Lovstuhagen

Chinese scientists have unveiled a new superconducting quantum computing prototype they say operates a million times faster than Google’s top quantum processors. The Chinese chip is also a quadrillion times more efficient than any conventionally built supercomputer, according to a statement issued by its creators.

Dubbed Zuchongzhi-3, the chip was developed by the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in cooperation with half a dozen of the nation’s scientific institutions. The USTC published the results of its research and the chip’s performance analysis in an article for the Physical Review Letters earlier this month.

According to the university’s statement, the testing showed that the new Chinese processor is a million times faster than Google’s Sycamore processor. The US tech giant presented its quantum computer back in October 2024, boasting that it could surpass the fastest conventional supercomputers in performing computationally complex calculations.

...

My voice was cloned by the same expert that did James Nesbitt's - his was for an awareness-raising campaign by Starling Bank. Mine was easily generated using an interview I had done on the radio.

While we had fun typing in different phrases for my clone to say back, the serious issue was finding out how convincing it really was.

Colleagues in the You and Yours office struggled to tell the difference between the two voices.

But rather than seeing if an AI voice could dupe people into believing they were listening to the voice of a real person, I wanted to see how it fared against a piece of tech.

Could it get past my bank account's voice ID system?

Several banks use a system called voice ID or 'my voice is my password' for their phone banking.

The phrase allows the bank to automatically confirm an account holder's identity without the need to remember a security number.

So that was what I asked my cloned voice to say.

Armed with a recording of an AI version of me saying "my voice is my password" I called up my bank, Santander.

"Thanks for calling Santander," came the automated response. "I can see you're calling from your registered phone number. Let's quickly confirm your identity with your voice."

I pressed play.

"My voice is my password," said an AI version of me.

After a very brief pause, the bank replied: "Thank you for using your voice as your password."

Then it asked the reason for my call.

I was in. Or at least, this AI cloned version of my voice was in.

I then tried the same trick with my other bank, Halifax, and it resulted in another successful hack by the AI clone.

I should point out that those initial logins were done in the office, using BBC studio speakers to play my cloned voice down the phone.

So later, a my kitchen table at home on Merseyside, I did it again using a basic iPad speaker. And it worked, which suggested there was no need for top-quality sound.

Canada's Competition Bureau is suing Google for alleged anti-competitive conduct in its online advertising.

In a statement, the country's antitrust watchdog alleged Google had illegally linked two advertising tools to maintain market supremacy and used this dominant position to distort ad auctions by preferring its own tools.

The agency said it had filed an application with the Competition Tribunal, a court-like independent body, that would require Google to sell two of its ad technology tools.

In a statement Google said the complaint out of Canada "ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice and we look forward to making our case in court".

"Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers," said Dan Taylor, vice-president of global advertising.

This case centers on online web advertisements - the ads shown to users while visiting other websites.

Digital ad inventory - the space website publishers make available for sale - is often bought and sold through automated auctions using digital platforms.

These platforms are known as ad tech tools, while the entire set of tools used through the purchasing process are known as the ad tech stack.

According to the Competition Bureau, an investigation found that Google had "abused its dominant position" as the biggest ad tech stack in Canada.

“Through a series of calculated decisions, taken over the course of multiple years, Google has excluded competitors and entrenched itself at the center of online advertising,” the Competition Bureau said in its notice announcing the suit of Thursday.

“Google’s near-total control of the ad-tech [software] is a function of premeditated design and conduct, rather than superior competitive performance or happenstance.”

The agency said it was asking the Competition Tribunal to force Google to sell two of its ad tech tools, and pay a fine of as much as 3% of the company’s global revenue "to promote compliance" with Canada's competition laws.

Google has 45 days to file its response with the tribunal.

Can a navigation app be held responsible if a user gets into an accident?

That is the question being asked in India after three men died when their car veered off an unfinished bridge and fell on to a riverbed in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

Police are still investigating the incident, which took place on Sunday, but they believe that Google Maps led the group to take that route.

A part of the bridge had reportedly collapsed earlier this year because of floods and while locals knew this and avoided the bridge, the three men were not aware of this and were from outside the area. There were no barricades or sign boards indicating that the bridge was unfinished.

Authorities have named four engineers from the state's road department and an unnamed official from Google Maps in a police complaint on charges of culpable homicide.

A spokesperson from Google told BBC Hindi that it was co-operating with the investigation.

The tragic accident has spotlighted India's poor road infrastructure and sparked a debate on whether navigation apps like Google Maps share responsibility for such incidents.

Some blame the app for not providing accurate information while others argue that it is a larger failure on the part of the government for not cordoning off the place.

Is he generally right?

Bill Mahr really swinging back hard against a lot of LGBTQ ideas with this.

What do you think?

I think his points are pretty irrefutable, and am willing to debate about it...

But I truly believe in open, free dialog on any topic, and I am not here to get upset about anything. I understand how some of the liberal models work and I can see them as being quite successful but it does seem to be the case that both Canada and Sweden have made critical error, and that it is completely rational to want to avoid that elsewhere in the West.