Speaker 1: Handle and the Morning Crew on a Taco Tuesday.
Speaker 2: May twentieth.
Speaker 1: Then, since it is our eight o'clock hour and it
Speaker 1: is a Tuesday, that means we have our Tech segment
Speaker 1: with Rich Dumurow, kfi's tech Guy. He's on KTLA TV
Speaker 1: every day every Saturday here eleven am to two pm
Speaker 1: with Rich on Tech Instagram, at rich on Tech Website,
Speaker 1: richontech dot TV and Rich you are at a Google
Speaker 1: AI event right now?
Speaker 2: And where is it?
Speaker 3: This is Mountain View, California, at the headquarters of Google.
Speaker 4: It's called Google Io.
Speaker 3: And the best way to describe it is sort of
Speaker 3: like a circus or carnival atmosphere for folks that are
Speaker 3: into technology, mostly developers that are making anything related to
Speaker 3: Google apps and things like that, plus press like myself
Speaker 3: that are looking forward to seeing what Google is working
Speaker 3: on next.
Speaker 1: Are these serious events or are they just riproaring great
Speaker 1: parties where Google serves you great food.
Speaker 4: Great question.
Speaker 3: I think the steaks have never been higher for Google
Speaker 3: at this very moment in time. They have been on
Speaker 3: top of the tech world and especially search for the
Speaker 3: past twenty years, and that was all upended with the
Speaker 3: introduction of chat, GBT and Google's entire business was turned
Speaker 3: upside down overnight, which is namely search advertising. So I
Speaker 3: think the steaks have never been higher for them to
Speaker 3: prove that they are still on top of the world
Speaker 3: when it comes to search and AI, as much as
Speaker 3: that is evolving for everyday folks.
Speaker 2: All Right, an important question, how is the food.
Speaker 3: I have not gotten to the food just yet. I
Speaker 3: just made my way in. That was about a half
Speaker 3: an hour process. There are people from you know, there's
Speaker 3: thousands of people here from all over the world that
Speaker 3: come to this event, but they do a nice job. Typically,
Speaker 3: Bill and I will investigate. I apologize I was not
Speaker 3: able to investigate the cinnamon bonds before I got on
Speaker 3: air here with you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's very very important, as you know, in terms
Speaker 1: of what Google is bringing in the table, is there
Speaker 1: any indication of what you're going to see.
Speaker 3: I think there's a couple of things that they're gonna
Speaker 3: I mean, I think they're trying to make search more
Speaker 3: accessible with AI to the everyday person. So right now,
Speaker 3: search Google was always sort of a proprietary.
Speaker 4: Eponym, right I'm going to search that, I'm gonna google that.
Speaker 3: Now chat gybt.
Speaker 4: Has really taken over the idea of anything you're doing
Speaker 4: with AI. I'm chat gybt. You know, I'm using chat
Speaker 4: gbt for that, right. And so Google has something called.
Speaker 3: Gemini, which they've done a pretty good job of building
Speaker 3: into a lot of their products like email and also
Speaker 3: their docs and things like that. The problem is nobody
Speaker 3: really identifies AI with Gemini, and that's a problem for Google.
Speaker 3: So they've come out with a lot of useful tools,
Speaker 3: but none of them have sort of well, there's one actually,
Speaker 3: I want to tell you about it, Bill, It's called
Speaker 3: Notebook LA. This is probably their standout tool that sort
Speaker 3: of has gone viral and basically it allows you to
Speaker 3: take any sort of information.
Speaker 4: Pop it into this tool, and it will spit out.
Speaker 3: A personalized podcast specifically about that information. So they just
Speaker 3: came out with an app for Android and iOS. It's
Speaker 3: called Notebook LM. If you are into new ways of
Speaker 3: learning things, if you always have to study about a topic,
Speaker 3: this is probably one of the most useful things to
Speaker 3: come out of AI in the past three years.
Speaker 1: How does Google uh? How does Google uh? In terms
Speaker 1: of AI? Are they going to have a problem keeping
Speaker 1: the verb to Google because that's what everybody thinks I mean,
Speaker 1: now at this point it's a default where everybody thinks
Speaker 1: that's the case.
