ABC listen, podcasts, radio, news, music and more. What if you were fired from your job? Not for something you did because of artificial intelligence framing you for something. Yes, this week on Download This Show, one pay-each in the United States has been arrested and charged for using an artificial intelligence voice cloning service to frame the school's principle. Also on the show, the countdown is on for the video service TikTok to sell itself out of its Chinese ownership or be potentially
banned in the US. And is your e-bike about to explode? All of that much more coming up, this is your guide to the week in media, technology and culture. My name is Mark Finell and welcome to Download This Show. Yes indeed it is a brand new episode of Download This Show. It's a very big welcome to the founder of Patient Notes, our first guest of the week, Sarah Moran. Welcome. Thank you. And freelance technology reporter,
ATHLEARCH. I'm an employee. No, ATHLEAR. Okay, freelance, I'm freelance. Stack Ryan. Thanks, mate. Thanks for having me. All right, so here's an unusual place to start. A physical education teacher, a former athletic director, no less of a Baltimore County High School, has been arrested and charged with using an AI voice cloning service to frame the school's principle. Now, I want to talk about the technology of this, but I want you first to take bets. How long is it going to take
for this to turn into a 12-part podcast? Jack. I've already got that commission. Right here at the ABC, see you next week, it's called, no, I've got nothing, give me something Mark, I'll quick, Sarah, and okay. I charge people to come up with podcast titles. Sarah, how long is it going to take somebody to turn this into a true-grand podcast? Oh, look, I've already done. That's how I know what's happening. I've already listened to it. Okay, we can come up with a name of this podcast,
but you have the show that will be a win. I'll start with you, Jack, given you've apparently already pitched this. How did this happen? So, there's, was kind of a dispute between this athletic
director and the principle of this Baltimore County High School. As a result of that, the the athletic director has used an unknown AI voice app to essentially take the principal's voice and create a convincing fake that then spewed racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric and he said this audio file via an anonymous Gmail account that was eventually traced to him to various people, colleagues across the Baltimore County area, I guess, and as a result, this principle was unfortunately the target
of a lot of attacks himself, but it wasn't his voice that was being used. It was an AI trained to sound exactly like him. So, Sarah, was he arrested on the strength of being tracking down his this email address, or was it the fact that they actually worked out that the voice was AI? Like, how does that happen? Do we know? It's a good question, but I think what's really
interesting is his name was also mentioned in the audio clip. So, the clip itself mentioned the former athletic director's name, and I'm kind of like, if you're going to set someone up, maybe just don't include yourself. Like, that's a pretty big fingerprint to be like, yeah, it's about this guy. But yeah, it's a ledge that he used the school's computers to access open AI tools and Microsoft being chat services. There are digital footprints in a number of different places
that link him, including who he then distributed it to. So, when he created the clip, he basically sent it to someone who's a bit of a gossip, knowing that they would blow it up and make it go viral in the community sense. And that's exactly what's happened. And so, it's been able to be traced in a number of different ways. This is an interesting case because it sounds like, and I mean this with the greatest disrespect, it was a bit sloppy. There was a number of different ways in which this
guy could get caught out. But in terms of the actual technology itself, the voice replication, how far away are we from it being undetectable, and are there tools in develop that will start to begin to identify these things? Jack, do we know? To be honest, this case, I think, shows that we're actually there in some ways. I mean, this was obviously found out in the end, but it already caused a pretty big, some pretty big damage to the principles, you know, his own integrity.
And if you've got the tools there that can make a convincing enough fake, I think there's two lines we kind of draw. It's like a convincing enough fake to fool the public. We've crossed that line. That's where we're beyond that. Is it a convincing enough fake to fool the experts and other technology, not quite yet, but it's getting there. I could right now get Mickey Mouse to sing, I don't know, the tortured poets department, right? I could do that. That would take two seconds on my phone to
generate that. It's like the Venn diagram of things that my kids are interested in so well. I know, I know. That's no longer Venn diagram. It's the circle with fuzzy edges. It takes seconds. So I could take your voice from all the download the shows that you've used, upload it to an AI voice generator, and within 15 minutes it can generate a realistic sounding mark. Have you done this mark? I have not. But it is now the stuff of my nightmare. So thank you. I wasn't putting on
something. It's not anyway. So yeah, we're there. That's a short answer. I think we're there. It's convincing enough to fool a lot of people. It's not convincing enough to fool, I guess, the experts in your authorities. The FBI actually picked up, like I think they said, a lack of consistent breathing and pauses in the fake. So that was a sign that it wasn't a human being that was speaking. So that's how kind of like, I guess finicky this detection is now. And it
would probably convince us, but it might not convince the experts anyway. It's terrible. It's not something I'm so self conscious about the rate of my breathing. Thank you so much for that. For you, what do you think the broader implications of this are? Sarah. I've done it. When 11 labs release their technology, look, I'll admit it's because I'm lazy. I was like, cool. I could get so many podcasts done if I could just replicate my own voice.
I don't need to be here today, Mark. I could just, you know, dial it in. I don't know. I'm laughing at that. It's actually thoroughly just open to carry on. Well, it is right. And so I, because whenever new technology comes out, I am somehow both the most optimistic and most pessimistic at the same time. I actually googled my own voice and worked out like, where does my voice exist? So I had a couple of
talks that I'd done publicly. And I took those and I ran them through the 11 labs AI generator to try and generate a copy of my own voice. And to the point made about the breathing, what's interesting is it wasn't natural. You have public speaking, which is very different to conversational speaking. And so when I'm trying to do my fake podcast based off voice and audio that's been recorded of me giving a talk in public, it doesn't work. It sounds very
still turn and it just really doesn't come together. But that being said, I didn't use what I would call a lot of audio. So you can do these things based off 15 minutes, you know, up to 15 minutes, sort of increments, but the more sound you have, the better. So the more publicly available your voice is, then the more easy it is for people to be able to manipulate it. So look out there, Mark, you've got that coming for you. The other way it's changed my behaviour is that, you know, how
millennials don't answer the phone. If you don't know, we don't answer the phone. But sometimes you have to answer the phone, even if it's an unknown number or you don't know who it is. AI is a phone service for you. That is a good idea. However, what it is is I'm worried people are now trying to capture my voice. And so if you call me and if I happen to answer, you will now get me answering the phone to things like, hello, because I don't want people to say my voice. Mr. Blah.
Yeah, exactly. But what it does do is it provides a great learning opportunity because when people say, why did you answer the phone like that, I can explain it's because I don't want my voice captured by AI. You're just a massive widow. That's it. And I just get to share my absolute paranoia with the world if they choose to call me. So don't call me just text. Which leads me to my next question,
Jack, asking for a friend. Is there any way to defend against it? I mean, you think of all the the work that's going into the technology to sort of watermark these kind of AI generated text voice video. Personally, I don't really think I have a defense like on my personal website. I've got like a note that says, you can't take this. I don't it's not going to hold up in court. I'm sure they've probably already scraped it, but it just says you can't take this. So one day if someone is using my,
I don't know, generating something about Jack Ryan, I can be like, well, hang on. You stole that from my website. My website has a very tiny little disclaimer that says you cannot do that. So will that hold up in court? I don't know. Like a voice generator. I mean, I'm on this show. It's going out to the millions and millions of fans that listen to it. Yeah. Yeah. It's millions. They're going to take
my voice. If they want to take my voice, I don't know why you would. After all that before we move on, I do just want to run some titles past you for Jack Ryan's investigation into the PE teacher AI crime. You've got this in chat GBT. I know it. Shut up. Shut up. Artificial intrigues. Jack Ryan investigates AI. That's option one. This is my personal favorite code of crime. Jack Ryan investigates AI. And the third option, virtual verdicts. Very good. Excellent. All of them I'll take.
