Category: google

One of the things Pichai told 60 Minutes that keeps him up at night is Google’s AI technology being deployed in harmful ways. Google’s chatbot, Bard, has built in safety filters to help combat the threat of malevolent users. Pichai said the company will need to constantly update the system’s algorithms to combat disinformation campaigns and detect deepfakes, computer generated images that appear to be real. As Pichai noted in his 60 Minutes interview, consumer AI technology is in its infancy. He believes now is the right time for governments to get involved.

“There has to be regulation. You’re going to need laws … there have to be consequences for creating deep fake videos which cause harm to society,” Pichai said. “Anybody who has worked with AI for a while … realize[s] this is something so different and so deep that, we would need societal regulations to think about how to adapt.” Adaptation that is already happening around us with technology that Pichai believes, “will be more capable “anything we’ve ever seen before.” Soon it will be up to society to decide how it’s used and whether to abide by Alphabet’s code of conduct and, “Do the right thing.”

“Now when you search for a hotel on mobile, you’ll be able to swipe through full-screen images of the hotel similar to how you might view a story on Instagram,” reports Android Police. “From that photo page, you can also quickly tap into reviews to see if a property is as good as it looks and learn more about the area where a potential hotel is located. There’s also a link to the hotel’s website right on the page when you’re ready to book.”

Led by Andrew Kahng, a professor of computer science and engineering, that group spent months reverse engineering the floorplanning pipeline Google described in Nature. The web giant withheld some details of its model’s inner workings, citing commercial sensitivity, so the UCSD had to figure out how to make their own complete version to verify the Googlers’ findings. Prof Kahng, we note, served as a reviewer for Nature during the peer-review process of Google’s paper. The university academics ultimately found their own recreation of the original Google code, referred to as circuit training (CT) in their study, actually performed worse than humans using traditional industry methods and tools.

What could have caused this discrepancy? One might say the recreation was incomplete, though there may be another explanation. Over time, the UCSD team learned Google had used commercial software developed by Synopsys, a major maker of electronic design automation (EDA) suites, to create a starting arrangement of the chip’s logic gates that the web giant’s reinforcement learning system then optimized. The Google paper did mention that industry-standard software tools and manual tweaking were used after the model had generated a layout, primarily to ensure the processor would work as intended and finalize it for fabrication. The Googlers argued this was a necessary step whether the floorplan was created by a machine-learning algorithm or by humans with standard tools, and thus its model deserved credit for the optimized end product. However, the UCSD team said there was no mention in the Nature paper of EDA tools being used beforehand to prepare a layout for the model to iterate over. It’s argued these Synopsys tools may have given the model a decent enough head start that the AI system’s true capabilities should be called into question.

The lead authors of Google’s paper, Azalia Mirhoseini and Anna Goldie, said the UCSD team’s work isn’t an accurate implementation of their method. They pointed out (PDF) that Prof Kahng’s group obtained worse results since they didn’t pre-train their model on any data at all. Prof Kahng’s team also did not train their system using the same amount of computing power as Google used, and suggested this step may not have been carried out properly, crippling the model’s performance. Mirhoseini and Goldie also said the pre-processing step using EDA applications that was not explicitly described in their Nature paper wasn’t important enough to mention. The UCSD group, however, said they didn’t pre-train their model because they didn’t have access to the Google proprietary data. They claimed, however, their software had been verified by two other engineers at the internet giant, who were also listed as co-authors of the Nature paper. Separately, a fired Google AI researcher claims the internet goliath’s research paper was “done in context of a large potential Cloud deal” worth $120 million at the time.

As detailed in the technical document here, Google Project Zero’s security researcher Jann Horn learned that kernel fixes made to stable trees are not backported to many enterprise versions of Linux. To validate this hypothesis, Horn compared the CentOS Stream 9 kernel to the stable linux-5.15.y stable tree…. As expected, it turned out that several kernel fixes have not been made deployed in older, but supported versions of CentOS Stream/RHEL. Horn further noted that for this case, Project Zero is giving a 90-day deadline to release a fix, but in the future, it may allot even stricter deadlines for missing backports….

Red Hat accepted all three bugs reported by Horn and assigned them CVE numbers. However, the company failed to fix these issues in the allotted 90-day timeline, and as such, these vulnerabilities are being made public by Google Project Zero.
Horn is urging better patch scheduling so “an attacker who wants to quickly find a nice memory corruption bug in CentOS/RHEL can’t just find such bugs in the delta between upstream stable and your kernel.”

