AI startup Perplexity makes $52.8b bid for Google's Chrome browser
The unsolicited bid was sent to Alphabet's Google on Tuesday (Wednesday AEST), a Perplexity spokesperson said. It comes not long after rival artificial intelligence startup OpenAI also expressed interest in acquiring Chrome, which together with the open-source Chromium software is the main way people access the web on PCs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
YouTube turns to AI to spot children posing as adults
YouTube has started using artificial intelligence (AI) to figure out when users are children pretending to be adults on the popular video-sharing platform amid pressure to protect minors from sensitive content. The new safeguard is being rolled out in the United States as Google-owned YouTube and social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok are under scrutiny to shield children from content geared for grown-ups. A version of AI referred to as machine learning will be used to estimate the age of users based on a variety of factors, including the kinds of videos watched and account longevity, according to YouTube Youth director of product management James Beser. "This technology will allow us to infer a user's age and then use that signal, regardless of the birthday in the account, to deliver our age-appropriate product experiences and protections," Beser said. "We've used this approach in other markets for some time, where it is working well." The age-estimation model enhances technology already in place to deduce user age, according to YouTube. Users will be notified if YouTube believes them to be minors, giving them the option to verify their age with a credit card, selfie, or government ID, according to the tech firm. Social media platforms are regularly accused of failing to protect the well-being of children. Australia will soon use its landmark social media laws to ban children under 16 from YouTube, a top minister said late last month, stressing a need to shield them from "predatory algorithms." Communications Minister Anika Wells said four-in-ten Australian children had reported viewing harmful content on YouTube, one of the most visited websites in the world. Australia announced last year it was drafting laws that will ban children from social media sites such as Facebook, TikTok and Instagram until they turn 16. "Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens," the company said in a statement at the time. "It's not social media." On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world. It is due to come into effect on December 10. The legislation has been closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans. gc-juj/jgc
Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
From ‘delete anxiety' to data breaches: The perils of all those photos on our phones
There's a golden moment in home-tech operations when all is proceeding as the nerdy guy on YouTube said it would. You begin to congratulate yourself on your own digital genius. And so it was recently when I had to migrate all my data from my old Android phone to a new iPhone. I was going it alone, my young relatives having resigned from the family help desk on the grounds of overwork, incredulity and Gen Z exasperation. How hard could it be? I downloaded the necessary app and began. Soon the two phones lay side by side like unwilling transplant patients and the mysterious mating ritual got underway. Reassuring messages appeared. Before too long, it promised a mere 'two minutes remaining'. Then it stayed at that two-minute message. Hour after hour, as if they'd become star-crossed lovers who couldn't bear to part. Twelve hours later, same message. For all its dispassionate digital cool, technology excels in veiled threats. Like Mrs Danvers but with a smiley face stuck on, it pretends to be a neutral servant at our beck and call, while all the while fuelling anxiety and gaslighting us. All those impossible, ambiguous choices that begin in a robotically neutral tone and end with an air of doom. 'You have used 95 per cent of storage. DATA MAY NOT BE SAVED.' 'Are you SURE you want to Force Quit? You may lose changes.' Or this, recently: 'The page or resource you are looking for has expired – IT IS GONE AND WILL NOT BE COMING BACK.' I can't help thinking wistfully of someone like Jane Austen having a little engraving of herself or her sister on a mantelpiece, and that was it for self-representation. Now, still stuck at 'two minutes' after two days, the phone taunted me. 'Yes, you CAN cancel the transfer now,' it suggested silkily, '… BUT YOU MAY LOSE ALL DATA.' In the end, I had to cancel the transfer, even if it felt like pushing the big red nuclear button. It had lied, anyway. I hadn't lost all data. (Only the data I hadn't backed up when it had told me to.) What I hadn't counted on was the possibility of ending up with too much. I found I now had duplicated Google and Apple versions of all my photos on the new phone. I chose one to kill off. A new message, like a hostage note but more neatly typed, popped up: '3453 photos will be permanently deleted. Proceed?' Slaves to the image Why did I feel such dread? Photos have always been precious to us, but I can't help feeling we've become enslaved to them, burdened by them, thanks to smartphones. Like overworked alchemists, always on duty, smartphones toil away to turn the present into a pixelated version we'll come to think of as the past. If we don't have the photos, even the rubbish ones, does our past still exist? Almost everyone has more recorded images of their lives, and the lives of strangers, not to mention dogs, cats and feet, than ever before. Some five billion photos are taken daily, 4 per cent of which are selfies. I can't help thinking wistfully of someone like Jane Austen having a little engraving of herself or her sister on a mantelpiece, and that was it for self-representation. Even in the 1990s, people only kept a few albums. Despite apps like Snapchat, rejoicing in ephemera, we're still stowing away staggering amounts. Back in 2015, the average user had about 630 photos stored on their smartphone, according to GigaOM, a tech analyst firm. Now that number is closer to 2000. According to a UK survey, Millennials have the most, averaging about 2500. A conservative estimate, I'd say. A quick poll among my Millennial relatives reveals one, with a toddler, who admits to 17,500 on hers, and a 34-year-old with 10,000 on his phone and 40,000 on his computer. They can't be all treasured memories, can they? In the US, according to Photutorial, the average citizen takes about 20 photos a day. In Asia and Oceania, it's 15. In Africa, it's eight. In Europe, it's a modest five. T.J. Thomson, a senior lecturer in visual communication at RMIT University, says those numbers tend to reflect, among other things, whether a society champions individualism over collectivism or, to put it another way, feels their acai bowl is worth photographing with a view to sharing. Smartphones are useful and fun, of course, but these cold-eyed Boswells relentlessly recording our lives also foster a kind of existential panic. People talk about suffering 'smartphone storage anxiety' – the fear of running out of storage space and losing photos. There are now terms like 'photo overwhelm', 'delete anxiety', 'photo management anxiety' and 'image overload'. Tech companies happily fan those worries, or possibly invent them, to sell storage plans and curation apps. AI is stepping up to help sort the mess and there are outfits like The Photo Managers, a professional association of personal photo organisers. 'How can I stop feeling depressed after losing six years' worth of photos from my phone?' asked one desperate man on a forum. 'The thought of losing all my memories of the last six years is crippling my day‑to-day activities and motivation.' Everyone on the forum felt it was understandable the man couldn't get on with his real life while his digital life was missing in action. They agreed his memories lay in his phone. No one mentioned possible back-up storage in head, heart or imagination. Loading 'People are using photos to help experience things,' says Thomson. 'The camera is constantly tethered to our hands, so you're always looking through a screen to experience or document reality.' Hence the luminous sea of smartphones at any event, indifferently capturing wedding vows, Easter parades, the Grand Canyon, Taylor Swift, lunch, or a whale breaching. Looking through a screen 'flattens experience', as Thomson puts it, takes us out of the moment, in order to create evidence the moment happened. We'll check it out later, reduced to a manageable rectangle. It's as if the task of memory, of feeling even, has been outsourced to the phone. I try hard not to be one of those people because it's embarrassingly herd-like, not to mention annoying to the person behind you, but FOMO tends to defeat virtue. What if I don't have my own picture of the Mona Lisa? Thomson's research found most images stay stored – almost 94 per cent – and only 6.5 per cent are shared, despite the vast uploads to social media every day. But whichever way you cut it, we have a ridiculous amount. 