Kicking Cans Down the Street Is Not Violence. Is It a Type of Fraud Perhaps?
April 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Ah, spring, when young men’s fancies turn to thoughts of violence. Forget the Iran Israel dust up. Forget the Russia special operation. Think about this Bloomberg headline:
Tech’s Cash Crunch Sees Creditors Turn ‘Violent’ With One Another
Thanks, ChatGPT. Good enough.
Will this be drones? Perhaps a missile or two? No. I think it will be marketing hoo hah. Even though news releases may not inflict mortal injury, although someone probably has died from bad publicity, the rhetorical tone seems — how should we phrase it — over the top maybe?
The write up says:
Software and services companies are in the spotlight after issuing almost $30 billion of debt that’s classed as distressed, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, the most in any industry apart from real estate.
How do wizards of finance react to this “risk”? Answer:
“These two phenomena, coupled with the covenant-lite nature of leveraged loans today, have been the primary drivers of the creditor-on-creditor violence we’re seeing,” he [Jason Mudrick, founder of distressed credit investor Mudrick Capital] said.
Shades of the Sydney slashings or vehicle fires in Paris.
Here’s an example:
One increasingly popular maneuver these days, known as non-pro rata uptiering, sees companies cut a deal with a small group of creditors who provide new money to the borrower, pushing others further back in the line to be repaid. In return, they often partake in a bond exchange in which they receive a better swap price than other creditors.
Does this sound like “Let’s kick the can down the road.” Not articulated is the idea, “Let’s see what happens. If we fail, our management team is free to bail out.”
Nifty, right?
Financial engineering is a no harm, no foul game for some. Those who lose money? Yeah, too bad.
Stephen E Arnold, April 25, 2024
AI Transforms Memories Into Real Images
April 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Human memory is unreliable. It’s unreliable because we forget details, remember things incorrectly, believe things happened when they didn’t, and have different perspectives. We rely on human memory for everything, especially when it comes to recreating the past. The past can be recorded and recreated but one company is transforming photos into real images. The Technology Review explains how in, “Generative AI Can Turn Your Most Precious Memories Into Photos That Never Existed.”
Synthetic Memories is a studio that takes memories and uses AI to make them real. Pau Garcia founded the studio and got the idea to start Synthetic Memories after speaking with Syrian refugees. An elderly Syrian wanted to capture her memories for her descendants and Garcia graffitied a building to record them. His idea has taken off:
"Dozens of people have now had their memories turned into images in this way via Synthetic Memories, a project run by Domestic Data Streamers. The studio uses generative image models, such as OpenAI’s DALL-E, to bring people’s memories to life. Since 2022, the studio, which has received funding from the UN and Google, has been working with immigrant and refugee communities around the world to create images of scenes that have never been photographed, or to re-create photos that were lost when families left their previous homes.”
Domestic Data Streamers are working in a building next to the Barcelona Design Museum to record and recreate people’s memories of the city. Anyone is allowed to add a memory to the archive.
In order to recreate a memory, Garcia and his team developed a simple process. An interviewer sits with a subject, who then asks them to recount a memory. A prompt engineer writes a prompt for a model on a laptop to generate an image. Garcia’s team have written an entire glossary of prompting terms. The terms need to be edited to be accurate, so the engineers work with the subjects.
Garcia and his team learned that older subjects connect better with physical copies of their images. Images that are also blurry and warped resonate more with people too, because memories aren’t remembered in crisp detail. Garcia also stresses it is important to remember the difference between synthetic images and real photography. He says synthetic memories aren’t meant to be factual. He worries that if a larger company use better versions of DALL-E they’ll forgo older models for photorealism.
Whitey Grace, April 25, 2024
Is Grandma Google Making Erratic Decisions?
April 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Clowny Fish TV is unknown to me. The site published a write up which I found interesting and stuffed full of details I had not seen previously. The April 18, 2024, essay is “YouTubers Claim YouTube is Very Broken Right Now.” Let’s look at a handful of examples and see if these spark any thoughts in my dinobaby mind. As Vladimir Shmondenko says, “Let’s go.”
Grandma Googzilla has her view of herself. Nosce teipsum, right? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s your security today?
Here’s a statement to consider:
Over the past 72 hours, YouTubers have been complaining on X about everything from delayed comments to a noticeable decline in revenue and even videos being removed by Google for nebulous reasons after being online for years.
Okay, sluggish functions from the video ad machine. I have noticed either slow-loading or dead video ads; that is, the ads take a long time (maybe a second or two to 10 seconds to show up) or nothing happens and a “Skip” button just appears. No ad to skip. I wonder, “Do the advertisers pay for a non-displayed ad followed by a skip?” I assume there is some fresh Google word salad available in the content cafeteria, but I have not spotted it. Those arrests have, however, caught my attention.
Another item from the essay:
In fact, many longtime YouTube content creators have announced their retirements from the platform over the past year, and I have to wonder if these algorithm changes aren’t a driving force behind that. There’s no guarantee that there will be room for the “you” in YouTube six months from now, let alone six years from now.
I am not sure I know many of the big-time content creators. I do know that the famous Mr. Beast has formed a relationship with the Amazon Twitch outfit. Is that megastar hedging his bets? I think he is. Those videos cost big bucks and could be on broadcast TV if there were a functioning broadcast television service in the US.
How about this statement:
On top of the algorithm shift, and on top of the monetization hit, Google is now reportedly removing old videos that violate their current year Terms of Service.
Shades of the 23andMe approach to Terms of Service. What struck me is that one of my high school history teachers — I think his name was Earl Skaggs — railed against Joseph Stalin’s changing Russian history and forcing textbooks to be revised to present Mr. Stalin’s interpretation of reality. Has Google management added changing history to their bag of tricks. I know that arresting employees is a useful management tool, but I have been relying on news reports. Maybe those arrests were “fake news.” Nothing surprises me where online information is in the mix.
I noted this remarkable statement in the Clown Fish TV essay:
Google was the glue that held all these websites together and let people get found. We’re seeing what a world looks like without Google. Because for many content creators and journalists, it’ll be practically worthless going forward.
I have selected a handful of items. The original article includes screenshots, quotes from people whom I assume are “experts” or whatever passes as an authority today, and a of Google algorithm questioning. But any of the Googlers with access to the algorithm can add a tweak or create a “wrapper” to perform a specific task. I am not sure too many Googlers know how to fiddle the plumbing anymore. Some of the “clever” code is now more than 25 years old. (People make fun of mainframes. Should more Kimmel humor be directed at 25 year old Google software?)
Observations are indeed warranted:
- I read Google criticism on podcasts; I read criticism of Google online. Some people are falling out of love with the Google.
- Google muffed the bunny with its transformer technology. By releasing software as open source, the outfit may have unwittingly demonstrated how out of touch its leadership team is and opened the door to some competitors able to move more quickly than Grandma Google. Microsoft. Davos. AI. Ah, yes.
- The Sundar & Prabhakar School of Strategic Thinking has allowed Google search to become an easy target. Metasearch outfits recycling poor old Bing results are praised for being better than Google. That’s quite an achievement and a verification that some high-school science club management methods don’t work as anticipated. I won’t mention arresting employees again. Oh, heck. I will. Google called the police on its own staff. Slick. Professional.
Net net: Clown Fish TV definitely has presented a useful image of Grandma Google and her video behaviors.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2024
From the Cyber Security Irony Department: We Market and We Suffer Breaches. Hire Us!
April 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Irony, according to You.com, means:
Irony is a rhetorical device used to express an intended meaning by using language that conveys the opposite meaning when taken literally. It involves a noticeable, often humorous, difference between what is said and the intended meaning. The term “irony” can be used to describe a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular outcome turns out to have been incorrect all along. Irony can take various forms, such as verbal irony, dramatic irony, and situational irony. The word “irony” comes from the Greek “eironeia,” meaning “feigned ignorance”
I am not sure I understand the definition, but let’s see if these two “communications” capture the smart software’s definition.
