Have You Tried to Delete Chat or Any Other Information from a Google System?
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-6.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Several years ago, I mistyped my email address on an Android device I was testing. When I set up another Android mobile, the misspelled email appeared. We searched available files on the mobile, Google’s email list for the account, and even poked under the hood to locate the misspelled email. There was no “delete” function, but its omission would not have made a difference. The misspelled email was there but not there. SMS messages are often equally slippery. Delete a thread and bang, it’s back. Somewhere, somehow, the wizards at Google have the ability to “find” information even thought the user cannot. Innovation, oversight, carelessness, or a stupid user? My thought is that the blame falls upon the stupid user.
A young engineer strokes the controls of the deletion and online tracking subsystem. With some careful knob twisting, the giant machine can output a reality shaped by the operator’s whims, fancies, and goals. Hey, MidJourney, how about that circular picture?
“History Is Turned Off”: What Google’s (Deleted) Chats Mean for Its Antitrust Battle with the DOJ”, if accurate, suggests a different capability exists for some Googlers. The article asserts:
lawyers for the U.S. government have tried to draw attention to a giant black hole at the center of the trial: a “remarkable” number of deleted employee chat conversations apparently about issues relevant to its lawsuit and others. “[A]lso can we change the setting of this group to history off,” CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in an October 2021 chat to one of his lieutenants ahead of a “leaders circle” meeting. History off meant their conversation would be deleted from the servers after 24 hours. Nine seconds later, Pinchai apparently tried to delete his message. When asked later under oath about the attempted deletion, he answered, “I don’t recall.”
True or false? The article adds this assertion:
In defending its auto-deletions, Google told the court that not saving all of those old chats would have been too burdensome, but it couldn’t prove that Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.”
The cited article contains additional information about missing data, deletions, or lapses of one sort or another. Googlers, it appears, are human.
Several observations:
- Those deletion tools appear to exist and work.
- Google’s storage subsystems do not contain certain information.
- Googler’s operate in a dimension which is different from the one in which users and possibly some non-Googley lawyers and advisors fellow travelers do not.
But will this assertion about “managing” information or “shaping” data matter? With the redacted documents and the restrictions placed on information reaching the public humming along, it seems as if a Silicon Valley reality distortion field is online and working. History is not turned off; it is framed and populated with filtered information. Thus, what Google does is the reality for many.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
What Is the US High-Tech Service Hosing Bad Info? X Marks the Spot for the EU
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-7.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I do my little, inconsequential blog posts to pass my time. I am a dinobaby, not an entitled and over-confident Millennial or troubled GenX or GenY grouser. The Twitter thing did not seem useful to me as a career builder, personal megaphone, and individualized hype machine. Sure, we once had a script to post headlines of my blog posts, but I don’t think that I had a single constructive outcome from that automated effort. However, Twitter or X did provide me with examples of bad actors, general scams, and assorted craziness for my lectures. But Twitter or X did not mark the spot for me.
Exactly who is the happy humanoid lost in space? Is it an EU regulator? Is it a certain Silicon Valley wizard? Is it journalist who wants to be famous on the X Twitter thing? Thanks, MidJourney. Your gradient descent is accelerating.
But the EU is a different beastie. I am a dinobaby; the EU is chock full of educated regulators, policy makers, and big thinkers. “The EU Says Twitter/X Is the Worst Platform for Disinformation” explains that X (the spot marker) is making it tough to report election misinformation just as the EU wants it to be easier to report the allegedly bad stuff. The article states:
The European Union has identified X, formerly Twitter, as the social media platform with the highest ratio of misinformation/disinformation posts. The news came just as X disabled a feature that allows users to report misinformation related to elections.
The article adds:
It was found that X, which is no longer under the voluntary Code, is the worst social media platform when it comes to this practice. It was also discovered that those spreading disinformation had a lot more followers than those who did not and they tend to have joined the platform more recently. The Code has 44 signatories, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, TikTok, and LinkedIn. Musk’s platform pulled out of the Code in May, a move that followed EU warnings that a lack of moderation could be inadvertently helping Vladimir Putin as Russian propaganda relating to the war in Ukraine isn’t being removed.
True or false? That depends, of course.
What’s interesting is that the X.com Twitter thing charts its own course on its poly-dimensional business road map. How will this work out? Probably in ways beyond the ken of a dinobaby. No wonder so many regulators are uncomfortable with US high-tech type companies.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
Does the NY Times Want Celebrity Journalists?
September 28, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-4.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “In the AI Age, The New York Times Wants Reporters to Tell Readers Who They Are.” subtitle is definitely Google pet food:
The paper is rolling out enhanced bios as “part of our larger mission to be more transparent,” says the Times’ Edmund Lee, and “as generative AI begins to creep into the media landscape.”
The write up states:
The idea behind the “enhanced bios,” as they are being called, is to put more of a face and a name to reporters, so as to foster greater trust with readers and, as more news elsewhere is written by generative AI, emphasize the paper’s human-led reporting.
“I am sorry, mom. I cannot reveal my sources. You have to trust me when I say, ‘Gran is addicted to trank.’” Thanks, MidJourney. Carry on with the gradient descent.
I have a modest proposal: Why not identify sources, financial tie ups of reporters, and provide links to the Web pages and LinkedIn biographies of these luminaries?
I know. I know. Don’t be silly. Okay, I won’t be. But trust begins with verifiable facts and sources as that dinobaby Walter Isaacson told Lex Fridman a few days ago. And Mr. Isaacson provides sources too. How old fashioned.
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2023
What Is for Lunch? A Digital Hot Dog or Burger?
September 28, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-5.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “EU Warns Elon Musk after Twitter Found to Have Highest Rate of Disinformation.” My hunch is that the European Union did not plan on getting into the swamps of epistemological thought. But there the EU is. Knee deep. The write up includes a pointer too research about “disinformation.”
“Do I want a digital hot dog or a digital burger?” The young decider must choose when grazing online. He believes he likes both hot dogs and burgers. But what is the right choice? Mom will tell him. Thanks, MidJourney, you gradient descent master.
The cited article states:
On Twitter, she [European commissioner V?ra Jourová] said “disinformation actors were found to have significantly more followers than their non-disinformation counterparts and tend to have joined the platform more recently than non-disinformation users”.
The challenge in my mind is one that occupied Henri Bergson. Now the EU wants to codify what information is “okay” and what information is “not okay.” The point of view becomes important. The actual “disinformation” is “information.” Therefore, the EU wants to have the power to make the determination.
Is it possible the EU wants to become the gatekeeper? Is information blocked or deleted “gone”? What about those who believe the “disinformation”? Pretty exciting and probably a bit problematic if the majority of a population believe the “disinformation” to be accurate. How does one resolve this challenge?
Another committee meeting to neutralize “disinformation” and the technologies facilitating dissemination? Sounds like a good next step? What’s for lunch?
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2023
Python Algorithms? Hello, Excel
September 27, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-2.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Believe it or not, the T-Mobile WiFi worked on an eight-hour Delta flight from Europe to the Atlanta airport on September 24, 2023. Who knew?
On that flight I came across a page on GitHub called “TheAlgorithms” (sic). I clicked and browsed and was quite impressed with 40 categories and the specific algorithms within each. The “Other” category had two dozen algorithms ranging from a doomsday algorithm to a method to replace flake8 with ruff.
The individual categories include some AI magnets like “Neural Network” and “Machine Learning.” Remember there are more than 35 additional baskets. There’s only one python routine for “Genetic Algorithms” but categories like “Physics” and “Searches” seem particularly useful.
The collection has a disclaimer; to wit:
The algorithms are implemented in Python for education purpose only. These are just for demonstration purpose.
Some Excel jockeys may find some of them useful. My hunch is that second semester computer science majors may find “inspiration” in this collection.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2023
Who Will Ultimately Control AI?
September 27, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-3.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
In the Marvel comics universe, there is a being on Earth’s moon called The Watcher. He observes humanity and is not supposed to interfere with their affairs. Marvel’s The Watcher brings to mind the old adage, “Who watches the watcher?” While there is an endless amount of comic book lore to answer that question, the current controversial discussion surrounding AI regulations and who will watch AI does not. Time delves into the conversation about, “The Heated Debate Over Who Should Control Access To AI.”
In May 2023, the CEOs of three AI companies, OpenAI, Google, DeepMind, and Anthropic, signed a letter that stated AI could be harmful to humanity and as dangerous as nuclear weapons or a pandemic. AI experts and leaders are calling for restrictions on specific AI models to prevent bad actors from using it to spread disinformation, launch cyber attacks, make bioweapons, and cause other harm.
Not all of the experts and leaders agree, including the folks at Meta. US Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal, Ranking Member and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and Law don’t like that Meta is sharing powerful AI models.
“The disagreement between Meta and the Senators is just the beginning of a debate over who gets to control access to AI, the outcome of which will have wide-reaching implications. On one side, many prominent AI companies and members of the national security community, concerned by risks posed by powerful AI systems and possibly motivated by commercial incentives, are pushing for limits on who can build and access the most powerful AI systems. On the other, is an unlikely coalition of Meta, and many progressives, libertarians, and old-school liberals, who are fighting for what they say is an open, transparent approach to AI development.
OpenAI published a paper titled Frontier Model Regulation by researchers and academics from OpenAI, DeepMind, and Google with tips about how to control AI. Developing safety standards and requiring regulators to have visibility are no brainers. Other ideas, such as requiring AI developers to acquire a license to train and deploy powerful AI models, caused arguments. Licensing would be a good idea in the future but not great for today’s world.
Meta releases its AI models via open source or paid licenses for its more robust models. Meta’s CEO did say something idiotic:
Meta’s leadership is also not convinced that powerful AI systems could pose existential risks. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Meta, has said that he doesn’t understand the AI doomsday scenarios, and that those who drum up these scenarios are “pretty irresponsible.” Yann LeCun, Turing Award winner and chief AI scientist at Meta has said that fears over extreme AI risks are ‘preposterously stupid.’’”
The remainder of the article delves into how regulations limit innovation, surveillance would be Orwellian in nature, and how bad acting countries wouldn’t follow the rules. It’s once again the same old arguments repackaged with an AI sticker.
Who will control AI? Gee, maybe the same outfits controlling information and software right this minute?
Whitney Grace, September 27, 2023
Getty and Its Licensed Smart Software Art
September 26, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. (Yep, the dinobaby is back from France. Thanks to those who made the trip professionally and personally enjoyable.)
The illustration shows a very, very happy image rights troll. The cloud of uncertainty from AI generated images has passed. Now the rights software bots, controlled by cheerful copyright trolls, can scour the Web for unauthorized image use. Forget the humanoids. The action will be from tireless AI generators and equally robust bots designed to charge a fee for the image created by zeros and ones. Yes!
A quite joyful copyright troll displays his killer moves. Thanks, MidJourney. The gradient descent continues, right into the legal eagles’ nests.
“Getty Made an AI Generator That Only Trained on Its Licensed Images” reports:
Generative AI by Getty Images (yes, it’s an unwieldy name) is trained only on the vast Getty Images library, including premium content, giving users full copyright indemnification. This means anyone using the tool and publishing the image it created commercially will be legally protected, promises Getty. Getty worked with Nvidia to use its Edify model, available on Nvidia’s generative AI model library Picasso.
This is exciting. Will the images include a tough-to-discern watermark? Will the images include a license plate, a social security number, or a just a nifty sting of harmless digits?
The article does reveal the money angle:
The company said any photos created with the tool will not be included in the Getty Images and iStock content libraries. Getty will pay creators if it uses their AI-generated image to train the current and future versions of the model. It will share revenues generated from the tool, “allocating both a pro rata share in respect of every file and a share based on traditional licensing revenue.”
Who will be happy? Getty, the trolls, or the designers who have a way to be more productive with a helping hand from the Getty robot? I think the world will be happier because monetization, smart software, and lawyers are a business model with legs… or claws.
Stephen E Arnold, September 26, 2023
YouTube and Those Kiddos. Greed or Weird Fascination?
September 26, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google and its YouTube subsidiary are in probably in trouble again because they are spying on children. Vox explores if “Is YouTube Tracking Your Kids Again?” and sending them targeted ads. Two reports find that YouTube continues to collect data on kids despite promises not to do so. If YouTube is collecting data and sending targeted ads to young viewers it would violate the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection act (COPPA) and Google’s consent decree with the FTC.
Google agreed to the consent decree with the FTC to stop collecting kids’ online activity and selling it to advertisers. In order to regulate and comply with the decree and COPPA, YouTube creators must say if their channels or individual videos are kid friendly. If they are designated kid friendly then Google doesn’t collect data on the viewers. This only occurs on regular YouTube and not YouTube Kids.
Fairplay and Analytics researched YouTube data collection and released compromising reports. Fairplay, a children’s online safety group, had an ad campaign on YouTube and asked for it to target made for kids videos. The group discovered their ads played on videos that were kids only, basically confirming that targeted ads are still being shown to kids. Analytics found evidence that supports kid data collection too:
“The firm found trackers that Google uses specifically for advertising purposes and what appear to be targeted ads on “made for kids” videos. Clicking on those ads often took viewers to outside websites that definitely did collect data on them, even if Google didn’t. The report is careful to say that the advertising cookies might not be used for personalized advertising — only Google knows that — and so may still be compliant with the law. And Adalytics says the report is not definitively saying that Google violated COPPA: ‘The study is meant to be viewed as a highly preliminary observational analysis of publicly available information and empirical data.’”
Google denies the allegations and claims the information in the reports are skewed. YouTube states that ads on made for kids videos are contextual rather than targeted, implying they are shown to all kids instead of individualizing content. If Google and YouTube are to be in violation of the FTC decree and COPPA, Alphabet Inc would pay a very expensive fine.
It is hard to define what services and products that Google can appropriately offer kids. Google has a huge education initiative with everything from laptops to email services. Republicans and Democrats agree that it is important to protect kids online and hold Google and other companies liable. Will Google pay fines and not worry about the consequences? I have an idea. Let’s ask Meta’s new kid-oriented AI initiative. That sounds like a fine idea.
Whitney Grace, September 26, 2023
Recent Facebook Experiments Rely on Proprietary Meta Data
September 25, 2023
When one has proprietary data, researchers who want to study that data must work with you. That gives Meta the home court advantage in a series of recent studies, we learn from the Science‘s article, “Does Social Media Polarize Voters? Unprecedented Experiments on Facebook Users Reveal Surprises.” The 2020 Facebook and Instagram Election Study has produced four papers so far with 12 more on the way. The large-scale experiments confirm Facebook’s algorithm pushes misinformation and reinforces filter bubbles, especially on the right. However, they seem to indicate less influence on users’ views and behavior than many expected. Hmm, why might that be? Writer Kai Kupferschmidt states:
“But the way the research was done, in partnership with Meta, is getting as much scrutiny as the results themselves. Meta collaborated with 17 outside scientists who were not paid by the company, were free to decide what analyses to run, and were given final say over the content of the research papers. But to protect the privacy of Facebook and Instagram users, the outside researchers were not allowed to handle the raw data. This is not how research on the potential dangers of social media should be conducted, says Joe Bak-Coleman, a social scientist at the Columbia School of Journalism.”
We agree, but when companies maintain a stranglehold on data researchers’ hands are tied. Is it any wonder big tech balks at calls for transparency? The article also notes:
“Scientists studying social media may have to rely more on collaborations with companies like Meta in the future, says [participating researcher Deen] Freelon. Both Twitter and Reddit recently restricted researchers’ access to their application programming interfaces or APIs, he notes, which researchers could previously use to gather data. Similar collaborations have become more common in economics, political science, and other fields, says [participating researcher Brendan] Nyhan. ‘One of the most important frontiers of social science research is access to proprietary data of various sorts, which requires negotiating these one-off collaboration agreements,’ he says. That means dependence on someone to provide access and engage in good faith, and raises concerns about companies’ motivations, he acknowledges.”
See the article for more details on the experiments, their results so far, and their limitations. Social scientist Michael Wagner, who observed the study and wrote a commentary to accompany their publication, sees the project as a net good. However, he acknowledges, future research should not be based on this model where the company being studied holds all the data cards. But what is the alternative?
Cynthia Murrell, September 25, 2023
If It Looks Like a Library, It Must Be Bad
September 25, 2023
The Internet Archive is the best digital archive that preserves the Internet’s past as well as the old media, out of print books, and more. The Internet Archive (IA) has been the subject of various legal battles regarding copyright infringement, especially in its project to scan and lend library books. Publishers Weekly details the results of the recent court battle: “Judgment Entered In Publishers, Internet Copyright Case.”
Judge John G. Koeltl issued a summary judgment decision that the Internet Archive did violate copyright and infringed on the holders’ rights. The IA and the plaintiffs reached an semi-agreement about distributing digital copies of copyrighted material but the details are not finalized. The IA plans to appeal the judge’s decision. A large continent of record labels are also suing the IA for violating music copyright.
The IA has a noble mission but it should respect copyright holders. The Subreddit DataHoarder has a swan song for the archive: “The Internet Archive Will Die-Any Serious Attempts At Archiving It?” User mikemikehindpart laments about the IA’s demise and blames the IA’s leadership for the potential shutdown. His biggest concern is about preserving the archive:
“I can’t really figure out any non-conspiratorial explanation as to why the IA people have not organized a grand archiving of the IA itself while there is still time. Is there any such initiative going on that one could join?”
User mikemikehindpart lambasts the IA leaders and claims they will go down in as self-proclaimed martyrs while dutifully handing over their hard drives if authorities come knocking. This user wants to preserve the archive especially defunct software, old Web sites, and other media that is not preserved anywhere else:
“fear is that the courts will soon order the site to be suspended while the trial is ongoing, so as to not cause further harm to the rights holders. Like turning off a switch, poof.
Eventually the entire archive will be ordered destroyed, not just the books and music. And piracy of popular books and music will continue like nothing happened, but all those website snapshots, blogs and lost software will simply disappear, like so many Yahoo! groups did.”
The comments vary on efforts how to start efforts to preserve the IA, to non-helpful non-sequiturs, and a few realistic posts that the IA may continue. The realistic posts agree the IA could continue if it stop sharing the copyrighted material and a consensus might be reached among IA and its “enemies.”
There are also comments that point to a serious truth: no one else is documenting the Internet, especially free stuff. One poster suggested that the Library of Congress should partner with the IA. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.
Whitney Grace, September 21, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