I'm going to take pieces from each of them. Very touchy. And then yeah, mix it all together. And I think the Jack Ryan investigates really sells it because you know, as a major Tom Clancy character, we can really boost that SEO. Oh, it's occurred to me that you're going to get sued just using your own name. Is there an option of the artificial intrigues, code of crime or virtual verdicts? Do you have a pick? A virtual verdict. All right. If you're listening to this,
how long to either main screen my Facebook or my Twitter feeden, give me your vote. Virtual verdicts, code of crime or artificial intrigues. Download this show. Here's what you're listening to. It is your guide to the weekend media technology culture. And other ways in which Jack Ryan here sued over in the US. President Joe Biden has now officially signed a foreign aid package that for reasons that are too confounding to explain. Included a part that would ban
TikTok. If the China-based parent company bite down, it fails to divest the app within a year. Sarah, how have we got to this point? Right. So you mentioned that it was a foreign age bill. Biden has been trying to get this TikTok ban into law. And the way that he did that was to be able to package it up. Right. So it's sort of got packaged up with a group of other laws. People thought that it would kind of stall out in the Senate. And so the way they've done it is to be
able to maneuver it through and it lands on Biden's desk. And he can now package it up and it's now been passed. So now there's nine months for bite dance to be able to, as you say, divest. And they have like a three month snooze that they can pop on that one as well. I love the legal definition of the snooze button. So Jack, what's going to happen? What are they going to do? Yeah, this is virtual verdicts, isn't it? We were already getting straight into the podcast.
I think for me, I think for me, I'm actually sitting next to you. I really am. And me, our producer, just can you send that up the line? I think. So basically if you're a US TikTok and nothing really changes right right now, as Sarah just mentioned, you get to, they've got nine months. Continue dancing. Yes, continue dancing. Sure, you've got Taylor Swift lyrics to put up on the website. It'll be, you know, dissect that as you will. But
in nine months time, it'll come to a head in some ways. I actually think there's sort of two paths, pathways that will, this will go down. One is that by dance has already said, we're not divesting, we're keeping this. And they're going to take it to court and appeal that this is actually against free speech. It's against the first amendment in the US. There's a couple of like crazy arguments there that actually probably fall on the side of TikTok
listening to some of the experts speak about this. And there's maybe a less, a small window for the US government to actually ban TikTok outright. But then the other path is just that it just sails through and there is no appeal. Now that's not going to happen. TikTok is too big. 170 million US users. And the argument from, from bite dance is that if you shut us down, you are taking away freedom of speech from 170 million Americans. Isn't that, doesn't that go against
our constitution? And that's kind of what bite dance and TikTok are going to have to argue that you actually are infringing the first amendment rights of our country. I know that seems kind of crazy, but that is the argument that they're going to have to make. The intricacies of freedom of speech, particularly American freedom of speech are complex. But is it Sarah freedom of speech if you're just taking away an avenue of speech as opposed to speech itself? It's a great question.
I think the thing that I've always found interesting about America is the way their laws sit around different services. So most social media, they go to the great effort to put themselves as telecommunication services. So what that does is that allows them to say, oh, you know, we're not responsible for the content on our platform. It's just actually, you know, we've created the vehicle and how people
use it is up to them. And so that's been used a lot by Facebook in the past to say we don't have to moderate things. When our publishers were a platform. Yeah. Exactly. In terms of that law, that's very unique to the US. And how that actually sits in terms of, you know, is having access to that telecommunications channel actually part of freedom of speech. Or as you say, well, it's like using the phone. You've got other telecommunications platforms that you can actually use.
So yeah, there's a lot up for grabs there. I think for me, more interestingly, is the fact that it's a Chinese company, like will there be a tit for tat approach, you know, if the US bands tick talk, then what could China potentially band in retaliation if it is seen that way? So that's what some of the experts are saying as well. What does that mean for broader relationships between China and the US? Well, there is an argument that this has already made tit for tat because it's
already been very difficult for a whole range of American tech companies in China. The number of them have pulled out completely. If we're viewing it through the lens of tit for tat, like we're not on tit. We're on tat right now. And so I guess the question is, is it justified? I mean, the arguments that the US have always led with have always been about national security, but is that what this is really about? Or is it simply that China has made it very difficult for American companies now?
America is making it difficult for a hugely popular Chinese company. I'm just trying to disaggregate
the arguments a little bit. Yeah, I think it's worth interrogating that stuff, but I also think that it's not going to matter in some ways because it's all going to come down to a legal argument about how can the US government or whoever is in this trial against TikTok, how are they going to be able to prove that it is a national security threat, that it isn't impinging on freedom of speech to actually take this or ban this outright or have it divested to become an American company?
