This episode is notable not just for cyberlaw commentary, but for its imminent disappearance from these pages and from podcast playlists everywhere.  Having promised to take stock of the podcast when it reached episode 500, I’ve decided that I, the podcast, and the listeners all deserve a break.  So I’ll be taking one after the next episode.  No final decisions have been made, so don’t delete your subscription, but don’t expect a new episode any time soon.  It’s been a great run, from the dawn of the podcast age, through the ad-fueled podcast boom, which I manfully resisted, to the market correction that’s still under way.  It was a pleasure to engage with listeners from all over the world. Yes, even the EU!    As they say, in the podcast age, everyone is famous for fifteen people.  That’s certainly been true for me, and I’ll always be grateful for your support – not to mention for all the great contributors who’ve joined the podcast over the years   Back to cyberlaw, there are a surprising number of people arguing that there’s no reason to worry about existential and catastrophic risks from proliferating or runaway AI risks.  Some of that is people seeking clever takes; a lot of it is ideological, driven by fear that worrying about the end of the world will distract attention from the dire but unidentified dangers of face recognition.  One useful antidote is the Gladstone Report, written for the State Department’s export control agency. David Kris gives an overview of the report for this episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast. The report explains the dynamic, and some of the evidence, behind all the doom-saying, a discussion that is more persuasive than its prescriptions for regulation.   Speaking of the dire but unidentified dangers of face recognition, Paul Stephan and I unpack a New York Times piece saying that Israel is using face recognition in its Gaza conflict. Actually, we don’t so much unpack it as turn it over and shake it, only to discover it’s largely empty.  Apparently the editors of the NYT thought that tying face recognition to Israel and Gaza was all we needed to understand that the technology is evil.   More interesting is the story arguing that the National Security Agency, traditionally at the forefront of computers and national security, may have to sit out the AI revolution. The reason, David tells us, is that NSA’s access to mass quantities of data for training is complicated by rules and traditions against intelligence agencies accessing data about Americans. And there are few training databases not contaminated with data about and by Americans.   While we’re feeling sorry for the intelligence community as it struggles with new technology, Paul notes that Yahoo News has assembled a long analysis of all the ways that personalized technology is making undercover operations impossible for CIA and FBI alike.   Michael Ellis weighs in with a review of a report by the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies on the need for a US Cyber Force to man, train, and equip fighting nerds for Cyber Command.  It’s a bit of an inside baseball solution, heavy on organizational boxology, but we’re both persuaded that the current system for attracting and retaining cyberwarriors is not working. In the spirit of “Yes, Minister,” we must do something, and this is something.   In that same spirit, it’s fair to say that the latest Senate Judiciary proposal for a “compromise” 702 renewal bill is nothing much – a largely phony compromise chock full of ideological baggage. David Kris and I are unimpressed, and surprised at how muted the Biden administration has been in trying to wrangle the Democratic Senate into producing a workable bill.   Paul and Michael review the latest trouble for TikTok – a likely FTC lawsuit over privacy. Michael and I puzzle over the stories claiming that Meta may have “wiretapped” Snapchat analytic data.  It comes fr