Can Googzilla Read a Manifesto and Exhibit Fear?
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Let’s think about scale. A start up wants to make a dent in Google’s search traffic. The start up has 2,000 words to blast away at the Google business model. Looking at the 2,000 words from a search tower buttressed by Google’s fourth quarter 2023 revenues of $86.31 billion (up 13% year over the same period in 2022). Does this look like a mismatch? I think it is more of a would-be competitor’s philosophical view of what should be versus what could be. Microsoft Bing is getting a clue as well.
Viewed from the perspective of a student of Spanish literature, the search start up may be today’s version of Don Quixote. The somewhat addled Alonso Quijano pronounced himself a caballero andante or what fans of chivalry in the US of A call a knight errant. What’s errant? In the 16th century, “errant” was self appointed, a bit like a journalism super star who road to fame on the outputs of the unfettered Twitter service and morphs into a pundit, a wizard, a seer.
A modern-day Don Quixote finds himself in an interesting spot. The fire-breathing dragon is cooking its lunch. The bold knight explains that the big beastie is toast. Yeah. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Actually good enough today. Wow.
With a new handle, Don Quixote leaves the persona of Sr. Quijano behind and goes off the make Spain into a better place. The cause of Spanish angst is the windmill. The good Don tries to kill the windmills. But the windmills just keep on grinding grain. The good Don fails. He dies. Ouch!
I thought about the novel when I read “The Age of PageRank is Over [Manifesto].” The author champions a Web search start up called Kagi. The business model of Kagi is to get people to pay to gain access to the Kagi search system. The logic of the subscription model is that X number of people use online search. If our system can get a tiny percentage of those people to pay, we will be able to grow, expand, and deliver good search. The idea is that what Google delivers is crappy, distorted by advertisers who cough up big bucks, and designed to convert more and more online users to the One True Source of Information.
The “manifesto” says:
The websites driven by this business model became advertising and tracking-infested giants that will do whatever it takes to “engage” and monetize unsuspecting visitors. This includes algorithmic feeds, low-quality clickbait articles (which also contributed to the deterioration of journalism globally), stuffing the pages with as many ads and affiliate links as possible (to the detriment of the user experience and their own credibility), playing ads in videos every 45 seconds (to the detriment of generations of kids growing up watching these) and mining as much user data as possible.
These indeed are the attributes of Google and similar advertising-supported services. However, these attributes are what make stakeholders happy. These business model components are exactly what many other companies labor to implement and extend. Even law enforcement likes Google. At one conference I learned that 92 percent of cyber investigators rely on Google for information. If basic Google sucks, just use Google dorks or supplementary services captured in OSINT tools, browser add ins, and nifty search widgets.
Furthermore, switching from one search engine is not a matter of a single click. The no-Google approach requires the user pick a path through a knowledge mine field; for example:
- The user must know what he or she does invokes Google. Most users have no clue where Google fits in one’s online life. When told, those users do not understand.
- The user must identify or learn about one or more services that are NOT Google related.
- The user must figure out what makes one “search” service better than another, not an easy task even for alleged search experts
- The user must make a conscious choice to spit out cash
- The user must then learn how to get a “new” search system to deliver the results the user (trained and nudged by Google for 90 percent of online users in the US and Western Europe)
- The user must change his or her Google habit.
Now those six steps may not seem much of a problem to a person with the neurological wiring of Alonso Quijano or Don Quixote in more popular parlance. But from my experience in online and assorted tasks, these are tricky obstacles to scale.
Back to the Manifesto. I quote:
Nowadays when a user uses an ad-supported search engine, they are bound to encounter noise, wrong and misleading websites in the search results, inevitably insulting their intelligence and wasting their brain cycles. The algorithms themselves are constantly leading an internal battle between optimizing for ad revenue and optimizing for what the user wants.
My take on this passage is that users are supposed to know when they “encounter noise, wrong and misleading websites in the search results.” Okay, good luck with that. Convenience, the familiar, and easy everything raises electrified fences. Users just do what they have learned to do; they believe what they believe; and they accept what others are doing. Google has been working for more than two decades to develop what some call a monopoly. I think there are other words which are more representative of what Google has constructed. That’s why I don’t put on my armor, get a horse, and charge at windmills.
