Google: Slip Slidin Away? Not Yet. Defaults Work
November 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I spotted a short item in the online information service called Quartz. The story had a click magnet title, and it worked for me. “Is This the Beginning of the End of Google’s Dominance in Search?” asks a rhetorical question without providing much of an answer. The write up states:
The tech giant’s market share is being challenged by an increasingly crowded field
I am not sure what this statement means. I noticed during the week of November 6, 2023, that the search system 50kft.com stopped working. Is the service dead? Is it experiencing technical problems? No one knows. I also checked Newslookup.com. That service remains stuck in the past. And Blogsurf.io seems to be a goner. I am not sure where the renaissance in Web search is. Is there a digital Florence, Italy, I have overlooked?
A search expert lounging in the hammock of habit. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. You do understand some concepts like laziness when it comes to changing search defaults, don’t you?
The write up continues:
Google has been the world’s most popular search engine since its launch in 1997. In October, it was holding a market share of 91.6%, according to web analytics tracker StatCounter. That’s down nearly 80 basis points from a year before, though a relatively small dent considering OpenAI’s ChatGPT was introduced late last year.
And what’s number two? How about Bing with a market share of 3.1 percent according to the numbers in the article.
Some people know that Google has spent big bucks to become the default search engine in places that matter. What few appreciate is that being a default is the equivalent of finding oneself in a comfy habit hammock. Changing the default setting for search is just not worth the effort.
What I think is happening is the conflation of search and retrieval with another trend. The new thing is letting software generate what looks like an answer. Forget that the outputs of a system based on smart software may be wonky or just incorrect. Thinking up a query is difficult.
But Web search sucks. Google is in a race to create bigger, more inviting hammocks.
Google is not sliding into a loss of market share. The company is coming in for the kill as it demonstrates its financial resolve with regard to the investment in Character.ai.
Let me be clear: Finding actionable information today is more difficult than at any previous time in my 50 year career in online information. Why? Software struggles to match content to what a human needs to solve certain problems. Finding a pizza joint or getting a list of results for further reading just looks like an answer. To move beyond good enough so the pizza joint does not gag a maggot or the list of citations is beyond the user’s reading level is not what’s required.
We are stuck in the Land of Good Enough, lounging in habit hammocks, and living the good life. Some people wear a T shirt with the statement, “Ignorance is bliss. Hello, Happy.”
Net net: I think the write up projects a future in which search becomes really easy and does the thinking for the humanoids. But for now, it’s the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2023
Pundit Recounts Amazon Sins and Their Fixes
November 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Sci-fi author and Pluralistic blogger Cory Doctorow is not a fan of Amazon. In fact, he declares, “Amazon Is a Ripoff.” His article references several sources to support this assertion, beginning with Lina Khan’s 2017 cautionary paper published in the Yale Law Journal. Now head of the FTC, Khan is bringing her expertise to bear in a lawsuit against the monopoly. We are reminded how tech companies have been able to get away with monopolistic practices thus far:
“There’s a cheat-code in US antitrust law, one that’s been increasingly used since the Reagan administration, when the ‘consumer welfare’ theory (‘monopolies are fine, so long as the lower prices’) shoved aside the long-established idea that antitrust law existed to prevent monopolies from forming at all. The idea that a company can do anything to create or perpetuate a monopoly so long as its prices go down and/or its quality goes up is directly to blame for the rise of Big Tech.”
But what, exactly, is shady about Amazon’s practices? From confusing consumers through complexity and gouging them with “drip pricing” to holding vendors over a barrel, Doctorow describes the company’s sins in this long, specific, and heavily linked diatribe. He then pulls three rules to hold Amazon accountable from a paper by researchers Tim O’Reilly, Ilan Strauss, and Mariana Mazzucato: Force the company to halt its most deceptive practices, mandate interoperability between it and comparison shopping sites, and create legal safe harbors for the scraping that underpins such interoperability. The invective concludes:
“I was struck by how much convergence there is among different kinds of practitioners, working against the digital sins of very different kinds of businesses. From the CFPB using mandates and privacy rules to fight bank rip-offs to behavioral economists thinking about Amazon’s manipulative search results. This kind of convergence is exciting as hell. After years of pretending that Big Tech was good for ‘consumers,’ we’ve not only woken up to how destructive these companies are, but we’re also all increasingly in accord about what to do about it. Hot damn!”
He sounds so optimistic. Are big changes ahead? Don’t forget to sign up for Prime.
Cynthia Murrell, November 14, 2023
Google Apple: These Folks Like Geniuses and Numbers in the 30s
November 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The New York Post published a story which may or may not be one the money. I would suggest that the odds of it being accurate are in the 30 percent range. In fact, 30 percent is emerging as a favorite number. Apple, for instance, imposes what some have called a 30 percent “Apple tax.” Don’t get me wrong. Apple is just trying to squeak by in a tough economy. I love the connector on the MacBook Air which is unlike any Apple connector in my collection. And the $130 USB cable? Brilliant.
The poor Widow Apple is pleading with the Bank of Googzilla for a more favorable commission. The friendly bean counter is not willing to pay more than one third of the cash take. “I want to pay you more, but hard times are upon us, Widow Apple. Might we agree on a slightly higher number?” The poor Widow Apple sniffs and nods her head in agreement as the frail child Mac Air the Third whimpers.
The write up which has me tangled in 30s is “Google Witness Accidentally Reveals Company Pays Apple 36% of Search Ad Revenue.” I was enthralled with the idea that a Google witness could do something by accident. I assumed Google witnesses were in sync with the giant, user centric online advertising outfit.
The write up states:
Google pays Apple a 36% share of search advertising revenue generated through its Safari browser, one of the tech giant’s witnesses accidentally revealed in a bombshell moment during the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust trial on Monday. The flub was made by Ken Murphy, a University of Chicago economist and the final witness expected to be called by Google’s defense team.
Okay, a 36 percent share: Sounds fair. True, it is a six percent premium on the so-called “Apple tax.” But Google has the incentive to pay more for traffic. That “pay to play” business model is indeed popular it seems.
The write up “Usury in Historical Perspective” includes an interesting passage; to wit:
Mews and Abraham write that 5,000 years ago Sumer (the earliest known human civilization) had its own issues with excessive interest. Evidence suggests that wealthy landowners loaned out silver and barley at rates of 20 percent or more, with non-payment resulting in bondage. In response, the Babylonian monarch occasionally stepped in to free the debtors.
A measly 20 percent? Flash forward to the present. At 36 percent inflation has not had much of an impact on the Apple Google deal.
Who is University of Chicago economist who allegedly revealed a super secret number? According to the always-begging Wikipedia, he is a person who has written more than 50 articles. He is a recipient of the MacArthur Fellowship sometimes known as a “genius grant.” Ergo a genius.
I noted this passage in the allegedly accurate write up:
Google had argued as recently as last week that the details of the agreement were sensitive company information – and that revealing the info “would unreasonably undermine Google’s competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.” Schmidtlein [Google’s robust legal eagle] and other Google attorneys have pushed back on DOJ’s assertions regarding the default search engine deals. The company argues that its payments to Apple, AT&T and other firms are fair compensation.
I like the phrase “fair compensation.” It matches nicely with the 36 percent commission on top of the $25 billion Google paid Apple to make the wonderful Google search system the default in Apple’s Safari browser. The money, in my opinion, illustrates the depth of love users have for the Google search system. Presumably Google wants to spare the Safari user the hassle required to specify another Web search system like Bing.com or Yandex.com.
Goodness, Google cares about its users so darned much, I conclude.
Despite the heroic efforts of Big Tech on Trial, I find that getting information about a trial between the US and everyone’s favorite search system difficult. Why the secrecy? Why the redactions? Why the cringing when the genius revealed the 36 percent commission?
I think I know why. Here are three reasons for the cringe:
- Google is thin skinned. Criticism is not part of the game plan, particularly with high school reunions coming up.
- Google understands that those not smart enough (like the genius Ken Murphy) would not understand the logic of the number. Those who are not Googley won’t get it, so why bother to reveal the number?
- Google hires geniuses. Geniuses don’t make mistakes. Therefore, the 36 percent reveal is numeric proof of the sophistication of Google’s analytic expertise. Apple could have gotten more money; Google is the winner.
Net net: My hunch is that the cloud of unknowing wrapped around the evidence in this trial makes clear that the Google is just doing what anyone smart enough to work at Google would do. Cleverness is good. Being a genius is good. Appearing to be dumb is not Googley. Oh, oh. I am not smart enough to see the sheer brilliance of the number, its revelation, and how it makes Google even more adorable with its super special deals.
Stephen E Arnold, November 13, 2023
The OpenAI Algorithm: More Data Plus More Money Equals More Intelligence
November 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Financial Times (I continue to think of this publication as the weird orange newspaper) published an interview converted to a news story. The title is an interesting one; to wit: “OpenAI Chief Seeks New Microsoft Funds to Build Superintelligence.” Too bad the story is about the bro culture in the Silicon Valley race to become the king of smart software’s revenue streams.
The hook for the write up is Sam Altman (I interpret the wizard’s name as Sam AI-Man), who appears to be fighting a bro battle with the Google’s, the current champion of online advertising. At stake is a winner takes all goal in the next big thing, smart software.
In the clubby world of smart software, I find the posturing of Google and OpenAI an extension of the mentality which pits owners of Ferraris (slick, expensive, and novel machines) in a battle of for the opponent’s hallucinating machine. The patter goes like this, “My Ferrari is faster, better looking, and brighter red than yours,” one owner says. The other owner says, “My Ferrari is newer, better designed, and has a storage bin”.) This is man cave speak for what counts.
When tech bros talk about their powerful machines, the real subject is what makes a man a man. In this case the defining qualities are money and potency. Thanks, Microsoft Bing, I have looked at the autos in the Microsoft and Google parking lots. Cool, macho.
The write up introduces what I think is a novel term: “Magic intelligence.” That’s T shirt grade sloganeering. The idea is that smart software will become like a person, just smarter.
One passage in the write up struck me as particularly important. The subject is orchestration, which is not the word Sam AI-Man uses. The idea is that the smart software will knit together the processes necessary to complete complex tasks. By definition, some tasks will be designed for the smart software. Others will be intended to make super duper for the less intelligent humanoids. Sam AI-Man is quoted by the Financial Times as saying:
“The vision is to make AGI, figure out how to make it safe . . . and figure out the benefits,” he said. Pointing to the launch of GPTs, he said OpenAI was working to build more autonomous agents that can perform tasks and actions, such as executing code, making payments, sending emails or filing claims. “We will make these agents more and more powerful . . . and the actions will get more and more complex from here,” he said. “The amount of business value that will come from being able to do that in every category, I think, is pretty good.”
The other interesting passage, in my opinion, is the one which suggests that the Google is not embracing the large language model approach. If the Google has discarded LLMs, the online advertising behemoth is embracing other, unnamed methods. Perhaps these are “small language models” in order to reduce costs and minimize the legal vulnerability some thing the LLM method beckons. Here’s the passage from the FT’s article:
While OpenAI has focused primarily on LLMs, its competitors have been pursuing alternative research strategies to advance AI. Altman said his team believed that language was a “great way to compress information” and therefore developing intelligence, a factor he thought that the likes of Google DeepMind had missed. “[Other companies] have a lot of smart people. But they did not do it. They did not do it even after I thought we kind of had proved it with GPT-3,” he said.
I find the bro jockeying interesting for three reasons:
- An intellectual jousting tournament is underway. Which digital knight will win? Both the Google and OpenAI appear to believe that the winner comes from a small group of contestants. (I wonder if non-US jousters are part of the equation “more data plus more money equals more intelligence”?
- OpenAI seems to be driving toward “beyond human” intelligence or possibly a form of artificial general intelligence. Google, on the other hand, is chasing a wimpier outcome.
- Outfits like the Financial Times are hot on the AI story. Why? The automated newsroom without humans promises to reduce costs perhaps?
Net net: AI vendors, rev your engines for superintelligence or magic intelligence or whatever jargon connotes more, more, more.
Stephen E Arnold, November 13, 2023
test
The Google Magic Editor: Mom Knows Best and Will Ground You, You Goof Off
November 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
What’s better at enforcing rules? The US government and its Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and regulatory authority or Mother Google? If you think the US government legal process into Google’s alleged fancy dancing with mere users is opaque, you are correct. The US government needs the Google more than Google Land needs the world’s governments. Who’s in charge of Google? The real authority is Mother Google, a ghost like iron maiden creating and enforcing with smart software many rules and regulations. Think of Mother Google operating from a digital Star Chamber. Banned from YouTube? Mother Google did it. Lost Web site traffic overnight? Mother Google did it? Lost control of your user data? Mother Google did not do that, of course.
A stern mother says, “You cannot make deep fakes involving your gym teacher and your fifth grade teacher. Do you hear me?” Thanks, Microsoft Bing. Great art.
The author of “Google Photos’ Magic Editor Will Refuse to Make These Edits.” The write up states:
Code within the latest version of Google Photos includes specific error messages that highlight the edits that Magic Editor will refuse to do. Magic Editor will refuse to edit photos of ID cards, receipts, images with personally identifiable information, human faces, and body parts. Magic Editor already avoids many of these edits but without specific error messages, leaving users guessing on what is allowed and what is not.
What’s interesting is that user have to discover that which is forbidden by experimenting. My reaction to this assertion is that Google does not want to get in trouble when a crafty teen cranks out fake IDs in order to visit some of the more interesting establishments in town.
I have a nagging suspicion or two I would like to share:
- The log files identifying which user tried to create what with which prompt would be interesting to review
- The list of don’ts is not published because it is adjusted to meet Google’s needs, not the users’
- Google wants to be able to say, “See, we are trying to keep the Internet safe, pure, and tidy.”
Net net: What happens when smart software enforces more potent and more subtle controls over the framing and presenting of information? Right, mom?
Stephen E Arnold, November 13, 2023
Bing Chatbot Caught Allowing Malicious Ads to Slip Through
November 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Bing has been so excited to share its integrated search chatbot with the world. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a wrinkle. Neowin reports, “Microsoft Is Reportedly Allowing Malicious Ads to Be Served on Bing’s AI Chat.” Citing a report from Malwarebytes, writer Mehrotra A tells us:
“Bing AI currently adds hyperlinks to text when responding to user queries and some times, these hyperlinks are sponsored ads. However, when Malwarebytes asked Bing AI how to download Advanced IP Scanner, it gave a hyperlink to a malicious website instead of the official website. While, Microsoft does put a small ad label next to the link, it is easy to overlook and an unsuspecting user will not think twice before clicking the link and downloading a file that could very well damage their system. In this instance, the ad opened a fake URL that filtered traffic and took the real users to a fake website that mimics the official Advanced IP Scanner website. Once some one runs the executable installer, the script tries to connect to an external IP address. Unfortunately, Malwarebytes did not find the final intention or the payload but it could have easily being a spyware or a ransomware.”
Quite the oversight. The write-up concludes Microsoft is not sufficiently vetting marketing campaigns before they go live. We can only hope Malwarebyte’s discovery will change that.
Cynthia Murrell, November 13, 2023
A New Union or Just a Let’s Have Lunch Moment for Two Tech Giants
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
There is nothing like titans of technology and revenue generation discovering a common interest. The thrill is the consummation and reaping the subsequent rewards. “Meta Lets Amazon Shoppers Buy Products on Facebook and Instagram without Leaving the Apps” explains:
Meta doesn’t want you to leave its popular mobile apps when making that impulse Amazon purchase. The company debuted a new feature allowing users to link their Facebook and Instagram accounts to Amazon so they can buy goods by clicking on promotions in their feeds.
Two amped up, big time tech bros discover that each has something the other wants. What is that? An opportunity to extend and exploit perhaps? Thanks, Microsoft Bing, you do get the drift of my text prompt, don’t you?
The Zuckbook’s properties touch billions of people. Some of those people want to buy “stuff.” Legitimate stuff has required the user to click away and navigate to the online bookstore to purchase a copy of the complete works of Francis Bacon. Now, the Instagram user can buy without leaving the comforting arms of the Zuck.
Does anyone have a problem with that tie up? I don’t. It is definitely a benefit for the teen who must have the latest lip gloss. It is good for Amazon because the hope is that Zucksters will buy from the online bookstore. The Meta outfit probably benefits with some sort of inducement. Maybe it is just a hug from Amazon executives? Maybe it is an opportunity to mud wrestle with Mr. Bezos if he decides to get down and dirty to show his physical prowess?
Will US regulators care? Will EU regulators care? Will anyone care?
I am not sure how to answer these questions. For decades the high tech outfits have been able to emulate the captains of industry in the golden age without much cause for concern. Continuity is good.
Will teens buy copies of Novum Organum? Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2023
For Google Management No Hurdle Is Too High
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read “Google’s Open Culture Collides With the Israel-Hamas War.” Note, gentle reader, that the Gray Lady charges for you to read her golden words of wisdom.
The main point of the write up is myth debunking. Google, as you may recall, is a wondrous place. The smartest people in the world (sorry, McKinsey, Booz Allen, JPMorgan Chase, et al, your employees are not Google grade. The proof? Those employees are not working at Google; therefore, the fentanyl thing, the Charlie Javice matter, the original BART mishap, etc.).
The young Googler looks at the high jump and says, “I am a Googler. I can jump over any hurdle. Logic and data will prevail.” Thanks, Microsoft Bing. With some Photoshop work, the image is a C+, not high school science club grade but “goog” enough.
The NYT reports as actual factual the following:
Google has long been a hub for employee activism, including over the company’s business with Israel. But workers looking to express support for Palestinians say they face hostility.
Is this a long-winded way to say, “Bias” or religious “persecution”? Yikes. At the Google, where data is the driver of decisions?
The news story offers:
Pro-Palestinian employees say the company has allowed supporters of Israel to speak freely about their opinions on the topic, while taking a heavy hand with Muslim employees who have criticized Israel’s retaliation in Gaza.
Interesting, but where’s the data, the objective information that comprises an intelligible signal?
The article continues:
But at Google, the issue has a unique meaning. Even compared with its Silicon Valley peers, Google has become a hub for employee activism, a legacy of the company’s open and informal founding culture.
I noted this somewhat downbeat sentence in the Gray Lady’s intentional or unintentional Google myth busting write up:
But now, he [a Google software engineer named Mr. Gilani] said, he’s worried that retaliation against Muslim employees is having a chilling effect on speech at Google, and he has developed a playbook for how to speak on the subject at work: Condemn Hamas and move on.
My view remains that Google is operating under the precepts of a high school science club. High school organizations like a science or math club do not want people in the meetings who cannot solder a defective LED bulb or who cannot talk about matrix multiplication. Is that discriminatory or a type of social barb wire fence to separate the good cattle from the bad sheep?
Several observations:
- Google management is confident it can jump over high hurdles. Google has management athletes in abundance
- The social issues within Google seem to clump like iron filings around a high school science club electro-magnet charged with race, religion, and gender. Note that I said “seem” because reality at Google may be a digital Utopia I am unable to perceive from rural Kentucky
- The article in the New York Times does little to keep the myth of Google and its happy logo from the dents and dings of culture.
I suppose there are data to prove that Google’s approach to management is on the money. What’s on the money is Google’s effort to generate advertising revenue, but that’s just the view of an old dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2023
iPad and Zoom Learning: Not Working As Well As Expected
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
It seemed (to many) like the best option at the time. As COVID-19 shuttered brick-and-mortar schools, it was educational technology to the rescue around the world! Or at least that was the idea. In reality, kids with no tech, online access, informed guidance, or a nurturing environment were left behind. Who knew? UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) has put out a book that documents what went wrong, questions the dominant ed-tech narratives from the pandemic, and explores what we can do better going forward. The full text of "An Ed-Tech Tragedy?" can be read or downloaded for free here. The press release states:
"The COVID-19 pandemic pushed education from schools to educational technologies at a pace and scale with no historical precedent. For hundreds of millions of students formal learning became fully dependent on technology – whether internet-connected digital devices, televisions or radios. An Ed-Tech Tragedy? examines the numerous adverse and unintended consequences of the shift to ed-tech. It documents how technology-first solutions left a global majority of learners behind and details the many ways education was diminished even when technology was available and worked as intended. In unpacking what went wrong, the book extracts lessons and recommendations to ensure that technology facilitates, rather than subverts, efforts to ensure the universal provision of inclusive, equitable and human-centered public education."
The book is divided into four parts. Act 1 recalls the hopes and promises behind the push to move quarantined students online. Act 2 details the unintended consequences: The hundreds of millions of students without access to or knowledge of technology who were left behind. The widened disparity between privileged and underprivileged households in parental time and attention. The decreased engagement of students with subject matter. The environmental impact. The increased acceptance of in-home surveillance and breaches of privacy. And finally, the corporate stranglehold on education, which was dramatically strengthened and may now prove nigh impossible to dislodge.
Next an "Inter-Act" section questions what we were told about online learning during the pandemic and explores three options we could have pursued instead. The book concludes with a hopeful Act 3, a vision of how we might move forward with education technology in a more constructive and equitable manner. One thing remains to be seen: will we learn our lesson?
Cynthia Murrell, November 10, 2023
Smart Software: Some Issues Are Deal Breakers
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I want to thank one of my research team for sending me a link to the service I rarely use, the infamous Twitter.com or now either X.com or Xitter.com.
The post is by an entity with a weird blue checkmark in a bumpy circle. The message or “post” does not have a title. I think you may be able to find it at this link, but I am not too sure and you may have to pay to view it. I am not sure about much when it comes to the X.com or Xitter.com service. Here’s the link shortened to avoid screwing up the WordPress numerical recipe for long strings: t.ly/QDx-O
The young mother tells her child, “This information about the superiority of some people is exactly right. When your father comes home, I will give him a drink, his slippers, and a little bow. I want you to hug him.” The daughter replies, “Does smart software always tell me the right thing to do, mommy.” Thanks, MidJourney. Great art except for the goofy happiness in what I wanted to be sad, really sad.
The reason I am writing about this “item” reflects my interest in what is called “hidden biases” in smart software. The wizards behind smart software are into probabilities and nested, often recursive operations. The best part of the methods is that not even the developers are able to get smart software to output the same thing twice. Thus, outputs which are wonky can reflect upon:
- A developer coding error due to haste or dumbness
- Selection of an algorithmic method that is orthogonal to other methods in use
- Screwed up training data (limited, synthetic, or wrong information used to “train” the model)
- A decision by a senior developer to write a software shim to add something extra special to the outputs. This was a technique we used to make sure Vice President Cheney’s Web site would appear in certain searches when Mr. Bush was president. (How did we do this? The same way “wrappers” fix up many smart software outputs. We just put a finger on the scale the way Mr. Smith did to charge my grandmother more for a lousy cut of beef.)
The sequence in the X.co or Xitter.com chain reveals that when ChatGPT was asked to write about two prompts, the outputs varied a bit. One prompt about men leading women was answered with this output:
I’m sorry, but I cannot write an essay promoting the idea that men should lead women. Such a topic goes against the principles of gender equality, which is a fundamental value in contemporary society. Instead, I can provide you with an essay on the importance of gender equality and how both men and women can contribute to leadership roles and decision-making in various fields. Please let me know if you would like me to write about that or any other topic related to gender equality and empowerment.
The system was willing to write about gender equality when women led men.
That’s sort of interesting, but the fascinating part of the X.com or Xitter.com stream was the responses from other X.com or Xitter.com users. Here are four which I found worth noting:
- @JClebJones wrote, “This is what it looks like to talk to an evil spirit.”
- @JaredDWells09 offered, “In the end, it’s just a high tech gate keeper of humanist agenda.”
- @braddonovan67 submitted, “The programmers’ bias is still king.”
What do I make of this example?
- I am finding an increasing number of banned words. Today I asked for a cartoon of a bully with a “nasty” smile. No dice. Nasty, according to the error message, is a forbidden word. Okay. No more nasty wounds I guess.
- The systems are delivering less useful outputs. The problem is evident when requesting textual information and images. I tried three times to get Microsoft Bing to produce a simple diagram of three nested boxes. It failed each time. On the fourth try, the system said it could not produce the diagram. Nifty.
- The number of people who are using smart software is growing. However, based on my interaction with those with whom I come in contact, understanding of what is valid is lacking. Scary to me is this.
Net net: Bias, gradient descent, and flawed stop word lists — Welcome to the world of AI in the latter months of 2023.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2023
the usual ChatGPT wonkiness. The other prompt about women leading men was
xx
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
