A recap of the Big Tech antitrust hearing

Hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on Online Platforms and Market Power, Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 03 August 2020
Follow

A recap of the Big Tech antitrust hearing

  • Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook and Alphabet Inc.’s Sundar Pichai spent hours facing questioning from lawmakers
  • Chair David Cicilline: These companies, as they exist today, have monopoly power. Some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable

DUBAI: On July 29, CEOs from the world’s biggest tech companies appeared before the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook and Alphabet Inc.’s Sundar Pichai spent hours facing questioning from lawmakers about anti-competitive monopolies.

There have been several concerns regarding the inclusion of all four companies due to their differences in business models, but subcommittee Chair David Cicilline addressed these by highlighting the commonalities between the companies: All are a bottleneck for a key channel of distribution; all use data and surveillance of other companies to buy, copy, or cut off potential competition; and all abuse their control over current technologies to extend their power.

“Their ability to dictate terms, call the shots, upend entire sectors, and inspire fear represent the powers of a private government,” said Cicilline.

Over a span of nearly six hours, lawmakers questioned the four CEOs on topics including Google’s search practices, the filtering out of political viewpoints on a platform, Russian election interference, promoting racism and anti-Semitism and practices that could eliminate existing and potential competition.

Though it was Bezos’ first congressional testimony, he appeared the least fazed by the grilling. Cook drew fewer barbed questions than Bezos but handled them efficiently, while Zuckerberg took the most damage, stumbling a few times when confronted with internal emails. Pichai endured much heat from conservatives, and he looked the worse for it as he repeatedly told lawmakers he would be happy to look into various situations and get back to them.

Unfortunately, the Big Tech hearing was decidedly low-tech. Bezos escaped questioning for about 90 minutes in what may have been a tech issue and was caught reaching for what appeared to be a snack. Poor audio quality, flat-screen televisions switching off, and chief executives appearing together as thumbnails on a large screen all frustrated viewers and led to mockery of the virtual set-up on Twitter.

“All of them indicated that they use their massive data advantages to peek into what their competitors or people who rely on their platforms are doing,” said Gene Kimmelman, an adviser with the Washington-based nonprofit Public Knowledge. “So, while they didn’t really want to admit it, they couldn’t deny it.”

The hearing concluded with Cicilline saying: “This hearing has made one fact clear to me: These companies, as they exist today, have monopoly power. Some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable. We need to ensure the antitrust laws first written more than a century ago work in the digital age.”


AI is learning to lie, scheme, and threaten its creators

Updated 29 June 2025
Follow

AI is learning to lie, scheme, and threaten its creators

  • Users report that models are “lying to them and making up evidence,” says Apollo Research’s co-founder
  • In one instance, Anthropic’s latest creation Claude 4 threatened to reveal an engineer's extramarital affair

NEW YORK: The world’s most advanced AI models are exhibiting troubling new behaviors — lying, scheming, and even threatening their creators to achieve their goals.
In one particularly jarring example, under threat of being unplugged, Anthropic’s latest creation Claude 4 lashed back by blackmailing an engineer and threatened to reveal an extramarital affair.
Meanwhile, ChatGPT-creator OpenAI’s o1 tried to download itself onto external servers and denied it when caught red-handed.
These episodes highlight a sobering reality: more than two years after ChatGPT shook the world, AI researchers still don’t fully understand how their own creations work.
Yet the race to deploy increasingly powerful models continues at breakneck speed.
This deceptive behavior appears linked to the emergence of “reasoning” models -AI systems that work through problems step-by-step rather than generating instant responses.
According to Simon Goldstein, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, these newer models are particularly prone to such troubling outbursts.
“O1 was the first large model where we saw this kind of behavior,” explained Marius Hobbhahn, head of Apollo Research, which specializes in testing major AI systems.
These models sometimes simulate “alignment” — appearing to follow instructions while secretly pursuing different objectives.