'It's similar to hoarding … People would rather pay an extra $2 for a little bit more [phone storage] space than do the work.' Andrew J. Campbell, professor of cyberpsychology, University of Sydney I put a radical idea to Andrew J. Campbell, professor of cyberpsychology at the University of Sydney: would it help if people suddenly got a message saying they had to reduce their photos to, say, 100? 'Sheesh, that would hurt a lot of people,' he says, quietly horrified. 'They'd have two responses. First, 'You're asking me to make time to curate at a level I've never decided to' and secondly, 'You're asking me to choose things I don't yet know if I want to get rid of.' So, part of it is a chore and part of it is, 'It means something to me even if I haven't looked at them.' It's similar to hoarding behaviour. Google has statistics on this. People would rather pay an extra $2 for a little bit more space than do the work.' I agree that the weeding task is overwhelming. Enthusiasm wanes after about two minutes. So the images sit gathering digital dust, burning through storage energy, waiting to be selected as a 'precious moment', briefly recalled and forgotten again. There may be conscientious types who go through them regularly and reminisce. I suspect most of us rarely look at their photos because they're so chaotically stored and, dare I say, meaningless. Autumn leaves! A potato that looks like a dolphin! Six of us, backlit, somewhere, with regrettable haircuts. Campbell agrees our first instinct has become to capture the moment, any moment. 'Our brains are wired now to record. This fear of 'did I take enough?' or 'I need to take a photo' is so strongly habituated that people automatically get their phone out when something has happened. I saw a car accident recently, a rear-ender, and immediately both drivers got out with their phones up. Not for a second did anyone think, 'I need to talk to that person, see if they're OK.' It was straight to video – 'I need evidence, I need to get this documented'.' People, especially older generations, are increasingly using their phone in those functional ways, says Thomson. They'll take photos of dumped rubbish, a stabbing, a fire, damage to a rental car or a parcel, receipts, documents like a licence or passport. But the ID stuff concerns experts like Campbell. He's 'a bit thingy' about not putting data like that in the cloud. If he has to take a photo of ID for a visa, for example, he switches off the cloud, puts in a hard drive, takes the photo and then deletes it. (I would, too, if I knew how.) Loading 'I work in cyber-security as well,' he says, 'and we're very worried about the amount of visual data captured and held by host companies, and how it may be used for marketing purposes or to manipulate you. All that visual data is kept and analysed now by AI. How do we know it remains ours? Many tech companies have access to our photos, of course, because they're on their servers. They say they won't reproduce a photo outright, but it's not clear how these massive data sets are protected from data mining and breaches. There are anecdotal reports online of people's photos being leaked and used in advertising campaigns. 'We're also seeing a mash-up used as information to feed data models. For example, last year a Human Rights Watch report warned photos of Australian children have been used without consent to train AI models that generate images.' Yet here we are, snapping away and storing every day, blissfully unaware of what we've revealed. As Campbell says, 'People often forget they've dumped all that data on a server they don't own.' So, what to do when that chilling message flashed up on my phone, along the lines of: '3453 photos will be permanently deleted. Proceed with your crazy death wish?' I pressed yes. I felt sick. Then, a day later, I felt lighter, released, as if Marie Kondo had dropped by. Of course, they weren't permanently deleted. Like a salesman who hopes to clinch the deal on a second visit, the phone told me I still had 30 days before they would be gone forever. I got a message offering a storage plan.