The Manifesto points to a new future for search; to wit:
In the future, instead of everyone sharing the same search engine, you’ll have your completely individual, personalized Mike or Julia or Jarvis – the AI. Instead of being scared to share information with it, you will volunteer your data, knowing its incentives align with yours. The more you tell your assistant, the better it can help you, so when you ask it to recommend a good restaurant nearby, it’ll provide options based on what you like to eat and how far you want to drive. Ask it for a good coffee maker, and it’ll recommend choices within your budget from your favorite brands with only your best interests in mind. The search will be personal and contextual and excitingly so!
Right.
However, here’s the reality of doing something new in search. An outfit like Google shows up. The slick representatives offer big piles of money. The start up sells out. What happens? Where’s Dodgeball now? Transformics? Oingo? The Google-type outfits buy threats or “innovators”. Google then uses what it requires. The result?
Google-type companies evolve and remain Googley. Search was a tough market before Google. My team built technology acquired by Lycos. We were fortunate. Would my team do Web search today? Nope. We are working on a different innovative system.
The impact of generative information retrieval applications is difficult to predict. New categories of software are already emerging; for example, the Arc AI search browser innovation. The software is novel, but I have not installed it. The idea is that it is smart and will unleash a finding agent. Maybe this will be a winner? Maybe.
The challenge is that Google and its “finding” functions are woven into many applications that don’t look like search. Examples range from finding an email to the new and allegedly helpful AI additions to Google Maps. If someone can zap Googzilla, my thought is that it will be like the extinction event that took care of its ancestors. One day, nice weather. The next day, snow. Is a traditional search engine enhanced with AI available as a subscription the killer asteroid? One of the techno feudalists will probably have the technology to deflect or vaporize the intruder. One cannot allow Googzilla to go hungry, can one?
Manifestos are good. The authors let off steam. Unfortunately getting sustainable revenues in a world of techno feudalists is, in my opinion, as difficult as killing a windmill. Someone will collect all the search manifestos and publish a book called “The End of Googzilla.” Yep, someday, just not at this time.
PS. There are angles to consider, just not the somewhat tired magazine subscription tactic. Does anyone care? Nah.
Stephen E Arnold, February 7, 2024
Alternative Channels, Superstar Writers, and Content Filtering
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In this post-Twitter world, a duel of influencers is playing out in the blogosphere. At issue: Substack’s alleged Nazi problem. The kerfuffle began with a piece in The Atlantic by Jonathan M. Katz, but has evolved into a debate between Platformer’s Casey Newton and Jesse Singal of Singal-Minded. Both those blogs are hosted by Substack.
To get up to speed on the controversy, see the original Atlantic article. Newton wrote a couple posts about Substack’s responses and detailing Platformer’s involvement. In “Substack Says It Will Remove Nazi Publications from the Platform,” he writes:
“Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies. As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.”
How many publications did Platformer flag, and how many of those did Substack remove? Were they significant publications, and did they really violate the rules? These are the burning questions Singal sought to answer. He shares his account in, “Platformer’s Reporting on Substack’s Supposed ‘Nazi Problem’ Is Shoddy and Misleading.” But first, he specifies his own perspective on Katz’ Atlantic article:
“In my view, this whole thing is little more than a moral panic. Moreover, Katz cut certain corners to obscure the fact that to the extent there are Nazis on Substack at all, it appears they have almost no following or influence, and make almost no money. In one case, for example, Katz falsely claimed that a white nationalist was making a comfortable living writing on Substack, but even the most cursory bit of research would have revealed that that is completely false.”
Singal says he plans a detailed article supporting that assertion, but first he must pick apart Platformer’s position. Readers are treated to details from an email exchange between the bloggers and reasons Singal feels Newton’s responses are inadequate. One can navigate to that post for those details if one wants to get into the weeds. As of this writing, Newton has not published a response to Singal’s diatribe. Were we better off when such duels took place 280 characters at a time?
One positive about newspapers: An established editorial process kept superstars grounded in reality. Now entitlement, more than content, seems to be in the driver’s seat.