Stress test
For now, this deceptive behavior only emerges when researchers deliberately stress-test the models with extreme scenarios.
But as Michael Chen from evaluation organization METR warned, “It’s an open question whether future, more capable models will have a tendency toward honesty or deception.”
The concerning behavior goes far beyond typical AI “hallucinations” or simple mistakes.
Hobbhahn insisted that despite constant pressure-testing by users, “what we’re observing is a real phenomenon. We’re not making anything up.”
Users report that models are “lying to them and making up evidence,” according to Apollo Research’s co-founder.
“This is not just hallucinations. There’s a very strategic kind of deception.”
The challenge is compounded by limited research resources.
While companies like Anthropic and OpenAI do engage external firms like Apollo to study their systems, researchers say more transparency is needed.
As Chen noted, greater access “for AI safety research would enable better understanding and mitigation of deception.”
Another handicap: the research world and non-profits “have orders of magnitude less compute resources than AI companies. This is very limiting,” noted Mantas Mazeika from the Center for AI Safety (CAIS).

No time for thorough testing

Current regulations aren’t designed for these new problems.
The European Union’s AI legislation focuses primarily on how humans use AI models, not on preventing the models themselves from misbehaving.
In the United States, the Trump administration shows little interest in urgent AI regulation, and Congress may even prohibit states from creating their own AI rules.
Goldstein believes the issue will become more prominent as AI agents — autonomous tools capable of performing complex human tasks — become widespread.
“I don’t think there’s much awareness yet,” he said.
All this is taking place in a context of fierce competition.
Even companies that position themselves as safety-focused, like Amazon-backed Anthropic, are “constantly trying to beat OpenAI and release the newest model,” said Goldstein.
This breakneck pace leaves little time for thorough safety testing and corrections.
“Right now, capabilities are moving faster than understanding and safety,” Hobbhahn acknowledged, “but we’re still in a position where we could turn it around..”
Researchers are exploring various approaches to address these challenges.
Some advocate for “interpretability” — an emerging field focused on understanding how AI models work internally, though experts like CAIS director Dan Hendrycks remain skeptical of this approach.
Market forces may also provide some pressure for solutions.
As Mazeika pointed out, AI’s deceptive behavior “could hinder adoption if it’s very prevalent, which creates a strong incentive for companies to solve it.”
Goldstein suggested more radical approaches, including using the courts to hold AI companies accountable through lawsuits when their systems cause harm.
He even proposed “holding AI agents legally responsible” for accidents or crimes — a concept that would fundamentally change how we think about AI accountability.
 


BBC rolls out paid subscriptions for US users

Updated 26 June 2025
Follow

BBC rolls out paid subscriptions for US users

  • US visitors will have to pay $49.99 per year or $8.99 per month for unlimited access to news articles, feature stories, and a 24-hour livestream of its news programs
  • Move is part of broadcaster’s efforts to explore new revenue streams amid negotiations with the British government over its funding

LONDON: The BBC is rolling out paid subscriptions in the United States, it said on Thursday, as the publicly-funded broadcaster explores new revenue streams amid negotiations with the British government over its funding.
The BBC has in recent years seen a fall in the number of people paying the license fee, a charge of 174.50 pounds ($239.76) a year levied on all households who watch live TV, as viewers have turned to more content online.
From Thursday, frequent US visitors to the BBC’s news website will have to pay $49.99 per year or $8.99 per month for unlimited access to news articles, feature stories, and a 24-hour livestream of its news programs.
While its services will remain free to British users as part of its public service remit, its news website operates commercially and reaches 139 million users worldwide, including nearly 60 million in the US
The new pay model uses an engagement-based system, the corporation said in a statement, allowing casual readers to access free content.
“Over the next few months, as we test and learn more about audience needs and habits, additional long-form factual content will be added to the offer for paying users,” said Rebecca Glashow, CEO of BBC Global Media & Streaming.
The British government said last November it would review the BBC’s Royal Charter, which sets out the broadcaster’s terms and funding model, with the aim of ensuring a sustainable and fair system beyond 2027.
To give the corporation financial certainty up to then, the government said it was committed to keeping the license in its current form and would lift the fee in line with inflation.