I mean, the thing for me is that you can see, I think it was last year, the US state of Montana actually tried to do this in the state. They tried to block TikTok from the app stores. How did that go? And the judge said, this is a constitutional violation. You can't do this. And in that instance, both TikTok and the class action lawsuit of users came together to both sort of say, hang on, you can't
do this state of Montana. And that worked. So that's me already looks like there's at least one precedent that seems like it would fall in the favor of TikTok not being banned as such, or even having to divest. TikTok has become like a punching bag in this scenario where most of the social media companies are doing similar things in terms of the privacy and user data. That's like one avenue that we've gone down with TikTok here, like, oh, we don't know what's happening with
the data, China's taking the data. So the bigger threat, I guess, for the US government is and the bigger target for them is being like, well, it's a national security issue. That's the line of thinking we're going to go down when we go to trial here. Because we're definitely going to trial. TikTok is going to appeal this ban. And so the way it'll play out, I think, is that it'll
rely on these kind of older judgments in Montana, for instance. And then also the fact that I don't think there's going to be a very strong case to say, actually, this is a national security threat. America doesn't necessarily want it to necessarily become an American company, or do they just want it to not be a Chinese company? Because it's a part of me that just goes, why doesn't white dance just set up its offices and some kids never saw the Cayman Islands or somewhere that's tax-friendly?
Like, why not just do that? And would that solve the problems for Americans? Or is it specifically that they want more American ownership over it? I think, in part, it's about optics, right? Like, we've got to remember there's a US election coming up, and I'm sure no one's forgotten. Like, what's the bad guy that you can go after right now? And how can you make yourself look good? And in some respects, I think that's what Biden is trying to do. You know, the bad guy is probably
what? China, social media, algorithms, like, he's the bad guy, so he gets to sort of, you know, attack. And he's pretty much set the deadline of a 12-month campaign to run on that. I think whether that's a bit short-sighted is that you're going up against a tech company who has 170 million US citizens. And I think that's a real risk. And I think what's really strange is that the argument that I hear
repeated over and over is that, oh, it's the algorithm. It's so dangerous, you know, like, so if this goes to court and then precedents are set about algorithms, I just really want to know what that's going to then have, like, what impacts that will have both domestically and internationally as to how we run things. Down the show is what you're listening to is your guide to the week in media, technology, and culture. And what were you doing last Valentine's Day? Were you filing a lawsuit
in US federal court? Because a whole bunch of people were and they were doing it against the owners of Tinder, Hinge, and OKCupid, a company called Match Group. The reason they took them to court was over allegations of predatory business models. But this case has put the entire science and psychology of dating apps under the microscope. Do they actually work or have they just changed our social reality? That's a fascinating realm that, you know, sometimes with America, you need a
lawsuit to open this stuff up and start looking under the hood. Tell me through this. So I like, what are the arguments around the science of these dating apps? And whether or not they do actually work, as I got to say, I've been doing a lot of weddings recently, people that met on Tinder and Hinge and whatnot. Yeah. So, OK. So I think the best place to start, especially when we're talking about science, which is my like pet topic, that's where I write the beat that I write in, I think
it's always good to start with uncertainty, right? In this realm, it's very uncertain exactly what these apps are doing to our brains, exactly how they're eliciting responses in our brains. But with that said, there's a lot of research going into now. OK, actually what's going on when you swipe right on Tinder? What's actually happening in your brain? Are you getting this kind of rush from being able to swipe or pick from like a deck of cards, the kind of partner that you want to have?
