Let Them Eat Cake or Unplug: The AI Big Tech Bro Effect

November 7, 2024

I spotted a news item which will zip right by some people. The “real” news outfit owned by the lovable Jeff Bezos published “As Data Centers for AI Strain the Power Grid, Bills Rise for Everyday Customers.” The write up tries to explain that AI costs for electric power are being passed along to regular folks. Most of these electricity dependent people do not take home paychecks with tens of millions of dollars like the Nadellas, the Zuckerbergs, or the Pichais type breadwinners do. Heck, these AI poohbahs think about buying modular nuclear power plants. (I want to point out that these do not exist and may not for many years.)

The article is not going to thrill the professionals who are experts on utility demand and pricing. Those folks know that the smart software poohbahs have royally screwed up some weekends and vacations for the foreseeable future.

The WaPo article (presumably blessed by St. Jeffrey) says:

The facilities’ extraordinary demand for electricity to power and cool computers inside can drive up the price local utilities pay for energy and require significant improvements to electric grid transmission systems. As a result, costs have already begun going up for customers — or are about to in the near future, according to utility planning documents and energy industry analysts. Some regulators are concerned that the tech companies aren’t paying their fair share, while leaving customers from homeowners to small businesses on the hook.

Okay, typical “real” journospeak. “Costs have already begun going up for customers.” Hey, no kidding. The big AI parade began with the January 2023 announcement that the Softies were going whole hog on AI. The lovable Google immediately flipped into alert mode. I can visualize flashing yellow LEDs and faux red stop lights blinking in the gray corridors in Shoreline Drive facilities if there are people in those offices again. Yeah, ghostly blinking.

The write up points out, rather unsurprisingly:

The tech firms and several of the power companies serving them strongly deny they are burdening others. They say higher utility bills are paying for overdue improvements to the power grid that benefit all customers.

Who wants PEPCO and VEPCO to kill their service? Actually, no one. Imagine life in NoVa, DC, and the ever lovely Maryland without power. Yikes.

From my point of view, informed by some exposure to the utility sector at a nuclear consulting firm and then at a blue chip consulting outfit, here’s the scoop.

The demand planning done with rigor by US utilities took a hit each time the Big Dogs of AI brought more specialized, power hungry servers online and — here’s the killer, folks — and left them on. The way power consumption used to work is that during the day, consumer usage would fall and business/industry usage would rise. The power hogging steel industry was a 24×7 outfit. But over the last 40 years, manufacturing has wound down and consumer demand crept upwards. The curves had to be plotted and the demand projected, but, in general, life was not too crazy for the US power generation industry. Sure, there were the costs associated with decommissioning “old” nuclear plants and expanding new non-nuclear facilities with expensive but management environmental gewgaws, gadgets, and gizmos plugged in to save the snail darters and the frogs.

Since January 2023, demand has been curving upwards. Power generation outfits don’t want to miss out on revenue. Therefore, some utilities have worked out what I would call sweetheart deals for electricity for AI-centric data centers. Some of these puppies suck more power in a day than a dying city located in Flyover Country in Illinois.

Plus, these data centers are not enough. Each quarter the big AI dogs explain that more billions will be pumped into AI data centers. Keep in mind: These puppies run 24×7. The AI wolves have worked out discount rates.

What do the US power utilities do? First, the models have to be reworked. Second, the relationships to trade, buy, or “borrow” power have to be refined. Third, capacity has to be added. Fourth, the utility rate people create a consumer pricing graph which may look like this:

image

Guess who will pay? Yep, consumers.

The red line is the prediction for post-AI electricity demand. For comparison, the blue line shows the demand curve before Microsoft ignited the AI wars. Note that the gray line is consumer cost or the monthly electricity bill for Bob and Mary Normcore. The nuclear purple line shows what is and will continue to happen to consumer electricity costs. The red line is the projected power demand for the AI big dogs.

The graph shows that the cost will be passed to consumers. Why? The sweetheart deals to get the Big Dog power generation contracts means guaranteed cash flow and a hurdle for a low-ball utility to lumber over. Utilities like power generation are not the Neon Deions of American business.

There will be hand waving by regulators. Some city government types will argue, “We need the data centers.” Podcasts and posts on social media will sprout like weeds in an untended field.

Net net: Bob and Mary Normcore may have to decide between food and electricity. AI is wonderful, right.

Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024

Google: The Intellectual Oakland Because There Is No There There, Just Ads

November 7, 2024

dino orange_thumb_thumbThe post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.

I read a clever essay titled “I Attended Google’s Creator Conversation Event, And It Turned Into A Funeral.” Be aware that the text can disappear as a big gray box covers the essay. Just read quickly.

The report explains that a small group of problematic content creators found their sites or other content effectively made invisible in Google search results. Boom. Videos disappear. Boom. Key words no longer retrieve a Web site. So Google did the politically correct thing and got a former conference organizer to round up some of the disaffected and come to a meeting to discuss content getting disappeared. No real reasons are given by Google, but the essay recounts the experience on one intrepid optimist who thought, “This time Google will be different.”

image

A very professional Googler evades a question. A person in the small group meeting asks it again. She is not happy with Google’s evasiveness. Well, too bad. Thanks, Midjourney. MSFT Copilot is still dead.

Nope.

The write up does a good job of capturing the nothingness of a Google office. If you have not been to one, try to set up a meeting. Good luck.

I want to focus on a couple of points in the essay and then offer a handful of observations.

I noted this statement:

During this small group discussion, I and others tried to get our Googlers to address the biggest problem facing our industry: Google giving big brands special treatment. Each time a site owner brought up the topic, we were quickly steered in another direction.

Google wants or assumes that it is control of everything most of the time. Losing control means one is not a true Googler. The people at this Google event learned that non-Googlers and their questions are simply not relevant. Google goes through certain theatrical events to check off a task.

Also, I circled this comment:

…we then asked the only question that mattered: Why has Google shadow banned our sites? Google’s Chief Search Scientist answered this question using a strategy based around gaslighting and said they hadn’t. Google doesn’t ever derank an entire site, only individual pages, he said. There is no site-wide classifier. He insisted it is only done at the page level.

This statement is accurate. A politically correct answer is one that does not reveal Google’s intent for anything. Individuals in charge of a project or program usually do not know what is going on with that program. Information is shared via the in house communications systems, email or text messages which are viewed as potential problems if released to those outside the Google, and meetings which are often ad hoc or without an agenda. The company sells advertising and reacts to what appear to be threats, legal actions, or ways to make money.

I noted this statement:

someone bluntly asked, since nothing is wrong with our sites, how do we recover? Google’s elderly Chief Search Scientist answered, without an ounce of pity or concern, that there would be updates but he didn’t know when they’d happen or what they’d do.  Further questions on the subject were met with indifference as if he didn’t understand why we cared. He’d gotten the information he wanted. The conference was over. I don’t think he even said thanks.

This is accurate. Why should a member of leadership care about a “user”? Clicks produce data. The data and attendant content are processed to make more money. That’s why customer service is limited to big budget advertisers who spend real money on Google advertising.

Several observations:

  1. Google is big (150,000 or more employees). Google is chaotic. Individuals, groups, and entire divisions are not sure what is going on. How many messaging apps did Google have at one time? Lots. Why? No one knows or knew. The people coming to the meeting about finding themselves invisible in the Google finding systems assumed that a big company was not chaotic. Now the attendees know.
  2. People who create content have replaced people who used to get paid to create content. Now the “creators” work for the hope of Google advertising money. What’s the percentage paid to a “creator”? Try to find those data, gentle reader. Google does what it does: Individual Googlers or a couple of Googlers set up a system and go to play Foosball. That means 149,998 colleagues have zero idea what’s happening. Content “creators” expect someone to be responsible and to know how systems work. The author of the essay now knows only a couple of people may know the answer to the question. If those people quit, one will never know.
  3. The people who use Google to find relevant information are irrelevant as individuals. The person who wants to find a pizza in Cleveland may find only the pizza a person working on Google Local for Cleveland may like. If that pizza joint spends a couple of thousand per month on Google ads, that pizza may be findable. Most people do not understand the linkages between search engine optimization, Google advertising sales, and the Google mostly automated Google ad auctioning system. One search engineer working from home can have quite an impact on people who make content and assume that Google will make it findable. The author of the article knows this assumption about Google is a fairy tale.

Google has be labeled a monopoly. Google is suggesting that if the company is held accountable for its behaviors, the US will lose its foothold in artificial intelligence. Brilliant argument. Google has employees who have won a Nobel Prize. People not held accountable often lose sight of many things.

That’s why the big meeting was dumped into the task list of a person who ran search engine optimization conferences. One does not pray for that individual; one does not go to meetings managed by such a professional.

Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024

The Yogi Berra Principle: Déjà Vu All Over Again

November 7, 2024

dino orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumbSorry to disappoint you, but this blog post is written by a dumb humanoid. The art? We used MidJourney.

I noted two write ups. The articles share what I call a meta concept. The first article is from PC World called “Office Apps Crash on Windows 11 24H2 PCs with CrowdStrike Antivirus.” The actors in this soap opera are the confident Microsoft and the elegant CrowdStrike. The write up says:

The annoying error affects Office applications such as Word or Excel, which crash and become completely unusable after updating to Windows 11 24H2. And this apparently only happens on systems that are running antivirus software by CrowdStrike. (Yes, the very same CrowdStrike that caused the global IT meltdown back in July.)

image

A patient, skilled teacher explains to the smart software, “You goofed, speedy.” Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.

The other write up adds some color to the trivial issue. “Windows 11 24H2 Misery Continues, As Microsoft’s Buggy Update Is Now Breaking Printers – Especially on Copilot+ PCs” says:

Neowin reports that there are quite a number of complaints from those with printers who have upgraded to Windows 11 24H2 and are finding their device is no longer working. This is affecting all the best-known printer manufacturers, the likes of Brother, Canon, HP and so forth. The issue is mainly being experienced by those with a Copilot+ PC powered by an Arm processor, as mentioned, and it either completely derails the printer, leaving it non-functional, or breaks certain features. In other cases, Windows 11 users can’t install the printer driver.

Okay, dinobaby, what’s the meta concept thing? Let me offer my ideas about the challenge these two write ups capture:

  1. Microsoft may have what I call the Boeing disease; that is, the engineering is not so hot. Many things create problems. Finger pointing and fast talking do not solve the problems.
  2. The entities involved are companies and software which have managed to become punch lines for some humorists. For instance, what software can produce more bricks than a kiln? Answer: A Windows update. Ho ho ho. Funny until one cannot print a Word document for a Type A, drooling MBA.
  3. Remediating processes don’t remediate. The word process itself generates flawed outputs. Stated another way, like some bank mainframes and 1960s code, fixing is not possible and there are insufficient people and money to get the repair done.

The meta concept is that the way well paid workers tackle an engineering project is capable of outputting a product or service that has a failure rate approaching 100 percent. How about those Windows updates? Are they the digital equivalent of the Boeing space initiative.

The answer is, “No.” We have instances of processes which cannot produce reliable products and services. The framework itself produces failure. This idea has some interesting implications. If software cannot allow a user to print, what else won’t perform as expected? Maybe AI?

Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024

Dreaming about Enterprise Search: Hope Springs Eternal…

November 6, 2024

dino orange_thumbThe post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.

Enterprise search is back, baby. The marketing lingo is very year 2003, however. The jargon has been updated, but the story is the same: We can make an organization’s information accessible. Instead of Autonomy’s Neurolinguistic Programming, we have AI. Instead of “just text,” we have video content processed. Instead of filters, we have access to cloud-stored data.

image

An executive knows he can crack the problem of finding information instantly. The problem is doing it so that the time and cost of data clean up does not cost more than buying the Empire State Building. Thanks, Stable Diffusion. Good enough.

A good example of the current approach to selling the utility of an enterprise search and retrieval system is the article / interview in Betanews called “How AI Is Set to Democratize Information.” I want to be upfront. I am a mostly aligned with the analysis of information and knowledge presented by Taichi Sakaiya. His The Knowledge Value Revolution or a History of the Future has been a useful work for me since the early 1990s. I was in Osaka, Japan, lecturing at the Kansai Institute of Technology when I learned of this work book from my gracious hosts and the Managing Director of Kinokuniya (my sponsor). Devaluing knowledge by regressing to the fat part of a Gaussian distribution is not something about which I am excited.

However, the senior manager of Pyron (Raleigh, North Carolina), an AI-powered information retrieval company, finds the concept in line with what his firm’s technology provides to its customers.  The article includes this statement:

The concept of AI as a ‘knowledge cloud’ is directly tied to information access and organizational intelligence. It’s essentially an interconnected network of systems of records forming a centralized repository of insights and lessons learned, accessible to individuals and organizations.