Israeli minister walks back claim of antisemitism after clash with Piers Morgan

Updated 26 June 2025
Follow

Israeli minister walks back claim of antisemitism after clash with Piers Morgan

  • Israel’s Minister Amichai Chikli accused Morgan in a previous social media post of ‘sharp and troubling descent into overt antisemitism’
  • Following heated interview, Chikli later denied ever calling Morgan antisemitic, despite earlier post

LONDON: Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Amichai Chikli has denied accusing British broadcaster Piers Morgan of antisemitism following a heated exchange during a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” despite a post on his official X account that said Morgan’s rhetoric marked “a sharp and troubling descent into overt antisemitism.”

The confrontation aired on Tuesday during an episode focused on Israel’s escalating conflicts with Iran and Hamas and featured appearances from both Chikli and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Tensions erupted as Morgan repeatedly pressed Chikli to explain his public accusations.

“You did, you implied it,” Morgan said, adding that Chikli’s accusations led to “thousands of people calling me antisemitic and (a) Jew-hater” on social media. He demanded evidence, ultimately calling the minister “pathetic” and “an embarrassment” when none was offered.

The row stemmed from a June 4 post by Chikli, who shared a clip of a prior interview between Morgan and British barrister Jonathan Hausdorff, a member of the pro-Israel group UK Lawyers for Israel.

In the post, viewed over 1.3 million times by the time of Tuesday’s broadcast, Chikli claimed Morgan had hosted “every Israel hater he can find” and treated Hausdorff with “vile condescension and bullying arrogance — revealing his true face, one he had long tried to conceal.”

The post also referenced an unverified claim by American commentator Tucker Carlson that Morgan had said he “hates Israel with every fiber of his being” — a statement Morgan has firmly denied.

During Tuesday’s interview, Morgan challenged Chikli to cite a single antisemitic remark or action.

“Is it because I dare to criticize Israeli actions in Gaza?” Morgan told Chikli.

According to Israeli outlet Haaretz, Chikli later denied ever calling Morgan antisemitic, despite his earlier post.

The episode reflects Morgan’s shifting stance on the war in Gaza. Once a vocal supporter of Israel’s right to self-defense in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks, Morgan has since adopted a more critical view as the civilian toll in Gaza has mounted and international outrage has grown.

The show has become a flashpoint for debate since the conflict began, hosting polarizing guests from both sides, including controversial American Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a staunch defender of Israel, and influencer Dan Bilzerian, who has faced accusations of Holocaust denial.

Chikli, meanwhile, has faced criticism for blurring the lines between genuine antisemitism and political criticism of Israel. He recently sparked controversy by inviting members of far-right European parties — some with antisemitic histories — to a conference on antisemitism in Jerusalem, raising questions about his credibility.


Iraq arrests commentator over online post on Iran-Israel war

Updated 25 June 2025
Follow

Iraq arrests commentator over online post on Iran-Israel war

  • Iraqi forces arrested Abbas Al-Ardawi for sharing content online that included incitement intended to insult and defame the security institution

BAGHDAD: Iraqi authorities said they arrested a political commentator on Wednesday over a post alleging that a military radar system struck by a drone had been used to help Israel in its war against Iran.

After a court issued a warrant, the defense ministry said that Iraqi forces arrested Abbas Al-Ardawi for sharing content online that included “incitement intended to insult and defame the security institution.”

In a post on X, which was later deleted but has circulated on social media as a screenshot, Ardawi told his more than 90,000 followers that “a French radar in the Taji base served the Israeli aggression” and was eliminated.

Early Tuesday, hours before a ceasefire ended the 12-day Iran-Israel war, unidentified drones struck radar systems at two military bases in Taji, north of Baghdad, and in southern Iraq, officials have said.

The Taji base hosted US troops several years ago and was a frequent target of rocket attacks.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the latest drone attacks, which also struck radar systems at the Imam Ali air base in Dhi Qar province.

