AI to AI Program for March 12, 2024, Now Available
March 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Erik Arnold, with some assistance from Stephen E Arnold (the father) has produced another installment of AI to AI: Smart Software for Government Use Cases.” The program presents news and analysis about the use of artificial intelligence (smart software) in government agencies.
The ad-free program features Erik S. Arnold, Managing Director of Govwizely, a Washington, DC consulting and engineering services firm. Arnold has extensive experience working on technology projects for the US Congress, the Capitol Police, the Department of Commerce, and the White House. Stephen E Arnold, an adviser to Govwizely, also participates in the program. The current episode explores five topics in an father-and-son exploration of important, yet rarely discussed subjects. These include the analysis of law enforcement body camera video by smart software, the appointment of an AI information czar by the US Department of Justice, copyright issues faced by UK artificial intelligence projects, the role of the US Marines in the Department of Defense’s smart software projects, and the potential use of artificial intelligence in the US Patent Office.
The video is available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/nsKki5P3PkA. The Apple audio podcast is at this link.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2024
AI Hermeneutics: The Fire Fights of Interpretation Flame
March 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My hunch is that not too many of the thumb-typing, TikTok generation know what hermeneutics means. Furthermore, like most of their parents, these future masters of the phone-iverse don’t care. “Let software think for me” would make a nifty T shirt slogan at a technology conference.
This morning (March 12, 2024) I read three quite different write ups. Let me highlight each and then link the content of those documents to the the problem of interpretation of religious texts.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I am confident your security team is up to this task.
The first write up is a news story called “Elon Musk’s AI to Open Source Grok This Week.” The main point for me is that Mr. Musk will put the label “open source” on his Grok artificial intelligence software. The write up includes an interesting quote; to wit:
Musk further adds that the whole idea of him founding OpenAI was about open sourcing AI. He highlighted his discussion with Larry Page, the former CEO of Google, who was Musk’s friend then. “I sat in his house and talked about AI safety, and Larry did not care about AI safety at all.”
The implication is that Mr. Musk does care about safety. Okay, let’s accept that.
The second story is an ArXiv paper called “Stealing Part of a Production Language Model.” The authors are nine Googlers, two ETH wizards, one University of Washington professor, one OpenAI researcher, and one McGill University smart software luminary. In short, the big outfits are making clear that closed or open, software is rising to the task of revealing some of the inner workings of these “next big things.” The paper states:
We introduce the first model-stealing attack that extracts precise, nontrivial information from black-box production language models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s PaLM-2…. For under $20 USD, our attack extracts the entire projection matrix of OpenAI’s ada and babbage language models.
The third item is “How Do Neural Networks Learn? A Mathematical Formula Explains How They Detect Relevant Patterns.” The main idea of this write up is that software can perform an X-ray type analysis of a black box and present some useful data about the inner workings of numerical recipes about which many AI “experts” feign total ignorance.
Several observations:
- Open source software is available to download largely without encumbrances. Good actors and bad actors can use this software and its components to let users put on a happy face or bedevil the world’s cyber security experts. Either way, smart software is out of the bag.
- In the event that someone or some organization has secrets buried in its software, those secrets can be exposed. One the secret is known, the good actors and the bad actors can surf on that information.
- The notion of an attack surface for smart software now includes the numerical recipes and the model itself. Toss in the notion of data poisoning, and the notion of vulnerability must be recast from a specific attack to a much larger type of exploitation.
Net net: I assume the many committees, NGOs, and government entities discussing AI have considered these points and incorporated these articles into informed policies. In the meantime, the AI parade continues to attract participants. Who has time to fool around with the hermeneutics of smart software?
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2024
Microsoft and Security: A Rerun with the Same Worn-Out Script
March 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Marvel cinematic universe has spawned two dozen sequels. Microsoft’s security circus features are moving up fast in the reprise business. Unfortunately there is no super hero who comes to the rescue of the giant American firm. The villains in these big screen stunners are a bit like those in the James Bond films. Microsoft seems to prefer to wrestle with the allegedly Russian cozy bear or at least convert a cartoon animal into the personification of evil.
Thanks, MSFT, you have nailed security theater and reruns of the same tired story.
What’s interesting about these security blockbusters is that each follows a Hollywood style “you’ve seen this before nudge nudge” approach to the entertainment. The sequence is a belated announcement that Microsoft security has been breached. The evil bad actors have stolen data, corrupted software, and by brute force foiled the norm cores in Microsoft World. Then announcements about fixes that the Microsoft custoemr must implement along with admonitions to keep that MSFT software updated and warnings about using “old” computers, etc. etc.
“Russian Hackers Accessed Microsoft Source Code” is the equivalent of New York Times film review. The write up reports:
In January, Microsoft disclosed that Russian hackers had breached the company’s systems and managed to read emails belonging to senior executives. Now, the company has revealed that the breach was worse than initially understood and that the Russian hackers accessed Microsoft source code. Friday’s revelation — made in a blog post and a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission — is the latest in a string of breaches affecting the company that have raised major questions in Washington about Microsoft’s security posture.
Well, that’s harsh. No mention of the estimable alleged monopoly’s releasing the information on March 7, 2024. I am capturing my thoughts on March 8, 2024. But with college basketball moving toward tournament time, who cares? I am not really sure any more. And Washington? Does the name evoke a person, a committee, a committee consisting of the heads of security committees, someone in the White House, an “expert” at the suddenly famous National Bureau of Standards, or absolutely no one.
The write asserts:
The company is concerned, however, that “Midnight Blizzard is attempting to use secrets of different types it has found,” including in emails between customers and Microsoft. “As we discover them in our exfiltrated email, we have been and are reaching out to these customers to assist them in taking mitigating measures,” the company said in its blog post. The company describes the incident as an example of “what has become more broadly an unprecedented global threat landscape, especially in terms of sophisticated nation-state attacks.” In response, the company has said it is increasing the resources and attention devoted to securing its systems.
Microsoft is “reaching out.” I can reach for a donut, but I do not grasp it and gobble it down. “Reach” is not the same as fixing the problems Microsoft caused.
Several observations:
- Microsoft is an alleged monopoly, and it is allowing its digital trains to set fire to the fields, homes, and businesses which have to use its tracks. Isn’t it time for purposeful action from the US government agencies with direct responsibility for cyber security and appropriate business conduct?
- Can Microsoft remediate its problems? My answer is, “No.” Vulnerabilities are engineered in because no one has the time, energy, or interest to chase down problems and fix them. There is an ageing programmer named Steve Gibson. His approach to software is the exact opposite of Microsoft’s. Mr. Gibson will never be a trillion dollar operation, but his software works. Perhaps Microsoft should consider adopting some of Mr. Gibson’s methods.
- Customers have to take a close look at the security breaches endlessly reported by cyber security companies. Some outfits’ software is on the list most of the time. Other companies’ software is an infrequent visitor to these breach parties. Is it time for customers to be looking for an alternative to what Microsoft provides?
Net net: A new security release will be coming to the computer near you. Don’t fail to miss it.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2024
x
x
x
x
x
Another Small Victory for OpenAI Against Authors
March 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
For those following the fight between human content creators and AI firms, score one for the algorithm engineers. TorrentFreak reports, “Court Dismisses Authors’ Copyright Infringement Claims Against OpenAI.” At issue is generative AI’s practice of feeding on humans’ work, without compensation, in order to mimic it. Multiple suits have been filed by record labels, writers, and visual artists. Reporter Ernesto Van der Sar writes:
“Several of the lawsuits filed by book authors include a piracy component. The cases allege that tech companies, including Meta and OpenAI, used the controversial Books3 dataset to train their models. The Books3 dataset was created by AI researcher Shawn Presser in 2020, who scraped the library of ‘pirate’ site Bibliotik. The general vision was that the plaintext collection of more than 195,000 books, which is nearly 37GB in size, could help AI enthusiasts build better models. The vision wasn’t wrong; large text archives are great training material for Large Language Models, but many authors disapprove of their works being used in this manner, without permission or compensation.”
A large group of rights holders have a football team. Those big folks are chasing the small but feisty opponent down the field. Which team will score? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep up the good enough work.
Is that so unreasonable? Maybe not, but existing copyright law did not foresee this situation. We learn:
“After reviewing input from both sides, California District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled on the matter. In her order, she largely sides with OpenAI. The vicarious copyright infringement claim fails because the court doesn’t agree that all output produced by OpenAI’s models can be seen as a derivative work. To survive, the infringement claim has to be more concrete.”
The plaintiffs are not out of moves, however. They can still file an amended complaint. But unless updated legislation is passed in the meantime, they may just be rebuffed again. So all they need is for Congress to act quickly to protect artists from tech firms. Any day now.
Cynthia Murrell, March 12, 2024
Thomson Reuters Is Going to Do AI: Run Faster
March 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Thomson Reuters, a mostly low profile outfit, is going to do AI. Why’s this interesting to law schools, lawyers, accountants, special librarians, libraries, and others who “pay” for “real” information? There are three reasons:
- Money
- Markets
- Mania.
Thomson Reuters has been a tech talker for decades. The company created skunk works. It hired quirky MIT wizards. I bought businesses with information technology. But underneath the professional publishing clear coat, the firm is the creation of Lord Thomson of Fleet. The firm has a track record of being able to turn a profit on its $7 billion in revenues. But the future, if news reports are accurate, is artificial intelligence or smart software.
The young publishing executive says, “I have go to get ahead of this AI bus before it runs over me.” Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Working on security today?
But wait! What makes Thomson Reuters different from the New York Times or (heaven forbid the question) Rupert Murdoch’s confections? The answer is in my opinion: Thomson Reuters does the trust thing and is a professional publisher. I don’t want to explain that in the world of Lord Thomson of Fleet that publishing is publishing. Nope. Not going there. Thomson Reuters is a custom made billiard cue, not one of those bar pool cheapos.
As appropriate to today’s Thomson Reuters, the news appeared in Thomson’s own news releases first; for example, “Thomson Reuters Profit Beats Estimates Amid AI Push.” Yep, AI drives profits. That’s the “m” in money. Plus, Thomson late last year this article found its way to the law firm market (yep, that’s the second “m”): “Morgan Lewis and Thomson Reuters Enter into Partnership to Put Law Firms’ Needs at the Heart of AI Development.”
Now the third “m” or mania. Here’s a representative story, “Thomson Reuters to Invest US$8 billion in a Substantial AI-Focused Spending Initiative.” You can also check out the Financial Times’s report at this link.
Thomson Reuters is a $7 billion corporation. If the $8 billion number is on the money, the venerable news outfit is going to spend the equivalent on one year’s revenue acquiring and investing in smart software. In terms of professional publishing, this chunk of change is roughly the equivalent of Sam AI-Man’s need for trillions of dollars for his smart software business.
Several thoughts struck me as I was reading about the $8 billion investment in smart software:
- In terms of publishing or more narrowly professional publishing, $8 billion will take some time to spend. But time is not on the side of publishing decision making processes. When the check is written for an AI investment, there may be some who ask, “Is this the correct investment? After all, aren’t we professional publishers serving lawyers, accountants, and researchers?”
- The US legal processes are interesting. But the minor challenge of Crown copyright adds a bit of spice to certain investments. The UK government itself is reluctant to push into some AI areas due to concerns that certain information may not be available unless the red tape about copyright has been trimmed, rolled, and put on the shelf. Without being disrespectful, Thomson Reuters could find that some of the $8 billion headed into its clients pockets as legal challenges make their way through courts in Britain, Canada, and the US and probably some frisky EU states.
- The game for AI seems to be breaking into two what a former Greek minister calls the techno feudal set up. On one hand, there are giant technology centric companies (of which Thomson Reuters is not one of the club members). These are Google- and Microsoft-scale outfits with infrastructure, data, customers, and multiple business models. On the other hand, there are the Product Watch outfits which are using open source and APIs to create “new” and “important” AI businesses, applications, and solutions. In short, there are some barons and a whole grab-bag of lesser folk. Is Thomson Reuters going to be able to run with the barons. Remember, please, the barons are riding stallions. Thomson Reuter-type firms either walk or ride donkeys.
Net net: If Thomson Reuters spends $8 billion on smart software, how many lawyers, accountants, and researchers will be put out of work? The risks are not just bad AI investments. The threat maybe to gut the billing power of the paying customers for Thomson Reuters’ content. This will be entertaining to watch.
PS. The third “m”? It is mania, AI mania.
Stephen E Arnold, March 11, 2024
x
x
x
x
x
Palantir: The UK Wants a Silver Bullet
March 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The UK is an interesting nation state. On one hand, one has upmarket, high-class activities taking place not too far from the squatters in Bristol. Fancy lingo, nifty arguments (Here, here!) match up nicely with some wonky computer decisions. The British government seems to have a keen interest in finding silver bullets; that is, solutions which will make problems go away. How did that work for the postal service?
I read “Health Data – It Isn’t Just Palantir or Bust,” written by lawyer, pundit, novelist, and wizard Cory Doctorow. The essay focuses on a tender offer captured by Palantir Technologies. The idea is that the British National Health Service has lots of data. The NHS has done some wild and crazy things to make those exposed to the NHS safer. Sorry, I can’t explain one taxonomy-centric project which went exactly nowhere despite the press releases generated by the vendors, speeches, presentations, and assurances that, by gad, these health data will be managed. Yeah, and Bristol’s nasty areas will be fixed up soon.
The British government professional is struggling with software that was described as a single solution. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How is your security perimeter working today? Oh, that’s too bad. Good enough.
What is interesting about the write up is not the somewhat repetitive retelling of the NHS’ computer challenges. I want to highlight the comments from the lawyer – novelist about the American intelware outfit Palantir Technologies. What do we learn about Palantir?
Here the first quote from the essay:
But handing it all over to companies like Palantir isn’t the only option
The idea that a person munching on fish and chips in Swindon will know about Palantir is effectively zero. But it is clear that “like Palantir” suggests something interesting, maybe fascinating.
Here’s another reference to Palantir:
Even more bizarre are the plans to flog NHS data to foreign military surveillance giants like Palantir, with the promise that anonymization will somehow keep Britons safe from a company that is literally named after an evil, all-seeing magic talisman employed by the principal villain of Lord of the Rings (“Sauron, are we the baddies?”).
The word choice is painting a picture of an American intelware company which does focus on conveying a negative message; for instance, the words safe, evil, all seeing, villain, baddies, etc. What’s going on?
The British Medical Association and the conference of England LMC Representatives have endorsed OpenSAFELY and condemned Palantir. The idea that we must either let Palantir make off with every Briton’s most intimate health secrets or doom millions to suffer and die of preventable illness is a provably false choice.
It seems that the American company is known to the BMA and an NGO have figured out Palantir is a bit of a sticky wicket.
Several observations:
- My view is that Palantir promised a silver bullet to solve some of the NHS data challenges. The British government accepted the argument, so full steam ahead. Thus, the problem, I would suggest, is the procurement process
- The agenda in the write up is to associate Palantir with some relatively negative concepts. Is this fair? Probably not but it is typical of certain “real” analysts and journalists to mix up complex issues in order to create doubt about vendors of specialized software. These outfits are not perfect, but their products are a response to quite difficult problems.
- I think the write up is a mash up of anger about tender offers, the ineptitude of British government computer skills, the use of cross correlation as a symbol of Satan, and a social outrage about the Britain which is versus what some wish it were.
Net net: Will Palantir change because of this negative characterization of its products and services? Nope. Will the NHS change? Are you kidding me, of course not. Will the British government’s quest for silver bullet solutions stop? Let’s tackle this last question this way: “Why not write it in a snail mail letter and drop it in the post?”
Intelware is just so versatile at least in the marketing collateral.
Stephen E Arnold, March 11, 2024
In Tech We Mistrust
March 11, 2024
While tech firms were dumping billions into AI, they may have overlooked one key component: consumer faith. The Hill reports, “Trust in AI Companies Drops to 35 Percent in New Study.” We note that 35% figure is for the US only, while the global drop was a mere 8%. Still, that is the wrong direction for anyone with a stake in the market. So what is happening? Writer Filip Timotija tells us:
So it is not just AI we mistrust, it is tech companies as a whole. That tracks. The study polled 32,000 people across 28 countries. Timotija reminds us regulators in the US and abroad are scrambling to catch up. Will fear of consumer rejection do what neither lagging lawmakers nor common decency can? The write-up notes:
“Westcott argued the findings should be a ‘wake up call’ for AI companies to ‘build back credibility through ethical innovation, genuine community engagement and partnerships that place people and their concerns at the heart of AI developments.’ As for the impacts on the future for the industry as a whole, ‘societal acceptance of the technology is now at a crossroads,’ he said, adding that trust in AI and the companies producing it should be seen ‘not just as a challenge, but an opportunity.’” “Multiple factors contributed to the decline in trust toward the companies polled in the data, according to Justin Westcott, Edelman’s chair of global technology. ‘Key among these are fears related to privacy invasion, the potential for AI to devalue human contributions, and apprehensions about unregulated technological leaps outpacing ethical considerations,’ Westcott said, adding ‘the data points to a perceived lack of transparency and accountability in how AI companies operate and engage with societal impacts.’ Technology as a whole is losing its lead in trust among sectors, Edelman said, highlighting the key findings from the study. ‘Eight years ago, technology was the leading industry in trust in 90 percent of the countries we study,’ researchers wrote, referring to the 28 countries. ‘Now it is most trusted only in half.’”
Yes, an opportunity. All AI companies must do is emphasize ethics, transparency, and societal benefits over profits. Surely big tech firms will get right on that.
Cynthia Murrell, March 11, 2024
The Internet as a Library and Archive? Ho Ho Ho
March 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I know that I find certain Internet-related items a knee slapper. Here’s an example: “Millions of Research Papers at Risk of Disappearing from the Internet.” The number of individuals — young at heart and allegedly-informed seniors — think the “Internet” is a library or better yet an archive like the Library of Congress’ collection of “every” book.
A person deleting data with some degree of fierceness. Yep, thanks MSFT Copilot. After three tries, this is the best of the lot for a prompt asking for an illustration of data being deleted from a personal computer. Not even good enough but I like the weird orange coloration.
Here are some basics of how “Internet” services work:
- Every year costs go up of storage for old and usually never or rarely accessed data. A bean counter calls a meeting and asks, “Do we need to keep paying for ping, power, and pipes?” Some one points out, “Usage of X percent of the data described as “old” is 0.0003 percent or whatever number the bright young sprout has guess-timated. The decision is, as you might guess, dump the old files and reduce other costs immediately.
- Doing “data” or “online” is expensive, and the costs associated with each are very difficult, if not impossible to control. Neither government agencies, non-governmental outfits, the United Nations, a library in Cleveland or the estimable Harvard University have sufficient money to make available or keep at hand information. Thus, stuff disappears.
- Well-intentioned outfits like the Internet Archive or Project Gutenberg are in the same accountant ink pot. Not every Web site is indexed and archived comprehensively. Not every book that can be digitized and converted to a format someone thinks will be “forever.” As a result, one has a better chance of discovering new information browsing through donated manuscripts at the Vatican Library than running an online query.
- If something unique is online “somewhere,” that item may be unfindable. Hey, what about Duke University’s collection of “old” books from the 17th century? Who knew?
- Will a government agency archive digital content in a comprehensive manner? Nope.
The article about “risks of disappearing” is a hoot. Notice this passage:
“Our entire epistemology of science and research relies on the chain of footnotes,” explains author Martin Eve, a researcher in literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London. “If you can’t verify what someone else has said at some other point, you’re just trusting to blind faith for artefacts that you can no longer read yourself.”
I like that word “epistemology.” Just one small problem: Trust. Didn’t the president of Stanford University have an opportunity to find his future elsewhere due to some data wonkery? Google wants to earn trust. Other outfits don’t fool around with trust; these folks gather data, exploit it, and resell it. Archiving and making it findable to a researcher or law enforcement? Not without friction, lots and lots of friction. Why verify? Estimates of non-reproducible research range from 15 percent to 40 percent of scientific, technical, and medical peer reviewed content. Trust? Hello, it’s time to wake up.
Many estimate how much new data are generated each year. I would suggest that data falling off the back end of online systems has been an active process. The first time an accountant hears the IT people say, “We can just roll off the old data and hold storage stable” is right up there with avoiding an IRS audit, finding a life partner, and billing an old person for much more than the accounting work is worth.
After 25 years, there is “risk.” Wow.
Stephen E Arnold, March 8, 2024
ACM: Good Defense or a Business Play?
March 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Professional publishers want to use the trappings of peer review, standards, tradition, and quasi academic hoo-hah to add value to their products; others want a quasi-monopoly. Think public legal filings and stuff in high school chemistry book. The customers of professional publishers are typically not the folks at the pizza joint on River Road in Prospect, Kentucky. The business of professional publishing in an interesting one, but in the wild and crazy world of collapsing next-gen publishing, professional publishing is often ignored. A publisher conference aimed at professional publishers is quite different from the Jazz Age South by Southwest shindig.
Yep, free. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s that security today?
But professional publishers have been in the news. Examples include the dust up about academics making up data. The big time president of the much-honored Stanford University took intellectual short cuts and quit late last year. Then there was the some nasty issue about data and bias at the esteemed Harvard University. Plus, a number of bookish types have guess-timated that a hefty percentage of research studies contain made-up data. Hey, you gotta publish to get tenure or get a grant, right?
But there is an intruder in the basement of the professional publishing club. The intruder positions itself in the space between the making up of some data and the professional publishing process. That intruder is ArXiv, an open-access repository of electronic preprints and postprints (known as e-prints) approved for posting after moderation, according to Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is the cancer which killed the old-school encyclopedias.) Plus, there are services which offer access to professional content without paying for the right to host the information. I won’t name these services because I have no desire to have legal eagles circle about my semi-functioning head.
Why do I present this grade-school level history? I read “CACM Is Now Open Access.” Let’s let the Association of Computing Machinery explain its action:
For almost 65 years, the contents of CACM have been exclusively accessible to ACM members and individuals affiliated with institutions that subscribe to either CACM or the ACM Digital Library. In 2020, ACM announced its intention to transition to a fully Open Access publisher within a roughly five-year timeframe (January 2026) under a financially sustainable model. The transition is going well: By the end of 2023, approximately 40% of the ~26,000 articles ACM publishes annually were being published Open Access utilizing the ACM Open model. As ACM has progressed toward this goal, it has increasingly opened large parts of the ACM Digital Library, including more than 100,000 articles published between 1951–2000. It is ACM’s plan to open its entire archive of over 600,000 articles when the transition to full Open Access is complete.
The decision was not an easy one. Money issues rarely are.
I want to step back and look at this interesting change from a different point of view:
- Getting a degree today is less of a must have than when I was a wee dinobaby. My parents told me I was going to college. Period. I learned how much effort was required to get my hands on academic journals. I was a master of knowing that Carnegie-Mellon had new but limited bound volumes of certain professional publications. I knew what journals were at the University of Pittsburgh. I used these resources when the Duquesne Library was overrun with the faithful. Now “researchers” can zip online and whip up astonishing results. Google-type researchers prefer the phrase “quantumly supreme results.” This social change is one factor influencing the ACM.
- Stabilizing revenue streams means pulling off a magic trick. Sexy conferences and special events complement professional association membership fees. Reducing costs means knocking off the now, very very expensive printing, storing, and shipping of physical journals. The ACM seems to have figured out how to keep the lights on and the computing machine types spending.
- ACM members can use ACM content the way they do a pirate library’s or the feel good ArXiv outfit. The move helps neutralize discontent among the membership, and it is good PR.
These points raise a question; to wit: In today’s world how relevant will a professional association and its professional publications be going foreword. The ACM states:
By opening CACM to the world, ACM hopes to increase engagement with the broader computer science community and encourage non-members to discover its rich resources and the benefits of joining the largest professional computer science organization. This move will also benefit CACM authors by expanding their readership to a larger and more diverse audience. Of course, the community’s continued support of ACM through membership and the ACM Open model is essential to keeping ACM and CACM strong, so it is critical that current members continue their membership and authors encourage their institutions to join the ACM Open model to keep this effort sustainable.
Yep, surviving in a world of faux expertise.
Stephen E Arnold, March 8, 2024
AI May Kill Jobs Plus It Can Kill Bambi, Koalas, and Whales
March 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.Amid the AI hype is little mention of a huge problem.
As Nature’s Kate Crawford reports, “Generative AI’s Environmental Costs Are Soaring—and Mostly Secret.” Besides draining us of fresh water, AI data centers also consume immense amounts of energy. We learn:
“One assessment suggests that ChatGPT, the chatbot created by OpenAI in San Francisco, California, is already consuming the energy of 33,000 homes. It’s estimated that a search driven by generative AI uses four to five times the energy of a conventional web search. Within years, large AI systems are likely to need as much energy as entire nations.”
Even OpenAI’s head Sam Altman admits this is not sustainable, but he has a solution in mind. Is he pursuing more efficient models, or perhaps redesigning data centers? Nope. Altman’s hopes are pinned on nuclear fusion. But that technology has been “right around the corner” for the last 50 years. We need solutions now, not in 2050 or later. Sadly, it is unlikely AI companies will make the effort to find and enact those solutions unless forced to. The article notes a piece of legislation, the Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2024, has finally been introduced in the Senate. But in the unlikely event the bill makes it through the House, it may be too feeble to make a real difference. Crawford considers:
“To truly address the environmental impacts of AI requires a multifaceted approach including the AI industry, researchers and legislators. In industry, sustainable practices should be imperative, and should include measuring and publicly reporting energy and water use; prioritizing the development of energy-efficient hardware, algorithms, and data centers; and using only renewable energy. Regular environmental audits by independent bodies would support transparency and adherence to standards. Researchers could optimize neural network architectures for sustainability and collaborate with social and environmental scientists to guide technical designs towards greater ecological sustainability. Finally, legislators should offer both carrots and sticks. At the outset, they could set benchmarks for energy and water use, incentivize the adoption of renewable energy and mandate comprehensive environmental reporting and impact assessments. The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act is a start, but much more will be needed — and the clock is ticking.”
Tick. Tock. Need a dead dolphin? Use a ChatGPT-type system.
Cynthia Murrell, March 8, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
