Many ChatGPT alternatives exist, and one of the most popular is Character AI, which will let you make your own chatbots and interact with other users. You can even talk with a chatbot that mimics a celebrity or other well-known public figure. It’s become so popular that the company recently received a $1 billion valuation.

Character AI does save chats, although there are serious questions about whether Character AI is safe. Many Character AI users engage in conversations that include highly private, sensitive, and confidential information, and the privacy policy suggests Character AI staff and developers may, in fact, monitor what you write.

In this guide, we cover everything you need to know about Character AI, so you can make informed decisions about the content of your conversations with the chatbot. We cover:

• Does Character AI Save Chats?
• Character AI’s Privacy Policy: What Data Does Character AI Save?
• Is Character AI Safe?
• Can You Use Character AI Privately?
• Why is Character AI so Slow?
• Should I Use Character AI?

Does Character AI Save Chats?

The short answer is yes, Character AI will save your chat history, and you can restart a conversation with any character you’ve chatted with before.

Every chat you instigate with a character on Character AI can theoretically be accessed and read by the company’s employees. Character AI’s chats aren’t encrypted like messages sent across apps like WhatsApp.

This is alluded to in the Character AI privacy policy, which we’ll discuss in more detail in the next section.

Character AI’s Privacy Policy: What Data Does Character AI Save?

When you sign up for a Character AI account, you’ll need to provide an existing email address and a password. Next, you’ll need to confirm your email address and create a username. According to the company’s privacy policy, other information Character AI collects includes:

• Communication Information (support requests, etc.)
• Log data (IP address, name of device, etc.)
• Website cookies (including persistent cookies)
• Usage Information (how you use the service)

“Usage Information” is what Character AI defines as “information about how you use our service.” Strangely, unlike the other sections, this is neatly tucked into the “log data” paragraph, rather than given its own space in the privacy policy.

Usage Information includes “the types of content that you view or engage with, the features you use, the actions you take, and the time, frequency, and duration of your activities.”

Character AI also says that “When you enter content into the Services we may monitor what you write to check that it does not contain inappropriate content or Personal Information.”

Character AI: A confusing privacy policy?

There are a few interesting aspects of this privacy policy, to say the least. Overall, it could definitely be clearer.

The first one is the vague term “actions you take” listed in the usage information. There’s nothing to clarify what Character AI means by “actions.” Does the word “actions” refer to chats or other activities? It’s not immediately obvious.

Comparing their privacy policy to ChatGPT’s privacy policy would leave you with a lot of questions regarding Character AI’s usage of chat data. In Character AI’s privacy policy:

• It does not explicitly state whether they train bots using chat data.
• It does not provide information on whether staff are trained with chat data.
• There’s little information regarding encryption or how chat data is secured.

Character AI seems to classify all of the categories of information it collects listed (log data, communication information, usage information) as “Personal Information.”  They are all included in the section of the privacy policy entitled “Personal Information We Collect,” which also includes the line where Character AI states it may monitor what you write.

It then goes on to say in the section entitled “How We Use Personal Information” that the company “may use Personal Information for the following purposes… to maintain, improve or repair any aspect of the Services, which may remain internal or may be shared with third parties if necessary.”

Is Character AI Safe?

It is difficult to say with certainty whether Character AI is safe. It collects a lot of data about its users and there is very little public information about the security of its servers and networks. As there are some concerns about how safe the platform is, you should take steps to protect your privacy, such as using a VPN and registering with a different email address.

A user who has created a chatbot is not able to view chats other users have with its chatbot, but as we’ve covered, Character AI’s staff can read any chats they like, because they’re not encrypted. Just be aware of this when instigating chats with chatbots.

However, one Reddit user reported back in November that “there was a bug where people’s chats randomly leaked into other people’s chats.”

Tech.co was unable to independently verify this report, but even ChatGPT has had issues with titles of conversations being exposed, so it isn’t out of the question.

Although Character AI deploys stringent NSFW filters to stop chatbots from responding to inappropriate requests, there are some reports of characters providing unhinged, violent, and abusive messages to users.

This seems to be a rarity, but users who may find this kind of content triggering should be wary about the nature of the chats they instigate with characters on the site.

A lot of users attempt to bypass the chatbot’s filters — a petition to create an NSFW toggle for the site amassed over 5,000 signatures.

Character AI’s (lack of) security settings

Unfortunately, Character AI does not provide two or multi-factor authentication as an option, which would be a helpful second line of security for users (although this would likely need a phone number to be added to accounts).

What’s more, it also only requires users to create passwords that are 6 characters long, and there are no rules around special characters — which is a pretty low bar for passwords.

We’d advise using a strong, unique, and sufficiently complex password for your Character AI account, particularly if you’re entering sensitive or private data into the chatbot, which we’d seriously advise against doing, regardless of the chatbot you’re using.

Can You Use Character AI Privately?

It goes without saying that you shouldn’t really be entering private, sensitive, or other confidential information into any AI chatbot — whether it’s Bard, ChatGPT, or Character AI.

However, unlike ChatGPT, Character AI doesn’t ask for your phone number when you make an account. This means it can be used in a marginally more private way than ChatGPT.

Character AI only requires an email address and password to sign up, so if you have privacy concerns about Character AI, creating an email address from scratch and then using a VPN to mask your IP address will help you use the service as privately as possible.

It’s worth knowing that you’ll violate the Terms of Service if you try to use a VPN to circumvent a block or ban enforced by the site on your IP address.

But as we’ve said, what you write could very well be monitored and recorded. So, in that sense, it’s impossible to have a truly private conversation with a Character AI chatbot. The same goes for ChatGPT – people also have concerns about how OpenAI’s chatbot uses user data.

Why Is Character AI So Slow?

You may be finding Character AI slow for several reasons.

Just like any other website, if Character AI is dealing with a significant number of requests to its servers (in other words, lots of people using chatbots) then it may slow down. This wouldn’t be surprising considering the mobile App received 1.7 million downloads in the week following its release.

It may also be down due to maintenance or technical issues. There’s very little you can do to change this, unfortunately — but you can check the website’s server status if you’d like to know whether the server is down.

If Character AI is running just fine, the problem may be your device or internet connection. If you’re finding Character AI so slow that it’s difficult to use, first test your internet connection. It may need a simple reboot to get you up and running once more.

If you’re using a VPN, proxy service, or any other tool that may be impacting your device connecting to the internet then disconnecting and re-establishing your connection is recommended — just make sure you shut down your open browser windows first.

Should I Use Character AI?

Character AI is a quirky chatbot you can have a lot of fun with. However, as you can probably tell from reading this article, it’s advisable to take some precautions while using it to ensure you’re staying safe. These include:

• Using a long, complex, and unique password for your account.
• Not inputting sensitive data into Character AI.
• Not using your work email address or other info during sign up.
• Being mindful that Character AI staff may monitor your chats.

We’d recommend following the same precautions when using ChatGPT or Bard, along with any other popular chatbot. They might be clever and useful, but trusting them with private data just isn’t worth the risk.

Web conferencing platform Zoom is adopting AI to make sure that everyone can be seen in virtual meetings, with new tool ‘Intelligent Director’.

The new feature will actively track all participants and make sure their image is shared on the screen, no matter where they are in the room.

It’s the latest AI feature that Zoom has added to its platform, following March’s additions of whiteboard and automated meeting recaps.  

What is Intelligent Director?

Zoom has just announced plans to roll out its Intelligent Director function. The tool is designed to make sure all meeting participants can be equally seen, regardless of their position in the room.

So how does the Intelligent Director work? Zoom’s new feature is made possible thanks to software that focuses on each meeting participant’s face, displaying their mugshot in a box on the screen and tracking them as they move about.

Designed for medium to larger sized rooms, the feature can frame up to 16 meeting participants, across multiple cameras, and AI will even help Zoom use the best video feed for each person.

Zoom claims that using the system, each meeting participant is granted equal space on the video call, with no more instances of people in awkward spots in the room being squeezed out or ignored.

“Even with some employees in the office, oftentimes other team members are dispersed, so meeting equity and inclusion become more important than ever. Intelligent Director is the solution that can bring employees together, regardless of location, so they can truly connect face-to-face.” – Smita Hashim, chief product officer at Zoom

The feature marks the latest use of AI from Zoom, after it launched several other AI time-saving tools in March, such as whiteboards and automated meeting recaps.

How to Get Zoom Intelligent Director

If you like the sound of Intelligent Director, you’ll need to make sure that you have the latest Zoom Rooms 5.15.0 firmware installed, to access its beta.

Be warned that Intelligent Director won’t work on every set up. It requires specific cameras, and also needs an M1 chip or Intel i5 processor or higher. Zoom has partnered with various manufacturers on the project, including Poly, Intel, Logitech, Yealink, Apple and Dell

If you’d like to see what other web conferencing platforms are out there (yes, there’s more to video calls than Zoom), check out our dedicated web conferencing apps comparison guide.

Meta has revealed that WhatsApp Business, the arm of the social messaging app designed for use by businesses, has just surpassed 200M monthly active users (MAUs). This signals a four fold growth in users since the service began shortly after the pandemic broke out back in 2020.

The good news comes amid the tech giant’s “year of efficiency” as it works its way through thousands of job cuts and a costly restructuring job to the tune of $5 billion to navigate away from its largely failed foray into the metaverse.

But what’s next for the world’s most loved social messaging app? And what new features can businesses get excited about using to communicate with users?

New Features Roll out for WhatsApp Small Business Users

Earlier this month, WhatsApp rolled out its new channels feature enabling small businesses to send one-way announcement-style broadcast messages to groups in a similar fashion to how companies use other apps, such as Telegram, to post news and build communities.

Now, Meta has announced more features including click-to-WhatsApp ads that can be placed across Facebook and Instagram. This means sellers can now create and publish ads to Meta’s other two social apps directly from within WhatsApp Business.