The Age
6 hours ago
- The Age
From ‘delete anxiety' to data breaches: The perils of all those photos on our phones
There's a golden moment in home-tech operations when all is proceeding as the nerdy guy on YouTube said it would. You begin to congratulate yourself on your own digital genius. And so it was recently when I had to migrate all my data from my old Android phone to a new iPhone. I was going it alone, my young relatives having resigned from the family help desk on the grounds of overwork, incredulity and Gen Z exasperation. How hard could it be? I downloaded the necessary app and began. Soon the two phones lay side by side like unwilling transplant patients and the mysterious mating ritual got underway. Reassuring messages appeared. Before too long, it promised a mere 'two minutes remaining'. Then it stayed at that two-minute message. Hour after hour, as if they'd become star-crossed lovers who couldn't bear to part. Twelve hours later, same message. For all its dispassionate digital cool, technology excels in veiled threats. Like Mrs Danvers but with a smiley face stuck on, it pretends to be a neutral servant at our beck and call, while all the while fuelling anxiety and gaslighting us. All those impossible, ambiguous choices that begin in a robotically neutral tone and end with an air of doom. 'You have used 95 per cent of storage. DATA MAY NOT BE SAVED.' 'Are you SURE you want to Force Quit? You may lose changes.' Or this, recently: 'The page or resource you are looking for has expired – IT IS GONE AND WILL NOT BE COMING BACK.' I can't help thinking wistfully of someone like Jane Austen having a little engraving of herself or her sister on a mantelpiece, and that was it for self-representation. Now, still stuck at 'two minutes' after two days, the phone taunted me. 'Yes, you CAN cancel the transfer now,' it suggested silkily, '… BUT YOU MAY LOSE ALL DATA.' In the end, I had to cancel the transfer, even if it felt like pushing the big red nuclear button. It had lied, anyway. I hadn't lost all data. (Only the data I hadn't backed up when it had told me to.) What I hadn't counted on was the possibility of ending up with too much. I found I now had duplicated Google and Apple versions of all my photos on the new phone. I chose one to kill off. A new message, like a hostage note but more neatly typed, popped up: '3453 photos will be permanently deleted. Proceed?' Slaves to the image Why did I feel such dread? Photos have always been precious to us, but I can't help feeling we've become enslaved to them, burdened by them, thanks to smartphones. Like overworked alchemists, always on duty, smartphones toil away to turn the present into a pixelated version we'll come to think of as the past. If we don't have the photos, even the rubbish ones, does our past still exist? Almost everyone has more recorded images of their lives, and the lives of strangers, not to mention dogs, cats and feet, than ever before. Some five billion photos are taken daily, 4 per cent of which are selfies. I can't help thinking wistfully of someone like Jane Austen having a little engraving of herself or her sister on a mantelpiece, and that was it for self-representation. Even in the 1990s, people only kept a few albums. Despite apps like Snapchat, rejoicing in ephemera, we're still stowing away staggering amounts. Back in 2015, the average user had about 630 photos stored on their smartphone, according to GigaOM, a tech analyst firm. Now that number is closer to 2000. According to a UK survey, Millennials have the most, averaging about 2500. A conservative estimate, I'd say. A quick poll among my Millennial relatives reveals one, with a toddler, who admits to 17,500 on hers, and a 34-year-old with 10,000 on his phone and 40,000 on his computer. They can't be all treasured memories, can they? In the US, according to Photutorial, the average citizen takes about 20 photos a day. In Asia and Oceania, it's 15. In Africa, it's eight. In Europe, it's a modest five. T.J. Thomson, a senior lecturer in visual communication at RMIT University, says those numbers tend to reflect, among other things, whether a society champions individualism over collectivism or, to put it another way, feels their acai bowl is worth photographing with a view to sharing. Smartphones are useful and fun, of course, but these cold-eyed Boswells relentlessly recording our lives also foster a kind of existential panic. People talk about suffering 'smartphone storage anxiety' – the fear of running out of storage space and losing photos. There are now terms like 'photo overwhelm', 'delete anxiety', 'photo management anxiety' and 'image overload'. Tech companies happily fan those worries, or possibly invent them, to sell storage plans and curation apps. AI is stepping up to help sort the mess and there are outfits like The Photo Managers, a professional association of personal photo organisers. 'How can I stop feeling depressed after losing six years' worth of photos from my phone?' asked one desperate man on a forum. 'The thought of losing all my memories of the last six years is crippling my day‑to-day activities and motivation.' Everyone on the forum felt it was understandable the man couldn't get on with his real life while his digital life was missing in action. They agreed his memories lay in his phone. No one mentioned possible back-up storage in head, heart or imagination. Loading 'People are using photos to help experience things,' says Thomson. 'The camera is constantly tethered to our hands, so you're always looking through a screen to experience or document reality.' Hence the luminous sea of smartphones at any event, indifferently capturing wedding vows, Easter parades, the Grand Canyon, Taylor Swift, lunch, or a whale breaching. Looking through a screen 'flattens experience', as Thomson puts it, takes us out of the moment, in order to create evidence the moment happened. We'll check it out later, reduced to a manageable rectangle. It's as if the task of memory, of feeling even, has been outsourced to the phone. I try hard not to be one of those people because it's embarrassingly herd-like, not to mention annoying to the person behind you, but FOMO tends to defeat virtue. What if I don't have my own picture of the Mona Lisa? Thomson's research found most images stay stored – almost 94 per cent – and only 6.5 per cent are shared, despite the vast uploads to social media every day. But whichever way you cut it, we have a ridiculous amount. 'It's similar to hoarding … People would rather pay an extra $2 for a little bit more [phone storage] space than do the work.' Andrew J. Campbell, professor of cyberpsychology, University of Sydney I put a radical idea to Andrew J. Campbell, professor of cyberpsychology at the University of Sydney: would it help if people suddenly got a message saying they had to reduce their photos to, say, 100? 'Sheesh, that would hurt a lot of people,' he says, quietly horrified. 'They'd have two responses. First, 'You're asking me to make time to curate at a level I've never decided to' and secondly, 'You're asking me to choose things I don't yet know if I want to get rid of.' So, part of it is a chore and part of it is, 'It means something to me even if I haven't looked at them.' It's similar to hoarding behaviour. Google has statistics on this. People would rather pay an extra $2 for a little bit more space than do the work.' I agree that the weeding task is overwhelming. Enthusiasm wanes after about two minutes. So the images sit gathering digital dust, burning through storage energy, waiting to be selected as a 'precious moment', briefly recalled and forgotten again. There may be conscientious types who go through them regularly and reminisce. I suspect most of us rarely look at their photos because they're so chaotically stored and, dare I say, meaningless. Autumn leaves! A potato that looks like a dolphin! Six of us, backlit, somewhere, with regrettable haircuts. Campbell agrees our first instinct has become to capture the moment, any moment. 'Our brains are wired now to record. This fear of 'did I take enough?' or 'I need to take a photo' is so strongly habituated that people automatically get their phone out when something has happened. I saw a car accident recently, a rear-ender, and immediately both drivers got out with their phones up. Not for a second did anyone think, 'I need to talk to that person, see if they're OK.' It was straight to video – 'I need evidence, I need to get this documented'.' People, especially older generations, are increasingly using their phone in those functional ways, says Thomson. They'll take photos of dumped rubbish, a stabbing, a fire, damage to a rental car or a parcel, receipts, documents like a licence or passport. But the ID stuff concerns experts like Campbell. He's 'a bit thingy' about not putting data like that in the cloud. If he has to take a photo of ID for a visa, for example, he switches off the cloud, puts in a hard drive, takes the photo and then deletes it. (I would, too, if I knew how.) Loading 'I work in cyber-security as well,' he says, 'and we're very worried about the amount of visual data captured and held by host companies, and how it may be used for marketing purposes or to manipulate you. All that visual data is kept and analysed now by AI. How do we know it remains ours? Many tech companies have access to our photos, of course, because they're on their servers. They say they won't reproduce a photo outright, but it's not clear how these massive data sets are protected from data mining and breaches. There are anecdotal reports online of people's photos being leaked and used in advertising campaigns. 'We're also seeing a mash-up used as information to feed data models. For example, last year a Human Rights Watch report warned photos of Australian children have been used without consent to train AI models that generate images.' Yet here we are, snapping away and storing every day, blissfully unaware of what we've revealed. As Campbell says, 'People often forget they've dumped all that data on a server they don't own.' So, what to do when that chilling message flashed up on my phone, along the lines of: '3453 photos will be permanently deleted. Proceed with your crazy death wish?' I pressed yes. I felt sick. Then, a day later, I felt lighter, released, as if Marie Kondo had dropped by. Of course, they weren't permanently deleted. Like a salesman who hopes to clinch the deal on a second visit, the phone told me I still had 30 days before they would be gone forever. I got a message offering a storage plan.
