What Will Smart Software Change?
August 3, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. (´?_?`) Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
Today (July 27, 2023) a person told me about “Photographs of People Making Books at the Collins Factory in 1960s Glasgow.” The write up is less compelling than the photographs. The online article features workers who:
- Organize products for shipping
- Setting type slugs with a hammer and chisel
- A person stitching book folios together
- A living artist making a plate
- A real person putting monotype back in a case.
I mention this because I have seen articles which suggest that smart software will not cause humans to lose their jobs. It took little time for publishers to cut staff and embrace modern production methods. It took less time for writers to generate a PDF and use an Amazon-type service to promote, sell, and distribute a book. Now smart software is allegedly poised to eliminate writers.
Will AI really create more work for humans?
The 1960s photos suggest that technology eliminates jobs in my opinion as it disrupts established work procedures and vaporizes norms which glue social constructs together. Anyone you know have the expertise to seat metal type with a hammer and chisel? I suppose I should have asked, “Does anyone near you scroll TikToks?”
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2023
The Authority of a Parent: In Question?
August 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
If we cannot scan the kids, let us scan the guardians. That is what the ESRB, digital identity firm Yoti, and kiddie marketing firm SuperAwesome are asking the Federal Trade Commission according to The Register‘s piece, “Watchdog Mulls Online Facial Age-Verification Tech—For Kids’ Parents.” The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires websites and apps to make kids under 13 get a parent’s permission before they can harvest that sweet, early stage personal data. It is during the next step the petitioners would like to employ age-verification software on the grown-ups. As writer Jessica Lyons Hardcastle describes, the proposed process relies on several assumptions. She outlines the steps:
“1. First, a child visits a website and hits an age gate. The operator then asks the kid for their parent’s email, sends a note to the parent letting them know that they need to verify that they’re an adult for the child to proceed, and offers the facial-age scanning estimation as a possible verification method.
2. (Yes, let’s assume for a moment that the kid doesn’t do what every 10-year-old online does and lie about their age, or let’s assume the website or app has a way of recognizing it’s dealing with a kid, such as asking for some kind of ID.)
3. If the parent consents to having their face scanned, their system then takes a selfie and the software provides an age estimate.
4. If the age guesstimate indicates the parent is an adult, the kid can then proceed to the website. But if it determines they are not an adult, a couple of things happen.
5. If ‘there is some other uncertainty about whether the person is an adult’ then the person can choose an alternative verification method, such as a credit card, driver’s license, or social security number.
6. But if the method flat out decides they are not an adult, it’s a no go for access. We’re also going to assume here that the adult is actually the parent or legal guardian.”
Sure, why not? The tech works by converting one’s face into a set of numbers and feeding that to an AI that has been trained to assess age with those numbers. According to the ESRB, the actual facial scans are not saved for AI training, marketing, or any other purpose. But taking them, and their data-hungry partners, at their word is yet another assumption.
Cynthia Murrell, August 3, 2023
Research: A Suspicious Activity and Deserving of a Big Blinking X?
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The Stanford president does it. The Harvard ethics professor does it. Many journal paper authors do it. Why can’t those probing the innards of the company formerly known as Twatter do it?
I suppose those researchers can. The response to research one doesn’t accept can be a simple, “The data processes require review.” But no, no, no. The response elicited from the Twatter is presented in “X Sues Hate Speech Researchers Whose Scare Campaign Spooked Twitter Advertisers.” The headline is loaded with delicious weaponized words in my opinion; for instance, the ever popular “hate speech”, the phrase “scare campaign,” and “spooked.”
MidJourney, after some coaxing, spit out a frightened audience of past, present, and potential Twatter advertisers. I am not sure the smart software captured the reality of an advertiser faced with some brand-injuring information.
Wording aside, the totally objective real news write up reports:
X Corp sued a nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), for allegedly “actively working to assert false and misleading claims” regarding spiking levels of hate speech on X and successfully “encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform,” Twitter’s blog said.
I found this statement interesting:
X is alleging that CCDH is being secretly funded by foreign governments and X competitors to lob this attack on the platform, as well as claiming that CCDH is actively working to censor opposing viewpoints on the platform. Here, X is echoing statements of US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the CCDH of being a “foreign dark money group” in 2021—following a CCDH report on 12 social media accounts responsible for 65 percent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, Fox Business reported.
Imagine. The Musker questioning research.
Exactly what is “accurate” today? One could query the Stanford president, the Harvard ethicist, Mr. Musk, or the executives of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Wow. That sounds like work, probably as daunting as reviewing the methodology used for the report.
My moral and ethical compass is squarely tracking lunch today. No attorneys invited. No litigation necessary if my soup is cold. I will be dining in a location far from the spot once dominated by a quite beefy, blinking letter signifying Twatter. You know. I think I misspelled “tweeter.” I will fix it soon. Sorry.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Building Trust a Step at a Time the Silicon Valley Way
August 2, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. (´?_?`) Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
I know that most companies are not really “in” Silicon Valley. It is a figure of speech to put certain firms and their business practices in a basket. I then try to find something useful to say about the basket. Please, feel free to disagree. Just note that I am a dinobaby, and I am often reluctant to discard my perceptions. Look at the positive side of this mental orientation: If and when you are 78, you too can analyze from a perspective guaranteed to be different from the 20-somethings who are the future of lots of stuff; for example, who gets medical care. Think about that.
I read “Meta, Amazon and Microsoft team up to take down Google Maps.” The source is a newspaper which I label “estimable tabloid.” The story caught my attention because it identified what this dinobaby perceives as collusion among commercial enterprises. My hunch is that some people living outside the US might label the business approach different. Classification debates are the most fun when held at information science trade shows. Vendors explain why their classification system is the absolute best way to put information in baskets. Exciting.
So my basket contains three outfits which want to undermine or get the biggest piece of the map action that Google controls. None of these outfits are monopolistic. If they were, the Cracker Jack US government agency charged with taking action against outfits that JP Morgan would definitely want to own would not lose its cases against a few big tech outfits.
The article explains:
The Operture Maps Foundation is an open initiative, making it a compelling alternative to Google Maps for app and software-makers. Google Maps takes a closed approach, giving Google greater control over how its map data is used and implemented. It also charges app developers for access to Google Maps, based on how many times the app’s users call on mapping info.
I wonder if this suggests that Operture Maps is different from the Google?
The article points out:
Overture Maps Foundation was established in 2022, as a partnership between Amazon AWS, Microsoft, Meta and TomTom. Its aim is “to create the smartest map on the planet,” according to TomTom VP of Engineering Mike Harrell. It also aims to make sure all your map needs in the future won’t be supplied by either Google or Apple.
I interpret this passage to mean that three big dogs want to team up to become a bigger dog. The consequence of being a bigger dog is that it can chow down on the goodies destined for the behemoths Apple and Google.
Viewed from the perspective of a consumer, I see this as an attempt for three “competitors” to team up and go after Apple and Google. Each company has a map business. Viewed as a person who worked in government entities for a number of years, I can interpret this tie up as a way to get some free meals and maybe a boondoggle from one or more lobbyists working on behalf of these firms. Viewed as someone concerned about the ineffectual nature of US regulation of the activities of big tech, I am more inclined than ever to use a paper map.
Will the Silicon Valley “way” work in other nation states? Probably not. China has taken steps to manage some of these super duper outfits within their borders. The European Union is skeptical of many big tech, Silicon Valley ideas. But at the end of the fiscal year, will objections matter?
I know what my answer is. Grab that paper map. We’re going on a road trip with location tracking and selective information whether I like it or not. I think I trust my paper map.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Hollywood and Unintended Consequences: The AI Puppy Has Escaped
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
For most viewers, the ongoing writers’ and actors’ guild strikes simply mean the unwelcome delay of their usual diversions. Perhaps they will revisit an old hobby or refresh themselves on what an in-person sunset looks like. But for those in the entertainment industry, this is nothing short of a fight for their livelihoods and, for some, human innovation itself. The Hollywood Reporter transcribes an interview with a prominent SAG-AFTRA negotiator in, “Justine Bateman: Pulling AI Into the Arts is ‘Absolutely the Wrong Direction’.”
Streaming is one major issue in these strikes. Studios are making big bucks off that technology but, strikers assert, pre-streaming contracts fail to protect the interests of actors, writers, and other content creators. Then there is AI, which many see as the bigger threat. Studio efforts to profit from algorithm-built content is already well underway. So, if the studios win out in these negotiations, don’t plan on being a Hollywood writer unless you are really famous, know AI methods, and have a friend in the executive suite. Others can practice van life.
Bateman is very concerned about that issue, of course, but she is also anxious for our collective creative soul. She states:
“Generative AI can only function if you feed it a bunch of material. In the film business, it constitutes our past work. Otherwise, it’s just an empty blender and it can’t do anything on its own. That’s what we were looking at the time [at UCLA]. Machine learning and generative AI have exploded since then. … When I could see that it was going to be used to widen profit margins, in white-collar jobs and more generally replace human expression with our past human expression, I just went, ‘This is an end of the progression of society if we just stayed here.’ If you keep recycling what we’ve got from the past, nothing new will ever be generated. If generative AI started in the beginning of the 20th century, we would never have had jazz, rock ’n’ roll, film noir. That’s what it stops. There are some useful applications to it — I don’t know of that many —but pulling it into the arts is absolutely the wrong direction.'”
So, are the WAG and SAG-AFTRA negotiators all that stand between us and a future of culture-on-repeat? Somehow, this dino-baby has faith human creativity is powerful enough to win out in the end. Just not sure how.
Cynthia Murrell, August 2, 2023
Google: When Wizards Cannot Talk to One Another
August 1, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
Google is in the vanguard of modern management methods. As a dinobaby, I thought that employees who disagree would talk about the issue and work out a solution. Perhaps it would be a test of Option A and Option B? Maybe a small working group would dive into a tough technical point and generate a list of talking points for further discussion, testing, and possibly an opinion from a consulting firm?
How would my old-fashioned approach work?
One youthful wizard says, “Your method is not in line with the one we have selected.” The other youthful wizard replies, “Have you tested both and logged the data?” The very serious wizard with the bigger salary responds, “That’s not necessary. Your method is not in line with the one we have selected. By the way, you may find your future elsewhere.” Thanks MidJourney. You have nailed the inability of certain smart people to discuss without demeaning another. Has this happened to you MidJourney?
The answer is, “Are you crazy?”
Navigate to “Google Fails to Get AI Engineer Lawsuit Claiming Wrongful Termination Thrown Out.” As I understand the news report, Google allegedly fired a person who wrote a paper allegedly disagreeing with another Google paper. This, if true, reminded me of the Stochastic Parrot dust up which made Googler Dr. Timnit Gebru a folk hero among some. She is finding her future elsewhere now.
Navigate to the cited article to get more details.
Several points:
- Google appears to be unable to resolve internal discussions without creating PR instead of technical progress.
- The management methods strike me as illogical. I recall discussions with Googlers about the importance of logic, and it is becoming clear to me that Google logic follows it own rules. (Perhaps Google people managers should hire people that can thrive within Google logic?)
- The recourse to the legal system to resolve which may be a technical matter is intellectually satisfying. I am confident that judges, legal eagles, expert witnesses are fully versed in chip engineering for complex and possibly proprietary methods. Have Google people management personnel considered just hiring such multi-faceted legal brains and eliminating wrong-thinking engineers?
Net net: A big time “real” news reporter objected to my use of the phrase “high school management methods.” Okay, perhaps “adolescent management methods” or “adolescent thought processes” are more felicitous phrases. But not for me. These fascinating Google management methods which generate news and legal precedents may render it unnecessary for the firm to use such words as “trust,” “user experience,” and other glittering generalities.
The reality is that cooperative resolution seems to be a facet of quantum supremacy that this dinobaby does not understand.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2023
Impossible. A Google AI Advocates for Plagiarism? Impossible.
August 1, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google became the world’s leading search engine because of its quality results. Alphabet Inc. might lose that title with its new “Search Generative Experience” (SGE) that uses an AI algorithm to copies and paste text from across the Internet and claims them as original content. SGE plagiarizes its information and even worse it cites false information. The article “Plagiarism Engine: Google’s Content-Swiping AI Could Break The Internet” posted on Tom’s Hardware examines SGE’s beta phase.
SGE’s search results page contains advice and answers from Google that occupy the entire first screen, requiring users to scroll to find organic search results. Google explains that they are experimenting with SGE and it will change before it’s deployed. Google claims it wants to put Web sites front and center, but their location in SGE (three blocks to the right of search results) will get few clicks and these are not always the best resources.
SGE attempts to answer search results with cobbled together text chunks that appear at the top of results pages. These text chunks are a mess:
“Even worse, the answers in Google’s SGE boxes are frequently plagiarized, often word-for-word, from the related links. Depending on what you search for, you may find a paragraph taken from just one source or get a whole bunch of sentences and factoids from different articles mashed together into a plagiarism stew. … It’s pretty easy to find sources that back up your claims when your claims are word-for-word copied from those sources. While the bot could do a better job of laundering its plagiarism, it’s inevitable that the response would come from some human’s work. No matter how advanced LLMs get, they will never be the primary source of facts or advice and can only repurpose what people have done.”
Google’s SGE has many negative implications. It touts false information as the truth. The average Internet user trusts Google to promote factual information and they do not investigate beyond the first search page. This will cause individual and societal harm, ranging from incorrect medical information to promoting conspiracy theories.
Google is purposely doing this an anti-competition practice. Google wants users to stay on its Web sites as long as possible. The implications of SGE as an all-encompassing search experience and information source support that practice.
Google and SGE steal people’s original work that irrevocably harms the publishing, art, and media industries. Media companies are already suing Google and other AI-based companies to protect their original content. The best way to stop Google is for an ultimate team-up between media companies:
“Companies could band together, through trade associations, to demand that Google respect intellectual property and not take actions that would destroy the open web as we know it. Readers can help by either scrolling past the company’s SGE to click on organic results or switching to a different search engine. Bing has shown a better way to incorporate AI, making its chatbot the non-default option and citing every piece of information it uses with a specific link back…”
If media companies teamed together for a class action lawsuit it could stop Google’s SGE bad practices and could even breakup Google’s monopoly.
Whitney Grace, August 1, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
