Connect with us

News

US antitrust enforcer says ‘urgent’ scrutiny needed over Big Tech’s control of AI

Published

on

US antitrust enforcer says ‘urgent’ scrutiny needed over Big Tech’s control of AI

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The top US antitrust enforcer will look “with urgency” at the artificial intelligence sector, following concerns that power over the transformative technology is being concentrated among a few deep-pocketed players.

Jonathan Kanter said in an interview with the Financial Times that he was examining “monopoly choke points and the competitive landscape” in AI, encompassing everything from computing power and the data used to train large language models, to cloud service providers, engineering talent and access to essential hardware such as graphics processing unit chips.

Regulators are concerned that the nascent AI sector is “at the high-water mark of competition, not the floor” and must act “with urgency” to ensure that already dominant tech companies do not control the market, Kanter said.

Advertisement

“Sometimes the most meaningful intervention is when the intervention is in real time,” he added. “The beauty of that is you can be less invasive.”

Kanter, now in his third year at the Department of Justice, has alongside the Federal Trade Commission spearheaded a tougher antitrust approach, suing tech giants such as Google and Apple for what the US government alleges are unfair monopolies in services including app stores, search engines and digital advertising. He has worked closely with the FTC’s chair Lina Khan.

He said the regulators were looking at the generative AI sector and examining the competitive landscape in microchips.

Kanter said the GPUs needed to train LLMs had become a “scarce resource”. Nvidia dominates sales of the most advanced GPUs, and its market capitalisation surged past Apple’s on Wednesday to become the world’s second-most valuable listed company.

Kanter pointed to government initiatives to boost domestic production, including the $39bn of incentives in the Chips Act, but added that antitrust regulators were looking at how chipmakers decide to allocate their most advanced products amid rampant demand.

Advertisement

“One of the things to think through is conflict of interest, a thumb on the scale, because they fear enabling a competitor or are helping to prop up a customer,” Kanter said. “If decisions are being made that show companies are not caring about maximising profitability or generating shareholder value, but more looking at the competitive consequences” then that would be an issue.

Since the sensation surrounding the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot in November 2022, an arms race has broken out as companies rush to secure multibillion-dollar partnerships with some of the most promising AI companies and those building models and apps based on the technology.

Emblematic of such deals is Microsoft’s $13bn investment in OpenAI, which came with exclusive rights to the start-up’s intellectual property and a share of its profits but stopped short of an outright acquisition.

Nevertheless, the FTC as well as UK and EU competition watchdogs have said they will probe the relationship alongside Google and Amazon’s multibillion deals with rival Anthropic.

In March, Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella hired Mustafa Suleyman, founder of another AI start-up called Inflection, and most of its 70-person staff to create a new consumer AI unit. Some industry observers saw the deal as a tactic to circumvent antitrust laws and escape a formal probe.

Advertisement

“Acqui-hires are something that antitrust enforcers” will look at, Kanter said, while declining to comment on any specific transactions. “We’re not using stylistic or formalistic characteristics of how these companies [explain these deals]. What we look at are the market realities.

“We are focused on the facts. If the form is different but the substance is the same, then we will not hesitate to act,” he added. “We look at what are the raw materials to produce a product. Whether that’s steel or engineers, that fits within the traditional paradigm of what we care about.”

Microsoft has pushed back against accusations that it exerts unfair influence or de facto control through its investments and cloud computing services. It has also invested in France’s Mistral and ​​put $1.5bn into Abu Dhabi AI group G42.

“The partnerships that we’re pursuing have demonstrably added competition to the marketplace,” the tech giant’s president Brad Smith told the FT. “I might argue that Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI has created this new AI market” and without its help, the start-up “would not have been able to train or deploy its models”.

Asked why Microsoft did not buy Inflection, he said: “We didn’t want to own the company. We wanted to hire some of the people who worked at the company.”

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending