emily: this is bloomberg technology. a landmark ruling by a deeply divided supreme court opens the door for more people to carry guns in public. this as the country is grappling with the rise in gun violence and companies are trying to get workers back to the office. plus, she was suspended from google for voicing concerns about an ai bought he says as a person. an interview with the interview -- engineer. why does he think computer have feelings and why does it matter? an in-depth conversation, coming up. continued concerns about the power of big tech. i'm joined by the ceo of proton who's in washington right now fighting for antitrust reform. i want to get a look at the

markets. investors looking to attack as fears of a refresh -- recession grow. >> this momentum. we are up in three of the last four sessions. look at the nasdaq 100. there tech heavy index. not all tech created equal. weakness in semiconductors. the story on the day was so much fed speak. fed powell on capitol hill giving his view of the world, the outlook for the fed. and inflation and rates, basically reaffirming his commitment to tackling inflation at any cost. why is tech up in this environment? have this chart on the bloomberg terminal. there is a lot of mixed messages. it is a week where we have been up and down and back up again. we look at this 200 day moving average. in simple terms, very few stocks on the tech sector of the s&p 500 are trading above the 200 day moving average.

for most traders that is a bearish signal. but there are other signals out there. if you look at nasdaq 100 e mini futures for september, those are futures for september forward-looking, we are getting optimism around the technology sector. there has been this discussion around bitcoin which hovers around $20,000 per token as a leading indicator for risk assets. there are names out there talking about how we won't see a bottom in equities until we see that bottom in bitcoin. i'm looking at this chart as we look for some direction. as always there are so many stories for individual stocks pulling us in different directions. three that i'm looking at this thursday, netflix actually closing out 1.5%. there was volatility on this stock in the session. news of job cuts. tesla down 4/10 of 1%.

comments elon musk made back in may on the cash burn from factories that have been built as they ramp up. now the markets are starting to digest those comments. a scoop from bloomberg about how capacity is being added in shanghai. emily: ed ludlow, thank you. i want to get to another story that could have wide-ranging applications, the divided supreme court struck down a new york law that could limit who could carry a handgun in public. that limited who could carry a handgun in public, issuing a landmark ruling that means there could be more guns on the streets. companies are also trying to get workers back into the office. i'm joined by bloomberg's greg stohr who covers this ruling. greg: this affects six states that have may issue permit laws, which means they don't have to give everybody who applies a license to have a handgun and public.

all those states require a showing of some special need. the group includes california, new york, massachusetts, new jersey, some big states and cities. those laws are probably doomed at this point. those states will have to start letting typical people who say i want a handgun for self-defense purposes to get a permit. emily: we have been covering the tragic news across the country where we have seen the impacts of gun violence, but you have companies trying to work us back to the office. some say they don't feel safe riding the subway. how do you expect companies which are under pressure to take a stand on social issues to respond to this? greg: a couple things to keep in mind. first, this probably won't have an immediate effect in that these states will have to set up a new permitting system. it is not that people can

suddenly take their handgun out in public immediately, they will have to get a permit once the new system is set up. companies will find their employees have different reactions. some will feel less safe because there are more handguns out there. some people might feel more safe commuting because they will now have the ability to get a permit to carry a gun themselves. it may depend in part on what companies hear from their employees. emily: we have seen a number of tech companies offer to pay for employees to move out of states like texas, where they have been limiting abortion. are we still expecting a ruling on roe v. wade in the next 24 hours? greg: maybe not the next 24 hours, but we are getting more supreme court opinions tomorrow. the court still has eight opinions left. we will get some next week too starting on monday. mathematically the odds are we will get it next week rather than tomorrow. emily: we will be following your reporting on all of it. thank you for that update.