This latest feature complements WhatsApp channels, enabling small businesses (which WhatsApp Business is primarily geared towards) to further integrate the social messaging app into their sales and marketing activities.

Other upcoming features include automated personalized messages and customer segmentation, for example sending new customers discount codes with “buy now” links.

Meta Focuses on WhatsApp Business for Revenue Generation

Ad sales, to the tune of $114 billion in 2022, have traditionally been the source of Meta’s revenue (over 97% of total revenue in ‘22). Primarily this has come from ads on its two flagship platforms, Facebook and Instagram. Generating revenue in this way is something Meta shares closely in common with the other tech giants.

But as Meta looks for new revenue streams, it’s steadied its gaze on revenue earned through paid messaging via WhatsApp Business. This shift commenced in February when the company announced a change to the pricing model and the messaging categories to include utility, authentication, marketing, and user-initiated conversations.

Following these changes, the latest raft of new features for businesses is set to expand on Meta’s plans for WhatsApp Business. Indeed, during Meta’s 2022 Q3 earnings call Zuckerberg mentioned that click-to-WhatsApp ads exceeded the annual revenue run rate of $1.5 billion, showing a year-on-year growth rate of 80%.

“I shared last quarter that click-to-message ads reached a $10 billion revenue run rate. And since then, the number of businesses using our other business messaging service—paid messaging on WhatsApp—has grown by 40% quarter-over-quarter.” — Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta

This announcement was significant because Meta doesn’t usually declare WhatsApp revenue separately. But, in 2023 Q1, the company announced the business arm of the social messaging app had strong growth in messaging revenue, suggesting we’ll see more of this to come.

What’s Next for WhatsApp Business?

Zuckerberg has poured billions of dollars into attempting to develop a metaverse. As he tried to lay claim to the trending and nebulous web3 world, Meta has had to look for ways to offset the revenue gap. This included ramping up WhatsApp, which has been free for users since Meta purchased it back in 2014.

This comes hot off the heels of Meta’s recent challenges with the $80 billion write-off following its foray into the metaverse and the ensuing 21,000 staff laid off over the last six months.

In the wake of these challenges, it seems that Meta is working tirelessly to bounce back as it focuses development on the world’s favorite social messaging app and its breakthrough and continued introduction to the B2B sector.

Around the globe, WhatsApp has introduced business payments to the platform. In Brazil, customers can now pay merchants directly from the app with a similar payment function also rolled out in Singapore.

Looking ahead, Meta has revealed the first AI tools for WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram this month, such as ChatGPT-esque bot conversations, to incorporate the big tech firm’s proprietary AI tools into its products.

Congress has placed strict limitations on the use of ChatGPT by setting narrow conditions for staff to use the groundbreaking AI tool.

Staff can only use the paid ChatGPT Plus subscription since it has additional privacy controls. Even with the $20 per month paid service, they are only allowed to use the tool for “research and evaluation” purposes and not as part of their everyday work or regular workflow, according to an internal memo circulated in the House of Representatives on Monday.

This is the latest move by the House as they rush to grapple with the huge potential and vast implications of generative AI. The nascent technology continues to sweep through both our personal and professional lives amid questions and growing concerns over how it can — and should — be used.

Effective AI Legislation to Protect Users and Promote Innovation

The fresh guidelines come hot on the heels of lawmakers in both chambers rushing to draft legislation on the regulation of the budding technology. Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer together with a bipartisan group of senators has called on Congress to quickly pass new legislation to regulate the use of ChatGPT and other generative AI models.

“AI could be our most spectacular innovation yet, a force that could ignite a new era of technological advancement, scientific discovery, and industrial might.” — Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader.

Schumer highlighted the often-delicate balance between effective regulation and promoting innovation, adding that: “The first issue we must tackle is encouraging, not stifling, innovation. But if people don’t think innovation can be done safely, that will stifle AI’s development and even prevent us from moving forward.”

A wide-reaching regulatory package that includes guidelines on AI disclosure, enforcement, and how to distinguish from other AI types, is likely to roll out in the coming weeks. Some of the key questions legislators are exploring include:

• How should generative AI tools provide disclaimers to users?
• How can generative AI be distinguished from other forms of AI?
• How will content created by both AI and a person be treated?

Of course, not everyone agrees on current proposals and lawmakers are introducing standalone bills they hope will be incorporated into the final legislation.

How to Fit Generative AI into Your Workflows

Like other workplaces, Congress is attempting to figure out how to fit the rapidly growing world of generative AI into its workflows. At the same time, it’s grappling with the bigger picture questions about the technology, its underlying parent companies, and how it will impact our lives going forward.

Similarly, several tech giants including Apple and Samsung have already limited the use of ChatGPT and other generative tools in the workplace over concerns of possible confidentiality breaches as the tools reincorporate user input data into their LLMs. This also comes as questions over plagiarism involving generative AI, especially in educational institutions, heat up.

Social media app IRL has announced that it is closing down as of today, after an internal review found that userbase claims were massively inflated.

The app was targeted toward Gen Zs who are reportedly using the major social media apps less than their older counterparts.

Fast forward a couple of years and an internal investigation by IRL’s board of directors has revealed 95% of users, or about 20 million accounts, are automated by bots.

The App That Encouraged Users to Meet “In Real Life”

IRL was founded in 2016 and centered around its group messaging app that encouraged users to meet “in real life” (hence the name). Following its Series C raise in 2021, the startup’s valuation swelled well past the $1 billion mark.

Last year, CEO and co-founder Abraham Shafi boasted confidently of its 20 million monthly active users. Yet, the recent investigation by the board of directors now confirms Shafi’s claims were massively inflated and real users were more likely somewhere around the one million mark, as first reported by The Information.

IRL User Count Questioned

Shortly after employees raised questions over the true user count, 25% of IRL’s workforce were laid off, or around 25 staff in total. While tech layoffs aren’t shocking in 2023,  this one bucked the trend, given IRL’s huge valuation and the tripling of its headcount from the year previous.

Following the layoffs, Shafi encouraged remaining staff to “adapt” and “be disciplined” in an internal memo likening their growth trajectory to WhatsApp, which grew to 450 million users with a team of just 55.

In the same memo, Shafi compared IRL and its team to Olympic gold medallists among other exaggerated analogies:

“Becoming one of these iconic, impactful companies is akin to winning a gold medal in the Olympics. In fact, probably more challenging…Like the Olympics, we know most people don’t want to be Olympians. In the same way, not everyone will want to walk the path we are walking. But for those that want to push their limits and find out what they are capable of, this culture is for you.” — Abraham Shafi, CEO and Co-Founder of IRL.

Ex-IRL Employee Speaks out

Even while Shafi was assuring staff the company had the funds to extend their runway well into 2024, the SEC opened an inquiry into the company in late 2022 for violating securities laws and misleading investors.

In April, a former employee filed a lawsuit against IRL. In it, they alleged the company’s user base was grossly inflated by fake accounts and that they were penalized for openly speaking about it. Shafi was suspended by the Board in the same month.

Finally, the board of directors led an internal investigation into the misconduct of the CEO and confirmed staff allegations that 95% of users were bots or automated in some way.

IRL Shutdown Confirmed by Board

The Board has since confirmed they will be dissolving IRL and liquidating its assets.

“The shareholders elected to take this action—proposed by the Board—as a result of a Special Committed investigation that found that 95% of identified users were in fact automated or from bots, not authentic human users among other findings…Based on these findings, a majority of shareholders concluded that the company’s going forward prospects are unsustainable.” — Elliot Sloane, IRL spokesperson.

The IRL app has been removed from the iOS app store (it is still available in the Google Play Store for Android phones) and the homepage displays a message stating that IRL will be turned off on June 27th at 12pm PDT.

The parent company, Live Awake, appears to still be active and it also operates the meme-making app Memix. However, Shafi ended his connection with Memix in June 2023, according to his LinkedIn bio.

LinkedIn is a business social media platform that gives workers a space to connect, find new opportunities, and sometimes, humble brag about professional achievements. However, with an audience of 930 million and growing, the network is also attracting the attention of a different kind of opportunist — cybercriminals.

Behind WhatsApp and Facebook, LinkedIn is one of the most commonly targeted platforms by scammers. Recent research from virtual private network (VPN) provider Nordlayer reveals that the majority (52%) of US businesses have already fallen victim to LinkedIn scams, while a third are aware of fraudulent profiles using their company name.

To help you detect and avoid these professional honey pots, we spoke to LinkedIn users that have been targeted by these scams and compiled a list of the six common rackets to look out for. We also offer advice on how to identify a fake LinkedIn profile, to make it easier for you to network in peace.

LinkedIn scams:

Common Linkedin scams include email phishing, recruiter, romance, Chinese pig butchering, and technical support scams. Be wary of any messages or requests that seem suspicious, and jump to specific scams using the links below:

• LinkedIn Email Phishing Scams
• Linkedin Recruiter Scams
• LinkedIn Romance Scams 
• Linkedin Chinese Pig Butchering Scams
• Linkedin Technical Support Scams
• How to Identify a Fake Linkedin Profile 

LinkedIn Email Phishing Scams

One common way cyber threats leverage LinkedIn’s professional network is through phishing scams – a type of ruse where bad actors reach out to potential victims through fake profiles.

LinkedIn phishers typically send targets a link disguised as a company website or document, which is designed to extract sensitive information or deploy malware on the victim’s browser.

When the founder of Nerdigital Max Shak fell victim to this type of cybercrime, he was asked to asked to click on a link to verify his account from a seemingly legitimate connection. “Naively, I clicked on the link,” Shak tells Tech.co, “which redirected me to a malicious website that mimicked the LinkedIn login page.”

“Unknowingly, I entered my login credentials, providing the scammers with access to my account. It was only after a series of unauthorized activities occurred on my account, such as suspicious messages sent to my connections and unauthorized changes to my profile, that I realized I had been targeted.”

