Technology
Microsoft and A16Z are putting aside their differences and joining hands in protest against artificial intelligence regulations
The two biggest forces in two deeply intertwined tech ecosystems – large incumbents and startups – have taken a break from counting money and together they demand this from the federal government to stop even considering regulations that might affect their financial interests or, as they prefer to call it, innovation.
“Our two companies may not agree on everything, but it’s not about our differences,” writes this group with very different perspectives and interests: A16Z founders, partners Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and president/director legal affairs Brad Kowal. A very cross-sectional gathering, representing each big business and big money.
But they are supposedly taking care of little boys. That is, all the businesses that may be impacted by this latest try to abuse the regulations: SB 1047.
Imagine being charged a fee for improperly disclosing an open model! A16Z General Partner Anjney Midha he called it a “regressive tax” on startups and a “blatant regulatory capture” by Big Tech firms that, unlike Midha and his impoverished colleagues, could afford the lawyers needed to comply with the regulations.
Except that was all disinformation spread by Andreessen Horowitz and other wealthy interests who actually stood to suffer as supporters of billion-dollar enterprises. In fact, small models and startups would only be barely affected since the proposed law specifically protected them.
It’s strange that the identical form of targeted carve-out for “Little Tech” that Horowitz and Andreessen routinely advocate for was distorted and minimized by the lobbying campaign they and others waged against SB 1047. (In an interview with the bill’s sponsor , California State Senator Scott Wiener talked about this whole thing recently on Disrupt.)
This bill had its problems, but its opposition greatly exaggerated compliance costs and didn’t significantly substantiate claims that it will chill or burden startups.
It’s a part of a longtime pattern in which Big Tech – to which, despite their stance, Andreessen and Horowitz are closely related – operates on the state level, where it could possibly win (as with SB 1047), while asking for federal solutions that it knows will won’t ever come, or which can have no teeth because of partisan bickering and congressional ineptitude on technical issues.
This joint statement of “political opportunity” is the second a part of the sport: After torpedoing SB 1047, they will say they did it solely to support federal policy. Never mind that we’re still waiting for a federal privacy law that tech firms have been pushing for a decade while fighting state laws.
What policies do they support? “A different responsible market approach”, in other words: down with our money, Uncle Sam.
Regulations needs to be based on a “science-based and standards-based approach, recognizing regulatory frameworks that focus on the use and misuse of technology” and should “focus on the risk of bad actors exploiting artificial intelligence.” This signifies that we must always not introduce proactive regulation, but quite reactive penalties when criminals use unregulated products for criminal purposes. This approach has worked great in this whole FTX situation, so I understand why they support it.
“The regulation should only be implemented if the benefits outweigh the costs.” It would take 1000’s of words to clarify all of the ways this idea expressed in this context is funny. But they are principally suggesting that the fox needs to be included on the henhouse planning committee.
Regulators should “allow developers and startups the flexibility to choose AI models to use wherever they build solutions, and not tilt the playing field in favor of any one platform.” This suggests that there may be some agenda requiring permission to make use of one model or one other. Since this is just not the case, it’s a straw man.
Here is a lengthy quote that I have to quote in full:
The right to education: Copyright goals to advertise the progress of science and the applied arts by extending protection to publishers and authors to encourage them to make recent works and knowledge available to the general public, but not on the expense of society’s right to learn from those works. Copyright law mustn’t be co-opted to suggest that machines needs to be prevented from using data – the premise of artificial intelligence – to learn in the identical way as humans. Unprotected knowledge and facts, whether or not contained in protected subject material, should remain free and accessible.
To be clear, the clear statement here is that software operated by billion-dollar corporations has the “right” to access any data since it should give you the chance to learn from it “in the same way as humans.”
First of all, no. These systems are not like people; they generate data in their training data that mimics human activity. These are complex statistical projection programs with a natural language interface. They haven’t any more “right” to any document or fact than Excel.
Second, the concept that “facts” – by which they mean “intellectual property” – are the one thing these systems are interested in, and that some type of fact-gathering cabal is working to forestall them, is an artificial narrative we have seen before. Perplexity made the “facts belong to everyone” argument in its public response to a lawsuit alleging systematic content theft, and its CEO Aravind Srinivas repeated that mistake to me on stage at Disrupt, as in the event that they were being sued for knowing tidbits just like the Earth’s distance from the Moon.
While this is just not the place to totally discuss this particular straw man argument, let me simply indicate that while facts are indeed free agents, there are real costs to how they are created – say, through original reporting and scientific research. This is why copyright and patent systems exist: not to forestall the wide sharing and use of mental property, but to encourage its creation by ensuring that it could possibly be assigned real value.
Copyright law is much from perfect and is more likely to be abused as often as used. However, this is just not “co-opted to suggest that machines should be prevented from using data” – it’s used to be sure that bad actors don’t bypass the worth systems we’ve got built around mental property.