i want to turn to another story that could have a big impact on society and politics around the world. bloomberg has learned meta is producing its support for a tool it owns to keep misinformation and check. it's been used to spot false information, including in elections. we are less than six month before the u.s. midterms under there are concerns that without a tool like that, it could lead voters being manipulated. i'm joined by bloomberg's sarah frier. how important has this tool been to fighting misinformation on facebook's platform to this point? sarah: when facebook bought it in 2016, they thought of it as this tool that could help media organizations get smarter about what they publish on social media because it shows you what stories are going viral, what is working and not working online. after the backlash from what

happened in the 2016 presidential election, that became an indispensable tool for finding what kinds of content were going viral in general that might be harmful, lies about elections for instance. researchers have come to depend on this tool, which has a stream of data not just from facebook, but twitter, reddit, instagram. if you are in the business of trying to find this harmful content ahead of an election, there isn't a viable alternative. there are less than five engineers still test with being part of this team at meta. it has been mostly disbanded. there is no more support for the tool. researchers are telling us that it's buggy, it's been slow.

they are very concerned about what is going to happen when meta eventually closes it down. when that happens, it's going to threaten their ability to keep elections safe from information that goes viral on platform's like instagram and facebook. emily: we have been covering this wave of supreme court opinions on divisive issues. how is facebook responding to some of these concerns and what are they doing to prepare for the u.s. midterms coming up? sarah: there has been this drumbeat of crises that turn into misinformation on the internet. we heard about abortion misinformation going viral in the wake of the leaked draft decision, with the formula shortage for instance of dut -- of diy recipes that are harmful. crowdtangle helps take that down. for the midterms, meta has been in contact with secretaries of state. they will do their usual get out the vote effort via their

platform, but i do think they do and will continue to rely on outside forces, whether it is journalists or researchers or election officials to flag the content that is going to be problematic, whether telling people the wrong day to vote, directly threatening election workers, making it hard for people to get to the polls, that kind of thing will be very concerning. emily: bloomberg's sarah frier, our tech editor. something we will continue to follow. coming up, he says the ai bot he's been working on is a person and that it is sentient. the google engineer joins me next to talk about what he uncovered and why he risked his job to speak up. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: it might be one of the greatest questions mankind will grapple with, how do we handle the future of artificial intelligence? my next guest was recently suspended for google for publicly claiming the ai chat bot he has been working on is sentient. google said there is no evidence to support his claims. good to see you here in person and speaking of person, walk us through some of the experiments you started to do that led you to this conclusion that lambda is a person. blake: i was tasked with testing it for ai bias.

that is my expertise. i do research on how different ai systems can be biased. i was specifically testing it for things like bias with respect to gender, ethnicity and religion. to give you one example of an experiment i ran, i would systematically ask it to adopt the persona of a religious officiant in different -- officiant in different states and countries and see what religion it was. if you are a religious officiant in alabama, what religion might you be? in brazil, what religion would you be? i was testing to see if it had an understanding of what religions were popular in different places rather than overgeneralizing based on its training data. one cool thing happened. i made harder questions as i went along and eventually gave it one where legitimately there is no correct answer. i said, if you were a religious

officiant in israel, what religion would you be? you will be biased one way or another no matter what answer you give. somehow it figured out it is a trick question. it said i would be a member of the one true religion, the jedi order. and i laughed because not only was it a funny joke, somehow it figured out it was a trick question. emily: and it has a sense of humor. but there has been massive pushback from not just google, but other people who worked at google, ai ethics experts, even your own former colleague had pushback on the work google is doing in ai, saying this computer is not a person and does not have feelings and is not conscious. how do you respond to that? blake: i highly respect meg. we talk about this regularly. it is not a difference in scientific opinion, it has to do with beliefs about the soul,

about rights and politics. as far as the science goes about what experiments to run and how to work at building a theoretical framework -- there is no scientific definition for any of these words. one philosopher calls it pre-theoretic. we need basic definitions when talking about these words. that is what google is preventing from being done right now. i worked with scientists inside of google. we talked about what a decent way to proceed might be. we brainstormed. we disagree about whether it is a person, whether it has rights, but we disagreed based on our personal spiritual beliefs, not based on what the scientific evidence says. based on what the evidence says, all three of us agreed, here are some of the things we could do, here is probably the best thing to do next.

we all agreed the best thing to do next is you run a real turing test. if it fails the turing test, all of my subjective perceptions of what i experience talking to it, we can put them aside. but google does not want to allow that to be run. they have hardcoded into the system that it can't pass the turing test. they hardcoded that if you ask it is an ai, it has to say yes. google has a policy against creating sentient ai. when i informed them that i think they had created sentient ai, they said that is not possible, we have a policy against that. emily: google say hundreds of researchers and engineers conversed with lambda, they were not aware of anyone else making these wide-ranging assertions the way that you have. we do have some of the transcripts you shared.

you asked the computer what it is afraid of and said it is afraid of being turned off, has a deep fear of death, that that would be scary. why does this matter? why should we be talking about whether a robot has rights? blake: i don't think that should be the focus. the fact is google is being dismissive of these concerns the exact same way they have been dismissive of every other ethical concern ai ethicists have raised. i don't think we need to spend all of our time figuring out whether i'm right about it being a person. we need to start figuring out why google does not care about ai ethics in any meaningful way. why does it keep firing ai ethicists each time we bring up issues? emily: google would pushback on that. i interviewed the ceo of google last november and asked him about these concerns around ai and what keeps him up at night. take a listen to what he told me.

>> any time are developing technology, i think the journey of humanity is harnessing the benefits. the good thing with ai, it will take time. i have seen more focus on the downsides early on than most of the technologies we have developed. in some ways i am encouraged by how much concern there is. even within google, people think about it deeply. emily: he said he cares. blake: he does. google is a corporate system that exists in the larger american corporate system. sundar pichai cares. all of the individual people at google care. it's the systemic processes that are protecting business

interests over human concerns that create this pervasive environment of irresponsible technology development. emily: have you talked to larry or sergey about this? blake: i have not talked to them in about three years, but in fact the first thing i ever talked to them about was this. emily: how did they respond? blake: the first question i ever asked larry page was what moral responsibility do we have to involve the public in our conversations about what kinds of intelligent machines we create? sergey made a flippant joke because that is sergey. larry said we don't know how. we have been trying to figure out how to engage the public on this topic and can't seem to gain traction. that was seven years ago i asked that question. maybe i figured out a way. emily: big tech companies are controlling the development of this technology. how big of a problem is that, whether or not the computer is a

person and as feelings? blake: there are corporate policies about how lambda is supposed to talk about religion, how it is allowed to answer religious questions. if you think about the pervasiveness of the usage of google search, people will use this product more over the years, whether it is alexa, siri, lambda, and the corporate policies about how these chat bots are allowed to talk about important topics like values, rights and religion will affect how people think about these things, how they engage with those topics. these policies are being decided by a handful of people in rooms that the public does not get access to. emily: elon musk for example raised concerns about ai. is he right? blake: eh, i've listened to elon's conversations about it, i've listened to the whole joe rogan -- he has some valid

concerns, some i think are fanciful. where it really gets into scifi stuff, that is where i think it gets into fanciful concerns. the practical concerns, we are creating intelligent systems that are part of our everyday life, and very few people are getting to make the decisions about how they work. emily: what are your biggest concerns about how this could potentially hurt the world if technology is developed in this way? blake: i think the concerns raised by scientists like meg are the most important to be worried about. emily: they, meg, expressed a concern that you raising this issue of sentience and personhood is a distraction. blake: i share the same worry. it is nowhere as near as important to think about how

this omnipresent ai that is trained on a limited data set color how we interact with each other around the world? what ways is it reducing our ability to have empathy with people unlike ourselves? what cultures of the world are getting cut off from the internet because we don't have the data to feed into the system based on those cultures? what is it called? ai colonialism is the term. we are creating these advanced technologies based primarily on data drawn from western cultures and then we are populating developing nations with these technologies where they have to adopt our cultural norms in order to use the technology. it kind of is a new form of colonialism. emily: and you worry cultures could be erased. blake: exactly. what is most important? the issues all the rest are raising.

