Meta is adding AI-powered summaries to WhatsApp
Meta announced on Wednesday that it's adding an AI-powered summaries feature to WhatsApp. The optional new feature uses Meta AI to summarize unread messages in a chat.
This summary would only be visible to you, not others in your chat, the company notes.
The feature builds on the AI technology that Meta released in April, which allowed the company to implement AI features that don't impact encryption or user privacy.
'Message Summaries uses Private Processing technology, which allows Meta AI to generate a response without Meta or WhatsApp ever seeing your messages or the private summaries. No one else in the chat can see that you summarized unread messages either,' the company said in a blog post.
While the feature is turned off by default, WhatsApp shows a little icon to indicate that the feature is available for you.
Meta is initially rolling out the feature in the U.S. with English language support. It will reach more countries and languages later this year.
Until now, users could access Meta AI within the chat to ask general questions or tag a message to give the chatbot context. However, Meta AI couldn't read your messages.
Meta said that the new stack allows WhatsApp to access context from your chat privately to process requests through its AI. This allows it to summarize messages or provide writing suggestions.
The new AI-powered features are available under a new setting that can be accessed via Settings > Chats > Private Processing, which lets you turn on or off individual functions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elizabeth Warren Says The Tax Break For Mark Zuckerberg's Meta Is So Bountiful Under Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' That $35 Copay From Each American Won't Still Match It
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed Meta Platforms, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:META) alleged tax windfalls under President Donald Trump's new legislative package, saying the benefits far outweigh what ordinary Americans could ever contribute. What Happened: Warren criticized a provision in Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" that she says offers Meta a massive tax break. "If every one of the 340 million people in America paid a new $35 copay to visit the doctor, that still wouldn't be enough to cover how much Meta would get from just one tax break in Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,'" she posted on X, formerly Twitter. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The U.S. population is estimated at 342 million, according to the Census — a number that, as Warren pointed out, wouldn't be enough to offset the tax break given to Mark Zuckerberg's company under the 'Big Beautiful Bill.'Warren and Meta did not immediately respond to Benzinga's request for It's Important: Earlier this month, Warren slammed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," warning it could cause 16 million Americans to lose health coverage and add $2.4 trillion to the national debt. Citing Congressional Budget Office estimates, Warren said the bill disproportionately benefits billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg at the expense of everyday Americans. Warren has also opposed a provision in the bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. She argued this could lead to higher rents by protecting companies like RealPage. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has also criticized the measure. Bezos and Zuckerberg's Meta have each contributed $1 million to Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration. Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. These five entrepreneurs are worth $223 billion – they all believe in one platform that offers a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends Photo courtesy: Sheila Fitzgerald / UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Elizabeth Warren Says The Tax Break For Mark Zuckerberg's Meta Is So Bountiful Under Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' That $35 Copay From Each American Won't Still Match It originally appeared on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge sides with Meta in lawsuit over training AI models on copyrighted books
A federal judge sided with Meta on Wednesday in a lawsuit brought against the company by 13 book authors, including Sarah Silverman, that alleged the company had illegally trained its AI models on their copyrighted works. Federal Judge Vince Chhabria issued a summary judgment — meaning the judge was able to decide on the case without sending it to a jury — in favor of Meta, finding that the company's training of AI models on copyrighted books in this case fell under the 'fair use' doctrine of copyright law and thus was legal. The decision comes just a few days after a federal judge sided with Anthropic in a similar lawsuit. Together, these cases are shaping up to be a win for the tech industry, which has spent years in legal battles with media companies arguing that training AI models on copyrighted works is fair use. However, these decisions aren't the sweeping wins some companies hoped for — both judges noted that their cases were limited in scope. Judge Chhabria made clear that this decision does not mean that all AI model training on copyrighted works is legal, but rather that the plaintiffs in this case 'made the wrong arguments' and failed to develop sufficient evidence in support of the right ones. 'This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,' Judge Chhabria said in his decision. Later, he said, 'In cases involving uses like Meta's, it seems like the plaintiffs will often win, at least where those cases have better-developed records on the market effects of the defendant's use.' Judge Chhabria ruled that Meta's use of copyrighted works in this case was transformative — meaning the company's AI models did not merely reproduce the authors' books. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to convince the judge that Meta's copying of the books harmed the market for those authors, which is a key factor in determining whether copyright law has been violated. 'The plaintiffs presented no meaningful evidence on market dilution at all,' said Judge Chhabria. Both Anthropic and Meta's wins involve training AI models on books, but there are several other active lawsuits against technology companies for training AI models on other copyrighted works. For instance, The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for training AI models on news articles, while Disney and Universal are suing Midjourney for training AI models on films and TV shows. Judge Chhabria noted in his decision that fair use defenses depend heavily on the details of a case, and some industries may have stronger fair use arguments than others. 'It seems that markets for certain types of works (like news articles) might be even more vulnerable to indirect competition from AI outputs,' said Chhabria. Sign in to access your portfolio
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Meta wins AI copyright case, but judge says others could bring lawsuits
Meta on Wednesday prevailed against a group of 13 authors in a major copyright case involving the company's Llama artificial intelligence model, but the judge made clear his ruling was limited to this case. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria sided with Meta's argument that the company's use of books to train its large language models, or LLMs, is protected under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, alleged that Meta violated the nation's copyright law because the company did not seek permission from the authors to use their books for the company's AI model, among other claims. Notably, Chhabria said that it "is generally illegal to copy protected works without permission," but in this case, the plaintiffs failed to present a compelling argument that Meta's use of books to train Llama caused "market harm." Chhabria wrote that the plaintiffs had put forward two flawed arguments for their case. "On this record Meta has defeated the plaintiffs' half-hearted argument that its copying causes or threatens significant market harm," Chhabria said. "That conclusion may be in significant tension with reality." Meta's practice of "copying the work for a transformative purpose" is protected by the fair use doctrine, the judge wrote. "We appreciate today's decision from the Court," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "Open-source AI models are powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and fair use of copyright material is a vital legal framework for building this transformative technology." Though there could be valid arguments that Meta's data training practice negatively impacts the book market, the plaintiffs did not adequately make their case, the judge wrote. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment. Still, Chhabria noted several flaws in Meta's defense, including the notion that the "public interest" would be "badly disserved" if the company and other businesses were prohibited "from using copyrighted text as training data without paying to do so." "Meta seems to imply that such a ruling would stop the development of LLMs and other generative AI technologies in its tracks," Chhabria wrote. "This is nonsense." The judge left the door open for other authors to bring similar AI-related copyright lawsuits against Meta, saying that "in the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited." "This is not a class action, so the ruling only affects the rights of these thirteen authors — not the countless others whose works Meta used to train its models," he wrote. "And, as should now be clear, this ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful." Additionally, Chhabria noted that there is still a pending, separate claim made by the plaintiffs alleging that Meta "may have illegally distributed their works (via torrenting)." Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled that Anthropic's use of books to train its AI model Claude was also "transformative," thus satisfying the fair use doctrine. Still, that judge said that Anthropic must face a trial over allegations that it downloaded millions of pirated books to train its AI systems."