The benefit is, according to the Pyron executive:

By breaking down barriers to knowledge, the AI knowledge cloud could eliminate the need for specialized expertise to interpret complex information, providing instant access to a wide range of topics and fields.

The article introduces a fresh spin on the problems of information in organizations:

Knowledge friction is a pervasive issue in modern enterprises, stemming from the lack of an accessible and unified source of information. Historically, organizations have never had a singular repository for all their knowledge and data, akin to libraries in academic or civic communities. Instead, enterprise knowledge is scattered across numerous platforms and systems — each managed by different vendors, operating in silos.

Pyron opened its doors in 2017. After seven years, the company is presenting a vision of what access to enterprise information could, would, and probably should do.

The reality, based on my experience, is different. I am not talking about Pyron now. I am discussing the re-emergence of enterprise search as the killer application for bolting artificial intelligence to information retrieval. If you are in love with AI systems from oligopolists, you may want to stop scanning this blog post. I do not want to be responsible for a stroke or an esophageal spasm. Here we go:

  1. Silos of information are an emergent phenomenon. Knowledge has value. Few want to make their information available without some value returning to them. Therefore, one can talk about breaking silos and democratization, but those silos will be erected and protected. Secret skunk works, mislabeled projects, and squirreling away knowledge nuggets for a winter’s day. In the case of Senator Everett Dirksen, the information was used to get certain items prioritized. That’s why there is a building named after him.
  2. The “value” of information or knowledge depends on another person’s need. A database which contains the antidote to save a child from a household poisoning costs money to access. Why? Desperate people will pay. The “information wants to free” idea is not one that makes sense to those with information and the knowledge to derive value from what another finds inscrutable. I am not sure that “democratizing information” meshes smoothly with my view.
  3. Enterprise search, with or without, hits some cost and time problems with a small number of what have been problems for more than 50 years. SMART failed, STAIRS III failed, and the hundreds of followers have failed. Content is messy. The idea that one can process text, spreadsheets, Word files, and email is one thing. Doing it without skipping wonky files or the time and cost of repurposing data remains difficult. Chemical companies deal with formulae; nuclear engineering firms deal with records management and mathematics; and consulting companies deal with highly paid people who lock up their information on a personal laptop. Without these little puddles of information, the “answer” or the “search output” will not be just a hallucination. The answer may be dead wrong.

I understand the need to whip up jargon like “democratize information”, “knowledge friction”, and “RAG frameworks”. The problem is that despite the words, delivering accurate, verifiable, timely on-point search results in response to a query is a difficult problem.

Maybe one of the monopolies will crack the problem. But most of output is a glimpse of what may be coming in the future. When will the future arrive? Probably when the next PR or marketing write up about search appears. As I have said numerous times, I find it more difficult to locate the information I need than at any time in my more than half a century in online information retrieval.

What’s easy is recycling marketing literature from companies who were far better at describing a “to be” system, not a “here and now” system.

Stephen E Arnold, November 4, 2024

Twenty Five Percent of How Much, Google?

November 6, 2024

dino orangeThe post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.

I read the encomia to Google’s quarterly report. In a nutshell, everything is coming up roses even the hyperbole. One news hook which has snagged some “real” news professionals is that “more than a quarter of new code at Google is generated by AI.” The exclamation point is implicit. Google’s AI PR is different from some other firms; for example, Samsung blames its financial performance disappointments on some AI. Winners and losers in a game in which some think the oligopolies are automatic winners.

image

An AI believer sees the future which is arriving “soon, real soon.” Thanks, You.com. Good enough because I don’t have the energy to work around your guard rails.

The question is, “How much code and technical debt does Google have after a quarter century of its court-described monopolistic behavior? Oh, that number is unknown. How many current Google engineers fool around with that legacy code? Oh, that number is unknown and probably for very good reasons. The old crowd of wizards has been hit with retirement, cashing in and cashing out, and “leadership” nervous about fiddling with some processes that are “good enough.” But 25 years. No worries.

The big news is that 25 percent of “new” code is written by smart software and then checked by the current and wizardly professionals. How much “new” code is written each year for the last three years? What percentage of the total Google code base is “new” in the years between 2021 and 2024? My hunch is that “new” is relative. I also surmise that smart software doing 25 percent of the work is one of those PR and Wall Street targeted assertions specifically designed to make the Google stock go up. And it worked.