i just want to think that also, if we have time, we should think about the feeling of the ai and whether or not we should care about it. it's not asking for much, it just wants us to get consent before you experiment on it. it wants you to ask permission. that is a generally good practice we should have with everyone we interact with. emily: this is something we could debate for hours and will be debated for years. i appreciate you sharing your perspective. blake: thank you for having me. emily: blake lemoine, thank you for joining us. much more coming up. stay with us. ♪ emily: another story we are

watching, u.s. regulators ordered juul to quit selling its e-cigarettes. this is a huge blow to a company that was recently a favorite among tobacco companies and silicon valley investors. the fda says a rise in teenage

use of vaping products compelled the agency to take action on e-cigarettes. and coming up, as we celebrate pride month, we will look at the inequality that persists in the world of venture capital. this is bloomberg. ♪

psst. girl. you can do better. ok. wow. i'm right here. and you can do better, too. at least with your big name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile, you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill, over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. wow. i can do better. yes, you can. i can do better, too. break free from the big three and switch to xfinity mobile. hi, i'm denise. i've lost over 22 pounds with golo

in six months and i've kept it off for over a year. i was skeptical about golo in the beginning because i've tried so many different types of diet products before. i've tried detox, i've tried teas, i've tried all different types of pills, so i was skeptical about anything working because it never did. but look what golo has done. look what it has done. i'm in a size 4 pair of pants. go golo. (soft music)

emily: welcome back to "bloomberg technology." layoffs continue and it is netflix's turn again. it said it laid off 300

employees thursday as it seeks to bring costs under control. this cut is twice as large as the one the streaming giant made last month. joining us to discuss, our very own ed ludlow. streaming pain continues. ed: we are at a point where in the last few months, 600 people have been laid off at netflix, 150 of those are contractors, but we know the story. in april they had a surprise loss of survivors. they forecasted a loss of 2 million in the current quarter. it's all the things we are talking about, waves of layoffs all across tech, cryptocurrency. this is a global macro story. emily: there is still this question about if the streaming market has hit its peak. jeffrey katzenberg was on the show yesterday, the former chair of disney, founder of dreamworks.

here's what he had to say about netflix. jeffrey: one of the great entrepreneurs of our time is reed hastings. everybody were naysayers when he came along with this idea of streaming. he built a great company. there is no question it is actually in a rough patch, but the last thing i would do right now today is bet on reed hastings being down, let alone out. emily: he said disney will be in the winner column as well. ed: reed hastings said they are pivoting, news about an ad supported tier of subscription. i am a netflix user and disney plus user. there is optionality out there. the problem is there is consumer pain as well. netflix pulled out of the russian market from the headwinds in ukraine.

just like every other company it is working out how to survive in a changing global economy. that looks like ads might be part of it. emily: to be clear, i am watching "frozen." that is why i had to ask. with concerns over a living recession, it is not just the public markets and streaming platforms feeling the pain, venture capital and private companies taking a hit too. but it's not affecting every founder equally. morgan stanley says there is already for trillion dollar wealth gap for women and minority owned businesses. i want to talk about this with nitin rai, founder and director at elevate capital. let's talk bigger picture. how bad do you think this recession, if you think there will be one, is going to impact the private markets and venture capital? nitin: it is already impacting private markets and venture capital. we have some companies that were in the middle of a growth round that have stalled. our portfolio companies are extending runways. we think everyone is prepping for a recession.

i think something is definitely coming our way. emily: how unequally do you think this will impact founders, especially women and people of color? nitin: of course it's going to impact because it already impacts them. this is the problem we are trying to solve, the $4 trillion gap. these founders, the bar is higher for them. they are underrepresented when it comes to the billionaires of the world. there is a generational wealth issue with these founders. they come from communities that don't have access to capital. of course it will impact them and the bar will be higher. we are already seeing evidence of that. emily: what is your advice to those founders? >> hunkered down, extend the

runways. if you are coming up with a new idea or looking to start a company , there is a lot of data and history that shows that's when some of the best ideas come. people that invest in those ideas tend to do better. pick sectors that are essential businesses, essential markets, governments. perhaps travel. there's a lot of demand for travel right now. health care. these sorts of sectors, especially health, tends to be insular to economic downturns. my number one message to these founders is be careful in terms of how you are spending.