The first item is an email I received from the cyber security firm Palo Alto Networks. The name evokes the green swards of Stanford University, the wonky mall, and the softball games (co-ed, of course). Here’s the email solicitation I received on April 15, 2024:
The message is designed to ignite my enthusiasm because the program invites me to:
Join us to discover how you can harness next-generation, AI-powered security to:
- Solve for tomorrow’s security operations challenges today
- Enable cloud transformation and deployment
- Secure hybrid workforces consistently and at scale
- And much more.
I liked the much more. Most cyber outfits do road shows. Will I drive from outside Louisville, Kentucky, to Columbus, Ohio? I was thinking about it until I read:
“Major Palo Alto Security Flaw Is Being Exploited via Python Zero-Day Backdoor.”
Maybe it is another Palo Alto outfit. When I worked in Foster City (home of the original born-dead mall), I think there was a Palo Alto Pizza. But my memory is fuzzy and Plastic Fantastic Land does blend together. Let’s look at the write up:
For weeks now, unidentified threat actors have been leveraging a critical zero-day vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks’ PAN-OS software, running arbitrary code on vulnerable firewalls, with root privilege. Multiple security researchers have flagged the campaign, including Palo Alto Networks’ own Unit 42, noting a single threat actor group has been abusing a vulnerability called command injection, since at least March 26 2024.
Yep, seems to be the same outfit wanting me to “solve for tomorrow’s security operations challenges today.” The only issue is that the exploit was discovered a couple of weeks ago. If the write up is accurate, the exploit remains unfixed.,
Perhaps this is an example of irony? However, I think it is a better example of the over-the-top yip yap about smart software and the efficacy of cyber security systems. Yes, I know it is a zero day, but it is a zero day only to Palo Alto. The bad actors who found the problem and exploited already know the company has a security issue.
I mentioned in articles about some intelware that the developers do one thing, the software project manager does another, and the marketers output what amounts to hoo hah, baloney, and Marketing 101 hyperbole.
Yep, ironic.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2024
Fake Books: Will AI Cause Harm or Do Good?
April 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read what I call a “howl” from a person who cares about “good” books. Now “good” is a tricky term to define. It is similar to “quality” or “love.” I am not going to try to define any of these terms. Instead I want to look at one example of smart software creating a problem for humans who create books. Then I want to focus attention on Amazon, the online bookstore. I think about two-thirds of American shoppers have some interaction with Amazon. That percentage is probably low if we narrow to top earners in the US. I want to wrap up with a reminder to those who think about smart software that the diffusion of technology chugs along and then — bang! — phase change. Spoiler: That’s what AI is doing now, and the pace is accelerating.
The Copilot images illustrates how smart software spreads. Cleaning up is a bit of a chore. The table cloth and the meeting may be ruined. But that’s progress of sorts, isn’t it?
The point of departure is an essay cum “real” news write up about fake books titled “Amazon Is Filled with Garbage Ebooks. Here’s How They Get Made.”
. These books are generated by smart software and Fiverr-type labor. Dump the content in a word processor, slap on a title, and publish the work on Amazon. I write my books by hand, and I try to label that which I write or pay people to write as “the work of a dumb dinobaby.” Other authors do not follow my practice. Let many flowers bloom.
The write up states:
It’s so difficult for most authors to make a living from their writing that we sometimes lose track of how much money there is to be made from books, if only we could save costs on the laborious, time-consuming process of writing them. The internet, though, has always been a safe harbor for those with plans to innovate that pesky writing part out of the actual book publishing.
This passage explains exactly why fake books are created. The fact of fake books makes clear that AI technology diffusing; that is, smart software is turning up in places and ways that the math people fiddling the numerical recipes or the engineers hooking up thousands of computing units envisioned. Why would they? How many mathy types are able to remember their mother’s birthday?