This decision eliminates one of the platform’s best features: a sense of community. Reportedly, more than 31 million people use Fitbit at least once a week. That’s a staggering number and a group of customers ripe for creating and maintaining an active community. At a time when the market is flooded with competing fitness tracker and smartwatch brands, it has become increasingly difficult to stand out. According to Statista, Fitbit has been leading the wearables space since 2014, accounting for almost half the worldwide market share at 45%. The company’s solid grasp on the market (though it now faces stiff competition from the likes of Apple, Garmin, and others) is partly because of the unique Challenges and groups. While other companies, like Apple, have a version of Challenges, they’re not as robust as what Fitbit supports. “Nonetheless, for anyone new to the market looking for a fitness tracker or smartwatch that can do it all and connect them to a wealth of information and a community of people, this news makes Fitbit a less appealing platform to consider,” adds Persaud. “All we can do is hope for bigger and better things to come with Google integration in the future.”

Having Google pay Apple “a significant share of revenue from Google Search traffic” passing through its own Chrome browser on iOS is difficult to explain. Apple does not provide any obvious value to people seeking to use Google Search within Google Chrome. One attempt to explain the arrangement can be found in an antitrust lawsuit filed on December 27, 2021, and subsequently amended [PDF] on March 29, 2022. The complaint, filed by the Alioto Law Firm in San Francisco, claims Apple has been paid for the profits it would have made if it had competed with Google, without the cost and challenge of doing so. “Because more than half of Google’s search business was conducted through Apple devices, Apple was a major potential threat to Google, and that threat was designated by Google as ‘Code Red,'” the complaint contends. “Google paid billions of dollars to Apple and agreed to share its profits with Apple to eliminate the threat and fear of Apple as a competitor.”

These alleged revenue sharing arrangements — which are known in detail only to a limited number of people and have yet to be fully disclosed — have been noted by the UK CMA as well as the US Justice Department, which along with eleven US States, filed an antitrust complaint against Google on October 20, 2020. Reached by phone, attorney Joseph M. Alioto, who filed the private antitrust lawsuit, told The Register it would not surprise him to learn that Google has been paying Apple for search revenue derived from Chrome. He said Google’s deal with Apple, which began at $1 billion per year, reached as high as $15 billion annually in 2021. “The division of the market is per se illegal under the antitrust laws,” said Alioto. Apple and Google are currently trying to have the case dismissed citing lack of evidence of a horizontal agreement between the two companies, and other supposed deficiencies.

The surge is coming from numerous malware families, including AuroraStealer, IcedID, Meta Stealer, RedLine Stealer, Vidar, Formbook, and XLoader. In the past, these families typically relied on phishing and malicious spam that attached Microsoft Word documents with booby-trapped macros. Over the past month, Google Ads has become the go-to place for criminals to spread their malicious wares that are disguised as legitimate downloads by impersonating brands such as Adobe Reader, Gimp, Microsoft Teams, OBS, Slack, Tor, and Thunderbird.

On the same day that Spamhaus published its report, researchers from security firm Sentinel One documented an advanced Google malvertising campaign pushing multiple malicious loaders implemented in .NET. Sentinel One has dubbed these loaders MalVirt. At the moment, the MalVirt loaders are being used to distribute malware most commonly known as XLoader, available for both Windows and macOS. XLoader is a successor to malware also known as Formbook. Threat actors use XLoader to steal contacts’ data and other sensitive information from infected devices. The MalVirt loaders use obfuscated virtualization to evade end-point protection and analysis. To disguise real C2 traffic and evade network detections, MalVirt beacons to decoy command and control servers hosted at providers including Azure, Tucows, Choopa, and Namecheap. “Until Google devises new defenses, the decoy domains and other obfuscation techniques remain an effective way to conceal the true control servers used in the rampant MalVirt and other malvertising campaigns,” concludes Ars. “It’s clear at the moment that malvertisers have gained the upper hand over Google’s considerable might.”

Google originally launched the Stadia Controller as a device that connects directly to Stadia services and had the Bluetooth chip disabled. After news broke of the Stadia shutdown, fans have been finding ways to save the controller from an e-waste fate by using workarounds to connect it wirelessly to other devices. Workarounds like connecting to an Android device will no longer be required thanks to this new tool. It means that most Stadia players that purchased a Founders or Premiere edition will have been effectively gifted a free Bluetooth controller thanks to Google’s refunds.