Speaker 2: Uh, is that when it happened.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm concerned about their their traditional search. The idea
Speaker 3: of going on the Internet and getting a result of
Speaker 3: ten blue lengths and clicking through those is just no
Speaker 3: longer the reality for a majority of people. They are
Speaker 3: now going to a service like Perplexity or chat gybt
Speaker 3: or even Gemini, and they're typing in a topic and
Speaker 3: getting a summary of that topic.
Speaker 4: So it's basically reaching out.
Speaker 3: To all those web pages that you might have gone
Speaker 3: to as a human before, and the AI is just
Speaker 3: taking that information, summarizing it and presenting.
Speaker 4: It to you. Now, Bill, we all know.
Speaker 3: The problem with that is that sometimes there are mistakes
Speaker 3: inside that information, but there could also be mistakes.
Speaker 4: On websites that people go to. And so I think
Speaker 4: that Google has.
Speaker 3: To show a way that they can make this AI search,
Speaker 3: which they already have.
Speaker 4: It's called AI mode.
Speaker 3: It's really good and it rivals what chatchybt does, but
Speaker 3: they have to figure out how are they going to
Speaker 3: monetize that side.
Speaker 4: Of the business, which is really really tricky. At this point,
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 2: How far behind is Google in the world of AI.
Speaker 3: That is so interesting because Google. This is what's so
Speaker 3: interesting about Google and AI. They have been using AI
Speaker 3: and machine learning way before it was a buzzword. The
Speaker 3: problem was bill, how do you monetize? And I think
Speaker 3: that's why they never came out with a flagship product
Speaker 3: until their hand was forced. And you've got to think
Speaker 3: about what chatgybt is. It's open AI. It's a very
Speaker 3: highly funded startup. They do not need to make money
Speaker 3: right now. Now a lot of people are paying them
Speaker 3: twenty dollars a month to use their search product. Right
Speaker 3: they're chatgbt. But the thing with Google, all of their
Speaker 3: stuff was free. They never charged for search. And if
Speaker 3: they came out with an AI product that suddenly is amazing,
Speaker 3: but there's no money behind it. That's a problem for
Speaker 3: a giant company that is publicly traded, and I think
Speaker 3: that's been the biggest issue with Google. Is this idea
Speaker 3: of how do you pivot in a way that keeps
Speaker 3: stockholders happy but also stays up to date with the
Speaker 3: trends that are happening in the world, which is you know,
Speaker 3: AI for free for everyone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm a little confused here because isn't the monetization
Speaker 1: model simply hundreds of millions of people using it for
Speaker 1: the most part for free, and that data mining then
Speaker 1: goes to an advertiser, knowing, for example, that I'm using it,
Speaker 1: I shop at Costco, I just bought my burritos yesterday.
Speaker 2: Don't they know that? And isn't that saleable?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 3: The problem is, Okay, think about traditional search, right, Okay,
Speaker 3: you go online, you're looking for new patio furniture. You
Speaker 3: go to Google, Google dot com, you search patio furniture.
Speaker 3: The first five links are sponsored by an advertiser that
Speaker 3: is targeting patio furniture, right, and so you click on
Speaker 3: one of those because you look at the second link,
Speaker 3: you say, oh, that's cool, Umbrella, whatever.
Speaker 4: The company is. You click that link.
Speaker 3: Google now just made eight dollars or whatever they did
Speaker 3: on that search, right, And that happens probably millions of
Speaker 3: times a day, I don't know, if not billions through Google. Now,
Speaker 3: think about an AI search, the way that chat gibt
Speaker 3: is doing AI search with shopping nothing sponsored. They're literally
Speaker 3: going out to the reviews website summarizing what people say
Speaker 3: is the best patio furniture and presenting that as the
Speaker 3: first link, and now that is not sponsored, you click
Speaker 3: on it, nobody made money in that transaction. Now in
Speaker 3: the future they may charge, but Google has to figure
Speaker 3: out that same thing. All of their shopping results in
Speaker 3: the past have been sponsored, and of course people don't
Speaker 3: want that anymore. They want to know like who reviews
Speaker 3: these products and says they are the best. So I
Speaker 3: think the problem is those organic links that don't make
Speaker 3: any money. You know, the non sponsored stuff is really
Speaker 3: what's happening with AI versus Google's traditional search, which the
Speaker 3: first five links or three links whatever at the top
Speaker 3: were always sponsored and people would click those and make
Speaker 3: a ton of money in the process for Google.
Speaker 1: All Right, I'll go to be talking about that a
Speaker 1: whole lot. By the way, next week. Just keep in
Speaker 1: mind you're going to do the taste tests also of
Speaker 1: the food, because that's the most important thing I'm interested in.
Speaker 1: All Right, we've got some sag Afternoons twenty three and
Speaker 1: me has been sold.
Speaker 2: We've got tons to talk about. Don't go away, We'll
Speaker 2: be back with the rich.
Speaker 1: We continue on with Richard Murrow, or tech guy, who
Speaker 1: is currently up north at the Google event reporting live.
Speaker 1: A couple of stories that I want to get into
Speaker 1: rich and that is twenty three and me has been sold.
Speaker 1: Has business declined dramatically? Do people not care anymore? I
Speaker 1: don't care. If I'm eight percent Inuit doesn't bother me
Speaker 1: at all, and I'm certainly not going to spend any
Speaker 1: money doing that.
Speaker 2: So what's going on with that?
Speaker 3: Well, this was a company that was hot for a
Speaker 3: couple of years. I mean, probably one of the top
Speaker 3: selling DNA testing kits and gifts for the holidays and
Speaker 3: especially Amazon Prime Day for many years. This was a
Speaker 3: company that was once worth six billion dollars and they
Speaker 3: went bankrupt because I think the combination of privacy concerns
Speaker 3: and they were never able to fully monetize what to
Speaker 3: do with all of that DNA data that they collected.
Speaker 3: And so now they were sold for two hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty six million dollars to this biotech company out of
Speaker 3: New York called Regeneron. And the big question.
Speaker 4: Here is what are they going to do with all
Speaker 4: this data?
Speaker 3: Is it going to be kept private? And you know,
Speaker 3: will it help this company develop new drugs for biogenetics.
Speaker 4: So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3: But the main thing they're saying right now, is that
Speaker 3: they are going to keep twenty three and mes privacy
Speaker 3: rules and regulations in place even through the acquisition.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine how they wouldn't keep privacy in place
Speaker 1: unless it's non identifiable in terms of the individuals. If
Speaker 1: you're looking at population demographics, I can't see a big
Speaker 1: problem in terms of drug use, et cetera. The people
Speaker 1: who are x percent, for example, Germanic or French I have,
Speaker 1: but tend to have this kind of a syndrome or
Speaker 1: tend to go in another way.
Speaker 2: I can see that. But how do you get rid
Speaker 2: of the how do you get rid of the privacy?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I want you to know how
Speaker 1: much you know French background I have, which I have
Speaker 1: none by the way.
Speaker 3: No, And I'm not even sure it matters to personally
Speaker 3: identify people in this manner because think about it, they've
Speaker 3: got the profiles now of fifteen million people DNA profiles.
Speaker 3: That's you know, the full sequence or I guess you know,
Speaker 3: I don't know if they got the full sequence or
Speaker 3: the partial sequence, whatever it is, it's enough to help
Speaker 3: them figure out, hey, is there a pattern here? And
Speaker 3: if we use a drug to do this? Or if
Speaker 3: we change these the genes on this person, does it help?
Speaker 3: And so I think that's really what they're going to
Speaker 3: use as data for They want to return on their investment,
Speaker 3: and they just got a whole bunch of fresh DNA
Speaker 3: info that would have taken them years to collect. And
Speaker 3: so hopefully we'll see some good drug come out of
Speaker 3: this that will really help people. But again, I think
Speaker 3: that the idea of just knowing what rich DeMuro specifically
Speaker 3: has versus you know, here's what twenty million people with
Speaker 3: this DNA profile seem to have as a problem. I
Speaker 3: think that's much more important here to this company than
Speaker 3: knowing what I specifically have.
Speaker 1: Have people just stopped using the product that sales collapsed,
Speaker 1: I mean you're talking about bankruptcy, you're talking about going
Speaker 1: out of business.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's a one time thing. So it's
Speaker 3: like you're not taking a DNA test more than once
Speaker 3: in your life. So again, what is the business model
Speaker 3: after that? You sell a bunch of these things on
Speaker 3: prime day and then what you're not you know, the
Speaker 3: idea was to upsell people on these subscriptions to you know,
Speaker 3: gene monitoring whatever, Like, hey, you have this, you can
Speaker 3: tap into more details about what may happen.