However, I noted this Washington Post article: “Meet the Super Users Who Tap AI to Get Ahead at Work.” Buried in that write up which ran the mostly rah rah AI “real” news article coincident with Google’s AI spinning quarterly reports one interesting comment:

Adoption of AI at work is still relatively nascent. About 67 percent of workers say they never use AI for their jobs compared to 4 percent who say they use it daily, according to a recent survey by Gallup.

One can interpret this as saying, “Imagine the growth that is coming from reduced costs. Get rid of most coders and just use Google’s and other firms’ smart programming tools.

Another interpretation is, “The actual use is much less robust than the AI hyperbole machine suggests.”

Which is it?

Several observations:

  1. Many people want AI to pump some life into the economic fuel tank. By golly, AI is going to be the next big thing. I agree, but I think the Gallup data indicates that the go go view is like looking at a field of corn from a crop duster zipping along at 1,000 feet. The perspective from the airplane is different from the person walking amidst the stalks.
  2. The lack of data behind Google-type assertions about how much machine code is in the Google mix sounds good, but where are the data? Google, aren’t you data driven? So, where’s the back up data for the 25 percent assertion.
  3. Smart software seems to be something that is expensive, requires dreams of small nuclear reactors next to a data center adjacent a hospital. Yeah, maybe once the impact statements, the nuclear waste, and the skilled worker issues have been addressed. Soon as measured in environmental impact statement time which is different from quarterly report time.

Net net: Google desperately wants to be the winner in smart software. The company is suggesting that if it were broken apart by crazed government officials, smart software would die. Insert the exclamation mark. Maybe two or three. That’s unlikely. The blurring of “as is” with “to be” is interesting and misleading.

Stephen E Arnold, November 6, 2024

Is Telegram Inspiring Microsoft?

November 6, 2024

You’d think the tech industry would be creative and original, but it’s exactly like others: everyone copies each other. The Verge runs down how Microsoft is “inspired” by Telegram in: “Microsoft Teams Is Getting Threads And Combined Chats And Channels.” Microsoft plans to bring threads and combine separate chats and channels in the Teams communications app. These changes won’t happened until 2025. These changes are similar to how Telegram already operates.

Microsoft is updating its UI, because of negative feedback from users. The changes will make Microsoft Teams easier to use and more organized:

“This new UI fixes one of the big reasons Microsoft Teams sucks for messaging, so you no longer have to flick between separate sections to catch up on messages from groups of people or channels. You’ll be able to configure this new section to keep chats and channels separate or enable custom sections where you can group conversations and projects together.”

Team will include more updates, including a favorites section to pin chats and channels, view customizations such as previews, single lists, and time stamps, and highlighting conversations that mention users. Microsoft Teams is actively listening to its end users and making changes to improve their experience. That’s a really good business MO, because many tech companies don’t do that.

It begs the question, however, if Microsoft is copying Telegram’s threaded conversations. Probably. But who is going to complain?

Whitney Grace, November 6, 2024

Hey, US Government, Listen Up. Now!

November 5, 2024

dino orange_thumbThis post is the work of a dinobaby. If there is art, accept the reality of our using smart art generators. We view it as a form of amusement.

Microsoft on the Issues published “AI for Startups.” The write is authored by a dream team of individuals deeply concerned about the welfare of their stakeholders, themselves, and their corporate interests. The sensitivity is on display. Who wrote the 1,400 word essay? Setting aside the lawyers, PR people, and advisors, the authors are:

  • Satya Nadella, Chairman and CEO, Microsoft
  • Brad Smith, Vice-Chair and President, Microsoft
  • Marc Andreessen, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
  • Ben Horowitz, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz

Let me highlight a couple of passages from essay (polemic?) which I found interesting.

image

In the era of trustbusters, some of the captains of industry had firm ideas about the place government professionals should occupy. Look at the railroads. Look at cyber security. Look at the folks living under expressway overpasses. Tumultuous times? That’s on the money. Thanks, MidJourney. A good enough illustration.

Here’s the first snippet:

Artificial intelligence is the most consequential innovation we have seen in a generation, with the transformative power to address society’s most complex problems and create a whole new economy—much like what we saw with the advent of the printing press, electricity, and the internet.