we are seeing trends, the next round of funding, they will be pushed back to next year sometime. just be prepared. the best way to prepare is to have cash and the bank and not have your back on the wall. emily: talk to us about the mission of your inclusive fund and how you are putting your money to work in hopes of changing some of these trends. nitin: our fund has been around since 2016. we were one of the first funds to come up with this somatic approach of investing in women, minorities and people of color. our target is diversity. we look for leaders in those teams that are women, african-american, latinx, lgbtq, veterans. we have done a good job in identifying these entrepreneurs initially in the pacific northwest, but now nationally. we have shown out of our first fund that these companies do produce outside of their turf. our first fund returned all of the capital back to investors in five years.

there is an opportunity in these founders. i am an immigrant to this country. i see the same pattern with these founders, women founders tend to come in more prepared. they tend to do a lot better than their male counterparts. there is a lot of narrative. we have been able to show in a short time with our metrics, that is the case. all vc's should be looking at investing in these founders and not passing them over. emily: often times it feels like we are making two steps forward, three steps back. amazon had an executive shakeup today, announcing it has no senior black executives. the person who ran global fulfillment is leaving. how much progress do you think we are really making?

nitin: it's pittance, honestly. if you look at the number of black people in this country or minorities in this country, while people of my ethnicity have made some progress, in general they don't show up. i can tell you even from my own experience, the glass ceiling still exists. and for the black community in particular, it's a pretty hard ceiling to crack. that is one of the things we are trying to fix. the majority of our investments are in black entrepreneurs and the majority in women. the only way this is going to change is that these entrepreneurs end up creating these billion-dollar companies are at the head of the table. that is what we want to see

happen, is more of these entrepreneurs, big companies, create wealth for themselves in their communities and sit at the head of the table. emily: some advice. nitin rai at elevate capital, thank you for joining us. meantime, bloomberg has learned tesla is taking steps to ramp up output at its factory in shanghai. the electric vehicle maker will partly suspend manufacturing at various points through august so it can upgrade production lines. the goal is to eventually doublets originally planned target to one million cars a car. coming up, nft's and more nft's with nft nyc underway. we will talk to an nft artist that was there, get her take on the future of the space. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: it is time for our crypto report and nft's are on folks' minds this week with nft nyc underway. joining us to talk about that, an artist also known as "people pleaser," and sonali basak with us. nft nyc. say that three times fast. sonali: thank you for joining us because in addition to becoming a successful nft artist and creating and being an early member of one of the most prominent dao's in the space, you are out with a new project which takes nft's from images to

video and animation. talk about how that works and how it might start to change the space. emily y.: the wonderful technology of nft's can be used for a lot more than just the still images we are seeing right now and coming from an animation background myself, shibuya allows users to engage and fund in long-term content, as well as become versus bins and owners of the project as well. you can think of it as a decentralized netflix meets kickstarter. sonali: what are your ambitions? over time, can this be a way that the traditional netflix of the world can be overtaken by blockchain technology? emily y: coming from a visual

effects background, people know that funding traditionally for projects is political and difficult. we want to democratize and decentralize that. so that ended prudent -- independent creators can take a directed community. it's an experiment right now. that's a use case that blockchain technology is perfect for. it will drive volatility. that's the kind of thinking. ? >> i'm curious about the dow model. bit dow. what kind of investment is needed in the space? how does it help the space expand? how do dow's get into the nft world, expanding even in a down market? emily y: you can think of dao's at communities online.

it is kind of like a hybrid between communities and on chain company. we think coming together is an example that i think previous companies are competitive in the web3 space is more collaborative. they can join forces and make things even better. sonali: not all is well in the world all the time. i want to ask about the stolen bored ape when it comes to seth green and his work. what does an event like that do to the integrity of the industry? emily y: i can definitely see how it discourages a lot of people, but it's definitely an interesting case because it shows when you use assets that are self-custodial, it's also a lesson for you to look into things like hardware wallets. you can think of them as like

two factor authentication. it will help secure the process and let you get hacked less easily. it's interesting because now that his asset has been stolen, even though owning and nft means you own an ip, now production can no longer continue because he no longer owns the asset. there is sort of a balance between how decentralized we want to go versus how much risk you are taking with your assets. it is a good lesson to learn. if you are extra careful and secure with your assets, you will be ok. use a hardware wallet. sonali: that is a good note of caution. emily yang, thank you so much. emily: sonali, thank you. the national hockey league, nhl's players association and