Speaker 4: To you in the future. I don't think a lot
Speaker 4: of people did that.
Speaker 3: They bought these kids for sixty nine to ninety nine dollars,
Speaker 3: they took the test, they said, okay, I'm forty percent,
Speaker 3: this sixty percent. That that's cool, and they never thought
Speaker 3: about it again. So I think the business model was
Speaker 3: pretty tough for twenty three and me, especially when you
Speaker 3: layer in the privacy concerns.
Speaker 1: All Right, something that hits close to home that you
Speaker 1: and I are both part of, and that's sag Aftra
Speaker 1: Suing by the way, sag of course, Screen Acters Guild
Speaker 1: merged with after the American Federation of Television Radio Artists.
Speaker 2: For some reason, they call us artists. Explain that one
Speaker 2: to me, and it's suing. Epic Games explain.
Speaker 3: That well, So I guess they filed a complaint against
Speaker 3: Epic Games.
Speaker 4: Some people were reporting that it was a suit, but
Speaker 4: it is.
Speaker 3: It seems to be a complaint, and it's over the
Speaker 3: use of for Fortnite. I guess they used James Earl Jones.
Speaker 3: You know, you remember him, the famous actor. He died
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty four, but they had his voice from
Speaker 3: all the movies he did, and they made an AI
Speaker 3: cloned voice of him for players to interact with in Fortnite.
Speaker 3: Now here's the interesting rub about this bill is that
Speaker 3: the family Disney Fortnite, they all say that they have
Speaker 3: permission to do this from the estate and from James
Speaker 3: Earl Jones, but SAG is saying no, no, no, hold on.
Speaker 3: This still has to go through us because this is
Speaker 3: a union issue. Because think about it, Bill, If everyone
Speaker 3: in the world just says yeah, it's fine to use
Speaker 3: it SAG for bargaining in the future, that is not
Speaker 3: a very good thing because they lose a lot of
Speaker 3: their bargaining power if their members are not covered by
Speaker 3: any sort of AI agreement. And we know that that's
Speaker 3: kind of like the biggest growth area. Again, it's like
Speaker 3: the DNA test. You get cloned once with your voice
Speaker 3: or your likeness, and Hollywood could keep using you forever.
Speaker 3: That would be a very bad proposition for a big
Speaker 3: union like SAG AFTRA.
Speaker 2: But it's if you're talking about permission.
Speaker 1: You know, for example, you and I both have a
Speaker 1: contract with Premiere Radio correct maybe you don't, maybe you don't,
Speaker 1: I do, and part of the union if I allow.
Speaker 1: Part of my contract is that iHeart can use my name,
Speaker 1: my likeness during the course of my contract virtually anyway
Speaker 1: they want, and not AI.
Speaker 3: I don't think AI's in their bill and that Look,
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not siding with psych Aster or not.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that this is they're saying this is
Speaker 3: a union issue because they want to protect the people
Speaker 3: in the union from saying, Look, you can sign this contract,
Speaker 3: you can say whatever you want, but at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, this is a union issue. We are
Speaker 3: we are negotiating on behalf of our members for these protections,
Speaker 3: and if companies can just override that, what's the point
Speaker 3: of the union? And so I think that that's what
Speaker 3: they're arguing very because they want to make a statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but just for your information, I've got about six
Speaker 1: or eight video game companies that are bidding from my
Speaker 1: voice to be used.
Speaker 2: Did you know that.
Speaker 4: No, that's incredible. What do they want to do with
Speaker 4: your voice? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I didn't know that either, but it sure sounds good.
Speaker 1: We're done, Rich, You have a good one. Rich Ktla
Speaker 1: Every single day the TV show or on TV our
Speaker 1: Tech Guy, eleven am to two pm on Saturdays, Instagram
Speaker 1: at rich on Tech website, richontech dot tv.
Speaker 2: Enjoy the Google event and eat your brains out. Catch
Speaker 2: you next week.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna go check out I'm gonna go check out
Speaker 3: the Diy Bagel bar with the smoke salmon.
Speaker 4: That's yeah.