This is a bold statement of the thesis for these intellectual captains of the smart software revolution. I am curious about how one gets from hallucinating software to “the transformative power to address society’s most complex problems and cerate a whole new economy.” Furthermore, is smart software like printing, electricity, and the Internet? A fact or two might be appropriate. Heck, I would be happy with a nifty Excel chart of some supporting data. But why? This is the first sentence, so back off, you ignorant dinobaby.

The second snippet is:

Ensuring that companies large and small have a seat at the table will better serve the public and will accelerate American innovation. We offer the following policy ideas for AI startups so they can thrive, collaborate, and compete.

Ah, companies large and small and a seat at the table, just possibly down the hall from where the real meetings take place behind closed doors. And the hosts of the real meeting? Big companies like us. As the essay says, “that only a Big Tech company with our scope and size can afford, creating a platform that is affordable and easily accessible to everyone, including startups and small firms.”

The policy “opportunity” for AI startups includes many glittering generalities. The one I like is “help people thrive in an AI-enabled world.” Does that mean universal basic income as smart software “enhances” jobs with McKinsey-like efficiency. Hey, it worked for opioids. It will work for AI.

And what’s a policy statement without a variation on “May live in interesting times”? The Microsoft a2z twist is, “We obviously live in a tumultuous time.” That’s why the US Department of Justice, the European Union, and a few other Luddites who don’t grok certain behaviors are interested in the big firms which can do smart software right.

Translation: Get out of our way and leave us alone.

Stephen E Arnold, November 5, 2024

FOGINT: Hong Kong: A Significant Crypto Wiggle

November 5, 2024

Hong Kong is taking steps to secure its place in today’s high-tech landscape. Blockonomi reports, “Hong Kong’s Bold Move to Become Asia’s Crypto Capital.” Tax breaks, regulations, and a shiny new virtual asset index underpin the effort. Meanwhile, the Virtual Asset Trading Platform regime launched last year is chugging right along. We suspect Telegram is likely to be the utility for messaging, sales, and marketing.

Writer Oliver Dale tells us:

“The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) announced the launch of a Virtual Asset Index Series, scheduled for November 15, 2024. This new index will provide benchmark pricing for Bitcoin and Ether specifically tailored to Asia-Pacific time zones. The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) is working to finalize a list of crypto exchanges that will receive full licenses by year-end. Eric Yip, executive director for intermediaries at the SFC, revealed plans to establish a consultation panel by early 2025 to maintain oversight of licensed exchanges. The regulatory framework extends beyond trading platforms. Hong Kong authorities are developing comprehensive guidelines for crypto-focused over-the-counter trading desks and custodians, with implementation expected in the coming year. For stablecoin issuers, new requirements are being introduced. Foreign fiat-referenced stablecoin providers will need to establish physical operations in Hong Kong and maintain reserves in local banks.”

Establishing a physical presence in the city is no small thing. Though Hong Kong is a culturally rich and vibrant city, we hear real estate is at a premium. That is ok, we are sure stablecoin geniuses can afford it.

Hong Kong is also working to bring AI tools to the financial sector, but there it is caught between a rock and a hard place. Though a part of China, the dense and wealthy city operates under a unique “one country, two systems” governance framework. As a result, it has limited access to both western AI platforms, like Chat GPT and Gemini, and services from Chinese firms like Baidu and ByteDance. To bridge the gap, local institutions like The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are building their own solutions. Officials hope tax incentives will attract professional investment firms to the city.

The stablecoin policies should go into effect by the end of this year, while custodian regulations and consultation on over-the-counter trading are to be established some time in 2025.

Cynthia Murrell, November 5, 2024

How to Cut Podcasts Costs and Hassles: A UK Example

November 5, 2024

Using AI to replicate a particular human is a fraught topic. Of paramount concern is the relentless issue of deepfakes. There are also legal issues of control over one’s likeness, of course, and concerns the technology could put humans out of work. It is against this backdrop, the BBC reports, that “Michael Parkinson’s Son Defends New AI Podcast.” The new podcast uses AI to recreate the late British talk show host, who will soon interview (human) guests. Son Mike acknowledges the concerns, but insists this project is different. Writer Steven McIntosh explains:

“Mike Parkinson said Deep Fusion’s co-creators Ben Field and Jamie Anderson ‘are 100% very ethical in their approach towards it, they are very aware of the legal and ethical issues, and they will not try to pass this off as real’. Recalling how the podcast was developed, Parkinson said: ‘Before he died, we [my father and I] talked about doing a podcast, and unfortunately he passed away before it came true, which is where Deep Fusion came in. ‘I came to them and said, ‘if we wanted to do this podcast with my father talking about his archive, is it possible?’, and they said ‘it’s more than possible, we think we can do something more’. He added his father ‘would have been fascinated’ by the project, although noted the broadcaster himself was a ‘technophobe’. Discussing the new AI version of his father, Parkinson said: ‘It’s extraordinary what they’ve achieved, because I didn’t really think it was going to be as accurate as that.’”

So they have the family’s buy-in, and they are making it very clear the host is remade with algorithms. The show is called “Virtually Parkinson,” after all. But there is still that replacing human talent with AI thing. Deep Fusion’s Anderson notes that, since Parkinson is deceased, he is in no danger of losing work. However, McIntosh counters, any guest that appears on this show may give one fewer interview to a show hosted by a different, living person. Good point.

One thing noteworthy about Deep Fusion’s AI on this project is its ability to not just put words in Parkinson’s mouth, but to predict how he would have actually responded. Assuming that function is accurate, we have a request: Please bring back the objective reporting of Walter Cronkite. This world sorely needs it.

Cynthia Murrell, November 5, 2024

Microsoft 24H2: The Reality Versus Self Awareness

November 4, 2024

dino orangeSorry. Written by a dumb humanoid. Art? It is AI, folks. Eighty year old dinobabies cannot draw very well in my experience.

I spotted a short item titled “Microsoft Halts Windows 11 24H2 Update for Many PCs Due to Compatibility Issues.” Today is October 29, 2024. By the time you read this item, you may have a Windows equipped computer humming along on the charmingly named 11 24H2 update. That’s the one with Recall.

image

Microsoft does not see itself as slightly bedraggled. Those with failed updates do. Thanks, ChatGPT, good enough, but at least you work. MSFT Copilot has been down for six days with a glitch.

Now if you work at the Redmond facility where Google paranoia reigns, you probably have Recall running on your computing device as well as Teams’ assorted surveillance features. That means that when you run a query for “updates”, you may see screens presenting an array of information about non functioning drivers, printer errors, visits to the wonderfully organized knowledge bases, and possibly images of email from colleagues wanting to take kinetic action about the interns, new hires, and ham fisted colleagues who rolled out an update which does not update.

According to the write up offers this helpful advice:

We advise users against manually forcing the update through the Windows 11 Installation Assistant or media creation tool, especially on the system configurations mentioned above. Instead, users should check for updates to the specific software or hardware drivers causing the holds and wait for the blocks to be lifted naturally.

Okay.

Let’s look at this from the point of view of bad actors. These folks know that the “new” Windows with its many nifty new features has some issues. When the Softies cannot get wallpaper to work, one knows that deeper, more subtle issues are not on the wizards’ radar.

Thus, the 24H2 update will be installed on bad actors’ test systems and subjected to tests only a fan of Metasploit and related tools can appreciate. My analogy is that these individuals, some of whom are backed by nation states, will give the update the equivalent of a digital colonoscopy. Sorry, Redmond, no anesthetic this go round.

Why?

Microsoft suggests that security is Job Number One. Obviously when fingerprint security functions don’t work and the Windows Hello fails, the bad actor knows that other issues exist. My goodness. Why doesn’t Microsoft just turn its PR and advertising firms lose on Telegram hacking groups and announce, “Take me. I am yours!”

Several observations:

  1. The update is flawed
  2. Core functions do not work
  3. Partners, not Microsoft, are supposed to fix the broken slot machine of operating systems
  4. Microsoft is, once again, scrambling to do what it should have done correctly before releasing a deeply flawed bundle of software.

Net net: Blaming Google for European woes and pointing fingers at everything and everyone except itself, Microsoft is demonstrating that it cannot do a basic task correctly.  The only users who are happy are those legions of bad actors in the countries Microsoft accuses of making its life difficult. Sorry. Microsoft you did this, but you could blame Google, of course.

Stephen E Arnold, November 4, 2024

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta