Hiding Messages: The You-Will-Not-Pay-Attention Tactic
December 9, 2024
This blog post flowed from the sluggish and infertile mind of a real live dinobaby. If there is art, smart software of some type was probably involved.
I worked on a project in Bogota, Columbia. One of the individuals with whom I interacted talked about steganography. This is a method for placing “content” inside of images. At the time which was probably a decade ago, the law enforcement officials in Columbia had encountered certain bad actors passing messages using steganography within images of a day at the beach with kids, beach balls, and happy gringos.
“Square Zero: Hide Silly Messages in Decorative Borders” explains how an innocuous graphic element in an image or any content object can convey information about a drug deal, a weapons pick up point, or a money laundering contact location. The write up says:
So how successful was the card [containing the swizzled border]? Well, we sent out about 40 of them; almost no one realized there was a puzzle on the card. Once nudged, most folks realized it was the border, and quite a few guessed binary was involved. At this point I’d suggest decoding it. The most common reply? “I think I’ll go on living my life, but thanks”
That’s the purpose of steganography: Making the message invisible or “secret.” Steganography, according to the online ad vendor Google, is “the practice of concealing information within another message or physical object to avoid detection.” The example described in the cited blog post works.
If you want to fiddle around with the technology, the cited article contains code and some technical explanation. I want to call your attention to what might be accomplished in an activity involving big money and real life-and-death circumstances. Consider this border which I downloaded from Free Clipart:
Let’s assume that a bad actor has encoded a message in this clip art.
To make the challenge more interesting, the bad actor has included additional information is an image embedded in the manipulated clip art frame:
How can this double up message embedding be accomplished? The answer is, “Use the sample code provided and some odds and ends from GitHub, and you are good to go.”
Does this application of “borders” and embedded images pose challenges to analysts, investigators, and law enforcement professionals? Some information, as I have stated before, should not be out and about, providing bad actors with ideas and enablers.
Stephen E Arnold, December 9, 2024
Smart Software Is Coming for You. Yes, You!
December 9, 2024
This write up was created by an actual 80-year-old dinobaby. If there is art, assume that smart software was involved. Just a tip.
“Those smart software companies are not going to be able to create a bot to do what I do.” — A CPA who is awash with clients and money.
Now that is a practical, me–me-me idea. However, the estimable Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, a delightful acronym) has data suggesting a slightly different point of view: Robots will replace workers who believe themselves unreplaceable. (The same idea is often held by head coaches of sports teams losing games.)
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
The report is titled in best organizational group think: Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2024; The Geography of Generative AI.
I noted this statement in the beefy document, presumably written by real, live humanoids and not a ChatGPT type system:
In fact, the finance and insurance industry is the tightest industry in the United States, with 2.5 times more vacancies per filled position than the regional average (1.6 times in the European Union).
I think this means that financial institutions will be eager to implement smart software to become “workers.” If that works, the confident CPA quoted at the beginning of this blog post is going to get a pink slip.
The OECD report believes that AI will have a broad impact. The most interesting assertion / finding in the report is that one-fifth of the tasks a worker handles can be handled by smart software. This figure is interesting because smart software hallucinates and is carrying the hopes and dreams of many venture outfits and forward leaning wizards on its digital shoulders.
And what’s a bureaucratic report without an almost incomprehensible chart like this one from page 145 of the report?
Look closely and you will see that sewing machine operators are more likely to retain jobs than insurance clerks.
Like many government reports, the document focuses on the benefits of smart software. These include (cue the theme from Star Wars, please) more efficient operations, employees who do more work and theoretically less looking for side gigs, and creating ways for an organization to get work done without old-school humans.
Several observations:
- Let’s assume smart software is almost good enough, errors and all. The report makes it clear that it will be grabbed and used for a plethora of reasons. The main one is money. This is an economic development framework for the research.
- The future is difficult to predict. After scanning the document, I was thinking that a couple of college interns and an account to You.com would be able to generate a reasonable facsimile of this report.
- Agents can gather survey data. One hopes this use case takes hold in some quasi government entities. I won’t trot out my frequently stated concerns about “survey” centric reports.
Stephen E Arnold, December 9, 2024
Google and 2025: AI Scurrying and Lawsuits. Lots of Lawsuits
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I think there are 193 nations which are members of the UN. Two entities which one can count but are what one might call specialty equipment organizations: The Holy See aka Vatican City and the State of Palestine. The other 193 are “recognized,” mostly pay their UN dues, and have legal systems of varying quality and diligence.
I read “Google Earns Fresh Competition Scrutiny from Two Nations on a Single Day.” The write said:
In India – the most populous nation on Earth – the Competition Commission ordered [PDF] a probe after a developer called WinZo – which promotes itself with the chance to “Play Mobile Games & Win Cash” – complained that Google Play won’t host games that offer real money as prizes, only allowing sideloading onto Android devices.
Then it added:
Advertising is the reason for the other Google probe announced Thursday, by the Competition Bureau of Canada – the world’s second-largest country by area. The Bureau announced its investigations found Google’s ads biz “abused its dominant position through conduct intended to ensure that it would maintain and entrench its market power” and “engaged in conduct that reduces the competitiveness of rival ad tech tools and the likelihood of new entrants in the market.” The Bureau thinks the situation can be addressed if Google sells two of its ads tools – but the filing in which the identity of those two products will be revealed is yet to appear on the site of the Competition Tribunal.
Whether Google is good or evil is, in my opinion, irrelevant. With the US, the EU, Canada, and India chasing Google for its alleged misbehavior, other nations are going to pay attention.
Does that mean that another 100 or more nations will launch their own investigations and initiate legal action related to the lovable Google’s approach to business? In practical terms what does this mean?
- Google will be hiring lawyers and retaining firms. This is definitely good for legal eagles.
- Google will win some, delay some, and lose some cases. The losses, however, will result in consequences. Some of these will require Google to write checks for penalties. These can add up.
- Conflicting decisions are likely to result in delays. Those delays means that Google will be more Googley. The number of ads in YouTube will increase. The mysterious revenue payments will become more quirky. Commissions on various user-customer-Google touch points will increase.
Net net: We have a good example of what a failure to regulate high technology companies for a couple of decades creates. Kicking the can down the road has done what exactly?
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Grousing about Smart Software: Yeah, That Will Work
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I read “Writers Condemn Startup’s Plans to Publish 8,000 Books Next Year Using AI.” The innovator is an outfit called Spines. Cute, book spines and not mixed up with spiny mice or spiny rats.
The write up reports:
Spines – which secured $16m in a recent funding round – says that authors will retain 100% of their royalties. Co-founder Yehuda Niv, who previously ran a publisher and publishing services business in Israel, claimed that the company “isn’t self-publishing” or a vanity publisher but a “publishing platform”.
A platform, not a publisher. The difference is important because venture types don’t pump cash into traditional publishing companies in my experience.
The article identified another key differentiator for Spines:
Spines says it will reduce the time it takes to publish a book to two to three weeks.
When publishers with whom I worked talked about time, the units were months. In one case, it was more than a year. When I was writing books, the subject matter changed on a slightly different time scale. Traditional publishers do not zip along with the snappiness of a two year old French bulldog.
Spines is quoted in the write up as saying:
[We are] levelling the playing field for any person who aspires to be an author to get published within less than three weeks and at a fraction of the cost. Our goal is to help one million authors to publish their books using technology….”
Yep, technology. Is that a core competency of big time publishers?
Several observations from my dinobaby-friendly lair:
- If Spines works — that is, makes lots of money — a traditional publisher will probably buy the company and sue any entity which impinges on its “original” ideas.
- Costs for instant publishing on Amazon remain more attractive. The fees are based on delivery of digital content and royalties assessed. Spines may have to spend money to find writers able to pay the company to do the cover, set up, design, etc.
- Connecting agentic AI into a Spines-type service may be interesting to some.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Batting Google and Whiffing the Chance
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I read “The AI War Was Never Just about AI.” Okay, AI war. We have a handful of mostly unregulated technology companies, a few nation states, and some unknown wizards working in their family garage. The situation is that a very tiny number of companies are fighting to become de facto reality definers for the next few years, maybe a decade or two. Against that background, does a single country’s judiciary think it can “regulate” an online company. One pragmatic approach has been to ban a service, the approach taken by Australia, China, Iran, and Russia among others. A less popular approach would be to force the organization out of business by arresting key executives, seizing assets, and imposing penalties on that organization’s partners. Does that sound a bit over the top?
The cited article does not go to the pit in the apricot. Google has been allowed to create an interlocking group of services which permeate the fabric of global online activity. There is no entertainment for some people in Armenia except YouTube. There are few choices to promote a product online without bumping into the Disney style people herders who push those who want to sell toward Google’s advertising systems. There is no getting from Point A to Point B without Google’s finding services whether dolled up in an AI wrapper, a digital version of a map, or a helpful message on the sign of a lawn service truck for Google Local.
The write up says:
The government wants to break up Google’s monopoly over the search market, but its proposed remedies may in fact do more to shape the future of AI. Google owns 15 products that serve at least half a billion people and businesses each—a sprawling ecosystem of gadgets, search and advertising, personal applications, and enterprise software. An AI assistant that shows up in (or works well with) those products will be the one that those people are most likely to use. And Google has already woven its flagship Gemini AI models into Search, Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, the Play Store, and YouTube, all of which have at least 2 billion users each. AI doesn’t have to be life-changing to be successful; it just has to be frictionless.
Okay. With a new administration taking the stage, how will this goal of leveling the playing field work. The legal processes at Google’s disposal mean that whatever the US government does can be appealed. Appeals take time. Who lasts longer? A government lawyer working under the thumb of DOGE and budget cutting or a giant outfit like Google? My view is that Google has more lawyers and more continuity.
Second, breaking up Google may face some headwinds from government entities quite dependent on its activities. The entire OSINT sector looks to Google for nuggets of information. It is possible some government agencies have embedded Google personnel on site. The “advertising” industry depends on distribution via the online stores of Apple and Google. Why is this important? The data brokers repackage the app data into data streams consumed by some government agencies and their contractors.
The write up says:
This is why it’s relevant that the DOJ’s proposed antitrust remedy takes aim at Google’s broader ecosystem. Federal and state attorneys asked the court to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser; cease preferencing its search products in the Android mobile operating system; prevent it from paying other companies, including Apple and Samsung, to make Google the default search engine; and allow rivals to syndicate Google’s search results and use its search index to build their own products. All of these and the DOJ’s other requests, under the auspices of search, are really shots at Google’s expansive empire.
So after more than 20 years of non regulation and hand slapping, the current legal decision is going to take apart an entity which is more like a cancer than a telephone company like AT&T. IBM was mostly untouched by the US government as was Microsoft. Now I am to to believe that a vastly different type of commercial enterprise which is for some functions more robust and effective than a government can have its wings clipped.
Is the Department of Justice concerned about AI? Come on. The DoJ personnel are thinking about the Department of Government Efficiency, presidential retribution, and enhancing LinkedIn profiles.
We are not in Kansas any longer where there is no AI war.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Googlers Face Another Ka-Ching Moment in the United Kingdom
December 5, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
Mr. Harold Carlin, my high school history teacher, made us learn about the phrase “The sun never sets on the British empire.” It has, and Mr. Carlin like many old-school teachers forced our class to read about protectionism, subjugation of people who did not enjoy beef Wellington, or assorted monopolies.
Two intelligent entities discuss how to resolve legal problems. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Now Google may want to think about the phrase, “The sun never sets on Google legal matters related to its alleged behavior in the datasphere.”
“Google Must Face £7B UK Class Action over Search Engine Dominance” reported:
The complaint centers around Google shutting out competition for mobile search, resulting in higher prices for advertisers, which were allegedly passed on to consumers. According to consumer rights campaigner Nikki Stopford, who is bringing the claim on behalf of UK consumers, Android device makers that wanted access to Google’s Play Store had to accept its search service. The ad slinger also paid Apple billions to have Google Search as the default for the Safari browser in iOS.
The write up noted:
According to Stopford [a UK official], Google used its position to up prices paid by advertisers, resulting in higher costs to consumers. “What we’re trying to achieve with this claim is essentially compensate consumers,” she said.
Google has moved some of its smart software activities to the UK. One would think that with Google’s cash resources, its attorneys, and its smart software — mere government officials would have zero chance of winning this now repetitive allegation that dear Google has behaved in an untoward way.
If I were a government litigator, I would just drop the suit, Jack Smith style.
Will the sun set on these allegations against the “do no evil” outfit?
Nope, not as long as the opportunity for a payout exists. Google may have been too successful in its decades long rampage through traditional business practices. The good news is that Google has an almost limitless supply of money. The bad news is that countries have an almost limitless supply of regulators. But Google has smart software. Remember the film “The Terminator”? Winner: Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2024
China Seeks to Curb Algorithmic Influence and Manipulation
December 5, 2024
Someone is finally taking decisive action against unhealthy recommendation algorithms, AI-driven price optimization, and exploitative gig-work systems. That someone is China. ”China Sets Deadline for Big Tech to Clear Algorithm Issues, Close ‘Echo Chambers’,” reports the South China Morning Post. Ah, the efficiency of a repressive regime. Writer Hayley Wong informs us:
‘Tech operators in China have been given a deadline to rectify issues with recommendation algorithms, as authorities move to revise cybersecurity regulations in place since 2021. A three-month campaign to address ‘typical issues with algorithms’ on online platforms was launched on Sunday, according to a notice from the Communist Party’s commission for cyberspace affairs, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and other relevant departments. The campaign, which will last until February 14, marks the latest effort to curb the influence of Big Tech companies in shaping online views and opinions through algorithms – the technology behind the recommendation functions of most apps and websites. System providers should avoid recommendation algorithms that create ‘echo chambers’ and induce addiction, allow manipulation of trending items, or exploit gig workers’ rights, the notice said.
They should also crack down on unfair pricing and discounts targeting different demographics, ensure ‘healthy content’ for elderly and children, and impose a robust ‘algorithm review mechanism and data security management system’.”
Tech firms operating within China are also ordered to conduct internal investigations and improve algorithms’ security capabilities by the end of the year. What happens if firms fail? Reeducation? A visit to the death van? Or an opportunity to herd sheep in a really nice area near Xian? The brief write-up does not specify.
We think there may be a footnote to the new policy; for instance, “Use algos to advance our policies.”
Cynthia Murrell, December 5, 2024
Listary: A Chinese Alternative to Windows File Explorer
December 5, 2024
For anyone frustrated with Windows’ built-in search function, Lifehacker suggests an alternative. “Listary Is a Fast, Powerful Search Tool for Windows,” declares writer Justin Pot. He tells us:
“Listary is a free app with great indexing that allows you to find any file on your computer in just a couple of keystrokes. Tap the control key twice, start typing, and hit enter when you see what you want. You can also use the tool to launch applications or search the web. … The keyboard shortcut brings up a search window similar to Spotlight on the Mac. There is also a more advanced version of the application which you can bring up by clicking the tray icon for the application. This lets you do things like filter your search by file type or how recently it was created. This view also notably allows you to preview files before opening them, which I appreciate. You’re not limited to searching on your computer—you can also start web searches from here.”
That Web search function is preloaded with a few search engines, like Google, Wikipedia, IMDB, and YouTube, but one can add more platforms. The free version of Listary is for personal use only. The company, Bopsoft, makes its money on the Pro version, which is $20. Just once, not monthly or annually. That version offers network-drive indexing and customization options. Bopsoft appears to be based in Zaozhuang, China.
Cynthia Murrell, December 5, 2024
The Very Expensive AI Horse Race
December 4, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
One of the academic nemeses of smart software is a professional named Gary Marcus. Among his many intellectual accomplishments is cameo appearance on a former Jack Benny child star’s podcast. Mr. Marcus contributes his views of smart software to the person who, for a number of years, has been a voice actor on the Simpsons cartoon.
The big four robot stallions are racing to a finish line. Is the finish line moving away from the equines faster than the steeds can run? Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
I want to pay attention to Mr. Marcus’ Substack post “A New AI Scaling Law Shell Game?” The main idea is that the scaling law has entered popular computer jargon. Once the lingo of Galileo, scaling law now means that AI, like CPUs, are part of the belief that technology just gets better as it gets bigger.
In this essay, Mr. Marcus asserts that getting bigger may not work unless humanoids (presumably assisted by AI0 innovate other enabling processes. Mr. Marcus is aware of the cost of infrastructure, the cost of electricity, and the probable costs of exhausting content.
From my point of view, a bit more empirical “evidence” would be useful. (I am aware of academic research fraud.) Also, Mr. Marcus references me when he says keep your hands on your wallet. I am not sure that a fix is possible. The analogy is the old chestnut about changing a Sopwith Camel’s propeller when the aircraft is in a dogfight and the synchronized machine gun is firing through the propeller.
I want to highlight one passage in Mr. Marcus’ essay and offer a handful of comments. Here’s the passage I noted:
Over the last few weeks, much of the field has been quietly acknowledging that recent (not yet public) large-scale models aren’t as powerful as the putative laws were predicting. The new version is that there is not one scaling law, but three: scaling with how long you train a model (which isn’t really holding anymore), scaling with how long you post-train a model, and scaling with how long you let a given model wrestle with a given problem (or what Satya Nadella called scaling with “inference time compute”).
I think this is a paragraph I will add to my quotes file. The reasons are:
First, investors, would be entrepreneurs, and giant outfits really want a next big thing. Microsoft fired the opening shot in the smart software war in early 2023. Mr. Nadella suggested that smart software would be the next big thing for Microsoft. The company has invested in making good on this statement. Now Microsoft 365 is infused with smart software and Azure is burbling with digital glee with its “we’re first” status. However, a number of people have asked, “Where’s the financial payoff?” The answer is standard Silicon Valley catechism: The payoff is going to be huge. Invest now.” If prayers could power hope, AI is going to be hyperbolic just like the marketing collateral for AI promises. But it is almost 2025, and those billions have not generated more billions and profit for the Big Dogs of AI. Just sayin’.
Second, the idea that the scaling law is really multiple scaling laws is interesting. But if one scaling law fails to deliver, what happens to the other scaling laws? The interdependencies of the processes for the scaling laws might evoke new, hitherto identified scaling laws. Will each scaling law require massive investments to deliver? Is it feasible to pay off the investments in these processes with the original concept of the scaling law as applied to AI. I wonder if a reverse Ponzi scheme is emerging. The more pumped in the smaller the likelihood of success. Is AI a demonstration of convergence or The mathematical property you’re describing involves creating a sequence of fractions where the numerator is 1 and the denominator is an increasing sequence of integers. Just askin’.
Third, the performance or knowledge payoff I have experienced with my tests of OpenAI and the software available to me on You.com makes clear that the systems cannot handle what I consider routine questions. A recent example was my request to receive a list of the exhibitors at the November 1 Gateway Conference held in Dubai for crypto fans of Telegram’s The Open Network Foundation and TON Social. The systems were unable to deliver the lists. This is just one notable failure which a humanoid on my research team was able to rectify in an expeditious manner. (Did you know the Ku Group was on my researcher’s list?) Just reportin’.
Net net: Will AI repay the billions sunk into the data centers, the legal fees (many still looming), the staff, and the marketing? If you ask an accelerationist, the answer is, “Absolutely.” If you ask a dinobaby, you may hear, “Maybe, but some fundamental innovations are going to be needed.” If you ask an AI will kill us all type like the Xoogler Mo Gawdat, you will hear, “Doom looms.” Just dinobabyin’.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2024
Legacy Code: Avoid, Fix, or Flee (Two Out of Three Mean Forget It)
December 4, 2024
In his Substack post, “Legacy Schmegacy,” software engineer David Reis offers some pointers on preventing and coping with legacy code. We found this snippet interesting:
“Someone must fix the legacy code, but it doesn’t have to be you. It’s far more honorable to switch projects or companies than to lead a misguided rewrite.”
That’s the spirit: quit and let someone else deal with it. But not everyone is in the position to cut and run. For those actually interested in addressing the problem, Reis has some suggestions. First, though, the post lists factors that can prevent legacy code in the first place:
- “The longer a programmer’s tenure the less code will become legacy, since authors will be around to appreciate and maintain it.
- The more code is well architected, clear and documented the less it will become legacy, since there is a higher chance the author can transfer it to a new owner successfully.
- The more the company uses pair programming, code reviews, and other knowledge transfer techniques, the less code will become legacy, as people other than the author will have knowledge about it.
- The more the company grows junior engineers the less code will become legacy, since the best way to grow juniors is to hand them ownership of components.
- The more a company uses simple standard technologies, the less likely code will become legacy, since knowledge about them will be widespread in the organization. Ironically if you define innovation as adopting new technologies, the more a team innovates the more legacy it will have. Every time it adopts a new technology, either it won’t work, and the attempt will become legacy, or it will succeed, and the old systems will.”
Reiss’ number one suggestion to avoid creating legacy code is, “don’t write crappy code.” Noted. Also, stick with tried and true methods unless shiny a new tech is definitely the best option. Perhaps most importantly, coders should teach others in the organization how their code works and leave behind good documentation. So, common sense and best practices. Brilliant!
When confronted with a predecessor’s code, he advises one to “delegacify” it. That is a word he coined to mean: Take time to understand the code and see if it can be improved over time before tossing it out entirely. Or, as noted above, just run away. That can be an option for some.
Cynthia Murrell, December 4, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