Example of a LinkedIn phishing scam. Source: linkedin.com

Unfortunately, experiences like Shak’s aren’t unique. NordLayer research reveals that 46% of US businesses have received phishing messages in LinkedIn scams. So, how can you avoid falling for these tactics?

How to avoid this scam: Shak tells us that LinkedIn users should be “cautious of any unsolicited messages or requests for personal information” on the platform, and should always verify the authenticity of the account before clicking on any links.

We’d also add that even if you do think the link is legit, it’s best to avoid entering sensitive information that could jeopardize the security of you or your company. 

LinkedIn Fake Recruiter Scams

Another common type of LinkedIn scam is the fake recruiter or ‘fake job’ scams, with research from NordLayer revealing that almost half (41%) of US businesses have been targeted by this professional form of catfishing.

As the name suggests, fake recruiter scams involve criminals creating a fake LinkedIn company or individual profile and reaching out to targets with fabricated opportunities. Monopolizing on recent layoff sprees and a rising number of applicants, scammers use information from legit companies and often have robust networks of connections, making it almost impossible to distinguish them from the real deal.

LinkedIn fake job offer scam. Source: reddit.com

After connecting with victims, fake recruiters present them with job opportunities relevant to their respective fields. They then move the ‘applicant’ along the interview process before offering them the job. Once the target has accepted the role, the scammers request payments or sensitive information as prerequisites to starting the job.

“While I didn’t suffer any direct financial loss, the experience left me feeling violated and concerned about the security of my personal information.” – Peter Wilson, Co-founder of Nihon Arubaito

This can be done in a number of ways. When talking about her experience with a fake LinkedIn recruiter, Peter Wilson Co-founder of the Tokyo-based employment resource Nihon Arubaito tells Tech.co “they requested sensitive personal information, such as my bank account details and social security number, claiming it was necessary for the hiring process”. Wilson immediately sensed something was off and reported the profile to LinkedIn, but not all fake recruiter attempts are easily detected. 

After accepting a fake opportunity, JD Bhatala, Co-founder of WebContentEdge ended up sending LinkedIn scammers over a $49 registration fee to cover ‘administrative costs’. “Since everything looked genuine and legit, I happily paid the registration fee through a provided link” Bhatala told us. 

How to avoid this scam: To make sure a job offer is legit, NordLayer recommends looking for inconsistencies in LinkedIn profiles, a dearth of personal information, and a lack of engagement with other accounts. Real recruiters will never ask for payments or sensitive data up front, either, so if you’re faced with unusual requests you should block and report the account immediately.

Skip to our section on how to identify a fake LinkedIn profile for more tips on weeding out scammers.

LinkedIn Romance Scams

While the words “professional networking app” and “romance” are rarely used in the same context, reports of LinkedIn romance scams have been rising over the years, following the success of the scam on other platforms.

This type of ruse is characterized by scammers sending out connection requests before feining some type of romantic interest with their targets. In most cases, scammers ask victims about their relationship status, interests, and personal life, to form some sort of connection.

Catfishers often try to move the conversation onto other platforms where data isn’t monitored. Then, once the LinkedIn user has fallen into the honey trap, the fraudster will request money or sensitive information and commonly resort to guilt tactics to try and achieve their desired result.

Source: Roger A. Grimes at csoonline.com

Roger A Grimes, a columnist at CSO Online was targeted by a romance scammer on LinkedIn claiming to be a student at Ohio Dominican University. You can read about his experience here.

How to avoid this scam: If someone you’ve never met is asking personal questions and trying to develop a relationship with you on LinkedIn, alarm bells should be ringing. Block all suspected romance scammers and report them to LinkedIn immediately.

And for those open to pursuing a special “connection” online, we’d recommend sticking to Bumble.

LinkedIn Chinese Pig Butchering Scams

Chinese pig butchering is a type of scam that leverages people’s desire to get rich quick through crypto trading.

This type of fraud originated in China, where it is known as ‘Shāz Hū Pán’, directly translating to ‘pig butchering’ – but no animals are harmed in the process of the scam. Instead, pig butchering scams rely on the concept of “fattening up” a victim up before cashing out, or “butchering” them to the tune of thousands of dollars.

In practice, this scam often starts with a stranger requesting to connect, before ‘accidentally’ messaging you, mistaking you for another connection. After they’ve found an in, the scammer will work hard at building a rapport and will tell you about an investment app they’re benefiting from.

In most cases, the swindler will then recommend an investment platform, and make sure you increase your returns in the early days of using the app. This is intended to “fatten you up”. After you’re convinced of the app’s legitimacy, the fraudster will persuade you to invest more money, before slaughtering you (AKA disappearing and never messaging you again).

Pig butchering scams are more common than most people realize too, with some LinkedIn users being targeted routinely. Jenson Crawford, a software engineer for Eastman Kodak told us that he got targeted by these attacks a couple of times a week, before adding that the investment opportunities ranged between “cryptocurrency, foreign exchange, and options trading”.

How to avoid this scam: If you receive a LinkedIn message from someone you’ve never met, claiming to have reached out to you by mistake, be wary. However, the main red flag to look out for with this scam is mentions of crypto trading or investment platforms.

LinkedIn Technical Support Scams

LinkedIn has also witnessed a rise in technical support scams – a type of con where bogus IT teams reach out to workers in a bid to extract sensitive credentials.

In technical support scams, bad actors typically contact targets via email, claiming that their LinkedIn account has issues. These issues can range in nature, but tend to be centered around cybersecurity flaws or failed payments.

After alerting victims, scammers will request them to click on a link to resolve the issue. This phishing link will redirect users away from the page, and inject code into their device’s flash memory. Once access is gained, cyber criminals will be able to carry out a variety of malicious activities, from retrieving credentials to deploying ransomware.

This type of LinkedIn scam tends to be harder to spot too, as scammers often pose as LinkedIn or other legitimate tech support teams using proxy email addresses. So, if you suspect you’re being targeted by a false IT request, how can you verify its legitimacy?

How to avoid this scam: If you encounter a technical issue on LinkedIn, you should try and resolve it on the platform itself. LinkedIn won’t try and contact you out of the blue about tech issues over email, so if you receive messages about issues on the site, you should report them immediately.

How to Identify a Fake LinkedIn Profile

Scammers flock to LinkedIn because it’s widely understood to be a trusted platform. This veneer of credibility means that social engineering efforts on LinkedIn tend to be more successful, compared to scams carried out on other social media apps like Facebook and Telegram.

To avoid falling victim to a LinkedIn scam and becoming a cybercrime statistic, it’s essential to be able to differentiate fake profiles from the real deal. So, here are some tips for spotting red flags on the app.

1. Lead with suspicion – As a general rule of thumb, it’s best to be overly cautious on the app than overly trusting. When you’re messaged by a new connection, look out for tell-tale warning signs like spelling and grammar errors, generic job offers, and requests for personal information.
2. Check the details – The devil really is in the detail. While a profile may look legit at first glance, it’s always worth following links to other social profiles and checking for gaps or inconsistencies in professional and educational histories.
3. Monitor activity – Fraudulent LinkedIn users won’t be as active as regular members. So if the profile seems to exist in a silo, and doesn’t engage with other accounts recently, it’s likely to be a fake.
4. Is it too good to be true? – Just like with most things, if a job offer or opportunity seems too good to be true, it probably is. Approach all job offers with caution, and make sure you do your due diligence before moving forward with a recruiter.
5. Use antivirus software – If you click on a malicious link from a fake profile, antivirus software like SurfShark will flag the page as high-risk, making it easier for you to identify threats and stay safe on the network.

LinkedIn itself is also working on its own tool to help root out fake profiles before they even reach users.

As the race for AI dominance intensifies, the CEO of Google DeepMind — an artificial intelligence research company — claims that its new AI network Gemini will be more capable than the algorithm powering ChatGPT.

Leveraging techniques used in AlphaGo, a DeepMind program that uses machine learning to master the complex board game ‘Go,’ Gemini seeks to one-up other chatbots by offering unique problem-solving capabilities and creating novel output that exists outside of its training set.

While Gemini is still in development, it’s set to succeed PaLM 2, Google’s language model that powers its chatbot Bard, and will likely push forward the frontiers of AI if its rollout goes according to plan. Here’s what we know so far.

DeepMind’s Gemini Will Top Other AI Models, CEO Claims

After making a splash with its large language model (LLM) PaLM 2, Google’s AI research company DeepMind has announced Gemini — a sophisticated LLM that is vying to be the next big breakthrough in artificial technology.

While Gemini is yet to be released, DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis has already claimed the multimodel model will be more powerful than GPT-4, the technology behind the popular AI chatbot, ChatGPT.

“At a high level you can think of Gemini as combining some of the strengths of AlphaGo-type systems with the amazing language capabilities of the large models,” – Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind

According to Hassabis, engineers behind Gemini are using many techniques deployed with AlphaGo, a program developed by DeepMind which was designed to master the ancient Chinese board game Go.

While the applications of these tools may seem disparate, both models rely on deep neural networks to execute advanced problem-solving. But superior problem solving isn’t the only arena that Gemini is set to excel.

Gemini vs GPT-4: How Do the Models Compare?

Unlike its rival GPT-4, DeepMind’s Gemini will be able to handle any data or task without requiring specialized models. Once fully developed, Gemini will have the potential to offer more creative responses too, by generating ‘off-script’ content that isn’t restricted by its training data, and that’s based on the structures it learned during training instead.

Gemini is also expected to gain a competitive advantage by acting as somewhat of an AI Swiss army knife. Since the LLM isn’t limited to a single modality, it will be able to create outputs in a range of different formats, including text, images, and audio.

While GPT-4 technology can currently process images, audio, text, and video, it’s only capable of generating text, which will make it less equipped at handling advanced requests than Gemini.

But this isn’t to say that other chatbots like ChatGPT don’t stand a chance. Since GPT-4 is already available to the public, its output will be more accurate and reliable than prompts generated by Gemini, making it a better choice for those using the tool for educational purposes or content creation.

What Does the Future of Generative AI Look Like?

As OpenAI and Google continue to push the boundaries of artificial intelligence, both Gemini and ChatGPT will only create more buzz going forwards. But while DeepMind CEO Hassabis has publically claimed that AI will be the “most beneficial technology for humanity ever” he still admits it’s not without its risks.

 “If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.” – OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to Congress

Just last month, Hassabis and several leading tech figures like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman signed an open statement warning that the technology could pose an existential threat to humanity akin to nuclear war and a pandemic if not safeguarded correctly.

To mitigate these risks, the statement calls for companies and governments to regulate the development of these technologies, and to be mindful of their potential effects on wider society. As the race for AI hurdles forward at a breakneck speed, we just hope the CEOs take heed of their own advice.

Having gripes with your boss isn’t uncommon, but according to a new survey by Business Name Generator, 1 in 5 workers would actually prefer being managed by AI than their current boss, and think the technology would do a better job.

Reduced levels of favoritism, bias, and discrimination were some of the leading reasons employees would rather have an AI boss, with 22% claiming they would rather air frustrations with a robot than their current superior.

But managerial positions aren’t the only role on the line. As tools like ChatGPT and Google Bard pervade the workforce, a third of workers believe AI will take over the workplace soon anyway.

1 in 5 Workers Would Rather Be Managed By AI

Do you think a robot would do a better job than your boss? According to a recent survey by Business Name Generator, one-fifth of US and UK workers do, and would welcome an AI manager even if it meant waving goodbye to their current boss.

This decision is primarily driven by concerns about their superior’s current lack of empathy, failure to display appreciation, and favoriting of certain workers. The employees also cite poor management skills, bias, and unclear expectations as justifications – issues that lots of respondents believe AI would handle better.

“I don’t think the concept of bosses being replaced by AI is far off” – Cameron MacArthur, CEO of AI Insurance

For instance, 28.2% of US workers believe a robot manager would be better at making unbiased decisions than humans, while 28.8% think the technology would contribute to lower levels of discrimination.

As AI-powered tools continue to unlock valuable opportunities for businesses, concerns around the technology are no longer focused on whether AI will take our jobs, are more about what form this will take.

Data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas reveals that almost 4000 roles were replaced by the technology in May, while a total of 300 million full-time jobs are predicted to be displaced globally in the coming years, according to a report by investment banking company Goldman Sachs.

However, despite AI’s impressive competency, there will always be tasks its less capable of performing than humans — and workers agree.

40% of Workers Are Scared of Robot Bosses

While over a third (37%) of survey respondents left a previous job due to issues with a manager, the majority of the workforce isn’t pushing for AI to replace their superiors just yet. Four in five employees aren’t ready to be managed by ChatGPT equivalents, and 40% report that they’d be scared if their boss was replaced by AI.

Skepticism varied among genders and generations too, with 86% of women not being ready to dismiss human bosses, compared to 82% of men, and 88% of workers over 55 protesting the change, compared to around two-thirds of 18-24-year-olds.

But no matter which side of the debate you fall on, the looming impact of artificial intelligence on the job market is undeniable, with one in three respondents believing that robots will eventually take over the workforce.

These fears may be slightly overblown, but are not entirely invalid. Aside from managerial positions, we discuss which roles are the most vulnerable to AI takeover next.

What Jobs Are the Most at Risk From AI?

After speaking to AI experts, we found that entry-level admin roles like note-taking and proofreading are the most ‘at risk’ professions, closely followed by data entry clerks.

Despite their high levels of prestige, jobs that include software engineering and coding are also extremely vulnerable, especially as OpenAI currently works on Codex, a program designed to execute a wide range of coding tasks.

Customer service reps, paralegals, copywriters, and graphic designers also remain in danger, due to AIs’ ability to efficiently respond to customer queries, easily synthesize legal information, and create fluid, human-like content.

Check out our full list of at-risk roles.

Is the golden era for tech salaries over? New research from Blind suggests it might be, with 56% of workers reported to be willing to accept equal or less pay due to surging job uncertainty and crowded labor markets.

Big tech layoffs, like the ones seen by Google and Meta, aren’t the only driving forces behind these changes though, with company culture, a healthy work-life balance, and remote options being prioritized over hefty paychecks more than ever before.

But all workers aren’t in consensus, so read on to learn what Blind’s survey reveals about the current state of tech’s workforce.

56% of Tech Workers Are Willing to Forego Higher Pay

Over the years, big tech has earned a reputation for its high-flying salaries, flexible practices, and endless supply of perks.

However, a new survey from the career community Blind suggests that tech’s prosperous era could be coming to an end, with the majority (56%) of tech workers claiming that they would accept a role that pays equal to or less than their current salary provided the role fulfills another unmet need.

According to the survey, which collected responses from 7,322 tech workers, out of this group, 45% cite the turbulent job market as the reason for forgoing better pay.

But the challenging labor market and recent wave of layoffs — which have already claimed 200,000 jobs — aren’t the only motivations.

Find out what steps to take if you’ve been laid off here.

While large pay packets have long been considered the primary pull for potential recruits, growing portions of tech workers are prioritizing other factors that contribute to their job satisfaction and overall quality of life.

For instance, 19% of workers are willing to sacrifice inflating salaries for a positive company culture, while remote working options and career growth opportunities remain other top priorities.

“I would trade toxicity for a lower paycheck.” – Anonymous, verified Salesforce employee on Blind

According to Dave Carhart, VP of advisory services at workplace platform Lattice, these results reinforce that “compensation doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but rather as one part of a larger value proposition”.

And as workers reconfigure their values, these changes relieve some financial pressure from companies seeking recruits, while forcing them to place greater onus on certain issues like work-life balance, flexible working, and career progression. But certain demographics of tech workers are more willing to take pay cuts than others, as we explore next.

Which Tech Workers Are Taking the Biggest Salary Cuts?

According to Blind’s survey, junior workers with two to five years of industry experience are the most likely to drop their salary requirements, closely followed by mid-level workers with five to ten years under their belt.

This fluctuation could be driven by a number of factors, from an oversupply of mid-level talent in the job market to previously inflated salaries for workers mid senior workers.

“Engineers in top metros, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, and New York, have seen a larger drop—between 10% and 12% year-over-year, on average.” – Blind survey 

Software engineers in major tech hubs like Silicon Valley, Seattle, and New York have fallen victim to the largest decline in salary expectations, with a medium decrease rate averaging at 10% year-on-year. This suggests that the job market has been hit particularly hard within these competitive geographies.

It’s true that the stocks of major tech companies already showing signs of improvement and hiring will pick up within the industry soon. However, as the sector continues to reel from widespread layoffs, and workers shift their focus towards workplace wellbeing, it’s likely that we’re past the heyday of Silicon Valley’s exorbitant salaries.

A prominent crypto trader has warned fellow Coinbase users about a sophisticated phishing scam he nearly fell victim to earlier this month.

Jacob Canfield took to Twitter to share details of the ruse, which he described as “one of the most complex scams in crypto that I have seen to date” for the way it used social engineering techniques and even appeared to send an email from a legitimate Coinbase account.

The purpose of the crypto con was simple enough: to gain access to and then drain Canfield’s account of its assets. It serves as a stark warning to crypto whales and everyone else, both of how convincing phishing attacks can be and the fact that anyone can find themselves ensnared in one – even if they’re not aware they’ve been involved in a data breach.

How the Coinbase Phishing Scam Worked

In the hope of preventing others from falling victim to the swindle, Canfield shared full details of how the phishing attack worked and was helped along the way by the wider crypto  community. Here’s how it went down, with thanks to Bankless Times for the tip-off.

First, the Coinbase user (Canfield, in this case) received a text message claiming to be Coinbase. It alleged to be notifying him of changes to his account’s two-factor authentication (2FA) settings. Shortly thereafter, he received a series of telephone calls purporting to be from Coinbase’s support team. These were made all the more convincing by the fact they came from a San Francisco area number, which is where the crypto exchange’s HQ is located.

The fraudsters on the other end of the line made every effort to appear genuine, quizzing Canfield on his location and even sending a further text message confirming the changes had been cancelled. At this stage, they redirected him to a so-called “security” team to verify his account, threatening him with a 48-hour account suspension if he didn’t comply with their requests.

At this stage, the phishers send Canfield an email appearing to come from the legitimate help@coinbase.com address. It contained a verification code they wanted him to relay back to them, which he refused to do and effectively threw the scammers off their game. The call was terminated abruptly.

Further investigations revealed that the email address was actually coming via Amazon’s email provider, but the waters muddy thereafter. Either the email and code were real, in which case the scammers were on live chat or a call with the real Coinbase support. In this scenario, they could have instigated a password reset or accessed his account had he provided the code.

Alternatively, the email was spoofed and the code was fake. What was going to happen next remains a mystery, though presumably the scammers had another nefarious trick up their sleeve. Fortunately, the trader’s vigilance paid dividends and he suffered no losses from the attack, but what remains worrying that they had access to large amounts of his personal information, including his phone number and email address.

Data Leak Debate and How to Protect Yourself

The real question for Canfield and his followers on Twitter then became how his personal details were acquired by the scammers in the first place. Initially, some suspected that it might have been linked to a direct Coinbase data breach or one at a related outfit, such as crypto tax preppers CoinTracker.

However, Coinbase flatly denied such allegations and Canfield has since shared new information courtesy of a security expert, who said that his personal data had been involved in over 20 data breaches, of which the 2022 Gemini breach and MGM Resorts one are the most notable. Canfield ultimately hopes that sharing his experience helps keep others on their guard when it comes to phishing scams and urged fellow users to change their passwords as a precautionary measure. As many at 30 people have been hit by this specific scam, he added, some of whom were taken to their cleaner for their digital currency.

