Copyright Trolls Await a Claim Paradise
August 29, 2022
Smart software can create content. In fact, the process can be automated, allow a semi-useless humanoid to provide a few inputs, and release a stream of synthetic content. (Remember, please, that these content outputs are weaponized to promote a specific idea, product, or belief.) Smart video tools will allow machines to create a video from a single image. If you are not familiar with this remarkable innovation in weaponized information, consider the import of Googley “transframing.” You can read about this contribution to society at this link.
I am not interested in exploring the technology of these systems. AI/ML (artificial intelligence and machine learning) stress my mental jargon filter. I want to focus on those unappreciated guardians of intellectual property: The entities and law firms enforcing assorted claims regarding images, text, and videos used without paying a royalty or getting legal permission to reuse an original creation.
The idea is simple: Smart software outputs a content object. The object is claimed by an organization eager to protect applicable copyright rules and regulations. The content object is marked with a © and maybe some paperwork will be filed. But why bother?
Now use some old fashioned hashing method to identify use of the content object, send a notice of © violation, demand payment, threaten legal action, and sit quietly like a “pigeon” in London for the cash to roll in.
A few people have a partial understanding of what the AI/ML generated content objects will create. For a glimpse of these insights, navigate to HackerNews and this threat; for example:
The future will include humans claiming AI art as their own, possibly touched up a bit, and AIs claiming human art as their own.
The legal eagles are drooling. And the trolls? Quivering with excitement. Paradise ahead!
Stephen E Arnold, August 29, 2022
Ommmmm, the Future
August 29, 2022
Everyone wants to predict the future, but no one and nothing can do that with 100% accuracy. When it comes to the future of technology and its relationships with humans, tech journalist Om Malik shared his thoughts: “The Future of Tech As I See It.” Malik discussed four points on the future and technology.
In the first, Malik explained he tried to find the inherent value in all technology. He believes people focus too much time trying to figure out what will be the next big tech boom to make a buck. Focusing too much on the “next big thing” distracts from the current use and value of technology. In other words, Malik wants people to concentrate more on the present. He could also try using TikTok.
M1 computer chips will give users more powerful computers equivalent to 25% of IBM’s Watson output. This will allow users to interact with computers in a manner different than anything we currently know. Malik states kids are being trained for a brand new world we can only conceptualize in the likes of the new Star Wars films, not the old sci-fi classics like 2001: a Space Odyssey.
Malik makes a good point that authenticating your identity will be how companies like Google and Facebook make their revenue in the future:
“What’s one thing you’ve barely noticed about living in the mobile phone world? How often do you “Login with Facebook” or “Login with Google” because it’s more convenient than setting up an account? There is a lot of value in whichever company makes authentication easy in this world.
What if Apple offers a Metamask-like product as an authentication system and in-exchange charges a small subscription fee? I would happily pay for the convenience alone. Authentication and payments can be critical to a post-app store world. Facebook, too, is hoping to ride the payments and authentication gravy train to the future.)”
The bigger question is how will technology authenticate people? Blood samples? DNA?
Malik ends on the point that the United States no longer shapes the entire world when it comes to technology. India, China, Africa, and Russia are bigger players than most western nations realize, but that is not new information. People who aren’t ostriches are aware of this.
Whitney Grace, August 29, 2022
OpenText: Goodwill Search
August 26, 2022
I spotted a short item in the weird orange newspaper called “Micro Focus Shares Jump After Takeover Bid from Canadian Rival.” (This short news item resides behind a paywall. Can’t locate it? Yeah, that’s a problem for some folks.)
What Micro Focus and Open Text are rivals? Interesting.
The key sentence is, in my opinion, ““OpenText agreed to buy its UK rival in an all-cash deal that values
the software developer at £5.1bn.”
Does Open Text have other search and retrieval properties? Yep.
Will Open Text become the big dog in enterprise search? Maybe. The persistent issue is the presence of Elasticsearch, which many developers of search based applications find to be better, faster, and chapter than many commercial offerings. (“Is BRS search user friendly and cheaper?”, ask I. The answer from my viewshed is ho ho ho.)
I want to pay attention going forward to this acquisition. I am curious about the answers to these questions:
- How will the math work out? It was a cash deal and there is the cost of sales and support to evaluate.
- Will the Micro Focus customers become really happy campers? It is possible there are some issues with the Micro Focus software.
- How will Open Text support what appear to be competing options; for example, many of Open Text’s software systems strike me as duplicative. Perhaps centralizing technical development and providing an upgraded customer service solution using the company’s own software will reduce costs.
Notice I did not once mention Autonomy, Recommind, Fulcrum, or Tuxedo. (Reuters mentioned that Micro Focus was haunted by Autonomy’s ghost. Not me. No, no, no.)
Stephen E Arnold, August 26, 2022
The Home of Dinobabies Knows How to Eliminate AI Bias
August 26, 2022
It is common knowledge in tech and the news media that AI training datasets are flawed. These datasets are unfortunately prone to teaching AI how to be “racist” and “sexist.” AI are computer programs, so they are not intentionally biased. The datasets that teach them how to work are flawed, because they contain incorrect information about women and dark-skinned people. The solution is to build new datasets, but it is difficult to find hoards of large, unpolluted information. MIT News explains there is a possible solution in the article: “A Technique To Improve Both Fairness And Accuracy In Artificial Intelligence.”
Researchers already know that AI contain mistakes so they use selective regressions to estimate the confidence level for predictions. If the predictions are too low, then the AI rejects them. MIT researchers and MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab discovered what we already know: women and ethnic minorities are not accurately represented in the data even with selective regression. The MIT researchers designed two algorithms to fix the bias:
“One algorithm guarantees that the features the model uses to make predictions contain all information about the sensitive attributes in the dataset, such as race and sex, that is relevant to the target variable of interest. Sensitive attributes are features that may not be used for decisions, often due to laws or organizational policies. The second algorithm employs a calibration technique to ensure the model makes the same prediction for an input, regardless of whether any sensitive attributes are added to that input.”
The algorithms worked to reduce disparities in test cases.
It is too bad that datasets are biased, because it does not paint an accurate representation of people and researchers need to fix the disparities. It is even more unfortunate locating clean datasets and that the Internet cannot be used, because of all the junk created by trolls.
Whitney Grace, August 26, 2022
Data: A Disappointing Ride Down Zero Lane to Cell One
August 26, 2022
Projects meant to glean business insights through the analysis of vast troves of data still tend to disappoint. On its blog, British data-project management firm Brijj lists “5 Reasons Why 80% of Data and Insight Projects Fail.” The write-up tells us:
“In the UK alone, we spend £24bn on data projects every year. According to recent studies, however, organizational leadership has been dissatisfied with the value they get from data. In fact, they consider 80% of all data projects a failure. That equates to £19bn of waste. And why? Because so many don’t do the basics well. They never stood a chance.”
Not surprisingly, writer and Brijj founder/CEO Adrian Mitchell suggests consulting outside data experts from the start to make sure one’s project delivers those sweet, sweet insights:
“The bottom line is that both data creators and their business customers need to be involved in the data & insight project from the initial question through to the outcome and work closely together for it to provide actionable insights and urge action. Currently, there are many gaps between the two groups, resulting in disconnect, frustrations, time and financial losses, and no real-world outcomes. Organizations need to close these to truly harness the power of data and maximize its value.”
The list Mitchell offers looks awfully familiar; we think we have heard some of these “reasons” before. We are told the biggest problem is asking the wrong questions in the first place. Then there is, as mentioned above, a lack of collaboration between data analysts and their clients. If one has managed to gather useful bits of knowledge, they must be both communicated to the right people and made easy to find. Finally, standardized systems (like Brijj’s, we presume) should be put in place to make the whole process easier for the technically disinclined.
Perhaps Mitchell is right and these measures can help some companies make the most of the data they were persuaded to accumulate? It is worth keeping in mind, though, that any concepts derived by software have limitations… just like a blind data.
Cynthia Murrell, August 26, 2022
A Triller Thriller: Excitement I Do Not Need
August 26, 2022
Short-form video app Triller is eager to topple TikTok. When its rival was lambasted last summer for allowing white influencers to take credit for trends generated by Black content creators, Triller saw an opportunity. It immediately positioned itself as the platform that respects and elevates Black creators. It reached out to many of them with promises of regular monthly payments and coveted shares of stock while dangling visions of a content house, collaborations, and brand deals. However, whether from disorganization or disregard, The Washington Post reports, Triller is not holding up to its end of the deal. In the article, “A TikTok Rival Promised Millions to Black Creators. Now Some Are Deep in Debt” (paywalled), reporter Taylor Lorenz writes:
“[Dancer David Warren] was part of a group of what Triller touted as 300 Black content creators offered contracts totaling $14 million — ‘the largest ever one-time commitment of capital to Black creators,’ the company bragged in a November news release. But nearly a year after Triller began recruiting Black talent, its payments to many creators have been erratic — and, in some cases, nonexistent, according to interviews with more than two dozen creators, talent managers and former company staff, many of whom spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation from the company. For influencers, it’s a disastrous turn from a platform with a reputation for paying big money, dubbed ‘Triller money,’ to get talent to post on the app. Far from ‘Triller money,’ the Black influencers were promised
$4,000 per month, with half paid in equity, according to documents reviewed by The Post. Warren, used to making content for platforms controlled by other people, found the chance to own a piece of something thrilling. But now, as they cope with uncertain payments, many creators allege they are compelled to keep up with a demanding posting schedule and vague requirements that make it easy for the company to eliminate people from the program.”
Company executives flat-out deny allegations against them, but Lorenz shares her evidence in the article. She describes a toxic climate where administrators callously hold creators to the letter of their grueling agreements while failing to make good on tens of thousands of dollars in payments. In a spectacular display of gall, Triller informed creators it would prioritize keeping a certain amount on the books over its obligations to them as it prepares for its IPO. And those promised shares of stock that had creators feeling empowered? Nowhere to be seen. Whether it is a matter of contemptuous tokenization or mere incompetence, it seems Triller delivers little but a trail of broken promises.
Cynthia Murrell, August 26, 2022
How Fragile Is Twitter?
August 25, 2022
The question is, “How fragile is Twitter?” I am not a tweeter. I think we have a script which posts items from this blog, but I am not sure. Twitter is more of a left and right coast thing. Those who love it find that it can deliver “followers” and one hopes personal satisfaction, fame, and fortune.
The datasphere is rippling with Twitter news. I glanced at Techmeme today (August 25, 2022 at about 6 30 am) and spotted many, many Twitter stories.
There was the former DARPA technology security wizard. This individual offered assertions about Twitter’s management and technology ineptitude. The Washington Post is excited about the individual’s forthcoming testimony before the adepts on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mark your calendar and warm up the TV. The event takes place on September 13, 2022. For the breathless explanation of how a critique of the tweeter thing becomes a Senate hearing in a few short weeks, read “Twitter Whistleblower To Testify In Congress About Security Failures.”
Twitter’s senior manager takes a different position. The tweeter is up to snuff.
Elon Musk is excited because the to and fro about Twitter may be helpful to his brilliant business maneuvering to bring the Musky scent of excellence to short messages mostly unrestrained by someone with a sense of propriety. “Twitter Lied To Elon Musk About Bots – Peiter Zatko, Ex Security Chief” explains
Following the publication of Zatko’s revelations on different news outlets, Tesla CEO, Elon Musk took to his Twitter profile to comment about the issue. Musk tweeted a screenshot of The Washington Post covering the whistleblower’s revelation, accompanied by another tweet of an image, with the phrase “give a little whistle”.
My reaction to the Twitter thing has two parts. The first part is the craziness that Twitter has engendered in its service, its management trajectory, and its PR magnetism. Twitter has zero impact on me personally or professionally, and it is remarkable that so much weirdness surrounds a text messaging service in which the content is publicly available.
The second part of my reaction is the sense that some of the journalists, pundits, and wizards who have achieved Twitter fame may be in for some life realignment. These people will either surge even higher in the Twitter Hall of Fame or end up hoping their TikTok videos deliver what has been lost.
As I reflect on the coterie of Twitter addicts users and the fascinating management history of the company, I come back to the question, “How fragile is Twitter?”
One can argue that it survived with a part time boss, technical failures which involved a very happy beluga icon, and appearing at the bottom of high-tech social media company revenue disappointments. Thus, Twitter is robust, a survivor, a resilient digital creature.
On the other hand, Twitter is engaged in a legal spat with the mercurial Mr. Musk. Twitter is in the news because it loses executives who allege silly technical policies. Twitter is getting love from the tweeters who depend on the service for fame and sales leads. The internal cohesion of a wild and crazy high tech outfit like Google makes Twitter look like a stack of objects stacked by inebriated college students.
I don’t have a dog’s musk gland in the Twitter fight. What I can say is, “Twitter. Interesting.”
Stephen E Arnold, August 25, 2022
Quality Defined: Just Two Ways?
August 25, 2022
I am not sure what to make of “The Two Types of Quality.” A number of years ago I was in Osaka and Tokyo to deliver several lectures about commercial databases. The topic had to be narrowed, so I focused on the differences between a commercially successful database like those produced by the Courier Journal & the Louisville Times, the Petroleum Institute, and ERIC, among a handful of other must-have professional-operated databases. I explained that database quality could be defined by technical requirements; for example, timeliness of record updating, assigning a specific number of index terms from a subject matter expert developed and maintained controlled vocabulary (term) list, accurate spelling, abstracts conforming to the database publishers’ editorial guidelines, etc. The other type of quality was determined by the user; for example, was the information provided by the database timely, accurate, and in line with the scope of the database. Neither definition of quality was particularly good. I made this point in my lectures. Quality is like any abstract noun. Context defines it. Today quality means, as I was told after a lecture in Germany, “good enough.” I thought the serious young person was joking. He was not. This professional, who worked for an important European Union department, embraced “good enough” as the definition of quality.
The cited essay explains that there are two types of quality. The first is “purely functional.” I think that’s close to my definition of quality for old-fashioned databases. There were expensive to produce, difficult to index in a useful, systematic way even with our human plus smart software systems, and quite difficult to explain to a person unfamiliar with the difference between looking up something using Google and looking up a chemical structure in Chemical Abstracts. When I was working full time, I had a tough time explaining that Google was neither comprehensive nor focused on consistency. Google wanted to sell ads. Popularity determined quality, but that’s not what “quality” means to a person researching a case in a commercial database of legal information.
The second is “quality that fascinates.” I must admit that this is related to my notion of context, but I am not sure that “fascination” is exactly what I mean by context. A ball of string can fascinate the cat owner as well as the cat. Is this quality? Not in my book.
Several observations:
- Quality cannot be defined. I do believe that a company, its products, and an individual can produce objects or services that serve a purpose and do not anger the user. Well, maybe not anger. How about annoy, frustrate, stress, or force a product or service change. It is also my perception that quality is becoming a lost art like chipping stone arrowheads.
- The word “quality” can be defined in terms of cost cutting. I use products and services that are not without big flaws. Whether it is getting Microsoft Windows to print or preventing a Tesla from exploding into flames, short cuts seem to create issues. These folks are not angels in my opinion.
- The marketers, many of those whom I met were former journalists or art history majors, explain quality and other abstract terms in a way which obfuscates the verifiable behavior of a product or service. These folks are mendacious in my opinion.
Net net: Quality now means good enough.
That’s why nothing seems to work: Airport luggage handling, medical treatments of a president, electric vehicles, contacting a local government agency about a deer killed by a rolling smoke pickup truck driver, etc.
Quality products and services exist. Is it possible to find these using Bing, Google, or Yandex?
Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, August 25, 2022
Deep Fakes: Alarming Predictions Made Real
August 25, 2022
Here is one disturbing way deep fakes can provide bad actors with a new money-making opportunity. Reporting on a growing, Google-play enabled problem, Rest of World tells us “Mexican Scam Loan Apps Will Edit Your Face onto X-Rated Photos and Send Them to Your Family.” Yes, at least one victim had such faked images sent to her contacts, including her minor daughter, along with the claim she had turned to prostitution to pay off her loan. In their odious efforts to collect more funds than they lent in the first place, these outfits will also dox victims and harass with ceaseless threatening phone calls. Reporter Erika Lilian Contreras writes:
“Rest of World identified 94 loan apps listed as possibly related to doxxing activities across various Mexican cyber police departments; 35 of these are available on Google’s Play store, the app store on Android devices, which account for 80.87% of mobile internet traffic in Mexico. According to victims, government officials, digital rights activists, and platforms, gaps in Mexican law allow these lenders to continue to push scams on app stores and leave victims with no clear avenue to restitution or justice. Consumer education and criminal investigations that come after a crime has occurred are the only ways to currently combat this new type of digital financial fraud, but none of these efforts has stopped the apps from appearing in app stores, according to digital security experts who spoke to Rest of World.”
Mexico’s financial services regulators say it is not their problem since these loan apps are not registered financial institutions. This leaves the national and local cybersecurity agents who, so far, have been unable to keep the problem from growing. Bad actors know a good opportunity when they see one. The article notes:
“While the Mexican government can do little and the tech companies platforming scam loan apps won’t take responsibility, the onus has fallen onto civil society. … However, most activism is limited to educating Mexicans about the risks posed by scam loan apps.”
It would be nice if Google would supply even an ounce of prevention here as it finally did in India. That, however, was only after the Reserve Bank of India forcefully drew about 600 scam-credit apps to its attention.
We wonder: where will deep fake technology be weaponized next? We think we know one knock on effect: Open source intelligence will be eroded or poisoned.
Cynthia Murrell, August 25, 2022
Amazon Leaps into Slow Motion Action
August 25, 2022
As Amazon continues its valiant struggle against fake reviews, it still insists social media is to blame. Now, though, instead of chiding social media itself, the company is going after those who use Facebook and other platforms to generate false reviews for profit. DigitalTrends reports, “Amazon Sues 10,000 Facebook Groups over Fake Reviews.” That is a lot of defendants. Writer Trevor Mogg tells us:
“‘These groups are set up to recruit individuals willing to post incentivized and misleading reviews on Amazon’s stores in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan,’ the company said in a post on its website. It added: ‘The fraudsters behind such groups solicit fake reviews for hundreds of products available for sale on Amazon, including car stereos and camera tripods.’ One of the Facebook groups mentioned in Amazon’s lawsuit is called Amazon Product Review. It had more than 43,000 members when Facebook-owned Meta kicked it off its platform earlier this year. Amazon said that the group’s administrators tried to hide their activity and evade detection by slightly altering the spelling of words in phrases designed to alert A.I.-powered software that searches for fake reviews. Amazon said it has more than 12,000 employees globally working to protect its shopping site from fraud and abuse, including fake reviews. Another Amazon-employed team is tasked with identifying fake review schemes on social media platforms that include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter.”
We are told Meta has removed about half the groups Amazon has brought to its attention and is investigating others. The sleuths have kept millions of suspicious reviews away from customers, we learn, and the company expects this more proactive step to stop many more and hold scammers accountable. Great! Now, what about the gig work sites which list people ready to create fake reviews?
Cynthia Murrell, August 25, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