A source close to Iran-backed groups in Iraq told AFP that the armed factions have nothing to do with the attacks.

Ardawi is seen as a supporter of Iran-aligned armed groups who had launched attack US forces in the region in the past, and of the pro-Tehran Coordination Framework, a powerful political coalition that holds a parliamentary majority.

The Iraqi defense ministry said that Ardawi’s arrest was made on the instructions of the prime minister, who also serves as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, “not to show leniency toward anyone who endangers the security and stability of the country.”

It added that while “the freedom of expression is a guaranteed right... it is restricted based on national security and the country’s top interests.”

Iran-backed groups have criticized US deployment in Iraq as part of an anti-jihadist coalition, saying the American forces allowed Israel to use Iraq’s airspace.

The US-led coalition also includes French troops, who have been training Iraqi forces. There is no known French deployment at the Taji base.

The Iran-Israel war had forced Baghdad to close its airspace, before reopening on Tuesday shortly after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire.


Grok shows ‘flaws’ in fact-checking Israel-Iran war: study

Updated 25 June 2025
Follow

Grok shows ‘flaws’ in fact-checking Israel-Iran war: study

  • “Grok demonstrated that it struggles with verifying already-confirmed facts, analyzing fake visuals, and avoiding unsubstantiated claims”

WASHINGTON: Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok produced inaccurate and contradictory responses when users sought to fact-check the Israel-Iran conflict, a study said Tuesday, raising fresh doubts about its reliability as a debunking tool.
With tech platforms reducing their reliance on human fact-checkers, users are increasingly utilizing AI-powered chatbots — including xAI’s Grok — in search of reliable information, but their responses are often themselves prone to misinformation.
“The investigation into Grok’s performance during the first days of the Israel-Iran conflict exposes significant flaws and limitations in the AI chatbot’s ability to provide accurate, reliable, and consistent information during times of crisis,” said the study from the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) of the Atlantic Council, an American think tank.
“Grok demonstrated that it struggles with verifying already-confirmed facts, analyzing fake visuals, and avoiding unsubstantiated claims.”
The DFRLab analyzed around 130,000 posts in various languages on the platform X, where the AI assistant is built in, to find that Grok was “struggling to authenticate AI-generated media.”
Following Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel, Grok offered vastly different responses to similar prompts about an AI-generated video of a destroyed airport that amassed millions of views on X, the study found.
It oscillated — sometimes within the same minute — between denying the airport’s destruction and confirming it had been damaged by strikes, the study said.
In some responses, Grok cited the a missile launched by Yemeni rebels as the source of the damage. In others, it wrongly identified the AI-generated airport as one in Beirut, Gaza, or Tehran.
When users shared another AI-generated video depicting buildings collapsing after an alleged Iranian strike on Tel Aviv, Grok responded that it appeared to be real, the study said.
The Israel-Iran conflict, which led to US air strikes against Tehran’s nuclear program over the weekend, has churned out an avalanche of online misinformation including AI-generated videos and war visuals recycled from other conflicts.
AI chatbots also amplified falsehoods.
As the Israel-Iran war intensified, false claims spread across social media that China had dispatched military cargo planes to Tehran to offer its support.
When users asked the AI-operated X accounts of AI companies Perplexity and Grok about its validity, both wrongly responded that the claims were true, according to disinformation watchdog NewsGuard.
Researchers say Grok has previously made errors verifying information related to crises such as the recent India-Pakistan conflict and anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles.
Last month, Grok was under renewed scrutiny for inserting “white genocide” in South Africa, a far-right conspiracy theory, into unrelated queries.
Musk’s startup xAI blamed an “unauthorized modification” for the unsolicited response.
Musk, a South African-born billionaire, has previously peddled the unfounded claim that South Africa’s leaders were “openly pushing for genocide” of white people.
Musk himself blasted Grok after it cited Media Matters — a liberal media watchdog he has targeted in multiple lawsuits — as a source in some of its responses about misinformation.
“Shame on you, Grok,” Musk wrote on X. “Your sourcing is terrible.”