YouTube Releases New Weekly Ranking Of Top Podcasts In The U.S. - 1

Photo by Kate Oseen on Unsplash

YouTube Releases New Weekly Ranking Of Top Podcasts In The U.S.

  • Written by Andrea Miliani Former Tech News Expert
  • Fact-Checked by Sarah Frazier Former Content Manager

YouTube announced on Thursday a new podcast ranking feature for the United States. “Podcast Charts” will showcase the top 100 podcasts based on their recent popularity.

In a rush? Here are the quick facts:

  • YouTube launches YouTube Charts, a weekly podcast ranking in the United States.
  • The new page currently features The Joe Rogan Experience, Kill Tony, and Rotten Mango at the top of the list.
  • Experts say the new feature is part of YouTube’s business strategy.

Experts agree that this move is part of YouTube’s strategy to compete with Spotify and Apple.

According to the official announcement , users will now be able to visit the YouTube Charts page, featuring a podcast ranking of the most popular shows of the week, which will update every Wednesday.

The page currently features The Joe Rogan Experience, Kill Tony, Rotten Mango, 48 Hours, and The Meidas Touch Podcast on its top 5 podcasts—in that order.

“You can check out YouTube’s Top 100 podcast shows in the US to see where your favorite podcasts rank, or which podcasts you’re really missing out on!” wrote Steve McLendon, Product Manager at YouTube Podcasts.

The ranking will include different genres—such as comedy, sports, news, and true crime—and different podcasters. “Our Weekly Top Podcast Shows chart recognizes and celebrates top podcasters who are redefining the next era of entertainment with engaging, influential, culture-defining shows,” states the document.

YouTube added that the platform has 1 billion active podcast viewers and that, according to Edison Research , YouTube is Americans’ preferred service to listen to podcasts.

According to CNBC , one of the reasons why podcasters prefer the platform is that YouTube offers attractive cost per thousand impressions and cost per mile.

“YouTube just isn’t a place where you drop your content from other sources,” said Ben Meiselas, co-founder of The MeidasTouch Podcast—a show available on YouTube, Spotify, Apple podcasts, Substack, and Patreon. “We want to focus on making YouTube a channel the way people watch cable news.”

This week, YouTube also announced a new AI-powered product to place ads in videos when users are most engaged .

Anthropic’s Lawyers Take Responsibility For AI Hallucination In Copyright Lawsuit - 2

Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash

Anthropic’s Lawyers Take Responsibility For AI Hallucination In Copyright Lawsuit

  • Written by Andrea Miliani Former Tech News Expert
  • Fact-Checked by Sarah Frazier Former Content Manager

This Thursday, a lawyer for Anthropic acknowledged using an incorrect citation generated by the company’s AI chatbot, Claude, during an ongoing copyright case in Northern California. The AI company is currently in a legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG), which sued Anthropic over the use of copyrighted song lyrics to train its AI models.

In a rush? Here are the quick facts:

  • Lawyer defending Anthropic in court acknowledged using an incorrect citation generated by Claude.
  • The error was addressed by UMG’s lawyers during the ongoing music copyright case in Northern California.
  • Dukanovic described the situation as an “embarrassing and unintentional mistake.”

The lawyer, Ivana Dukanovic, an associate at Latham & Watkins, stated in a court filing that Claude made a citation error by listing the wrong title and author for an article used in the case. However, she noted that the publication, link, year, and content of the article were correct.

“Our investigation of the matter confirms that this was an honest citation mistake and not a fabrication of authority,” states the document. “We apologize for the inaccuracy and any confusion this error caused.”

According to Reuters , Dukanovic’s explanation comes after UMG’s lawyers said data scientist Olivia Chen used AI-fabricated sources to defend Anthropic in the case.

Dukanovic explained that Chen used the correct article from the journal American Statistician but that lawyers at Latham & Watkins added the incorrect footnote provided by Claude:

After the Latham & Watkins team identified the source as potential additional support for Ms. Chen’s testimony, I asked Claude.ai to provide a properly formatted legal citation for that source using the link to the correct article. Unfortunately, although providing the correct publication title, publication year, and link to the provided source, the returned citation included an inaccurate title and incorrect authors. Our manual citation check did not catch that error.

Dukanovic described the situation as an “embarrassing and unintentional mistake” and assured that they have implemented new measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

A few weeks ago, during an early stage of the case, the jury had ruled in favor of Anthropic and considered UMG’s requests too broad. This new situation could jeopardize Anthropic’s advantage in the case.

In the past few months, multiple lawyers have presented incorrect AI-generated documents in court in the United States, raising concerns and legal problems. This week, a judge fined two law firms $31,000 for fake AI-generated legal citations.