Cynthia Murrell, February 7, 2024
New AI to AI Audio and Video Program
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
This is Stephen E Arnold. I wanted to let you know that my son Erik and I have created an audio and video program about artificial intelligence, smart software, and machine learning. What makes this show different is our focus. Both of us have worked on government projects in the US and in other countries. Our experience suggested a program tailored for those working in government agencies at the national or federal level, state, county, or local level might be useful. We will try to combine examples of the use of smart software and related technical information. The theme of each program is “smart software for government use cases.”
In the first episode, our topics include a look at the State of Texas’s use of AI to help efficiency, a review of the challenges AI poses, a discussion about Human Resources departments, a technical review of AI content crawlers, and lastly a look ahead in 2024 for smart software.
The format of each show segment is presentation of some facts. Then my son and I discuss our assessment of the information. We don’t always see “eye to eye.” That’s where the name of our program originated. AI to AI.
Our digital assistant is named Ivan Aitoo, pronounced “eye-two.” He is created by an artificial intelligence system. He plays an important part in the program. He introduces each show with a run down of the stories in the program. Also, he concludes each program by telling a joke generated by — what else? — yet another artificial intelligence system. Ivan is delightful, but he has no sense of humor and no audience sensitivity.
You can listen to the audio version of the program at this link on the Apple podcast service. A video version is available on YouTube at this link. The program runs about 20 minutes, and we hope to produce a program every two weeks. (The program is provided as an information service, and it includes neither advertising nor sponsored content.)
If you have comments about the program, you can email them to benkent2020 at yahoo dot com.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
Surprising Real Journalism News: The Chilling Claws of AI
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I wanted to highlight two interesting items from the world of “real” news and “real” journalism. I am a dinobaby and not a “real” anything. I do, however, think these two unrelated announcements provide some insight into what 2024 will encourage.
The harvesters of information wheat face a new reality. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. How’s that email security? Ah, good enough. Okay.
The first item comes from everyone’s favorite, free speech service X.com (affectionately known to my research team as Xhitter). The item appears as a titbit from Max Tani. The message is an allegedly real screenshot of an internal memorandum from a senior executive at the Wall Street Journal. The screenshot purports to make clear that the Murdoch property is allowing some “real” journalists to find their future elsewhere. Perhaps in a fast food joint in Olney, Maryland? The screenshot is difficult for my 79-year-old eyes to read, but I got some help from one of my research team. The X.com payload says:
Today we announced a new structure in Washington [DC] that means a number of our colleagues will be leaving the paper…. The new Washington bureau will focus on politics, policy, defense, law, intelligence and national security.
Okay, people are goners. The Washington, DC bureau will focus on Washington, DC stuff. What was the bureau doing? Oh, perhaps that is why “our colleagues will be leaving the paper.” Cost cutting and focusing are in vogue.
The second item is titled “Q&A: How Thomson Reuters Used GenAI to Enable a Citizen Developer Workforce.” I want to alert you that the Computerworld article is a mere 3,800 words. Let me summarize the gist of the write up: “AI is going to replace expensive “real” journalists., My hunch is that some of the lawyers involved in annotating, assembling, and blessing the firm’s legal content. To Thomson Reuters’ credit, the company is trying to swizzle some sweetener into what may be a bitter drink for some involved with the “trust” crowd.
Several observations:
- It is about 13 months since Microsoft made AI its next big thing. That means that these two examples are early examples of what is going to happen to many knowledge workers
- Some companies just pull the pin; others are trying to find ways to avoid PR problems and lawsuits
- The more significant disruptions will produce a reasonably new type of worker push back.
Net net: Imagine what the next year will bring as AI efficiency digs in, bites tail feathers, and enriches those who sit in the top one percent.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
Google Gems for 6 February 2024
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Google has been busy. In order to provide an easy way to highlight groups of Googley action, we have grouped these into four clusters. These are arbitrary. Links are provided to the source of the gems.
Looking for Google Gems, a creation of MSFT Copilot Bing thing.
BIG MOVES
In the last week, everyone’s favorite online advertising entity worked tirelessly to demonstrate its lovable nature. Here are several big moves my research team and I found notable:
The first item concerns the estimable Google Play “store.” Customers were able to download what The Sun described as “spy apps.” What’s this situation, if true, say about Google’s ability to screen apps for its store? To learn more, navigate to this link.
The second “big” item is that Google’s management expertise was on display at an “all hands” meeting. According to Inc. Magazine:
“We’re talking about simplifying areas where we have unnecessary layers and removing bureaucracy to make sure the company works better,” Pichai said. The thing is, the only reason any of that is true is because Google has built that bureaucracy and added those layers. That didn’t happen on accident. It happened over time as the company grew and added managers and processes and products. It happened because of intentional choices about how to run the business. It just turns out that some of those choices didn’t pan out. “Part of leadership is also making the tough decisions that are needed,” Pichai said in response to one question.
The munchkins at the Google do not seem to be happy. Whose fault is this? I assume that the 23andMe approach is the explanation: “It’s your fault.”
The third item illustrates Google’s deft tactical actions when “responsible innovation” needs amping up. According to Wired Magazine, Google split up the team. If you are Google, creating a duplicative structure makes perfect sense particularly in the artificial intelligence sector. More complexity is a plus I assume.
The fourth item touches upon Google’s effort to make sure its users don’t wander off the reservation. The PressGazette reports:
Google is planning to force news publishers to group their websites into sets of five if they want to use certain functions in its new Privacy Sandbox online advertising system, which it has proposed will replace cookie functionality. Each group of five will then be published on GitHub, the coding website, where anyone will be able to see them.
The final Brobdingnagian item is Google’s unsurprising appeal of its recent jury trial loss to Epik, the online game outfit. No surprise, of course, but it’s the spirit of the Google which I find admirable: Never give up when one has numerous lawyers.
HELPING USERS
Google cares about its users. Users equal revenue. This is a basic fact among those who understand the company’s motivations. Let’s run down a handful of user-centric actions:
First, Google has dumped public access to cached Web pages, according to SERoundTable. The work-around is for the user to go to the woefully incomplete Internet Archive which is a far from comprehensive repository of Web pages. Helpful.
Second, users of Google Pixel phones or some Samsung mobiles. What about users of other Android devices? Sorry, according to Forbes, you are out of luck.
Third, Google and AI aggregator Hugging Face are cozying up in the cloud. Will this have an impact on the competitive AI space? Of course, not. Read more in the Verge, the explanation for the informed elite.
Fourth, Google has a “secret” browser. Learn more from Matan-h. Is this the first one? Nope, the second.
Fifth, if you own a Samsung TV and used the Google Assistant, you may have to find a new helper. TomsGuide.com reports that Google is removing this feature.
Sixth, Google’s smart watch can be used as — wait for it — a television remote. Learn more from Techradar.
Finally, Google continues its war against ad blockers. The goal is revenue. The AndroidPolice thinks the Google is behaving in a less than user-friendly way. Imagine that.
HORN TOOTING
Last week displayed some subdued Google horn toots. Let’s take a look:
Google is strapping AI to Google Maps. The idea is to make suggestions. What if a person just wants directions? Dumb question. Users will get smart recommendations. For a breathy explanation of Google wonderfulness, check out the Verge story.
Plus, after 14 months, the Google has rolled out image generation that is the apex of artistic excellence. How great is that? VentureBeat explains the achievement. Tom’s Hardware take a more techy approach to the announcement.
MONEY
One cannot overlook Google’s towering financial skyscrapers.
First, its annual revenue continues to climb. Details appear in Alphabet’s report.
Second, YouTube has become the little money factory Googlers lusted after. Even Variety lets its respect for cash flow sparkle in the insider’s news service. I want to point out that AndroidPolice asserted that YouTube has fewer paid subscribers than does Spotify. Is the solution an acquisition, predatory pricing, or removing Spotify from search results. These are actions Google would avoid, of course.
Third, Google is pinching pennies, not just firing employees to boost margins. Nope. According to Marketwatch, Google showed a $1.2 billion loss due to dumping office space. Is this important? Not to the former employees, but the landlords and banks counting on Google lease deals might be irritated.
A GEM TO REMEMBER
I mentioned Google’s management excellence elsewhere in this catalog of gems. I want to close with a nod to Yahoo News (who knew the Yahooligans did news?). The story recycles information about Google’s terminating employees, thus creating Xooglers in abundance. “Google’s Layoffs Already Impacted Its Culture. Now They’re Affecting Its Bottom Line” reports that employees (Xooglers) belonged to a “happy family.” Really?
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
Discovering and Sharing Good Websites: No Social Media Required
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Web has evolved over the last decade or two, and largely not in a good way. Blogger Jason Velazquez ponders, “Where Have All the Websites Gone?” Much of it, sadly, is the influence of SEO and Google—every year it gets harder to see the websites for the ads. But Velazquez points to another trend: the way we access web content has changed. Instead of curating it for ourselves and each other, we let social-media algorithms do the job. He points out:
“Somewhere between the late 2000’s aggregator sites and the contemporary For You Page, we lost our ability to curate the web. Worse still, we’ve outsourced our discovery to corporate algorithms. Most of us did it in exchange for an endless content feed. By most, I mean upwards of 90% who don’t make content on a platform as understood by the 90/9/1 rule. And that’s okay! Or, at least, it makes total sense to me. Who wouldn’t want a steady stream of dopamine shots? The rest of us, posters, amplifiers, and aggregators, traded our discovery autonomy for a chance at fame and fortune. Not all, but enough to change the social web landscape. But that gold at the end of the rainbow isn’t for us. ‘Creator funds’ pull from a fixed pot. It’s a line item in a budget that doesn’t change, whether one hundred or one million hands dip inside it. Executives in polished cement floor offices, who you’ll never meet, choose their winners and losers. And I’m guessing it’s not a meritocracy-based system. They pick their tokens, round up their shills, and stuff Apple Watch ads between them.”
But all is not lost. Interesting websites are still out there. Those of us who miss discovering and sharing them can start doing so again. To start, Velazquez offers a list of 13 of his favorites, so see the post for those. He also swapped out the Instagram link in his LinkedIn bio for links to several indie blogging platforms. He suggests readers can do something similar to share their favorite autonomous websites: artists, bloggers, aggregator sites run by humans (hi there!). Any “digital green spaces” will do. The websites have not gone anywhere. We just have to help each other find them.
Cynthia Murrell, February 6, 2024
Internet Governance and Enforcement Needed: Not Just One-Off Legal Spats
February 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
“Web Publisher Seeks Injunctive Relief to Address Web Scraper’s Domain Name Maneuvers Intended to Avoid Court Order” at first glance is another tale of woe about a content or information publisher getting its content sucked down and into another service. This happens frequently, and the limp robots.txt file does not thwart the savvy content vacuum cleaner which is digitally Hoovering its way to a minimally viable product.
An outfit called Chegg creates or recycles information to create answers to homework problems. Students, who want to have more time for swiping left and right, subscribe and use Chegg to achieve academic certification. The outfit running the digital Hoover uses different domains; for example, Homeworkify.EU and then to Homeworkify.st. This change made it possible for Homeworkify to continue sucking down Chegg’s content.
One must know where to look, have the expertise to pull away the surface, and exert effort to eliminate the problem. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. How’s the email security today? Oh, too bad.
The write up explains that the matter is in court, the parties are seeking a decision which validates their position, and the matter bumbles onward.
My take on this is different, and I am reasonably confident that it may make pro-Chegg and pro-Homeworkify advocates uncomfortable. Here are my observations:
- Neither outfit strikes me as particularly savvy when it comes to protecting or accessing online content. There are numerous Clear Web and Dark Web sites which engage in interesting actions, and investigators often have difficulty figuring out who is who, and what what is a who doing. One example from our own recent research has been our effort to determine “who” or “what” is behind the domain altenen.is. There are some hurdles to get over before the question can be answered. The operators of certain sites like the credit card outfit move around from domain to domain. This is accomplished automatically.
- The domain name registrars are an interesting group of companies. Upon examination, an ISP can be a domain reseller, operate an auction service buyers and sellers of “registered” domains, or operate as an ISP, a provider of virtual hosting, a domain name seller, and a domain name marketplace with connections to other domain name businesses. Getting lost in this mostly unregulated niche is quite easy. The sophisticated operators can appear to be a legitimate company with alleged locations in France or Russia. One outfit engaged in some interesting “reseller” activities appears to be in jail is Israel. But his online operation continues to hum along.
- The obfuscation of domains is facilitated by outfits based in salubrious locations like the Seychelles. Drop in and check out the businesses sometime when you are in Somalia or cruising the Indian Ocean off the west coast of Africa. The “specialists” located in remote regions provide “air cover” for individuals engaged in interesting business activities like running encrypted email services for allegedly bad actors and strong supporters of specialist “groups.”
Now back to the problem of Chegg and Homeworkify. My take on this dust up is:
- Neither outfit is sufficiently advanced to [a] prevent content access or [b] getting caught.
- Dumping the matter into a legal process means [a] spending lots of money on lawyers and [b] learning that no one understands what is taking place and why these actions are different from what’s being Hoovered by some of the most respected techno feudalists in the world. The cloud of unknowing will be thick as these issues are discussed.
- The focus should include attention and then action toward what I call “the enablers.” Who or what is an enabler? That’s easy. The basic services of the Internet governance entities and the failure to license certain firms who provide technology to facilitate problematic online activity.
Net net: Until regulation and consequences are imposed on the enablers, there will be more dust ups like the one between Chegg and Homeworkify.
PS. I am not too keen on selling short cuts to learning.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2024
Sales SEO: A New Tool for Hype and Questionable Relevance
February 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Search engine optimization is a relevance eraser. Now SEO has arrived for a human. “Microsoft Copilot Can Now Write the Sales Pitch of a Lifetime” makes clear that hiring is going to become more interesting for both human personnel directors (often called chief people officers) and AI-powered résumé screening systems. And for people who are responsible for procurement, figuring out when a marketing professional is tweaking the truth and hallucinating about a product or service will become a daily part of life… in theory.
Thanks for the carnival barker image, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough. I love the spelling of “asiractson”. With workers who may not be able to read, so what? Right?
The write up explains:
Microsoft Copilot for Sales uses specific data to bring insights and recommendations into its core apps, like Outlook, Microsoft Teams, and Word. With Copilot for Sales, users will be able to draft sales meeting briefs, summarize content, update CRM records directly from Outlook, view real-time sales insights during Teams calls, and generate content like sales pitches.
The article explains:
… Copilot for Service for Service can pull in data from multiple sources, including public websites, SharePoint, and offline locations, in order to handle customer relations situations. It has similar features, including an email summary tool and content generation.
Why is MSFT expanding these interesting functions? Revenue. Paying extra unlocks these allegedly remarkable features. Prices range from $240 per year to a reasonable $600 per year per user. This is a small price to pay for an employee unable to craft solutions that sell, by golly.
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2024
Ottawa Law Enforcement and Reasonable Time for Mobile Phone Access
February 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The challenge of mobile phones is that it takes time to access the data if a password is not available to law enforcement. As more mobiles are obtained from alleged bad actors, the more time is required. The backlog can be onerous because many law enforcement agencies have a limited number of cyber investigators and a specific number of forensic software licenses or specialized machines necessary to extract data from a mobile device.
Time is not on their side. The Ottawa Citizen reports, “Police Must Return Phones After 175 Million Passcode Guesses, Judge Says.” It is not actually about the number of guesses, but about how long investigators can retain suspects’ property. After several months trying to crack the passwords on one suspect’s phone, Ottawa police asked Ontario Superior Court Justice Ian Carter to allow them to retain the device for another two years. But even that was a long shot. Writer Andrew Duffy tells us:
“Ontario Superior Court Justice Ian Carter heard that police investigators tried about 175 million passcodes in an effort to break into the phones during the past year. The problem, the judge was told, is that more than 44 nonillion potential passcodes exist for each phone. To be more precise, the judge said, there are 44,012,666,865,176,569,775,543,212,890,625 potential alpha-numeric passcodes for each phone. It means, Carter said, that even though 175 million passcodes were attempted, those efforts represented ‘an infinitesimal number’ of potential answers.”
The article describes the brute-force dictionary attacks police had used so far and defines the term leetspeak for curious readers. Though investigators recently added the password-generating tool Mentalist to their arsenal, the judge determined their chances of breaking into the phone were too slim. We learn:
“In his ruling, Carter said the court had to balance the property rights of an individual against the state’s legitimate interest in preserving evidence in an investigation. The phones, he said, have no evidentiary value unless the police succeed in finding the right passcodes. ‘While it is certainly possible that they may find the needle in the next two years, the odds are so incredibly low as to be virtually non-existent,’ the judge wrote. ‘A detention order for a further six months, two years, or even a decade will not alter the calculus in any meaningful way.’ He denied the Crown’s application to retain the phones and ordered them returned or destroyed.”
The judge suggested investigators instead formally request more data from Google, which supplied the information that led to the warrants in the first place. Good idea, but techno feudal outfits are often not set up to handle a large number of often-complex requests. The result is that law enforcement is expected to perform certain tasks while administrative procedures and business processes slam on the brakes. One would hope that information about the reality of accessing mobile devices were better understood and supported.
Cynthia Murrell, February 5, 2024
An International AI Panel: Notice Anything Unusual?
February 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
An expert international advisory panel has been formed. The ooomph behind the group is the UK’s prime minister. The Evening Standard newspaper described the panel this way:
The first-of-its-kind scientific report on AI will be used to shape international discussions around the technology.
Australia. Professor Bronwyn Fox, Chief Scientist, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)
Brazil. André Carlos Ponce de Leon Ferreira de Carvalho, Professor, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, University of São Paulo
Canada. Doctor Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor of Canada
Canada. Professor Yoshua Bengio, considered one of the “godfathers of AI”.
Chile. Raquel Pezoa Rivera, Academic, Federico Santa María Technical University
China. Doctor Yi Zeng, Professor, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
EU. Juha Heikkilä, Adviser for Artificial Intelligence, DG Connect
France. Guillame Avrin, National Coordinator for AI, General Directorate of Enterprises
Germany. Professor Antonio Krüger, CEO, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence.
India. Professor Balaraman Ravindran, Professor at the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Indonesia. Professor Hammam Riza, President, KORIKA
Ireland. Doctor. Ciarán Seoighe, Deputy Director General, Science Foundation Ireland
Israel. Doctor Ziv Katzir, Head of the National Plan for Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure, Israel Innovation Authority
Italy. Doctor Andrea Monti,Professor of Digital Law, University of Chieti-Pescara.
Japan. Doctor Hiroaki Kitano, CTO, Sony Group Corporation
Kenya. Awaiting nomination
Mexico. Doctor José Ramón López Portillo, Chairman and Co-founder, Q Element
Netherlands. Professor Haroon Sheikh, Senior Research Fellow, Netherlands’ Scientific Council for Government Policy
New Zealand. Doctor Gill Jolly, Chief Science Advisor, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Nigeria. Doctor Olubunmi Ajala, Technical Adviser to the Honorable Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy,
Philippines. Awaiting nominationRepublic of Korea. Professor Lee Kyoung Mu, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University
Rwanda. Crystal Rugege, Managing Director, National Center for AI and Innovation Policy
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Doctor Fahad Albalawi, Senior AI Advisor, Saudi Authority for Data and Artificial Intelligence
Singapore. Denise Wong, Assistant Chief Executive, Data Innovation and Protection Group, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)
Spain. Nuria Oliver, Vice-President, European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems (ELLISS)
Switzerland. Doctor. Christian Busch, Deputy Head, Innovation, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research
Turkey. Ahmet Halit Hatip, Director General of European Union and Foreign Relations, Turkish Ministry of Industry and Technology
UAE. Marwan Alserkal, Senior Research Analyst, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Prime Minister’s Office
Ukraine. Oleksii Molchanovskyi, Chair, Expert Committee on the Development of Artificial intelligence in Ukraine
USA. Saif M. Khan, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Critical and Emerging Technologies, U.S. Department of Commerce
United Kingdom. Dame Angela McLean, Government Chief Scientific Adviser
United Nations. Amandeep Gill, UN Tech Envoy
Give up? My team identified these interesting aspects:
- No Facebook, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI or any other US giant in the AI space
- Academics and political “professionals” dominate the list
- A speed and scale mismatch between AI diffusion and panel report writing.
Net net: More words will be generated for large language models to ingest.
Stephen E Arnold, February 2, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