This is a fairly clear query: let’s allow the systems we own, operate and take advantage of to freely use the worthwhile work of others without compensation. To be fair, this part is “in the same way as people” because people design, run and implement these systems, and these people don’t desire to pay for something they do not have to, and they don’t desire to. I don’t desire regulations to alter that .
There are many other recommendations in this small policy document, which were little question covered in greater detail in the versions sent on to lawmakers and regulators through official lobbying channels.
Some of the ideas are undoubtedly good, if slightly selfish: “fund digital literacy programs that help people understand how to use artificial intelligence tools to create and access information.” Good! Of course, the authors invest heavily in these tools. Support “Open Data Commons – collections of accessible data managed in the public interest.” Great! “Examine procurement practices to enable more startups to sell technology to the government.” Excellent!
But these more general, positive recommendations are something the industry sees yearly: invest in public resources and speed up government processes. These tasty but irrelevant suggestions are merely tools for the more vital ones I described above.
Ben Horowitz, Brad Smith, Marc Andreessen and Satya Nadella want the federal government to step back from regulating this lucrative recent development, let industry resolve which regulations are value compromising, and invalidate copyright laws in a way that kind of acts as a blanket reprieve for illegal or unethical practices that many imagine have enabled the rapid development of artificial intelligence. These are principles that are vital to them, whether children are acquiring digital skills or not.
Technology
Zepto raises another $350 million amid retail upheaval in India
Zepto has secured $350 million in latest financing, its third round of financing in six months, because the Indian high-speed trading startup strengthens its position against competitors ahead of a planned public offering next yr.
Indian family offices, high-net-worth individuals and asset manager Motilal Oswal invested in the round, maintaining Zepto’s $5 billion valuation. Motilal co-founder Raamdeo Agrawal, family offices Mankind Pharma, RP-Sanjiv Goenka, Cello, Haldiram’s, Sekhsaria and Kalyan, in addition to stars Amitabh Bachchan and Sachin Tendulkar are amongst those backing the brand new enterprise, which is India’s largest fully national primary round.
The funding push comes as Zepto rushes so as to add Indian investors to its capitalization table, with foreign ownership now exceeding two-thirds. TechCrunch first reported on the brand new round’s deliberations last month. The Mumbai-based startup has raised over $1.35 billion since June.
Fast commerce sales – delivering groceries and other items to customers’ doors in 10 minutes – will exceed $6 billion this yr in India. Morgan Stanley predicts that this market shall be value $42 billion by 2030, accounting for 18.4% of total e-commerce and a pair of.5% of retail sales. These strong growth prospects have forced established players including Flipkart, Myntra and Nykaa to cut back delivery times as they lose touch with specialized delivery apps.
While high-speed commerce has not taken off in many of the world, the model seems to work particularly well in India, where unorganized retail stores are ever-present.
High-speed trading platforms are creating “parallel trading for consumers seeking convenience” in India, Morgan Stanley wrote in a note this month.
Zepto and its rivals – Zomato-owned Blinkit, Swiggy-owned Instamart and Tata-owned BigBasket – currently operate on lower margins than traditional retail, and Morgan Stanley expects market leaders to realize contribution margins of 7-8% and adjusted EBITDA margins to greater than 5% by 2030. (Zepto currently spends about 35 million dollars monthly).
An investor presentation reviewed by TechCrunch shows that Zepto, which handles greater than 7 million total orders every day in greater than 17 cities, is heading in the right direction to realize annual sales of $2 billion. It anticipates 150% growth over the following 12 months, CEO Aadit Palicha told investors in August. The startup plans to go public in India next yr.
However, the rapid growth of high-speed trading has had a devastating impact on the mom-and-pop stores that dot hundreds of Indian cities, towns and villages.
According to the All India Federation of Consumer Products Distributors, about 200,000 local stores closed last yr, with 90,000 in major cities where high-speed trading is more prevalent.
The federation has warned that without regulatory intervention, more local shops shall be vulnerable to closure as fast trading platforms prioritize growth over sustainable practices.
Zepto said it has created job opportunities for tons of of hundreds of gig employees. “From day one, our vision has been to play a small role in nation building, create millions of jobs and offer better services to Indian consumers,” Palicha said in an announcement.
Regulatory challenges arise. Unless an e-commerce company is a majority shareholder of an Indian company or person, current regulations prevent it from operating on a listing model. Fast trading corporations don’t currently follow these rules.
Technology
Wiz acquires Dazz for $450 million to expand cybersecurity platform
Wizardone of the talked about names within the cybersecurity world, is making a major acquisition to expand its reach of cloud security products, especially amongst developers. This is buying Dazzlespecialist in solving security problems and risk management. Sources say the deal is valued at $450 million, which incorporates money and stock.
This is a leap within the startup’s latest round of funding. In July, we reported that Dazz had raised $50 million at a post-money valuation of just below $400 million.
Remediation and posture management – two areas of focus for Dazz – are key services within the cybersecurity market that Wiz hasn’t sorted in addition to it wanted.
“Dazz is a leader in this market, with the best talent and the best customers, which fits perfectly into the company culture,” Assaf Rappaport, CEO of Wiz, said in an interview.
Remediation, which refers to helping you understand and resolve vulnerabilities, shapes how an enterprise actually handles the various vulnerability alerts it could receive from the network. Posture management is a more preventive product: it allows a company to higher understand the scale, shape and performance of its network from a perspective, allowing it to construct higher security services around it.
Dazz will proceed to operate as a separate entity while it’s integrated into the larger Wiz stack. Wiz has made a reputation for itself as a “one-stop shop,” and Rappaport said the integrated offering will proceed to be a core a part of it.
He believes this contrasts with what number of other SaaS corporations are built. In the safety industry, there are, Rappaport said, “a lot of Frankenstein mashups where companies prioritize revenue over building a single technology stack that actually works as a platform.” It could be assumed that integration is much more necessary in cybersecurity than in other areas of enterprise IT.
Wiz and Dazz already had an in depth relationship before this deal. Merat Bahat — the CEO who co-founded Dazz with Tomer Schwartz and Yuval Ofir (CTO and VP of R&D, respectively) — worked closely with Assaf Rappaport at Microsoft, which acquired his previous startup Adallom.
After Rappaport left to found Wiz together with his former Adallom co-founders, CTO Ami Luttwak, VP of Product Yinon Costica and VP of R&D Roy Reznik, Bahat was one in all the primary investors. Similarly, when Bahat founded Dazz, Assaf was a small investor in it.
The connection goes deeper than work colleagues. Bahat and Rappaport are also close friends, and she or he was the second family of Mickey, Rappaport’s beloved dog, referred to as Chief Dog Officer Wiz (together with LinkedIn profile). Once the deal was done, the 2 faced two very sad events: each Bahat and Mika’s mother died.
“We hope for a new chapter of positivity,” Bahat said. The cycle of life does indeed proceed.
Rumors of this takeover began to appear earlier this month; Rappaport confirmed that they then began talking seriously.
But that is not the one M&A conversation Wiz has gotten involved in. Earlier this 12 months, Google tried to buy Wiz itself for $23 billion to construct a major cybersecurity business. Wiz walked away from the deal, which might have been the biggest in Google’s history, partly because Rappaport believed Wiz could turn into a fair larger company by itself terms. And that is what this agreement goals to do.
This acquisition is a test for Wiz, which earlier this 12 months filled its coffers with $1 billion solely for M&A purposes (it has raised almost $2 billion in total, and we hear the subsequent round will close in just a few weeks). . Other offers included purchasing Gem security for $350 million, but Dazz is its largest acquisition ever.
More mergers and acquisitions could also be coming. “We believe next year will be an acquisition year for us,” Rappaport said.
In an interview with TC, Luttwak said that one in all Wiz’s priorities now’s to create more tools for developers that have in mind what they need to do their jobs.
Enterprises have made significant investments in cloud services to speed up operations and make their IT more agile, but this shift has include a significantly modified security profile for these organizations: network and data architectures are more complex and attack surfaces are larger, creating opportunities for malicious hackers to find ways to to hack into these systems. Artificial intelligence makes all of this far more difficult when it comes to malicious attackers. (It’s also a chance: the brand new generation of tools for our defense relies on artificial intelligence.)
Wiz’s unique selling point is its all-in-one approach. Drawing data from AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and other cloud environments, Wiz scans applications, data and network processes for security risk aspects and provides its users with a series of detailed views to understand where these threats occur, offering over a dozen products covering the areas, corresponding to code security, container environment security, and provide chain security, in addition to quite a few partner integrations for those working with other vendors (or to enable features that Wiz doesn’t offer directly).
Indeed, Wiz offered some extent of repair to help prioritize and fix problems, but as Luttwak said, the Dazz product is solely higher.
“We now have a platform that actually provides a 360-degree view of risk across infrastructure and applications,” he said. “Dazz is a leader in attack surface management, the ability to collect vulnerability signals from the application layer across the entire stack and build the most incredible context that allows you to trace the situation back to engineers to help with remediation.”
For Dazz’s part, once I interviewed Bahat in July 2024, when Dazz raised $50 million at a $350 million valuation, she extolled the virtues of constructing strong solutions and this week said the third quarter was “amazing.”
“But market dynamics are what trigger these types of transactions,” she said. She confirmed that Dazz had also received takeover offers from other corporations. “If you think about the customers and joint customers that we have with Wiz, it makes sense for them to have it on one platform.”
And a few of Dazz’s competitors are still going it alone: Cyera, like Dazz, an authority in attack surface management, just yesterday announced a rise of $300 million at a valuation of $5 billion (which confirms our information). But what’s going to he do with this money? Make acquisitions, after all.
Wiz says it currently has annual recurring revenue of $500 million (it has a goal of $1 billion ARR next 12 months) and has greater than 45% of its Fortune 100 customers. Dazz said ARR is within the tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars and currently growing 500% on a customer base of roughly 100 organizations.
Technology
Department of Justice: Google must sell Chrome to end its monopoly
The U.S. Department of Justice argued Wednesday that Google should sell its Chrome browser as part of a countermeasure to break the corporate’s illegal monopoly on online search, according to a filing with the Justice Department. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. If the answer proposed by the Department of Justice is approved, Google won’t have the option to re-enter the search marketplace for five years.
Ultimately, it’ll be District Court Judge Amit Mehta who will determine what the ultimate punishment for Google might be. This decision could fundamentally change one of the most important firms on the planet and alter the structure of the Internet as we understand it. This phase of the method is anticipated to begin sometime in 2025.
In August, Judge Mehta ruled that Google constituted an illegal monopoly since it abused its power within the search industry. The judge also questioned Google’s control over various web gateways and the corporate’s payments to third parties to maintain its status because the default search engine.
The Department of Justice’s latest filing says Google’s ownership of Android and Chrome, that are key distribution channels for its search business, poses a “significant challenge” to remediation to ensure a competitive search market.
The Justice Department has proposed other remedies to address the search engine giant’s monopoly, including Google spinning off its Android mobile operating system. The filing indicated that Google and other partners may oppose the spin-off and suggested stringent countermeasures, including ending the use of Android to the detriment of search engine competitors. The Department of Justice has suggested that if Google doesn’t impose restrictions on Android, it must be forced to sell it.
Prosecutors also argued that the corporate must be barred from stepping into exclusionary third-party agreements with browser or phone firms, resembling Google’s agreement with Apple to be the default search engine on all Apple products.
The Justice Department also argued that Google should license its search data, together with ad click data, to competitors.
Additionally, the Department of Justice also set conditions prohibiting Google from re-entering the browser market five years after the spin-off of Chrome. Additionally, it also proposed that after the sale of Chrome, Google mustn’t acquire or own any competing ad text search engine, query-based AI product, or ad technology. Moreover, the document identifies provisions that allow publishers to opt out of Google using their data to train artificial intelligence models.
If the court accepts these measures, Google will face a serious setback as a competitor to OpenAI, Microsoft and Anthropic in AI technology.
Google’s answer
In response, Google said the Department of Justice’s latest filing constitutes a “radical interventionist program” that may harm U.S. residents and the country’s technological prowess on the planet.
“The Department of Justice’s wildly overblown proposal goes far beyond the Court’s decision. “It would destroy the entire range of Google products – even beyond search – that people love and find useful in their everyday lives,” said Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer Kent Walker. blog post.
Walker made additional arguments that the proposal would threaten user security and privacy, degrade the standard of the Chrome and Android browsers, and harm services resembling Mozilla Firefox, which depends upon Google’s search engine.
He added that if the proposal is adopted, it could make it tougher for people to access Google search. Moreover, it could hurt the corporate’s prospects within the AI race.
“The Justice Department’s approach would lead to unprecedented government overreach that would harm American consumers, developers and small businesses and threaten America’s global economic and technological leadership at precisely the moment when it is needed most,” he said.
The company is to submit a response to the above request next month.
Wednesday’s filing confirms earlier reports that prosecutors were considering getting Google to spin off Chrome, which controls about 61% of the U.S. browser market. According to to the StatCounter web traffic service.
-
Press Release8 months ago
CEO of 360WiSE Launches Mentorship Program in Overtown Miami FL
-
Business and Finance6 months ago
The Importance of Owning Your Distribution Media Platform
-
Press Release7 months ago
U.S.-Africa Chamber of Commerce Appoints Robert Alexander of 360WiseMedia as Board Director
-
Business and Finance8 months ago
360Wise Media and McDonald’s NY Tri-State Owner Operators Celebrate Success of “Faces of Black History” Campaign with Over 2 Million Event Visits
-
Ben Crump7 months ago
Another lawsuit accuses Google of bias against Black minority employees
-
Fitness7 months ago
Black sportswear brands for your 2024 fitness journey
-
Theater8 months ago
Applications open for the 2020-2021 Soul Producing National Black Theater residency – Black Theater Matters
-
Ben Crump8 months ago
Henrietta Lacks’ family members reach an agreement after her cells undergo advanced medical tests