Will AI Data Scientists Become Street People?
November 4, 2024
Over at HackerNoon, all-around IT guy Dominic Ligot insists data scientists must get on board with AI or be left behind. In “AI Denialism,” he compares data analysts who insist AI can never replace them with 19th century painters who scoffed at photography as an art form. Many of them who specialized in realistic portraits soon found themselves out of work, despite their objections.
Like those painters, Ligot believes, some data scientists are in denial about how well this newfangled technology can do what they do. They hang on to a limited definition of creativity at their peril. In fact, he insists:
“The truth is, AI’s ability to model complex relationships, surface patterns, and even simulate multiple solutions to a problem means it’s already doing much of what data analysts claim as their domain. The fine-grained feature engineering, the subtle interpretations—AI is not just nibbling around the edges; it’s slowly encroaching into the core of what we’ve traditionally defined as ‘analytical creativity.’”
But we are told there is hope for those who are willing to adapt:
“I’m not saying that data scientists or analysts will be replaced overnight. But to assume that AI will never touch their domain simply because it doesn’t fit into an outdated view of what creativity means is shortsighted. This is a transformative era, one that calls for a redefinition of roles, responsibilities, and skill sets. Data analysts and scientists who refuse to keep an open mind risk finding themselves irrelevant in a world that is rapidly shifting beneath their feet. So, let’s not make the same mistake as those painters of the past. Denialism is a luxury we cannot afford.”
Is Ligot right? And, if so, what skill-set changes can preserve data scientists’ careers? That relevant question remains unanswered in this post. (There are good deals on big plastic mugs at Dollar Tree.)
Cynthia Murrell, November 04, 2024
Enter the Dragon: America Is Unhealthy
November 4, 2024
Written by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.
The YouTube video “A Genius Girl Who Is Passionate about Repairing Machines” presents a simple story in a 38 minute video. The idea is that a young woman with no help fixes a broken motorcycles with basic hand tools outside in what looks like a hoarder’s backyard. The message is: Wow, she is smart and capable. Don’t you wish you knew person like this who could repair your broken motorcycle.
This video is from @vutvtgamming and not much information is provided. After watching this and similar videos like “Genius Girl Restored The 280mm Lathe From 50 Years Ago And Made It Look Like”, I feel pretty stupid for an America dinobaby. I don’t think I can recall meeting a person with similar mechanical skills when I worked at Keystone Steel, Halliburton Nuclear, or Booz, Allen & Hamilton’s Design & Development division. The message I carried away was: I was stupid as were many people with whom I associated.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. (I slipped a put down through your filters. Imagine that!)
I picked up a similar vibe when I read “Today’s AI Ecosystem Is Unsustainable for Most Everyone But Nvidia, Warns Top Scholar.” On the surface, the ZDNet write up is an interview with the “scholar” Kai-Fu Lee, who, according to the article:
served as founding director of Microsoft Research Asia before working at Google and Apple, founded his current company, Sinovation Ventures, to fund startups such as 01.AI, which makes a generative AI search engine called BeaGo.
I am not sure how “scholar” correlates with commercial work for US companies and running an investment firm with a keen interest in Chinese start ups. I would not use the word “scholar.” My hunch is that the intent of Kai-Fu Lee is to present as simple and obvious something that US companies don’t understand. The interview is a different approach to explaining how advanced Kai-Fu Lee’s expertise is. He is, via this interview, sharing an opinion that the US is creating a problem and overlooking the simple solution. Just like the young woman able to repair a motorcycle or the lass fixing up a broken industrial lathe alone, the American approach does not get the job done.
What does ZDNet present as Kai-Fu Lee’s message. Here are a couple of examples:
“The ecosystem is incredibly unhealthy,” said Kai-Fu Lee in a private discussion forum earlier this month. Lee was referring to the profit disparity between, on the one hand, makers of AI infrastructure, including Nvidia and Google, and, on the other hand, the application developers and companies that are supposed to use AI to reinvent their operations.
Interesting. I wonder if the “healthy” ecosystem might be China’s approach of pragmatism and nuts-and-bolts evidenced in the referenced videos. The unhealthy versus healthy is a not-so-subtle message about digging one’s own grave in my opinion. The “economics” of AI are unhealthy, which seems to say, “America’s approach to smart software is going to kill it. A more healthy approach is the one in which government and business work to create applications.” Translating: China, healthy; America, sick as a dog.
Here’s another statement:
Today’s AI ecosystem, according to Lee, consists of Nvidia, and, to a lesser extent, other chip makers such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices. Collectively, the chip makers rake in $75 billion in annual chip sales from AI processing. “The infrastructure is making $10 billion, and apps, $5 billion,” said Lee. “If we continue in this inverse pyramid, it’s going to be a problem,” he said.
Who will flip the pyramid? Uganda, Lao PDR, Greece? Nope, nope, nope. The flip will take an outfit with a strong mind and body. A healthy entity is needed to flip the pyramid. I wonder if that strong entity is China.
Here’s Kai-Fu kung fu move:
He recommended that companies build their own vertically integrated tech stack the way Apple did with the iPhone, in order to dramatically lower the cost of generative AI. Lee’s striking assertion is that the most successful companies will be those that build most of the generative AI components — including the chips — themselves, rather than relying on Nvidia. He cited how Apple’s Steve Jobs pushed his teams to build all the parts of the iPhone, rather than waiting for technology to come down in price.
In the write up Kai-Fu Lee refers to “we”. Who is included in that we? Excluded will be the “unhealthy.” Who is left? I would suggest that the pragmatic and application focused will be the winners. The reason? The “we” includes the healthy entities. Once again I am thinking of China’s approach to smart software.
What’s the correct outcome? Kai-Fu Lee allegedly said:
What should result, he said, is “a smaller, leaner group of leaders who are not just hiring people to solve problems, but delegating to smart enterprise AI for particular functions — that’s when this will make the biggest deal.”
That sounds like the Chinese approach to a number of technical, social, and political challenges. Healthy? Absolutely.
Several observations:
- I wonder if ZDNet checked on the background of the “scholar” interviewed at length?
- Did ZDNet think about the “healthy” versus “unhealthy” theme in the write up?
- Did ZDNet question the “scholar’s” purpose in explaining what’s wrong with the US approach to smart software?
I think I know the answer. The ZDNet outfit and the creators of this unusual private interview believe that the young women rebuilt complicated devices without any assistance. Smart China; dumb America. I understand the message which seems to have not been internalized by ZDNet. But I am a dumb dinobaby. What do I know? Exactly. Unhealthy that American approach to AI.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2024
Computer Security and Good Enough Methods
November 1, 2024
Written by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.
I read “TikTok Owner Sacks Intern for Sabotaging AI Project.” The BBC report is straight forward; it does not provide much “management” or “risk” commentary. In a nutshell, the allegedly China linked ByteDance hired or utilized an intern. The term “intern” used to mean a student who wanted to get experience. Today, “intern” has a number of meanings. For example, for certain cyber fraud outfits operating in Southeast Asia an “intern” could be:
- A person paid to do work in a special economic zone
- A person coerced into doing work for an organization engaged in cyber fraud
- A person who is indeed a student and wants to get some experience
- An individual kidnapped and forced to perform work; otherwise, bad things can happen in dark rooms.
What’s the BBC say? Here is a snippet:
TikTok owner, ByteDance, says it has sacked an intern for “maliciously interfering” with the training of one of its artificial intelligence (AI) models.
The punishment, according to the write up, was “contacting” the intern’s university. End of story.
My take on this incident is a bit different from the BBC’s.
First, how did a company allegedly linked to the Chinese government make a bad hire? If the student was recommended by a university, what mistake did the university and the professors training the young person commit. The idea is to crank out individuals who snap into certain roles. I am not sure the spirit of an American party school is part of the ByteDance and TikTok work culture, but I may be off base.
Second, when a company hires a gig worker or brings an intern into an organization, are today’s managers able to identify potential issues either with an individual’s work or that person’s inner wiring? The fact that an intern was able to fiddle with code indicates a failure of internal checks and balances. The larger question is, “Can organizations trust interns who are operating as insiders, but without the controls an organization should have over individual workers. This gaffe makes clear that modern management methods are not proactive; they are reactive. For that reason, insider threats exist and could do damage. ByteDance, according to the write up, downplayed the harm caused by the intern:
ByteDance also denied reports that the incident caused more than $10m (£7.7m) of damage by disrupting an AI training system made up of thousands of powerful graphics processing units (GPU).
Is this claim credible? Nope. I refer to the information about four companies “downplaying the impact of the SolarWinds hack.” US outfits don’t want to reveal the impact of a cyber issue. Are outfits like ByteDance and TikTok on the up and up about the impact of the intern’s actions.
Third, the larger question becomes, “How does an organization minimize insider threats?” As organizations seek to cut training staff and rely on lower cost labor?” The answer is, in my opinion, clear to me. An organization does what it can and hope for the best.
Like many parts of a life in an informationized world or datasphere in my lingo, the quality of most efforts is good enough. The approach guarantees problems in the future. These are problems which cannot be solved. Management just finds something to occupy its time. The victims are the users, the customers, or the clients.
The world, even when allegedly linked with nation states, is struggling to achieve good enough.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2024
The Reason IT Work is Never Done: The New Sisyphus Task
November 1, 2024
Why are systems never completely fixed? There is always some modification that absolutely must be made. In a recent blog post, engagement firm Votito chalks it up to Tog’s Paradox (aka The Complexity Paradox). This rule states that when a product simplifies user tasks, users demand new features that perpetually increase the product’s complexity. Both minimalists and completionists are doomed to disappointment, it seems.
The post supplies three examples of Tog’s Paradox in action. Perhaps the most familiar to many is that of social media. We are reminded:
“Initially designed to provide simple ways to share photos or short messages, these platforms quickly expanded as users sought additional capabilities, such as live streaming, integrated shopping, or augmented reality filters. Each of these features added new layers of complexity to the app, requiring more sophisticated algorithms, larger databases, and increased development efforts. What began as a relatively straightforward tool for sharing personal content has transformed into a multi-faceted platform requiring constant updates to handle new features and growing user expectations.”
The post asserts software designers may as well resign themselves to never actually finishing anything. Every project should be seen as an ongoing process. The writer observes:
“Tog’s Paradox reveals why attempts to finalize design requirements are often doomed to fail. The moment a product begins to solve its users’ core problems efficiently, it sparks a natural progression of second-order effects. As users save time and effort, they inevitably find new, more complex tasks to address, leading to feature requests that expand the scope far beyond what was initially anticipated. This cycle shows that the product itself actively influences users’ expectations and demands, making it nearly impossible to fully define design requirements upfront. This evolving complexity highlights the futility of attempting to lock down requirements before the product is deployed.”
Maybe humanoid IT workers will become enshrined as new age Sisyphuses? Or maybe Sisyphi?
Cynthia Murrell, November 1, 2024
Great Moments in Marketing: MSFT Copilot, the Salesforce Take
November 1, 2024
A humanoid wrote this essay. I tried to get MSFT Copilot to work, but it remains dead. That makes four days with weird messages about a glitch. That’s the standard: Good enough.
It’s not often I get a kick out of comments from myth-making billionaires. I read through the boy wonder to company founder titled “An Interview with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff about AI Abundance.” No paywall on this essay, unlike the New York Times’ downer about smart software which appears to have played a part in a teen’s suicide. Imagine when Perplexity can control a person’s computer. What exciting stories will appear. Here’s an example of what may be more common in 2025.
Great moments in Salesforce marketing. A senior Agentforce executive considers great marketing and brand ideas of the past. Inspiration strikes. In 2024, he will make fun of Clippy. Yes, a 1995 reference will resonate with young deciders in 2024. Thanks, Stable Diffusion. You are working; MSFT Copilot is not.
The focus today is a single statement in this interview with the big dog of Salesforce. Here’s the quote:
Well, I guess it wasn’t the AGI that we were expecting because I think that there has been a level of sell, including Microsoft Copilot, this thing is a complete disaster. It’s like, what is this thing on my computer? I don’t even understand why Microsoft is saying that Copilot is their vision of how you’re going to transform your company with AI, and you are going to become more productive. You’re going to augment your employees, you’re going to lower your cost, improve your customer relationships, and fundamentally expand all your KPIs with Copilot. I would say, “No, Copilot is the new Clippy”, I’m even playing with a paperclip right now.
Let’s think about this series of references and assertions.
First, there is the direct statement “Microsoft Copilot, this thing is a complete disaster.” Let’s assume the big dog of Salesforce is right. The large and much loved company — Yes, I am speaking about Microsoft — rolled out a number of implementations, applications, and assertions. The firm caught everyone’s favorite Web search engine with its figurative pants down like a hapless Russian trooper about to be dispatched by a Ukrainian drone equipped with a variant of RTX. (That stuff goes bang.) Microsoft “won” a marketing battle and gained the advantage of time. Google with its Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act created an audience. Microsoft seized the opportunity to talk to the audience. The audience applauded. Whether the technology worked, in my opinion was secondary. Microsoft wanted to be seen as the jazzy leader.
Second, the idea of a disaster is interesting. Since Microsoft relied on what may be the world’s weirdest organizational set up and supported the crumbling structure, other companies have created smart software which surfs on Google’s transformer ideas. Microsoft did not create a disaster; it had not done anything of note in the smart software world. Microsoft is a marketer. The technology is a second class citizen. The disaster is that Microsoft’s marketing seems to be out of sync with what the PowerPoint decks say. So what’s new? The answer is, “Nothing.” The problem is that some people don’t see Microsoft’s smart software as a disaster. One example is Palantir, which is Microsoft’s new best friend. The US government cannot rely on Microsoft enough. Those contract renewals keep on rolling. Furthermore the “certified” partners could not be more thrilled. Virtually every customer and prospect wants to do something with AI. When the blind lead the blind, a person with really bad eyesight has an advantage. That’s Microsoft. Like it or not.
Third, the pitch about “transforming your company” is baloney. But it sounds good. It helps a company do something “new” but within the really familiar confines of Microsoft software. In the good old days, it was IBM that provided the cover for doing something, anything, which could produce a marketing opportunity or a way to add a bit pizazz to a 1955 Chevrolet two door 210 sedan. Thus, whether the AI works or does not work, one must not lose sight of the fact that Microsoft centric outfits are going to go with Microsoft because most professionals need PowerPoint and the bean counters do not understand anything except Excel. What strikes me as important that Microsoft can use modest, even inept smart software, and come out a winner. Who is complaining? The Fortune 1000, the US Federal government, the legions of MBA students who cannot do a class project without Excel, PowerPoint, and Word?
Finally, the ultimate reference in the quote is Clippy. Personally I think the big dog at Salesforce should have invoked both Bob and Clippy. Regardless of the “joke” hooked to these somewhat flawed concepts, the names “Bob” and “Clippy” have resonance. Bob rolled out in 1995. Clippy helped so many people beginning in the same year. Decades later Microsoft’s really odd software is going to cause a 20 something who was not born to turn away from Microsoft products and services? Nope.
Let’s sum up: Salesforce is working hard to get a marketing lift by making Microsoft look stupid. Believe me. Microsoft does not need any help. Perhaps the big dog should come up with a marketing approach that replicates or comes close to what Microsoft pulled off in 2023. Google still hasn’t recovered fully from that kung fu blow.
The big dog needs to up its marketing game. Say Salesforce and what’s the reaction? Maybe meh.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