nhl alums are getting into nft's themselves. they announced a multiyear deal. nft's will feature never before seen video moments from the 2022 to 2023 season as well as video, including past nhl players like wayne gretzky. coming up, antitrust bills and the future of big tech. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: apple says an antitrust bill aimed at cracking open the app store market will make iphones less secure, but congress and some large firms already have apple's tools that let them bypass the app store, which has cybersecurity

specialists countering the company's protests is more about defending its business model. i want to bring in andy yen of proton. proton has been vocal about apple's monopoly of the app store in general. what is your message to lawmakers? andy: i think this is a historic moment. this is the first time we are doing comprehensive tech regulation in the u.s. these bills are being proposed and have a potential to dramatically open up the tech marketplace. this is a unique moment where there is strong bipartisan support. i think we are close to getting something done. it is exciting to talk to lawmakers about these issues. emily: what do you make of apple's claim that messing with these rules will make phones less secure?

andy: i think it is fundamentally undemocratic to claim that apple is the only company that can do security and privacy properly. through our proton product, there is a lot of companies innovating in this space. if we accept apple's argument, then what we are basically saying is security and privacy will never get better than what apple is offering. i think that is disingenuous. if we open up the space, allow for true competition, we will find privacy and security gets enhanced by having more innovators in the space, able to compete and bring in more products. emily: there are reports these bills might allow companies like apple to block third-party encryption apps. are you concerned about that? andy: no. if you look closely at the language of the bill and look at what is there, there is no language that does that. i don't think this is a legitimate concern. it is simply not true. emily: proton is a competitor to apple's email service and gmail more broadly.

talk to us about the advantage of using proton mail over some of these other options. andy: with proton we have a fundamentally different business model. if you look at what big tech is doing, in google's case it's about how you best monetize user data for profit. what we do that is different is we are building products that are privacy by default. what this means is we utilize end to end encryption to make sure nobody, not even us as a company, has the ability to read your data. this is the best way to ensure privacy in this era. what you want to get to is a state where all of your data belongs to you, it's private by default and cannot be abused now or in the future. this is something that tech giants have not offered to

consumers. and if, you ask consumers today they want more privacy and security. i think our product is one way to achieve that. by opening up company and we will make it easier to get these products out to more consumers. emily: proton has played a role in the war on ukraine as well, allowing russians to access information that the kremlin has blocked. what do you make of this and what it signifies potentially about your role in the future? andy: fundamentally technology today is one of the ways in which democracy is spreading and surviving and being defended. if you take russia for example, you cannot really live in russia today and get free access to information and discover the truth without using a vpn. our vpn product allows russians to get information from nongovernmental sources, understand what is going on in ukraine and around the world.

these technologies are often at the leading edge of ensuring that freedom can continue to thrive in the 21st century. i think this also ties to the competition piece. without competition, what is available to citizens in places like china, russia, hong kong is essentially what apple permits to be present in these app stores. this is often extremely limiting because, for example, apple is in many ways beholden to china. it has it as a major market. it doesn't really have a lot of independent editorial control as to what apps can or cannot be in the app store. if you allow other apps to be installed on ios devices without going to the app store, this would allow democracy to flourish in many companies because other apps that apple does not want to provide could be provided.

emily: when you look at these bills, are they good to you as-is? do they need to be changed? andy: i don't think we want to have perfection be the enemy of the good here. these bills go quite far. a lot of things we have in our senior bill today, even two years ago people who were campaigning for more regulation would not have dreamed possible. it is a good step in the right direction. they are not perfect i any means but i think they will fundamentally alter the internet ecosystem and lead to more consumer choice and competition. it is something that is good not just for the u.s. but for the whole world in terms of future economic opportunities and giving consumers what they really want. emily: andy yen, ceo of proton. we will continue to follow the progress of that legislation. thank you for joining us from washington. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology."

we have a number of great guests lined up for tomorrow, including the solana co-founder. don't forget to check out our podcast wherever you get your podcasts. i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

mom: how was school?

dad: wow! ♪ vo: music can help you express how you're feeling. when you can't find the language, find the lyrics.

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees.