
the nightmare
of putting
out a
video
and having
some
algorithm
or some
large
corporation
or government
say that
was manipulated
that was
fake
that did
not really
happen
and I
see that
coming
you know
there was
not too
long ago
there was
this commercial
out
that
basically
it was a
funny commercial
had to do
with cars
or something
had a kid
in it
and everybody
on reddit
was saying
that kid
is AI
that kid
is not
real
and of course
it wasn't
true
the kid
is real
but can you
imagine
that kid
looking
at those
comments
I mean
you know
talk about
cyberbullying
but to have
the internet
declare that
you don't
exist
that you're
not a
human
and you
know you're
a human
at least
you think
you are
and just
to basically
have all
these people
that supposedly
know better
and have
authority
make that
declaration
I think
we're going
to be seeing
more things
like that
in the future
and it's
really kind
of creepy
and scary
yeah I love
where you're
going with that
too because
people that
are themselves
new
maybe
especially
younger
voice actors
or younger
talent in
ad campaigns
they're not
really known
right so
they don't
have
a resume
that people
might point
to immediately
so then
the accusation
of like
well your
computer
generated
when they
may have
been scanned
or otherwise
had
their likeness
rendered
and or
touched up
or however
you want to
call it
modified
in a computer
as a part
of the
effects layers
or animation
package in
the ad
like that
could be
devastating
that like
your first
job you're
not even
thought of
as a human
being
no for
people who
are already
going through
identity crises
you know or
might not be
the most confident
people in the
world you know
that kind
of
you know
a takedown
is
it's devastating
it also makes
me feel as
bad with
spending your
time on
YouTube
thinking you're
listening to
the author
of a channel
that isn't
actually there
right like
you're having
a non
a non
connection
I mean
for some
maybe that's
sort of
expected
and even
that to me
is sad
maybe that's
my that's
totally my
opinion
but but
the the
idea that
you're like
kind of
you're you're
kind of
betrayed or
deceived a little
like you had
pointed out
like oh
wait this isn't
actually the
narrator is a
computer's voice
you are kind
of like how
much time are
you spending
on on that
particular medium
listening to
computer generated
content that
was generated
in like a
second and how
much of your
life I mean
depending on your
interest level of
the topic I don't
know there's
there's something
a little
dark there I
think just in
time spent with
artificiality
clearly this is
a challenge and
this is something
that we're going
to be faced
with on a
recurring basis
particularly with
the campaign
that's ahead of
us this year
we're going to
see all kinds
of accusations
of well that
was not real
that person
didn't actually
say that
of course
in the world
of Trump
you know
it's artificial
intelligence
couldn't possibly
keep up with
the things that
he comes up
with on his
own but we
are going to
see all sorts
of manipulations
on a variety
of campaigns
you know
local
national
international
and this is
only the
beginning
and how we
deal with
that
determines
just how
much of an
effect this
has on us
in the future
I don't know
what the solution
is I honestly
don't I do
know the
solution is not
to hand over
trust to any
one entity
I think the
solution is
probably on
a technical
level something
that we can
all analyze
and take
apart if
necessary and
see if it's
actually accurately
defining what is
real and what is
not but we
are going to be
facing some
rather interesting
times ahead
Alex either
there's a bed
in that taxi
or you have
moved to a
room
yes I
finally made
it way back
over to
Shoreditch
and all the
way up to
the sixth floor
of the hotel
in which I'm
staying and
I'm back
into the hotel
room so
we made it
across London
in this show
and it didn't
take that long
right we still
got we still
got a ways to
go well
yeah I guess
we have about
10 minutes
but that was
a pretty long
cab ride
I hope it
wasn't too
expensive
no it
wasn't too
bad to be
to be honest
and thankfully
I think I can
expense most
of it
so thoughts
on labeling
reality versus
fiction
yeah I
think you
know this
very much
is
dumped
or rather
don't tell
the story
that we were
just talking
about and I
think that
the idea
that platforms
are going to
request people
to label
the certain
content as
artificially
generated is
solely for the
purpose so
that they
can take
it down
when it
doesn't
comply with
their terms
of service
or their
abuse
policies
and I
think that
the manner
by which we
detect certain
types of
generative AI
is going to
evolve over
time but
it's going to
evolve in
lockstep with
the generative AI's
abilities to
frustrate our
ability to
identify generative
AI content as
well this
goes back
to I
don't know
if many
of our
listeners
remember
steganography
or steganographic
encryption
techniques
whereby
and this
was you
know something
that was
like the
hypothetical
use case
of somebody
like Al
Qaeda
right so
they were
going to
use steganographic
encryption which
is embedding
some kind
of hidden
message or
hidden data
into an
image and
modifying the
data within
an image so
that you can
post an image
let's say on
Craigslist or
anywhere else
you tell somebody
you know what
the image is
it's a couch
for sale for
$725 located
in Cincinnati
Ohio whatever
they download
that image and
hidden within
that image would
be some kind
of secret
message well
it's the
shifting and
the movements of
certain bits
and data
that would
allow people
to detect
steganographic
encryption at
work or
in practice
and people
that have been
researching this
in particular
one professor
Hani Farid
I think he's
still over at
UC Berkeley
he and I
worked together
many years ago
at Dartmouth
College in
New Hampshire
he's really been
pioneering the
detection of
the use of
of AI
for image
manipulation
and video
manipulation
and I
think that
he's really
built on
the process
of detecting
steganographic
encryption techniques
and it's going
to get more
and more
and more
difficult
because if
you look at
how his
research has
evolved
you see that
AI systems
and all the
telltale signs
that have
been there
about how
to detect
them
they're changing
so it's
going to be
harder and
harder and
harder to
detect these
things
I can't
imagine what
this cat and
mouse game
is going to
look like in
five or six
years let
alone 20
well you know
just brainstorming
here
absent
something that's
unique in our
own human
voices or
images that
can be pulled
out and
identified kind
of like a
fingerprint
if there isn't
something in our
audio or in
our video
that can be
identified and
is not something
that can easily
be transferred
over to an
artificial intelligence
expression if
that doesn't
exist then I
envision a
world where it
will be required
for anybody
creating any
kind of
artificial construct
to have some
sort of identifier
in there I
don't know how
that's even
possible I
don't know how
that would be
enforced but I
see at least
the desire for
a world where
all digital
communications
have to have
some kind of
identity code
that labels
whether or not
they are real
or fake I
don't think this
is a good
world I don't
think this is
something that
freedom is going
to prosper in
but I don't
really see any
other way that
people who want
to maintain
control are
going to have
any hope of
doing so
go ahead Alex
I think you
bring up such
a great and
interesting
problem here
Emmanuel but I
do also think
that there's
potentially a way
to solve this
if we what we
have to establish
essentially is
that a message
came from us
right a message
or a video
or a message
whatever it is
is coming from
a particular
sender and we
can do this
using standard
encryption techniques
we can use
this by using
essentially a
private key to
sign a message
right just like
PGP works
right so we
can use that
but this brings
up the struggle
I think that we
have right now
we've been
viewing over the
last really 20
years now about
who owns our
identity on the
internet do we
own our own
identity you know
how are we going
to sign these
particular messages
if we're going to
upload a video to
you know let's
say X Twitter
whatever the hell
we're calling it
now or Mastodon
whatever and we
need to prove
that this is an
original video
that came from
a particular
device or came
from a person
and we are
signing it in a
way that can't
be repudiated
we need to do
so with a key
that would only
belong to us
and I think
that's where
this notion of
owning your
identity in
the next
generation of
the web the
next generation
of the internet
the web 3
world as opposed
to the web 2
in the web 1
world is going
to come into
play
if you think
about the
first generation
of the web
it was just
about reading
content the
second generation
of the web
was about
reading content
and writing
content interacting
with websites
social media
putting content
out there
pasting images
and videos
and now that's
just not enough
because web 2
doesn't have the
ability to sign
that content
cryptographically in
a way that
can be non
repudiated
web 3
does though
this whole
idea of having
your identity
stored somewhere
also in a
fashion with
your public
and your private
key on a
blockchain
is going to
be I think
that's where
this is going
to come into
play because
the next
generation of
the internet
is not just
reading and
writing but
it's also about
owning that data
and proving that
you own that
data proving that
the data came
from you in
particular that's
how I think
we defeat this
I'm glad you
said blockchain
before I did
go ahead Kyle
oh I just want
to speak a
little bit about
sort of the
opposite end of
that the
because this
kind of gets
into tracking
where like we're
talking about
attribution I
raised the
idea of
attribution and
it's the
perils of not
having that from
a journalistic
perspective but
another thing I
think we also
are thinking
about and we've
talked about
this in the
past from
like the
idea from the
perspective of
people creating
things and I
have a bunch of
photos I've been
looking at
personally and
going through and
a lot of why I've
withheld it from
let's say the
internet not
posting it as
because of like
unintended ways it
could be used and
of course if you go
to the effort to
create something you
know you want to
make sure that it
finds its way to
the best use you
don't want it
everywhere but
that's the kind
of slippery slope
when you're trying
to promote a
little bit so
people who are
putting content
out there are
rightly worried
about this stuff
getting scraped up
and becoming a
part of these new
big software
giants and a
program we talked
about that was I
think emerging I
don't know if it
was out at the
time is it's
called Nightshade
and I think it's
nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu
it's a project there
and it's under
review right now but
I think you can
download and play
with it and I've
been wanting to
play with this
myself to see how
you can as Alex
described inject
other information
into imagery so
that you can use
the visual medium
to convey to
humans but also
rightfully confuse
simultaneously some
of these machines
that are learning
go ahead Rob
I think what I
what I have to say
about this is pretty
lengthy and we
might have to save
it for over time
okay fair enough
that gives me time
to close with one
more story about
AI and yeah
Apple is in
discussions with
Google about using
the search
science generative
artificial intelligence
model called
Gemini for its
next iPhone as
the company races
to embrace the
technology that has
upended the tech
industry imagine
that Apple and
Google working
together to create
artificial intelligence
the talks are
preliminary and the
exact scope of a
potential deal hasn't
been defined
three people with
knowledge of the
discussions told the
New York Times
Apple has also held
discussions with
other AI companies
one of these people
said as it looks to
tap into the power of
a large language
model capable of
analyzing vast amounts
of data and generating
text on its own
Tim Cook Apple's chief
executive has promised
investors that the
company will introduce
new generative AI
capabilities this year
the company's smartphone
rivals Samsung and
Google have already
added Gemini to their
newest devices to edit
videos and summarize
audio recordings and
of course Apple and
Google have declined to
comment and this story
came from from
Bloomberg so yeah an
Apple Google deal on
generative AI would
extend one of
technology's most
long-standing
partnerships since
Apple introduced the
iPhone in 2007 Google
has been a critical
contributor to the
device's success it
initially provided
Google Maps for
navigation and later
struck a deal to
become the default
search engine on the
iPhone Safari browser
which was a lucrative
agreement for which
Google pays Apple more
than 18 billion dollars
a year Google's
discussions to provide
generative AI
capabilities for the
iPhone would be the
latest example of its
filling a gap in
Apple's products Apple's
effort to develop its
own large language
model of the
technology behind
chatbots like chat
GPT and Gemini has
been running behind
kind of like their
electric cars running
behind don't worry
Apple will catch up
any any thoughts in the
minute that we have
I think it's a trend
towards converging and
monopolies and that's a
bad thing in our
system so we gotta watch
out for that we need to
support smaller companies
smaller projects and and
to find sort of equitable
marketplaces for them to
be available and not be
scaled up in in grotesque
grotesque ways
alternative large
language models I like
the sound of that you
know who knows yeah I
don't know what it what
the prescription is but
we definitely I mean
that's that's sort of a
partnership or
collaboration but what
what when does that go
right I mean it just it's
going to put a lot of
limitations and inherently
friction between the two
and it can't all be
Google it'll end in you
know some horrible
competitive mess that we
all lose we definitely
suffer so yeah there
will be a fair amount of
suffering I can almost
guarantee that buyer
beware yeah all right
well I guess we're going
to end it there but we're
going to continue the
conversation over on
overtime channel 2600 on
YouTube or just click on
the link that's on the
2600.com web page please
keep those phone calls
coming in 212-209-2950 or
go to the website give to
wbai.org and pledge
whatever you can afford in
the name of off the hook
so that we make a grand
total of $350 for the
month of March and can
come back fresh in two
weeks with our heads held
high and our future
assured write to us OTH at
2600.com and please
continue to keep updated on
our hope conference which
we're still organizing a lot
of speakers are submitting
talks panel ideas workshop
ideas villages all kinds of
things hope.net is the
place to go to get all the
information on that it's a
gathering of hackers from
all around the planet it's a
lot of fun and please keep
listening to WBAI for all
sorts of alternative
programming and keep this
radio station going again
212-209-2950 give to
wbai.org for off the hook
this is manual see you on
the air in two weeks see you
on YouTube in six minutes
good night