Google is rolling out a new feature that allow advertisers to create AI generated content using the same technology as the Bard chatbot, confirming a report from earlier this year. The feature is now available in beta on Google's Performance Max advertising product, allowing US advertisers to create and scale text and image assets for campaigns using AI, the company announced in a blog post. 

Performance Max is already an AI-powered product that works across multiple Google products including Youtube, search, display and others. It optimizes ads by analyzing performance data, and the new feature supplements that by using AI to assist in asset creation as well. As Google puts it, the features will allow advertisers to quickly create high-quality, personalized assets on various Google platforms.

"Asset variety is a key ingredient for a successful Performance Max campaign," wrote Google's Pallavi Naresh. "You’ve told us that creating and scaling assets can be one of the hardest parts of building and optimizing a cross-channel campaign. Now, you’ll be able to generate new text and image assets for your campaign in just a few clicks."

Google

Much like Bard or ChatGPT, users feed prompts to the AI, and it creates unique images and text for each business. Marketers can review and edit any assets created by the system prior to publication. It can be used to create versions of the same ad, or build new ads from scratch. All AI-generated imagery contains a visible watermark and is tagged as such. "We also have guardrails in place to prevent our systems from engaging with inappropriate or sensitive prompts or suggesting policy-violating creatives," Naresh wrote.

The feature should help marketers create advertising materials more quickly, while of course helping Google post those ads and make money more quickly. In that sense, it's pretty much a perfect AI use case for Google, which makes the vast majority of its revenue from advertising. The new system is currently in beta and only available in the US, but is expected to roll out more widely by the end of 2023. 

We may get official details about Grand Theft Auto VI very, very soon, if Bloomberg's report turns out to be true. Rockstar Games plans to announce the next entry in the GTA franchise as early as this week, according to the news organization. Plus, Rockstar is reportedly publishing a trailer for the game next month as part of its 25th anniversary celebration. It's one of the most anticipated games for the current crop of consoles, especially since the fifth main installment in the series — the second-best selling video game of all time, as Bloomberg notes — came out way back in 2013. 

While Rockstar has yet to launch the title, some fans may have already gotten a glimpse of early-days gameplay footage due to a leak that a hacker uploaded online in 2022. It contained 90 seconds of gameplay from a GTA VI test build, showing one of the two playable protagonists, a female character named Lucia, robbing a store. Another clip showed the other playable character riding the "Vice City Metro," indicating that its story takes place in Rockstar's fictionalized version of Miami. The developer later confirmed the contents of the leak and said that the game's creation would continue "as planned."

Rockstar will likely reveal GTA VI's release period when it announces the game, but its parent company Take-Two previously hinted that it's coming out sometime in 2024. 

We may get official details about Grand Theft Auto VI very, very soon. Following a Bloomberg that said Rockstar Games would announce the next entry in the GTA franchise as early as this week, Rockstar confirmed it would release a trailer for the forthcoming game in early December, as part of its 25th anniversary celebration. It's one of the most anticipated games for the current crop of consoles, especially since the fifth main installment in the series — the second-best selling video game of all time, as Bloomberg notes — came out way back in 2013. 

While Rockstar has yet to launch the title, some fans may have already gotten a glimpse of early-days gameplay footage due to a leak that a hacker uploaded online in 2022. It contained 90 seconds of gameplay from a GTA VI test build, showing one of the two playable protagonists, a female character named Lucia, robbing a store. Another clip showed the other playable character riding the "Vice City Metro," indicating that its story takes place in Rockstar's fictionalized version of Miami. The developer later confirmed the contents of the leak and said that the game's creation would continue "as planned."

Rockstar may reveal GTA VI's release period alongside the trailer next month, but its parent company Take-Two previously hinted that it's coming out sometime in 2024. 

Update, November 8, 2023, 8:15AM ET: This story has been updated to note that Rockstar has confirmed it'll release a trailer for the next Grand Theft Auto game in December.

It's been rumored for years, but Nintendo still managed to surprise us with a late-day announcement: a live-action film based on The Legend of Zelda is in the works, directed by Wes Ball. Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto is producing the film along with Avi Arad, and the film is being co-financed by Nintendo and none other than Sony Pictures Entertainment. You know, part of the same company that owns PlayStation.

Developing...

Xbox has teamed up with a startup called Inworld AI to create a generative AI toolset that developers can use to create games. It's a multi-year collaboration, which the Microsoft-owned brand says can "assist and empower creators in dialogue, story and quest design." Specifically, the partners are looking to develop an "AI design copilot" that can turn prompts into detailed scripts, dialogue trees, quests and other game elements in the same way people can type ideas into generative AI chatbots and get detailed scripts in return. They're also going to work on an "AI character runtime engine" that developers can plug into their actual games, allowing players to generate new stories, quests and dialogues as they go. 