The path for the “fake book” is easy money. The objective is not excellence, sophisticated demonstration of knowledge, or the mindlessness of writing a book “because.” The angst in the cited essay comes from the side of the coin that wants books created the old-fashioned way. Yeah, I get it. But today it is clear that the hand crafted books are going to face some challenges in the marketplace. I anticipate that “quality” fake books will convert the “real” book to the equivalent of a cuneiform tablet. Don’t like this? I am a dinobaby, and I call the trajectory as my experience and research warrants.
Now what about buying fake books on Amazon? Anyone can get an ISBN, but for Amazon, no ISBN is (based on our tests) no big deal. Amazon has zero incentive to block fake books. If someone wants a hard copy of a fake book, let Amazon’s own instant print service produce the copy. Amazon is set up to generate revenue, not be a grumpy grandmother forcing grandchildren to pick up after themselves. Amazon could invest to squelch fraudulent or suspect behaviors. But here’s a representative Amazon word salad explanation cited in the “Garbage Ebooks” essay:
In a statement, Amazon spokesperson Ashley Vanicek said, “We aim to provide the best possible shopping, reading, and publishing experience, and we are constantly evaluating developments that impact that experience, which includes the rapid evolution and expansion of generative AI tools.”
Yep, I suggest not holding one’s breath until Amazon spends money to address a pervasive issue within its service array.
Now the third topic: Slowly, slowly, then the frog dies. Smart software in one form or another has been around a half century or more. I can date smart software in the policeware / intelware sector to the late 1990s when commercial services were no longer subject to stealth operation or “don’t tell” business practices. For the ChatGPT-type services, NLP has been around longer, but it did not work largely due to computational costs and the hit-and-miss approaches of different research groups. Inference, DR-LINK, or one of the other notable early commercial attempts, anyone?
Okay, now the frog is dead, and everyone knows it. Better yet, navigate to any open source repository or respond to one of those posts on Pinboard or listings in Product Hunt, and you are good to go. Anthropic has released a cook book, just do-it-yourself ideas for building a start up with Anthropic tools. And if you write Microsoft Excel or Word macros for a living, you are already on the money road.
I am not sure Microsoft’s AI services work particularly well, but the stuff is everywhere. Microsoft is spending big to make sure it is not left out of an AI lunches in Dubai. I won’t describe the impact of the Manhattan chatbot. That’s a hoot. (We cover this slip up in the AItoAI video pod my son and I do once each month. You can find that information about NYC at this link.)
Net net: The tipping point has been reached. AI is tumbling and its impact will be continuous — at least for a while. And books? Sure, great books like those from Twitter luminaries will sell. To those without a self-promotion rail gun, cloudy days ahead. In fact, essays like “Garbage Ebooks” will be cranked out by smart software. Most people will be none the wiser. We are not facing a dead Internet; we are facing the death of high-value information. When data are synthetic, what’s original thinking got to do with making money?
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2024
So Much for Silicon Valley Solidarity
April 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I thought the entity called Benzinga was a press release service. Guess not. I received a link to what looked like a “real” news story written by a Benzinga Staff Writer name Jain Rounak. “Elon Musk Reacts As Marc Andreessen Says Google Is ‘Literally Run By Employee Mobs’ With ‘Chinese Spies’ Scooping Up AI Chip Designs.” The article is a short one, and it is not exactly what the title suggested to me. Nevertheless, let’s take a quick look at what seems to be some ripping of the Silicon Valley shibboleth of solidarity.
The members of the Happy Silicon Valley Social club are showing signs of dissention. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How is your security today? Oh, really.
The hook for the story is another Google employee protest. The cause was a deal for Google to provide cloud services to Israel. I assume the Googlers split along ethno-political-religious lines: One group cheering for Hamas and another for Israel. (I don’t have any first-hand evidence, so I am leveraging the scant information in the Benzinga news story.
Then what? Apparently Marc Andreessen of Netscape fame and AI polemics offered some thoughts. I am not sure where these assertions were made or if they are on the money. But, I grant to Benzinga, that the Andreessen emissions are intriguing. Let’s look at one:
“The company is literally overrun by employee mobs, Chinese spies are walking AI chip designs out the door, and they turn the Founding Fathers and the Nazis black.”