And so there are some experts that would suggest that these are dopamine manipulating techniques that you're actually tricking the brain into releasing chemicals that it enjoys and getting them to stay on the app. And that is where I think the science isn't developed enough to say that that's definitely happening. But the science is now, I guess, sort of trying to catch up to this boom we've seen in dating apps over the last decade and a half or so. How do this lawsuit
is currently unfolding? Sarah, what stood out to you as the most interesting part? Well, there's a couple of things. I mean, some of the statistics that come out. So one woman said she swaps through more than 40,000 profiles and didn't end up in a relationship. But I think, yeah, there's a lot of things that have come out around the actual statistics. And so hinge, for example, they have the slogan now that they're designed to be deleted. The other
interesting statistic for me was that 50% of relationships are online. And I'm like, that's only half. Like that's another 50% that is still doing it the very old fashion way. And I think when someone brings forth a legal case, they actually have to make statements about how successful they are to fight it. And so what we're going to see is a lot of this data that comes out that says, well, how successful is this stuff? Because if they have to prove it in a court of law, we're going
to get that data for the first time. Because otherwise, it's being very obscured and and less clear how successful these things can be. Now, maybe if I can zoom out a little bit, I think that if this does go to court and we start interrogating some of these tricks and different sort of reward systems that are built into dating out, we start to open up this like really big can of worms.
Because in some ways, the class action lawsuits are alleging that this is addiction. And that becomes like a really big word to place on scrolling through an app day to day to try and find a partner. And I think zooming out there, this isn't something that's just limited to dating apps, but it's limited to most of the apps and products that we sort of use on our phone that want to keep us on the phone. Is that driving addictive behavior? Is me scrolling on TikTok for an hour? Is that
an addiction? Is it doing something to my brain? No, it's three hours. I knew there was a cutoff. And when you get that video where a woman walks in and she's like, rub her eyes, have you been on this app too long? I know, I've heard about it. I see her every night around the
other part. So I think that that's the interesting part to me is that if this does go to trial and does start, I'm packing these kind of scientific ideas and psychological ideas, then we will see other lawsuits, I think, come against apps that are designed to keep you on your phone. Like these last war survival games and blah, blah, blah. You know, that silly stuff that you see on Instagram ads when you've been on for three hours. That's the thing is these patterns.
We know them now, right? We're familiar with that cycle of dopamine, as you say, and the way these things work. And I think it's time that we're starting to see that called out as not good enough. It is wasting our time and it's not actually delivering on what we need done. Now, all we just need is a podcast called Doom Scroll. We're Jack and Sarah. Finally here on Download this Show because we'd love to end on a positive note.
Is your e-bike about to blow up? There's been a suite of warnings, not just in Australia, but around the world and countries that are rolling out e-bikes about e-bikes, e-scooters, about the dangers of how you charge them, where you charge them on the off chance. They overheat and go boom. Sarah, this is kind of spun off of a recent announcement out of the UK,
but this is something that's happening everywhere. If people have e-bikes on e-scooters, are there basic principles that you should keep in mind when you're charging it so that it, you know, doesn't go boom. I mean, make sure your smoke alarms work people. You've meant to be testing them regularly. Look that little annoying light, but yeah, you can consider things in your house. Installation of heat alarms, like where the charging points are. But also think about,
where have you purchased this from? Like Google it. See if that particular type of e-bikes has had any issues previously. If there's been any recalls or anything like that, but the incidents of these are quite low. They're not all blowing up. In fact, very few actually are, and it is very, very rare. And to be honest, sometimes it is user error. It is people doing silly, silly things that they shouldn't be doing in the first place. So you've got to make sure that the batteries and the things
are stored correctly. Read your instruction manual people. Like we're not doing enough for that these days. So you're saying I shouldn't have pointed the flame throw at the e-bike? Because there was nothing in the instruction manual about that. I had a flame throw a spot, the Boston dynamic spot doing my flame throwing for me, which you can buy this week and hour apparently. I don't know the use. I don't know the use. I don't know the use. I don't know the use. I don't know the use.
Even for this show. Reading too much. I know we're on our end, but come on. I do want to give a couple of anecdotal stories. So the first is right now in the elevator to my apartment, there is a sign on the wall, and it has a picture. That picture is of a bathroom in the apartment complex and that bathroom is completely blown to smithereens. The sink is smashed. The bath is covered in soot. There's black marks all over the ground. Someone was charging their
e-scooter in their bathroom in this apartment complex and the battery exploded. The sign obviously says, please don't do this. But and it's funny. I don't know what bluffings. It's awful. I think one of the issues here that's quite important to recognize is that these e-scooters and e-bikes are often being used by, for instance, delivery drivers. If you leave your e-bike or e-scooter out on the street or you're charging it in the street somehow in your apartment complex, someone might take
that thing to keep your bike safe or your scooter safe. You have to bring it inside and you have to charge it inside. Luckily for them, this was in the bathroom and they weren't home. Because the image is terrifying. The sink is blown to it. It's everywhere in this photo. When I got into the lift, I was kind of like laughed at it and then I started thinking about it. I'm like, oh, this would have killed somebody. Talked to another person, a journalist friend of mine. He was reviewing
a product and that product exploded in his house. His house burnt down. He has not been, he has been homeless since. So there are some really crazy stories that I've heard about the e-bike batteries lately. And I think it's just worth recognizing there are a couple of issues that play. I think of why we're seeing this happen now. It's not just the quality of the batteries. It's definitely that.
But it's also like maybe a push that because living crisis, the job market, gig economy, there's all these different factors that are maybe factoring into why we're seeing. It's a really good point. It's not always practical or an option for people to charge these things outside with their flow. After seeing that image, there was only time I started thinking about it
and thinking, why is it even in the bathroom? And it was only when a friend of mine said to me, like, oh, that's because it's probably a gig worker who can't afford to have their scooter out on the street or even downstairs, like locked away. I don't know if that's the case in this in this instance, but it's something worth thinking about. But it's plausible and a scenario likely playing out. Yeah, and it's an extremely real threat right. It's dangerous. It's not really a
solution to that. It's this era. I mean, that's because it's not as purely tech-prob. It's an economic problem. It's a lifestyle problem as well. Yeah, well, there's such an increase in eScooter use now. And as you say, like, it's happening for all these different reasons. And the mobility factors have been great and have been really useful for a lot of people. But, you know, thinking through the impacts of that can be really challenging. I know in my building,
for example, even if you have a car space, it's not private. And so we have an issue, most actually, apart from buildings that I know, they get targeted and people steal them. So it's like you can't just leave them downstairs. And quite often there isn't the charging infrastructure in the garages because the garages were built many, many moons ago. And they weren't built for electric charging. So yeah, I mean, it actually makes sense that someone put it in the bathtub,
even though on the surface, it sounds like a really silly idea. If you're living in a share house or, you know, where else do you store it in a way that's out of the way? Obviously, people don't store them in the houses. But do we see versions of this playing out with cars as well? Because obviously electric cars have taken off as in a big way, Sarah.
Yeah, it's a little bit different. EVs are shown to be more safe than a petrol car. So the size of the batteries, the safety mechanisms that need to go through for electric vehicles, it's not quite the same as e-bikes and e-screwders, even though they are both, you know, usually with the MI and batteries. The things that are happening in Australia, in particular,
I mentioned about infrastructure. There's now building code regulations about what do people need to consider when they're either building or retrofitting, you know, either building a new build or retrofitting old apartment buildings to consider things like charging, infrastructure, and what does that actually look like? And the safety mechanisms are really high, and the industries actually come together to sort of come up with some of the things that,
you know, people need to follow. And then also there are training providers. So people, EV, you know, fire safety training places that help body corporates and things manage that. So, you know, in some ways that's actually far more advanced than e-bikes, because, you know,
people are buying EVs and they're buying apartment buildings. But those e-bike users, kind of what Jack was saying earlier, they kind of fall in that gig economy kind of, so sure, not all of them, but, you know, in that weird kind of socioeconomic spot where they may not have a voice about what safety looks like. We are out of time. Huge. Thank you to our guests this week. You have been listening to the voice of Sarah Ann, founder of Patient Notes.
Thank you so much for being on the show, Sarah. It's been a pleasure. And Jack Ryan, freelance technology reporter, a pleasure as always. Thank you, May. Virtual verdicts coming very soon. Please check it out or digital deception, artificial intrigues or my new favourite actually is doom scroll. Do let me up on the socials if you'd like to put in your vote. And of course,
if you enjoyed this show, you can enjoy all of your favourite ABC podcasts on ABC Listen. And if you happen to be listening on a podcast app that involves reviewing, you know, maybe a little review, maybe say some nice things. You do you. I'm Mark Vannell and I'll catch you next week with a brand new episode of Download This Shard. You've been listening to an ABC podcast. Discover more great ABC podcasts, live radio and exclusives on the ABC Listen app.