What else can you do to protect yourself? The level of social engineering that phishing scams entail mean they’re immune to even the best antivirus software, though you can lessen your chances of being caught up in a data breach by using a good password manager that makes it easy to create unique protection for all of your online accounts. Coinbase users specifically can also report phishing attacks related to the platform directly.

Comcast is the latest big company to reduce remote working flexibility for its employees, reducing its working from home allowance to just one day a week.

Previously, Comcast was one of the many companies that ended remote working in 2023, but its return to office policy mandated just three days a week at a corporate workplace.

That number now sits at four, with Comcast making the switch after nearly a year of operating a three day in-office schedule. A company spokesperson said the change was due to a number of factors, but increasing collaboration and mentorship opportunities were among the reasons cited.

Comcast Commits to Flexibility

News of Comcast expanding its minimum office requirement was first reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is the leading local newspaper where Comcast has its US headquarters. America’s largest telecoms company has two offices there, housing over 8,000 employees in the City of Brotherly Love.

Comcast is understood to be introducing the new schedule in September this fall, with the fourth day of office attendance to be decided by individual teams and managers. At present, the firm’s employees are expected to attend its City Center premises on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

The multinational says it will continue to allow for flexible working schedules on an individual basis, to take into account specific employee needs around childcare and other personal arrangements.

Back to the Future for Big Business?

Though Comcast will technically still offer hybrid working, its implementation of a four-day office requirement comes as a further sign that ‘back to work’ is one of the year’s key big business trends. Companies that offer 4-day weeks might be on the rise, too, but many traditional organizations seem to be looking at past ways of working as much as they are new ones.

While Comcast’s move may not make as many headlines as remote working rollbacks by the likes of Apple, Amazon and Starbucks, let’s not forget who we’re talking about here.

Comcast is one of the largest media companies in the world, owning everything from NBCUniversal and Xfinity in the US to Sky TV in the UK and Europe. Ever visited a Universal Studios theme park with your kids or friends? What about watching a movie made by Universal Pictures? In both cases, you’d be on Comcast’s turf, even if you might not know it.

Getting the Back to Work Balance Right

Getting the back to work balance right isn’t easy for big corporations, as demanding staff get back to their cubicles or look for employment elsewhere seems outdated at best and Draconian at worst.

However, as Comcast’s spokesperson pointed out, collaboration in meetings and mentorship of junior staff members does tend to get a boost in physical work environments. It’s far from the only way of working productively these days, given how easy the best conference calls services make it to host effective virtual meetings, but it’s a factor nonetheless.

One final thing worth remembering, especially for those who’s been given a back to work mandate like Comcast’s and are dreading it, is that ramped up office work is good for the local economy. You might not be keen on fighting through rush hour for an extra day or two each week, but trust us when we say the local pizza slinger you used to love before the pandemic hit most certainly is.

Remote workers have been found to earn more money than those who work in-office or in a hybrid capacity, according to a new study.

The research by call center software provider Ringover found that on average remote workers earned $8553 more annually compared to roles that require full-time office attendance, based on its analysis of 15,800 job listings across 30 major US cities.

Jobs that offer hybrid setups aren’t nearly as far behind, with the data showing average salaries that were just $140 below the benchmark established by the fully remote roles.

Remote vs Office Working: Which Pays More?

It seems clear from the study that companies that offer remote working pay more, whether they offer the perk on a full-time or hybrid basis. However, it’s worth noting that there are a number of variables at play here and no two job markets are the same.

Geography was revealed to be a key factor in Ringover’s report, with remote staff in Baltimore, MD earning nearly 40% more than their cubicle-based counterparts. Indianapolis, IN and Oklahoma City, OK were the cities. with the next largest pay gaps, at 29.76% and 28.90%, respectively.

Different job roles were also found to be a factor in how employers compensated remote vs office roles. Perhaps ironically, office managers were found to enjoy the biggest salary boost when working fully remotely, getting on average 31.71% more than if they attended a physical workplace, with PR managers a close second (30.16%). At the other end of the spectrum, junior web developers were found to make more in the office, enjoying salaries that were 12.52% higher than their remote equivalents.

Why Do Remote and Hybrid Working Jobs Pay More?

If you’ve hit the gas station lately, you’ll be well aware of the injustice of remote working jobs paying more than those that require employees to commute. Fairness aside, one reason why remote and hybrid roles can pay more is because it’s cheaper for companies to have their employees provide their own workspace.

Specifically, working from home full-time means little to no office overheads for businesses, while clever management of hybrid working schedules allow them to dramatically reduce the amount they have to pay for office space and everything that comes with it.

At home? Settle the Zoom vs Microsoft Teams debate and you might find that’s all there is to it. Among other things, you certainly don’t have to worry about things like providing free coffee, paying for electricity, or the cleaning and building maintenance costs.

Salary Transparency is the Real Issue

An important caveat to all of findings is the fact that, despite Ringover’s data analysts reviewing 15,800 job listings, they only found salaries attached to 30 ‘remote-capable’ jobs. This is indicative of a larger trend, which saw just 43.15% of roles advertised online offering a salary range or exact figure.

Tech hotbed Seattle, WA was the best city for salary transparency, with 76.73% of listings coming with salary information attached, followed by San Diego, CA (73.71%). Job hunters in Charlotte, NC and Houston, TX shouldn’t hold out much hope, though, with these cities reporting salary details on just 11.76% and 25.64% of job ads.

This hints at the much bigger issue of salary transparency, the lack of which is a problem experienced by job hunters all over the world . We understand businesses want to get their workplace strategy right in the post-Covid era and the way it’s now de rigueur to include job flexibility in job posts is admirable. Ask most prospective employees out there and they’d probably agree it’s time salaries followed suit.

LinkedIn has this week announced a new AI image detector to catch fake profiles, that has a 99% success rate.

The platform’s Trust Data Team claims the new approach can catch falsified profile images and remove fake accounts before they reach LinkedIn members.

This latest security innovation comes a few months after it was revealed LinkedIn was featured in over half of Q1 2022 phishing attacks.

Why are People Creating Fake LinkedIn Profiles?

As well as Twitter, LinkedIn has had trouble in recent times with the amount of fake profiles on its site. In the first half of 2022 alone, the platform had detected and removed 21 million fake accounts. 

But why exactly are all these fake profiles popping up? For some it’s to create trust amongst visitors to their websites, for others it’s rooted in SEO purposes under the false belief that Google ranks articles with authors higher than ones without.

Whatever the motivation, there’s no doubt it’s even easier to create a fake profile thanks to the advances in AI.

“We are constantly working to improve and increase the effectiveness of our anti-abuse defenses to protect the experiences of our members and customers. And as part of our ongoing work, we’ve been partnering with academia to stay one step ahead of new types of abuse tied to fake accounts that are leveraging rapidly evolving technologies like generative AI.” – LinkedIn’s announcement on its new approach 

Fake Accounts Have Become Harder to Catch

This new approach comes following lengthy research into recognizing the structural differences between AI-generated faces and real faces – something most people don’t know how to spot.

LinkedIn keeps a close eye on unwanted activity that could pose a security risk, such as fake profiles and content policy violations. However, the sophistication of AI-generated images has, until recently, proved to be impossible to detect.

The key in solving this has been to know exactly what to look for. According to LinkedIn, AI-created images all share similar patterns that they call ‘structural differences’. Real images don’t have these structural differences.

An example in their blog post references a test of 400 AI-generated images vs 400 real ones. While the real images were displayed in clarity, the AI-generated ones grew increasingly blurrier, showcasing that areas around the eyes and nose tend to be very similar in fake photos.

While there’s no doubt that AI appears relentless in its potential security risks, LinkedIn’s latest development can be seen as a success against fake data.

A Manhattan district judge has ordered two lawyers – Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca – and their law firm Levisow, Levidow & Oberman to pay a $5,000 fine for using fictitious legal research created by ChatGPT.

Despite asking the chatbot to verify the cases, ChatGPT claimed the fabricated citations were legitimate.

The fake citations were used in an aviation injury claim and come hot on the heels of a wider conversation about AI plagiarism and chatbots’ potential to spread fake news and disinformation.

ChatGPT Doubled Down on its Fake Stories

Schwartz admitted he’d used ChatGPT to assist with the legal brief of passenger Roberto Mata vs Colombian airline Avianca. Mata’s claim of injury from a refreshment trolley was originally dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. His lawyers however, contested that the lawsuit should be continued and referenced several previous court cases that supported their argument.

These court cases however, didn’t exist. They had been suggested by ChatGPT and involved cases of airlines that were totally made up or had misidentified judges. Schwartz wasn’t able to confirm the sources of those cases using his law firm’s usual methods, but included them as citations regardless. 

In a written opinion, judge P. Kevin Castel saw no wrongdoing in using artificial intelligence for legal work assistance, but highlighted lawyers’ duty to ensure their filings were accurate. 

“Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance, but existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings.” – Judge P. Kevin Castel

According to the law firm’s statement, the lawyers “respectfully” disagreed with this ruling, saying “We made a good-faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth”.

Schwartz – who has practised law in New York for over 30 years – had apparently never used ChatGPT before and was unaware that the answers supplied could be fake. He has asked the chatbot to verify that the cases were real, which it falsely claimed they were. 

LoDuca’s lawyer said they were reviewing the decision. In a separate written opinion the judge threw out the Mata vs Avianca, confirming the statute of limitations had indeed expired.

A Stark Warning to ChatGPT Users

Despite a few red faces, the low-stakes nature of this specific lawsuit and fine imposed are perhaps a blessing. If it had been a more grievous legal case, it’s likely the repercussions could have been a lot worse. Instead, it can simply serve as a warning to all others in the legal industry.

In fact, no matter what industry, this story is a good one to echo the inaccuracies that AI chatbots are prone to making and the dangers of using it blindly.

Trained on a wealth of internet data, chatbots’ sources aren’t always available. Pair this with the fact that they work more like a predictive text tool, estimating the most likely word to come after a user’s prompt, and you can see how vulnerable they are to factual errors.

What Does the Future of AI in the Workplace Look Like?

Back in April, ChatGPT faked a sexual harassment claim and named a real American law professor as the accused. Similarly, Chinese authorities arrested a man for allegedly using the chatbot to create fake news articles, with one reporting a made-up fatal train crash.

Concerns around AI’s ability to create accurate content or content that is able to be detected as fake continues to grow, and calls for government intervention have been made.

Apple and Samsung have already blocked AI platforms from being used. Italy already has banned ChatGPT over data security concerns, and Germany is in talks to do the same. Earlier this year, the Biden administration said it was looking into AI’s impact on national security and education.

Meta has this week announced its to begin restricting news on Facebook and Instagram following parliament-approved legislation that will require it to pay news publishers. 

The controversial bill, called The Online News Act, cleared the senate on Thursday, although Meta has already tested limiting access to some Canadians. 

While the law doesn’t prevent news from being published on the platforms, it will require them to negotiate commercial deals and obtain a license for the content. The technology giant’s response has been to drop news from the platform.

The Law is Considered “Fundamentally Flawed”

While the law isn’t exclusive to Meta, the technology giant is speaking up the loudest, stating it is “fundamentally flawed legislation that ignores the realities of how our platforms work”. Google similarly called the bill “unworkable” in its current form.

“A legislative framework that compels us to pay for links or content that we do not post, and which are not the reason the vast majority of people use our platforms, is neither sustainable nor workable,” a Meta spokesperson

While this argument rings true, the bill has been designed to “enhance fairness” and ensure the digital news marketplace’s sustainability, according to the bill itself. In recent times, concerns have been raised that tech companies have been cornering the market for online advertising, and taking away much-needed revenue from news sites. 

An independent parliament budget watchdog analyzed the bill and estimated that news outlets could receive around $329 million – roughly $250 million in US dollars – per year from digital platforms.

Meta confirmed these changes won’t impact any other services for Canadian users.

The Legislation isn’t the First of its Kind

Australian users were blocked from sharing or viewing news on Facebook thanks to a similar law, back in 2021. However, after talks with the government and amendments in the legislation, Facebook restored its news content.

So while tech giants may hold out hope that something similar will happen for Canada, avid supporters of the bill seem less likely to want to enter any potential future negotiations. Canadian politicians have been heavy on praise for this step which has been seen as a move towards market fairness.

“If the government can’t stand up for Canadians against tech giants, who will?” – Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez

However, law professor at the University of Ottawa Michael Geist, has warned that this move could be detrimental to independent media outlets who may not experience the same reach without social virality.

The Online News Act is expected to take effect in Canada in six months.

TikTok’s UK users are starting to see a new shopping feature called ‘Trendy Beat’ roll out within the app.

Currently, shopping on the platform is made up of brands selling their products directly on the platform, with TikTok taking a commission of the sale. This new feature however, would see TikTok doing the selling of its own products.

Despite having a hectic first half of the year, with whispers of a total US ban, TikTok is pressing on with innovations that look set to make it bigger than ever. This shift in e-commerce strategy, that before now has largely been represented by TikTok Shop marketplace, looks set to be the foundation of the platform’s new e-commerce offering that will rival sites such as Amazon and Shein.

TikTok Model Appears Similar to Amazon’s

Trendy Beat is an in-app shopping section and its products will be shipped and sold by a subsidiary of TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. It’ll offer items that are popular within trending videos, such as clothing.

The model, which is still in testing, appears to be similar to how Amazon Basics and Shein promote and sell their best selling products. 

“We are always exploring new ways to enhance our community’s experience, and we are in the early stages of experimenting with new shopping features,” – TikTok on it’s new Trendy Beat feature 

Instead of making money from other brand’s sales commissions, ByteDance will now take all proceeds from sales made through Trendy Beat. This addition to their e-commerce offering will likely help explain the platform’s $300bn valuation, a particularly crucial justification ahead of its expected public offering coming in the next couple of years. 

Interestingly, while TikTok ramps up its shopping efforts, other platforms seem to be scaling theirs down. Earlier this year, Facebook and Instagram dropped its live shopping feature and the latter removed its shopping tab. These U-turns have not deterred the short-form video platform from pressing on with development though.

Testing is UK-Only… For Now

Right now Trendy Beat testing is for UK users only. However, trademark applications filed last month suggest that it won’t be long before the feature pops up in the US. The application predominantly lists items for sale to be clothing such as dresses, hats, footwear and t-shirts and jackets.

US users who are keen to spend their money on TikTok needn’t worry too much, as the platform is focused on bringing even more brands to its TikTok shop offering. This push aims to make the app a complete shopping destination – from product discovery right through to checkout and delivery.

The power of Trendy Beat capitalises on this complete experience by leveraging the knowledge of trending and popular products. According to reports, ByteDance will then expedite production of these goods through an already-established network of suppliers.

The Runaway Success of TikTok Shop

Despite it being early days for TikTok’s voyage into e-commerce, its success is undeniable and considered a significant influencer on shoppers’ habits. The viral phrase “TikTok made me buy it” has 7.4bn views with the same hashtag racking up 59.3bn hits. 

The platform has also contributed to the exponential growth of influencer marketing, with top creators able to help brands connect with highly engaged potential customers.

According to TikTok, users are 1.3 times more likely to buy through the platform directly. More than that, 67% of its users are inspired to make a purchase while using the app. ByteDance turning the platform into a one-stop-shop and monetizing it wholly for itself feels like a natural next step.

Looking for a more traditional e-commerce route? Check out our Wix vs Shopify comparison.

20% of tech companies have reduced their DEI teams within the last year, a new study finds.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts grew in popularity across the tech industry in the wake of 2020’s racial justice protests. Three years later, however, those same companies are scaling back their efforts. These DEI measures, it seems, were “more show than substance” for at least a meaningful segment of the companies in question.

Layoffs are now the norm across the tech industry, highlighting which teams are considered essential and which are not.

Hiring Biases and Wage Gaps Remain Concerns

The new data comes from recruiting platform Hired, which recently released a report surveying 229 hiring leaders. Of these, 20% said they had scaled back DEI teams within the last 12 months. At the same time, wage gaps widened in 2022 both for women and for men within all racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 12% of respondents said their DEI programs remain “more at risk for cutbacks in the future if the economy tightens.”

One major signals indicates that biases are returning to form after a few years of trend reversals. More tech businesses hiring for roles are only sending interview requests to men: The percentage was 38% in 2022, up from 37% in 2021, while still lower than the 43% that held steady across 2019 and 2020.

Salary Transparency Laws Might Help

It’s not all bad news, as 51% said their DEI teams were a “must-have.” Plus, new laws mandating some measure of disclosure of salary bands might help to push businesses towards more equitable practices.

According to Hired platform data, these laws have “generally positive” effects, with gender wage gaps narrowing in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City.

Speaking to MarketWatch, Erica Yamoto, senior vice president of marketing at Hired, said that “we all read the headlines. We see what’s going on in the anti-DEI movement. We see it in our survey data,” adding that trend is “definitely worrying.”

Let’s Not Forget Diversity Makes More Money

A 2021 McKinsey report found that prioritizing diversity can result in 36% higher financial returns.

And it’s not the first analysis that has linked racial diversity in management to positive financial outcomes, either, which hints that 2023’s retrenchment has more to do with systemic racism than market forces.

The new report showing a retreat from DEI efforts is another indicator that the US is still unable to take three steps forward without taking two steps back — at least when it comes to addressing the racial inequalities that have shaped the nation for centuries.

The Federal Trade Commission is suing Amazon, claiming the ecommerce giant used shady practices to get customers to stay subscribed to Prime even when the customers were trying to cancel their subscription.

According to the FTC, data shows that the “dark patterns” Amazon “sabotaged” customers with paid off, with 14% higher retention rates after implimention.

The FTC has another case lined up, too. Google has filed a complaint with FTC against Microsoft, claiming it has documented anticompetitive practices from the computer company.

Amazon’s Prime Subscription Process Is In Question

Amazon complicated its cancellation process intentionally, according to the FTC itself, which violates the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

“Amazon tricked and trapped people into recurring subscriptions without their consent, not only frustrating users but also costing them significant money” -FTC Chair Lina Khan, in a CNBC statement.

The FTC also says that its complaint details multiple instances in which Amazon could have changed its allegedly coercive practices and instead chose to continue them.

Amazon spokesperson Heather Layman disagrees on no uncertain terms, saying that the allegations are “false on the facts and the law” and that “customers love Prime.”

What Did Amazon Allegedly Do?

According to the complaint, Amazon’s missteps include making it harder for a non-Prime customer to buy products.

When users were moving through the checkout process, Amazon gave them a button that instructed users to finish their transaction without clearly saying that this button would be signing the user up for a recurring subscription as well.

According to one document, the number of Prime cancellations dropped 14% in 2017 in the wake of the new cancellation process being introduced.

Omfg Amazon internally nicknamed its Prime cancellation process as ‘the Iliad’ after the long and arduous journey of Homer.https://t.co/B82nLKc5Tz

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) June 21, 2023

This is the third case that the FTC has brought against Amazon in the last month. Towards the end of May, the company settled for more than $30 million in a case concerning allegations of data privacy failures in Amazon’s Alexa and Ring products.

Google’s Filing an FTC Complaint Against Microsoft

Google has filed its own FTC complaint. It’s alleging that Microsoft used the licensing terms of Office 365 to lock clients into Azure contracts. Google sees this as unfair anticompetitive practices in the cloud storage and cloud computing industries.

Google’s comments are a response to a March 2023 call from the FTC for information about security issues and competition within the cloud market.

Earlier this month, the FTC levelled a $20 million fine against Microsoft for illegal data storage practices.

In other words, with overlooking its beef with Amazon, the FTC will have a lot to keep it busy in the coming months when it comes to big tech giants and their influence over the millions of customers who find themselves with little protection aside from regulatory agencies.

A recent presentation from the CDC has clarified the governmental agency’s stance on the impact crater that Covid-19 complications have left on the US economy.

According to their analysis of third-party reports, the CDC says research is “suggesting Long Covid is contributing to a labor shortage and is hurting the U.S. economy.”

Among other research, the quote references a January 2023 report finding that around 18% of those who report having Long Covid (which is 5% of all workers who got Covid) couldn’t return to their workplace for over a year. It’s a fairly clear confirmation from the CDC: The acute stages of Covid infections may not be spiking, but the threat to the economy isn’t over.

5% of Those With Covid Can’t Work for More Than a Year

The new presentation comes from the Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity (COCA) team, which mentions labor shortages during a segment discussing the challenges of working while dealing with Long Covid.

However, the report that the CDC highlighted in their new presentation actually came out last January, following an analysis of more than 3,000 Covid-19 workers’ compensation claims from the period between January 2020 and March 2022. That report, out from New York’s largest workers’ compensation carrier, the New York State Insurance Fund, had plenty of other insights worth keeping in mind.

From the report:

• Almost one-third of all workers infected with Covid-19 suffered or are suffering from Long Covid, with the percentage peaking during the initial phase of the pandemic and falling over time.
• The percentage of female workers with Long Covid (37 percent) was 11 points higher than that of male workers (26 percent).
• Forty percent of workers with Long Covid returned to work within 60 days of infection while still receiving medical treatment.
• Nearly all workers with comorbidities or those hospitalized for their initial infection experienced Long Covid.
• The incidence of Long Covid in essential workers may be higher than the data suggests, creating a potential blind spot for policymakers.

Expect the Labor Shortage to Continue

Understandably, people have heard enough about the Covid pandemic and want it to be over. But assuming that 5% of those who get Covid in the future will stay out of the labor market for at least a year, the economy will face some significant headwinds for as long as Covid continues to circulate.

The CDC internally acknowledges Long Covid is driving a skilled labor shortage

I have seen this shortage myself. Local shops and mechanics are all short-staffed. It is bleeding into everyday life

So, I decided to learn how to service my own vehicles

— AJ Leonardi, MBBS, PhD (@fitterhappierAJ) June 21, 2023

And in addition to questioning if a return to work is possible at all, those with Long Covid face the challenge of a workplace that may be resistant to offering reasonable accomodations that could make the transition manageable.

What Does This Data Mean for Workers?

The main takeaway for workers is that wearing your mask and socially distancing still makes a lot of sense. Pushing for Covid-safe ventilation systems in workplaces can also go a long way towards mitigation measures, and so can continuing to work from home when possible.

But when it comes to getting the job that’s right for you, there is a silver lining to this fairly dark cloud: A shortage of labor shifts the negotiating power towards workers. This might even help to explain the fervor with which businesses have turned towards labor-saving measures such as AI tools.

Whatever the case, more research is likely to emerge in the coming years to clarify the role that Long Covid plays in our economy, and we look forward to getting a clear picture of its impact.

In the last two years, ChatGPT has turned the academic and business worlds upside down with its ability to generate coherent, well-written copy about pretty much any subject on earth in a matter of seconds.

The chatbot’s remarkable abilities have seen students of all educational levels turn to the chatbot – as well as the best ChatGPT alternatives, namely Bard– to write complex essays that would otherwise take hours to finish.

Their release kickstarted an ongoing global conversation about a new phenomenon, often referred to as “ChatGPT plagiarism”. This guide covers the tools businesses and educational institutions are using to detect ChatGPT plagiarism, the dangers of cheating with ChatGPT – and whether using ChatGPT even counts as plagiarism at all.

• How to Detect ChatGPT Plagiarism
• Most Popular AI and ChatGPT Plagiarism Checkers
• Do AI & ChatGPT Plagiarism Checkers Actually Work?
• OpenAI’s AI Text Classifier: A Case Study
• Is Using ChatGPT or Bard Actually Plagiarism?
• The Dangers of Cheating With ChatGPT
• Does ChatGPT Plagiarize?
• Does Bard Plagiarize?
• Do Other AI Tools Plagiarize?
• Should I Use ChatGPT for My Essays or Work?

How to Detect ChatGPT Plagiarism

To detect ChatGPT plagiarism, you need an AI content checker. AI content checkers scan bodies of text to determine whether they’ve been produced by a chatbot such as ChatGPT or Bard, or by a human. However, as we’ll cover later on, many of these tools are far from reliable.

It’s slightly harder to detect plagiarism when it comes to code, something ChatGPT can also generate capably. There’s not quite the same ecosystem of AI detection tools for code as there is for content. In 2024, this has grown even vaster,

However, if you’re in a university environment, for example, and you’re submitting code well beyond your technical level, your professor or lecturer may have some very reasonable suspicions that you’ve asked ChatGPT to help you out.

The Most Popular AI and ChatGPT Plagiarism Checker Tools Reviewed

Since ChatGPT’s launch in November 2022, lots of companies and educational institutions have produced AI content checkers, which claim to be able to distinguish between artificially generated content and content created by humans. Now, a lot of companies are using Google’s chatbot Bard too, which uses a different language model.

However, the purported accuracy of even the most reputable AI content detection tools is fiercely disputed and court cases between students falsely accused of using AI content and education have already materialized.

The bottom line is this: No tool in this space is 100% accurate, but some are much better than others.

GPTZero

GPTZero is a popular, free AI content detection tool that claims that it’s “the most accurate AI detector across use-cases, verified by multiple independent sources”.

However, Back in April, a history student at UC Davis proved that GPTZero – an AI content detection tool being used by his professor – was incorrect when it labeled his essay as AI-generated.

We tested GPTZero by asking ChatGPT to write a short story. GPTZero, unfortunately, was not able to tell that the content was written by an AI tool:

Duplichecker

Duplichecker is one of the first AI content detection services that will appear if you simply search for the term on Google. It claims to be 100% accurate at detecting AI content when presented with text, and is completely free to use.

However, as you can see from the result below, Duplichecker was not only unable to identify this text was written by ChatGPT, but it actually concluded that it was 100% human-generated – even though none of it was.

Writer

Writer is an AI content detection that, to be fair to it, doesn’t claim to be 100% accurate, and advises you treat its judgments as an indication. It’s a good thing too, because the free version of Writer told us that the text below is 100% human-generated – but it’s actually just the first half of a story we asked ChatGPT to generate.

Funnily enough, when we pasted in the introduction of a recently-written Tech.co article that had no AI-generated content included, it came back as only 69% human-generated.

Writer’s has paid plans, but judging by the performance of its free tool, we wouldn’t recommend them. The Team plan costs $18 per user, per month for up to five users. There’s also an enterprise plan with custom pricing options.

Originality.ai

Originality.ai is certainly one of the more accurate AI content detection tools currently available, according to our research and testing.

The company has conducted an extensive study into AI content detection tools, feeding 600 artificially generated and 600 human-generated blocks of text to its own content detection system, as well as other popular tools that claim to fulfill a similar purpose.

As you can see from the results below, Originality.ai outperformed all of the tools included in the test:

The only downside to Originality.ai is that there isn’t a free plan, and you can’t even test it out for free as you can with the other apps included in this article. it costs $20 for 2,000 credits, which will let you check 200,000 words.

Copyleaks AI Content Detector

Copyleaks is a free-to-use AI content detector that claims to be able to distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated copy with 99.12% accuracy.

Copyleaks will also tell you if specific aspects of a document or passage are written by AI, even if other parts of it seem to be written by a human.

Copyleaks says it’s capable of detecting AI-generated content created by “ChatGPT, GPT-4, GPT-3, Jasper, and others”.

CopyLeaks Costs $8.33 per month for 1,200 credits (250 words of copy per credit). It’s used, the company says, by over 1,000 institutions and 300 enterprises across more than 100 countries.

In a test carried out by TechCrunch in February 2023, however, Copyleaks incorrectly classified various types of AI-generated copy, including a news article, encyclopedia entry, and a cover letter as human-generated. Furthermore, Originality.ai’s study referenced above only found it to be accurate in 14.50% of cases – a far cry from the 99.12% accuracy claim CopyLeaks makes.

However, when we tested it, it did seem to be able to pick up that the text we entered was generated by ChatGPT. This happened in both our 2023 and 2024 tests:

During testing, Copyleaks was also able to correctly recognize human-generated text on several occasions. Despite the poor showings on other tests, it looks to be a better and more trusted option than some of the other tools featured in this article.

Turnitin Originality AI Detector

Turnitin is a US-based plagiarism detection company that is deployed by a variety of universities to scan their students’ work. Turnitin is designed to detect all kinds of plagiarism, but revealed in April that it’s been investing in an AI-focused team for some time now as it launched its AI content detection capabilities.

Turnitin their tool can detect “97 percent of ChatGPT and GPT3 authored writing, with a very low less than 1/100 false positive rate”.

However, the company also says that content if it flags a piece of content as AI-generated, this should be treated as an “indication, not an accusation”. They also provide an extensive explanation of how they deal with false positives, and warn about taking AI outputs with a pinch of salt.

The true accuracy of Turnitin’s AI detector was disputed by the Washington Post last year, as well as other sources. You’ll have to contact the company directly if you want to purchase the software or need more information on how it works, the website says – but it’s only really suitable for academic purposes.

Does AI Content Detection Actually Work?

As Turnitin knows, no AI content detection tool is 100% reliable – our tests prove that pretty resoundingly. Duplichecker – a top result on Google that claims to be “100% accurate” on its landing page – fell at the first hurdle.

However, the other tools we’ve discussed today actually claim to be 100% accurate, and very few claim to be free of false positives. Others, like GPTZero, post disclaimers about taking their results as gospel.

A number of university students accused of using artificial intelligence to produce essays have already been forced to prove that their work was original.

In Texas, in March of last year, a professor falsely failed an entire class of students after wrongfully accusing them of using ChatGPT to write essays. There is also a collection of reports – and studies like the one conducted by Originality.ai – that suggest that even the most capable plagiarism checkers aren’t nearly as accurate as they claim.

Even Turnitin’s AI content detector isn’t foolproof. In the recent, relatively small test conducted by the Washington Post we discussed earlier, its accuracy fell far short of the 98% they claim to be able to produce.

Originality.ai, on the other hand, is certainly one of the more robust ones available – and even its detection technology isn’t right every single time.  However, having tested a variety of these tools, it seems to be the exception to quite a broad rule.

Besides, if false positives exist in any capacity, then there will always be room for students to claim their work is original and has simply been misidentified.

OpenAI’s AI Text Classifier: A Case Study

OpenAI, owners of ChatGPT, used to have its own plagiarism checker. We know this, because we used it ourselves when originally writing this article. However, back in July 2023, the company withdrew the tool, stating that it wasn’t accurate enough.

That aligns with our own experience when we tested it. When we showed it a short story, written by its own ChatGPT tool, the checker didn’t pick up on the fact that it was AI-generated.

As of July 20, 2023, the AI classifier is no longer available due to its low rate of accuracy. We are working to incorporate feedback and are currently researching more effective provenance techniques for text, and have made a commitment to develop and deploy mechanisms that enable users to understand if audio or visual content is AI-generated. – OpenAI blogpost

You can see our original example of the checker missing the fact that text was AI written, below:

Is Using ChatGPT or Bard Plagiarism?

It’s debatable whether ChatGPT is in fact plagiarism at all. Oxford Languages defines plagiarism as “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.”

ChatGPT is not a person, and it’s not simply reproducing the work and ideas of other people when it generates an answer. So, by the dictionary definition, it’s not outright plagiarism.

Even if it was doing that, if you were honest about where it came from (i.e. ChatGPT), arguably, that wouldn’t be plagiarism anyway.

However, some schools and universities have far-reaching plagiarism rules and consider using chatbots to write essays as such. One student at Furman University failed his philosophy degree in December 2022 after using ChatGPT to write his essay. In 2023 case, a professor at Northern Michigan University reported catching two students using the chatbot to write essays for their class.

Using ChatGPT to generate essays and then passing this off as your own work is perhaps better described as “cheating” and is definitely “dishonest”.

The whole point of writing an essay is to show you’re capable of producing original thoughts, understanding relevant concepts, carefully considering conflicting arguments, presenting information clearly, and citing your sources.

There’s very little difference between using ChatGPT in this way and paying another student to write your essay for you – which is, of course, cheating.

With regard to Google’s Bard, the answer is a little more complicated. The same line of logic used above applies to Bard as it does to ChatGPT, but Bard has been marred by accusations of plagiarism and incorrectly citing things it pulls from the internet in a way ChatGPT hasn’t. So, using Bard might lead to you inadvertently plagiarizing other sources (more on this below).

The Dangers of Cheating With ChatGPT

Christopher Howell, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Elon University, asked a group of students back in 2023 to use ChatGPT for a critical assignment and then grade the essays it produced for them.

He reported in a lengthy Twitter thread (the first part of which is pictured below) that all 63 students who participated found some form of “hallucination” – including fake quotes, and fake and misinterpreted sources – in their assignments.

Does ChatGPT Plagiarize in Its Responses?

No – ChatGPT isn’t pulling information from other sources and simply jamming it together, sentence by sentence. This is a misunderstanding of how Generative Pre-trained Transformers work.

ChatGPT – or more accurately the GPT language model – is trained on a huge dataset of documents, website material, and other text.

It uses algorithms to find linguistic sequences and patterns within its datasets. Paragraphs, sentences, and words can then be generated based on what the language model has learned about language from sequences in these datasets.

This is why if you ask ChatGPT the same question at the same time from two different devices, its answers are usually extremely similar – but there will still be variation, and sometimes, it offers up completely different answers.

Does Bard Plagiarize in Its Responses?

ChatGPT’s biggest rival, Google’s Bard has had significantly more issues with plagiarizing content since its launch than its more popular counterpart. Technology website Tom’s Hardware found that Bard had plagiarized one of its articles, and then proceeded to apologize when one of its staff called it out.

In May 2023, PlagiarismCheck told Yahoo News that they generated 35 pieces of text with Bard, and found it plagiarized above 5% in 25 of them by simply paraphrasing existing content already published on the internet.

One big difference between Bard and ChatGPT that can perhaps explain this is that Bard can search the internet for responses, which is why it tends to deal better with questions relating to events after 2021, which ChatGPT struggles with. However, this seems to also mean it pulls data from sources in a less original way and cites its sources more often.

These examples may have been blips, but it’s good to know the risks if you’re using Bard for important work.

Do Other AI Tools Plagiarize?

Unfortunately, yes – and some companies have already embarrassed themselves by using AI tools that have plagiarized content. For example, CNET – one of the world’s biggest technology sites – was found to be using an AI tool to generate articles, and wasn’t transparent about it at all.  Around half of the articles that CNET published using AI were found to have some incorrect information included.

To make matters worse, Futurism, which launched an investigation into CNET’s AI plagiarism, said that “The bot’s misbehavior ranges from verbatim copying to moderate edits to significant rephrasings, all without properly crediting the original”.

AI tools that don’t generate unique, original content – be it art or text – have the potential to plagiarize content that’s already been published on the internet. It’s important to understand exactly how the language model your AI tool is using works and also have tight oversight over the content it’s producing, or you could end up in the same position as CNET.

Should You Use ChatGPT for Essays or Work?

Using ChatGPT for Essays

The fact that ChatGPT doesn’t simply pull answers from other sources and mash sentences together means businesses have been able to use ChatGPT for a variety of different tasks without worrying about copyright issues.

But its internal mechanics also mean it often hallucinates and makes mistakes. It’s far, far from perfect – and although it’s tempting to get ChatGPT to write your essay for university or college, we’d advise against it.

Every educational institution’s specific submission guidelines will be slightly different, of course, but it’s vastly likely that it is already considered “cheating” or plagiarism” at your university or school. Plus, regardless of how accurate they are, educational institutions are using AI content detectors, which will improve over time.

Using ChatGPT at Work

Of course, lots of people are using ChatGPT at work already – it’s proving useful in a wide range of industries, and helping workers in all sorts of roles save valuable time on day-to-day tasks.

However, if you are using ChatGPT at work, we’d advise being open with your manager or supervisor about it – especially if you’re using it for important activities like writing reports for external stakeholders. It’s one of the more immediate ethical considerations relating to AI that businesses need to answer.

We’d also strongly advise both heavily editing and closely reviewing all of the work you’re using ChatGPT, Bard, or any other AI tool to generate. It’s unwise to put sensitive personal or company information into any chatbot – we know ChatGPT saves and uses user data, but there isn’t much public information about where these chats are stored or OpenAI’s security infrastructure.

Using Other AI Tools for Essays or Work

Of course, Bard and ChatGPT aren’t the only AI chatbots out there – like Claude, for example. However, we’d be hesitant to throw our support behind any smaller AI tools that aren’t backed by powerful language models. They won’t be as well-resourced, and you’re unlikely to find them as useful if you do experiment with using them for work.

The same rules still apply, however – be open with your manager and get sign-off on using them, don’t input any sensitive company data, and always review the answers you’re given.

A band of both current and former Twitter employees have filed a lawsuit this week, claiming that they’ve not received their 2022 bonuses, even though they’d been promised 50% of their target figure.

Despite entering a “2.0 era” with new CEO Linda Yaccarino and pressing on with app developments, Twitter is still being plagued by the effects of Elon Musk’s casual and erratic leadership.

Led by the platform’s former Senior Director of Compensation Mark Shobinger, this latest class-action complaint makes reference to the fact that there was no change in the bonus scheme communicated and no reason as to why they haven’t been paid.

What Exactly Is the Complaint?

If anyone knows the ins and outs of Twitter’s bonus schemes it’s Shobinger, as his former role meant he oversaw executive and incentive pay. In November 2022, his responsibilities widened to include global employee compensation.

Twitter’s cash bonus plan is paid out annually and according to former Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal – and other executives – this was to remain the case even during the months leading up to Musk’s acquisition in October 2022. However, that bonus pay never materialized. And in short, there’s no reason why.

“Both before and after Musk’s acquisition was completed in October 2022, Twitter’s management continuously promised the company’s employees, including plaintiff, that their annual bonus for 2022 would be paid under the Bonus Plan.” – current and former Twitter employees

Shobinger quit because of this U-turn on both the bonus pay and a variety of other broken employee promises. According to Shannon Liss-Riordan, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the bonuses are in the neighborhood of “tens of millions of dollars,” which certainly warrants a lawsuit.

This Isn’t Twitter’s First Legal Rodeo

In what likely comes as a surprise to no one, this latest complaint is just one of many since Musk’s acquisition. Since October 2022, Twitter has been sued for allegedly failing to pay its rent and Google Cloud bills, and by former employees for severance and back pay.

While it’s tricky to ascertain the platform’s stance on this particular lawsuit – thanks to a disbanded PR and media relations department – it’s not hard to guess why things may have ended up this way.

Having lost more than half its advertising revenue, due to a lack of trust from brands on its content moderation, the platform is perhaps trying to recover some of its losses – even if that means breaching employee contracts.