The idea that there are “Google mobs” running from Foosball court to vending machines and then to their quiet space and then to the parking lot is interesting. Where’s Charles Dickens of Tale of Two Cities fame when you need an observer to document a revolution. Are Googlers building barricades in the passage ways? Are Prius and Tesla vehicles being set on fire?
In the midst of this chaotic environment, there are Chinese spies. I am not sure one has to walk chip designs anywhere. Emailing them or copying them from one Apple device to another works reasonably well in my experience. The reference to the Google art is a reminder that the high school management club approach to running a potential trillion dollar, alleged monopoly need some upgrades.
Where’s the Elon in this? I think I am supposed to realize that Elon and Andreessen are on the same mental wave length. The Google is not. Therefore, the happy family notion is shattered. Okay, Benzinga. Whatever. Drop those names. The facts? Well, drop those too.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2024
Google AI: Who Is on First? I Do Not Know. No, No, He Is on Third
April 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
A big reorg has rattled the Googlers. Not only are these wizards candidates for termination, the work groups are squished like the acrylic pour paintings thrilling YouTube crafters.
Image from Vizoli Art via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@VizoliArt
The image might be a representation of Google’s organization, but I am just a dinobaby without expertise in art or thing Googley. Let me give you an example.
I read “Google Consolidates Its DeepMind and Research Teams Amid AI Push” (from the trust outfit itself, Thomson Reuters). The story presents the date as April 18, 2024. I learned:
The search engine giant had merged its research units Google Brain and DeepMind a year back to sharpen its focus on AI development and get ahead of rivals like Microsoft, a partner of ChatGPT and Sora maker OpenAI.
And who moves? The trust outfit says:
Google will relocate its Responsible AI teams – which focuses on safe AI development – from Research to DeepMind so that they are closer to where AI models are built and scaled, the company said in a blog post.
Ars Technica, which publishes articles without self-identifying with trust. “Google Merges the Android, Chrome, and Hardware Divisions.” That write up channels the acrylic pour approach to management, which Ars Technica describes this way:
Google Hardware SVP Rick Osterloh will lead the new “Platforms and Devices” division. Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google’s previous head of software platforms like Android and ChromeOS, will be headed to “some new projects” at Google.
Why? AI, of course.
But who runs this organizational mix up?
One answer appears in an odd little “real” news story from an outfit called Benzinga. “Google’s DeepMind to Lead Unified AI Charge as Company Seeks to Outpace Microsoft.” The write up asserts:
The reorganization will see all AI-related teams, including the development of the Gemini chatbot, consolidated under the DeepMind division led by Demis Hassabis. This consolidation encompasses research, model development, computing resources, and regulatory compliance teams…
I assume that the one big happy family of Googlers will sort out the intersections of AI, research, hardware, app software, smart software, lines of authority, P&L responsibility, and decision making. Based on my watching Google’s antics over the last 25 years, chaos seems to be part of the ethos of the company. One cannot forget that for the AI razzle dazzle, Code Red, and reorganizational acrylic pouring, advertising accounts for about 60 percent of the firm’s financial footstool.
Will Google’s management team be able to answer the question, “Who is on first?” Will the result of the company’s acrylic pour approach to organizational structures yield a YouTube video like this one? The creator Left Brained Artist explains why acrylic paints cracked, come apart, and generally look pretty darned terrible.
Will Google’s pouring units together result in a cracked result? Left Brained Artist’s suggestions may not apply to an online ad company trying to cope with difficult-to-predict competitors like the Zucker’s Meta or the Microsoft clump of AI stealth fighters: OpenAI, Mistral, et al.
Reviewing the information in these three write ups about Google, I will offer several of my unwanted and often irritating observations. Ready?
- Comparing the Microsoft AI re-organization to the Google AI re-organization it seems to be that Microsoft has a more logical set up. Judging from the information to which I have access, Microsoft is closing deals for its AI technology with government entities and selected software companies. Microsoft is doing practical engineering drawings; Google is dumping acrylic paint, hoping it will be pretty and make sense.
- Google seems to be struggling from a management point of view. We have sit ins, we have police hauling off Googlers, and we have layoffs. We have re-organizations. We have numerous signals that the blue chip consulting approach to an online advertising outfit is a bit unpredictable. Hey, just sell ads and use AI to help you do it without creating 1960s’ style college sophomore sit ins.
- Get organized. Make an attempt to answer the question, “Who is on first?
As Abbott and Costello explained:
Costello: Well, all I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base?
Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base?
Costello: I’m not asking you who’s on second.
Abbott: Who’s on first.
Exactly. Just sell online ads.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2024
More Inside Dope about McKinsey & Company
April 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
It appears that blue chip consultants are finding some choppy waters in the exclusive money pond at the knowledge country club.
“I Was a Consultant at McKinsey. Here’s the Frustrating Way They Pushed Me Out” reveals some interesting but essentially personal assertions about the blue chip consulting firm. McKinsey & Co. is associated in my mind with the pharmaceutical industry’s money maker, synthetic opioids. Living in Kentucky, evidence about the chemical compound is fairly easy to spot. Drive East of my home. Check out Nitro, West Virginia, and you can gather more evidence.
ChatGPT captures an elite group pushing someone neither liked nor connected out the door. Good enough.
The main idea of the write up is that McKinsey is presented as an exclusive club. Being liked and having connections are more important than any other capability. A “best of the best” on the outs is left marooned in a cube. The only email comes from a consultant offering help related to finding one’s future elsewhere. Fun.
What’s the firm doing in the first quarter of 2024? If the information in the Business Insider article is on the money, McKinsey is reinventing itself. Here are some of the possibly accurate statements in the article:
- McKinsey & Co. has found easy consulting money drying up
- The firm is downsizing
- Work at McKinsey is mostly PowerPoint decks shaped to make the customer “look good”
- McKinsey does not follow its own high-value consulting advice when it comes to staffing.
What does the write up suggest? That is a question with different answers. For someone who has never worked at a blue chip consulting firm, the answer is, “Who cares?” For a person with some exposure to these outfits, the answer is, “So what’s new?” From an objective and reasonably well informed vantage point, the answer may be, “Are consulting firms a bunch of baloney?”
Change, however, is afoot. Let me cite one example. Competition for the blue-chip outfits was once narrowly defined. Now the competition is coming from unexpected places. I will offered one example to get your thought process rolling. Axios, a publishing company owned by , is now positioning its journalists as “experts.” Instead of charging a couple thousand of dollars per hour, Axios will sell a “name brand expert,” video calls, and special news reports. Plus, Axios will jump into the always-exciting world of conferences in semi-nice places.
How will McKinsey and its ilk respond? Will these firms reveal that they are also publishing houses and have been since their inception? Will they morph into giants of artificial intelligence, possibly creating their own models from the reams of proprietary reports, memoranda, emails, and consultant notes? Will McKinsey buy an Axios-type outfit and morph into something the partners from the 1960s would never recognize? Will blue-chip firms go out of business as individuals low-ball engagements to cash-conscious clients?
Net net: When a firm like McKinsey finds itself pilloried for failure to follow its own advice, the future is uncertain. Perhaps McKinsey should call another blue chip outfit? Better yet, buy some help from GLG or Coleman.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2024
Harvard University: A Sticky Wicket, Right, Old Chap?
April 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I know plastic recycling does not work. The garbage pick up outfit assures me it recycles. Yeah, sure. However, I know one place where recycling is alive and well. I watched a video about someone named Francesca Gino, a Harvard professor. A YouTuber named Pete Judo presents information showing that Ms. Gino did some recycling. He did not award her those little green Ouroboros symbols. Copying and pasting are out of bounds in the Land of Ivory Towers in which Harvard has allegedly the ivory-est. You can find his videos at https://www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1.
The august group of academic scholars are struggling to decide which image best fits the 21st-century version of their prestigious university: The garbage recycling image representing reuse of trash generated by other scholars or the snake-eating-its-tail image of the Ouroboros. So many decisions have these elite thinkers. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Looking forward to your new minority stake in a company in a far off land?
As impressive a source as a YouTuber is, I think I found an even more prestigious organ of insight, the estimable New York Post. Navigate through the pop ups until you see the “real” news story “Harvard Medical School Professor Massively Plagiarized Report for Lockheed Martin Suit: Judge.” The thrust of this story is that a moonlighting scholar “plagiarized huge swaths of a report he submitted on carcinogenic chemicals, according to a federal judge, who agreed to remove it as evidence in a class action case against Lockheed Martin.”
Is this Medical School-related item spot on? I don’t know. Is the Gino-us activity on the money? For that matter, is a third Harvard professor of ethics guilty of an ethical violation in a journal article about — wait for it — ethics? I don’t know, and I don’t have the energy to figure out if plagiarism is the new Covid among academics in Boston.
However, based on the drift of these examples, I can offer several observations:
- Harvard University has a public relations problem. Judging from the coverage in outstanding information services as YouTube and the New York Post, the remarkable school needs to get its act together and do some “messaging.” When the plagiarism pandemic is real or fabricated by the type of adversary Microsoft continually says creates trouble, Harvard’s reputation is going to be worn down by a stream of digital bad news.
- The ways of a most Ivory Tower thing are mysterious. Nevertheless, it is clear that the mechanism for hiring, motivating, directing, and preventing academic superstars from sticking their hand in a pile of dog doo is not working. That falls into what I call “governance.” I want to use my best Harvard rhetoric now: “Hey, folks, you ain’t making good moves.”
- The top dog (president, CFO, bursar, whatever) you are on the path to an “F.” Imagine what a moral stick in the mud like William James would think of Harvard’s leadership if he were still waddling around, mumbling about radical pragmatism. Even more frightening is an AI version of this sporty chap doing a version of AI Jesus on Twitch. Instead of recycling Christian phrases, he would combine his thoughts about ethics, psychology, and Harvard with the possibly true stories about Harvard integrity herpes. Yikes.
Net net: What about educating tomorrow’s leaders. Should these young minds emulate what professors are doing, or should they be learning to pursue knowledge without shortcuts, cheating, plagiarism, and looking like characters from The Simpsons?
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2024
Paranoia or Is it Parano-AI? Yes
April 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I get a kick out of the information about the future impact of smart software. If those writing about the downstream consequences of artificial intelligence were on the beam, those folks would be camping out in one of those salubrious Las Vegas casinos. They are not. Thus, the prognostications provide more insight into the authors’ fears in my opinion.
OpenAI produced this good enough image of a Top Dog reading reports about AI’s taking jobs from senior executives. Quite a messy desk, which is an indicator of an inferior executive mindset.
Here’s an example: “Even the Boss Is Worried! Hundreds of Chief Executives Fear AI Could Steal Their Jobs Too.” The write up is based on a study conducted by Censuswide for AND Digital. Here we go, fear lovers:
- A “jobs apocalypse”: “AI experts have predicted a 50-50 chance machines could take over all our jobs within a century.”
- Scared yet? “Nearly half – 43 per cent – of bosses polled admitted they too were worried AI could take steal their job.”
- Ignorance is bliss: “44 per cent of global CEOs did not think their staff were ready to handle AI.”
- Die now? “A survey of over 2,700 AI researchers in January meanwhile suggested AI could well be ‘better and cheaper’ than humans in every profession by 2116.”
My view is that the diffusion of certain types of smart software will occur over time. If the technology proves it can cuts costs and be good enough, then it will be applied where the benefits are easy to identify and monitor. When something goes off the rails, the smart software will suffer a set back. Changes will be made, and the “Let’s try again” approach will kick in. Can motivated individuals adapt? Sure. The top folks will adjust and continue to perform. The laggards will get an “Also Participated” ribbon and collect money by busking, cleaning houses, or painting houses. The good old Darwinian principles don’t change. A digital panther can kill you just as dead as a real panther.
Exciting? Not for a surviving dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
