Google: Smart Software Confusion

June 19, 2023

Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.

I cannot understand. Not only am I old; I am a dinobaby. Furthermore, I am like one of William James’s straw men: Easy to knock down or set on fire. Bear with me this morning.

I read “Google Skeptical of AI: Google Doesn’t Trust Its Own AI Chatbots, Asks Employees Not to Use Bard.” The write up asserts as “real” information:

It seems that Google doesn’t trust any AI chatbot, including its own Bard AI bot. In an update to its security measures, Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company has asked its employees to keep sensitive data away from public AI chatbots, including their own Bard AI.

The go-to word for the Google in the last few weeks is “trust.” The quote points out that Google doesn’t “trust” its own smart software. Does this mean that Google does not “trust” that which it created and is making available to its “users”?

MidJourney, an interesting but possibly insecure and secret-filled smart software system, generated this image of Googzilla as a gatekeeper. Are gatekeepers in place to make money, control who does what, and record the comings and goings of people, data, and content objects?

As I said, I am a dinobaby, and I think I am dumb. I don’t follow the circular reasoning; for example:

Google is worried that human reviewers may have access to the chat logs that these chatbots generate. AI developers often use this data to train their LLMs more, which poses a risk of data leaks.

Now the ante has gone up. The issue is one of protecting itself from its own software. Furthermore, if the statement is accurate, I take the words to mean that Google’s Mandiant-infused, super duper, security trooper cannot protect Google from itself.

Can my interpretation be correct? I hope not.

Then I read “This Google Leader Says ML Infrastructure Is Conduit to Company’s AI Success.” The “this” refers to an entity called Nadav Eiron, a Stanford PhD and Googley wizard. The use of the word “conduit” baffles me because I thought “conduit” was a noun, not a verb. That goes to support my contention that I am a dumb humanoid.

Now let’s look at the text of this write up about Google’s smart software. I noted this passage:

The journey from a great idea to a great product is very, very long and complicated. It’s especially complicated and expensive when it’s not one product but like 25, or however many were announced that Google I/O. And with the complexity that comes with doing all that in a way that’s scalable, responsible, sustainable and maintainable.

I recall someone telling me when I worked at a Fancy Dan blue chip consulting firm, “Stephen, two objectives are zero objectives.” Obviously Google is orders of magnitude more capable than the bozos at the consulting company. Google can do 25 objectives. Impressive.

I noted this statement:

we created the OpenXLA [an open-source ML compiler ecosystem co-developed by AI/ML industry leaders to compile and optimize models from all leading ML frameworks] because the interface into the compiler in the middle is something that would benefit everybody if it’s commoditized and standardized.

I think this means that Google wants to be the gatekeeper or man in the middle.

Now let’s consider the first article cited. Google does not want its employees to use smart software because it cannot be trusted.

Is it logical to conclude that Google and its partners should use software which is not trusted? Should Google and its partners not use smart software because it is not secure? Given these constraints, how does Google make advances in smart software?

My perception is:

Google is not sure what to do
Google wants to position its untrusted and insecure software as the industry standard
Google wants to preserve its position in a workflow to maximize its profit and influence in markets.

You may not agree. But when articles present messages which are alarming and clearly focused on market control, I turn my skeptic control knob. By the way, the headline should be “Google’s Nadav Eiron Says Machine Learning Infrastructure Is a Conduit to Facilitate Google’s Control of Smart Software.”

Stephen E Arnold, June 19, 2023

Written by Stephen E. Arnold · Filed Under AI, Business strategy, Google, News

Comments

Comments are closed.

Search the site
Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive

Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.