On Inworld's website, it says its technology can "craft characters with distinct personalities and contextual awareness that stay in-world." Apparently, it can provide developers with a "fully integrated character engine for AI NPCs that goes beyond large language models (LLMs)." The image above was from the Droid Maker tool it developed in collaboration with Lucasfilm's storytelling studio ILM Immersive when it was accepted into the Disney Accelerator program. As Kotaku notes, though, the company's tech has yet to ship with a major game release, and it has mostly been used for mods. 

Developers are understandably wary about these upcoming tools. There are growing concerns among creatives about companies using their work to train generative AI without permission — a group of authors, including John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, even sued OpenAI, accusing the company of infringing on their copyright. And then, of course, there's the ever-present worry that developers could decide to lay off writers and designers to cut costs. 

Xbox believes, however, that these tools can "help make it easier for developers to realize their visions, try new things, push the boundaries of gaming today and experiment to improve gameplay, player connection and more." In the brand's announcement, Haiyan Zhang, General Manager of Gaming AI, said: "We will collaborate and innovate with game creators inside Xbox studios as well as third-party studios as we develop the tools that meet their needs and inspire new possibilities for future games."

Facebook is no stranger to moderating and mitigating misinformation on its platform, having long employed machine learning and artificial intelligence systems to help supplement its human-led moderation efforts. At the start of October, the company extended its machine learning expertise to its advertising efforts with an experimental set of generative AI tools that can perform tasks like generating backgrounds, adjusting image and creating captions for an advertiser's video content. Reuters reports Monday that Meta will specifically not make those tools available to political marketers ahead of what is expected to be a brutal and divisive national election cycle. 

Meta's decision to bar the use of generative AI is in line with much of the social media ecosystem, though, as Reuters is quick to point out, the company, "has not yet publicly disclosed the decision in any updates to its advertising standards." TikTok and Snap both ban political ads on their networks, Google employs a "keyword blacklist" to prevent its generative AI advertising tools from straying into political speech and X (formerly Twitter) is, well, you've seen it. 

Meta does allow for a wide latitude of exceptions to this rule. The tool ban only extends to "misleading AI-generated video in all content, including organic non-paid posts, with an exception for parody or satire," per Reuters. Those exceptions are currently under review by the company's independent Oversight Board as part of a case in which Meta left up an "altered" video of President Biden because, the company argued, it was not generated by an AI.

Facebook, along with other leading Silicon Valley AI companies, agreed in July to voluntary commitments set out by the White House enacting technical and policy safeguards in the development of their future generative AI systems. Those include expanding adversarial machine learning (aka red-teaming) efforts to root out bad model behavior, sharing trust and safety information both within the industry and with the government, as well as development of a digital watermarking scheme to authenticate official content and make clear that it is not AI-generated. 

YouTube announced two new experimental generative AI features on Monday. YouTube Premium subscribers can soon try AI-generated comment summaries and a chatbot that answers your questions about what you’re watching. The features will be opt-in, so you won’t see them unless you’re a paid member who signs up for the experiments during their test periods.

The AI-powered summaries will organize comments into “easily digestible themes.” In a Mr. Beast video YouTube used as an example, the tool generated topics including “People love Bryan the bird,” “Lazarbeam should be in more videos,” “No submarine” and “More 7 day challenges.” You can tap on the topic to view the complete list of associated comments. The tool will only run “on a small number of videos in English” with large comment sections.

YouTube

If you’re worried about YouTube’s summaries spiraling out of control the way the platform’s comment sections often do, the company says it won’t pull content from unpublished messages, those held for review, any containing blocked words or those from blocked users. Further, creators can use the tool to delete individual comments if they see problematic (or otherwise unwanted) discussions about their videos.

Meanwhile, YouTube’s conversational AI tool gives you a chatbot trained on whichever video you’re watching. Generated by large language models (LLMs), the assistant lets you “dive in deeper” by asking questions about the content and fishing for related recommendations. The company says the AI tool, which appears similar to chatting with Bard, draws on info from YouTube and the web, providing answers without interrupting playback. Eligible users can find it under a new “Ask” button in the YouTube app for Android.

Starting today, YouTube Premium subscribers can opt into the comment summarizer on YouTube’s experiments page. However, the company says you won’t see the “Topics” option for all videos. In addition, the conversational AI tool is only available now “to a small number of people on a subset of videos,” but YouTube Premium subscribers with Android devices will be able to sign up to try it in the coming weeks. The company warns the experimental features “may not always get it right,” a description that can equally apply to Google’s other AI experiments.

The internet's "enshittification," as veteran journalist and privacy advocate Cory Doctorow describes it, began decades before TikTok made the scene. Elder millennials remember the good old days of Napster — followed by the much worse old days of Napster being sued into oblivion along with Grokster and the rest of the P2P sharing ecosystem, until we were left with a handful of label-approved, catalog-sterilized streaming platforms like Pandora and Spotify. Three cheers for corporate copyright litigation.

In his new book The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation, Doctorow examines the modern social media landscape, cataloging and illustrating the myriad failings and short-sighted business decisions of the Big Tech companies operating the services that promised us the future but just gave us more Nazis. We have both an obligation and responsibility to dismantle these systems, Doctorow argues, and a means to do so with greater interoperability. In this week's Hitting the Books excerpt, Doctorow examines the aftermath of the lawsuits against P2P sharing services, as well as the role that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "notice-and-takedown" reporting system and YouTube's "ContentID" scheme play on modern streaming sites.

Verso Publishing

Excerpted from by The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation by Cory Doctorow. Published by Verso. Copyright © 2023 by Cory Doctorow. All rights reserved.

Seize the Means of Computation

The harms from notice-and-takedown itself don’t directly affect the big entertainment companies. But in 2007, the entertainment industry itself engineered a new, more potent form of notice-and-takedown that manages to inflict direct harm on Big Content, while amplifying the harms to the rest of us. 

That new system is “notice-and-stay-down,” a successor to notice-and-takedown that monitors everything every user uploads or types and checks to see whether it is similar to something that has been flagged as a copyrighted work. This has long been a legal goal of the entertainment industry, and in 2019 it became a feature of EU law, but back in 2007, notice-and-staydown made its debut as a voluntary modification to YouTube, called “Content ID.” 

Some background: in 2007, Viacom (part of CBS) filed a billion-dollar copyright suit against YouTube, alleging that the company had encouraged its users to infringe on its programs by uploading them to YouTube. Google — which acquired YouTube in 2006 — defended itself by invoking the principles behind Betamax and notice-and-takedown, arguing that it had lived up to its legal obligations and that Betamax established that “inducement” to copyright infringement didn’t create liability for tech companies (recall that Sony had advertised the VCR as a means of violating copyright law by recording Hollywood movies and watching them at your friends’ houses, and the Supreme Court decided it didn’t matter). 

But with Grokster hanging over Google’s head, there was reason to believe that this defense might not fly. There was a real possibility that Viacom could sue YouTube out of existence — indeed, profanity-laced internal communications from Viacom — which Google extracted through the legal discovery process — showed that Viacom execs had been hotly debating which one of them would add YouTube to their private empire when Google was forced to sell YouTube to the company. 

Google squeaked out a victory, but was determined not to end up in a mess like the Viacom suit again. It created Content ID, an “audio fingerprinting” tool that was pitched as a way for rights holders to block, or monetize, the use of their copyrighted works by third parties. YouTube allowed large (at first) rightsholders to upload their catalogs to a blocklist, and then scanned all user uploads to check whether any of their audio matched a “claimed” clip. 

Once Content ID determined that a user was attempting to post a copyrighted work without permission from its rightsholder, it consulted a database to determine the rights holder’s preference. Some rights holders blocked any uploads containing audio that matched theirs; others opted to take the ad revenue generated by that video. 

There are lots of problems with this. Notably, there’s the inability of Content ID to determine whether a third party’s use of someone else’s copyright constitutes “fair use.” As discussed, fair use is the suite of uses that are permitted even if the rightsholder objects, such as taking excerpts for critical or transformational purposes. Fair use is a “fact intensive” doctrine—that is, the answer to “Is this fair use?” is almost always “It depends, let’s ask a judge.” 

Computers can’t sort fair use from infringement. There is no way they ever can. That means that filters block all kinds of legitimate creative work and other expressive speech — especially work that makes use of samples or quotations. 

But it’s not just creative borrowing, remixing and transformation that filters struggle with. A lot of creative work is similar to other creative work. For example, a six-note phrase from Katy Perry’s 2013 song “Dark Horse” is effectively identical to a six-note phrase in “Joyful Noise,” a 2008 song by a much less well-known Christian rapper called Flame. Flame and Perry went several rounds in the courts, with Flame accusing Perry of violating his copyright. Perry eventually prevailed, which is good news for her. 

But YouTube’s filters struggle to distinguish Perry’s six-note phrase from Flame’s (as do the executives at Warner Chappell, Perry’s publisher, who have periodically accused people who post snippets of Flame’s “Joyful Noise” of infringing on Perry’s “Dark Horse”). Even when the similarity isn’t as pronounced as in Dark, Joyful, Noisy Horse, filters routinely hallucinate copyright infringements where none exist — and this is by design. 

To understand why, first we have to think about filters as a security measure — that is, as a measure taken by one group of people (platforms and rightsholder groups) who want to stop another group of people (uploaders) from doing something they want to do (upload infringing material). 

It’s pretty trivial to write a filter that blocks exact matches: the labels could upload losslessly encoded pristine digital masters of everything in their catalog, and any user who uploaded a track that was digitally or acoustically identical to that master would be blocked. 

But it would be easy for an uploader to get around a filter like this: they could just compress the audio ever-so-slightly, below the threshold of human perception, and this new file would no longer match. Or they could cut a hundredth of a second off the beginning or end of the track, or omit a single bar from the bridge, or any of a million other modifications that listeners are unlikely to notice or complain about. 

Filters don’t operate on exact matches: instead, they employ “fuzzy” matching. They don’t just block the things that rights holders have told them to block — they block stuff that’s similar to those things that rights holders have claimed. This fuzziness can be adjusted: the system can be made more or less strict about what it considers to be a match. 

Rightsholder groups want the matches to be as loose as possible, because somewhere out there, there might be someone who’d be happy with a very fuzzy, truncated version of a song, and they want to stop that person from getting the song for free. The looser the matching, the more false positives. This is an especial problem for classical musicians: their performances of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart inevitably sound an awful lot like the recordings that Sony Music (the world’s largest classical music label) has claimed in Content ID. As a result, it has become nearly impossible to earn a living off of online classical performance: your videos are either blocked, or the ad revenue they generate is shunted to Sony. Even teaching classical music performance has become a minefield, as painstakingly produced, free online lessons are blocked by Content ID or, if the label is feeling generous, the lessons are left online but the ad revenue they earn is shunted to a giant corporation, stealing the creative wages of a music teacher.

Notice-and-takedown law didn’t give rights holders the internet they wanted. What kind of internet was that? Well, though entertainment giants said all they wanted was an internet free from copyright infringement, their actions — and the candid memos released in the Viacom case — make it clear that blocking infringement is a pretext for an internet where the entertainment companies get to decide who can make a new technology and how it will function.

Elon Musk’s new AI company, xAI, will release its chatbot to subscribers of X’s $16 per month Premium+ plan once it exits beta. The system, called Grok, is positioned to be a competitor to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and started rolling out to a select group of users this weekend.

Musk shared a few screenshots of the conversational AI on X, and confirmed its responses will unfortunately be laden with Musk-type humor. The CEO also further touted its capabilities compared to the competition, tweeting, “Grok has real-time access to info via the X platform, which is a massive advantage over other models.” There’s no public timeline yet for when it will be out of beta, but Musk said it “will be available to all X Premium+ subscribers” when it is.

The comments coincide with the timing of the first developer conference from rival company OpenAI — which Musk co-founded and remained on the board for until 2018 — on November 6. OpenAI’s ChatGPT costs $20 per month to use.

Blizzard is planning an MCU-style future for the World of Warcraft. Chris Metzen, who only recently returned to the company as the executive creative director of Warcraft, has announced that the game's next three expansions will make up a three-part interconnected saga. Since Blizzard typically releases expansions within two years of each other, "The Worldsoul Saga's" story will take years to unfold. The first installment called World of Warcraft: The War Within is slated for release sometime in 2024, followed by World of Warcraft: Midnight and World of Warcraft: The Last Titan in the years after that. 

Warcraft general manager John Hight said the trilogy encompasses "one of the most ambitious creative endeavors ever attempted for World of Warcraft." Each one is a standalone narrative, but they're connected by an overall story arc, he explained. "Alongside these epic adventures, the ongoing quality-of-life feature updates players have come to expect from us since Dragonflight will continue in The War Within, further setting us up for the next 20 years and beyond," Hight added. 

While Blizzard has yet to released an in-depth summary for The War Within, it did share a few pertinent details about the expansion. It will feature an ancient civilization underneath the surface of the planet as it rises in power, while Alliance and Horde heroes experience visions of possible futures, both good and bad. Players can grind until they reach the expansion's level cap of 80, and they can explore a new continent called Khaz Algar. There's also a new unlockable and playable Titan-forged race called the Earthen, new bite-size adventures that can support one to five players called Delves, as well as a new feature dubbed Warbands, which allows players to share banks, reputations and transmogs across characters. 

Fans can already pre-purchase The War Within for $50, and it will also give them instant access to the Dragonflight expansion. The War Within: Heroic Edition, which comes with extras, is available for $70, while the The War Within: Epic Edition that includes beta access to the expansion, along with even more extras, will set them back $90.