Read AI Implements AI Into Enterprise Search
April 3, 2025
Enterprise search is an essential tool for an organization to function. There have been major shifts in enterprise search, including more accurate search results, and ability to search across multiple platforms. The Seattle startup Read AI wants to be the next enterprise search revolution says Geek Wire: “Seattle Startup Takes A Swing At Enterprise Search With New AI-Fueled Discovery Tool.”
There have been major upgrades in enterprise search before, including AI, but Read AI is doing it at level not before seen. The startup from Seattle began in 2021 with sentiment and engagement products for meetings. Later Read AI developed software tools that analyzed information across various communication channels. Now their latest product upgrade is for enterprise search that enables users to quickly locate and access information across terabytes of data and applications.
Read AI’s enterprise search tool upgrade is for Microsoft Copilot:
“Users can choose what data is discoverable. Search Copilot gets “smarter” as more workers add more data, and allows for collaboration. The new tool can also nudge users to take action based on past interactions with colleagues or customers.
The product is free to use with certain limits. Read AI CEO David Shim said reducing barriers is a key differentiator.
“People haven’t been able to understand the value of enterprise search because they haven’t had access to it,” he said.
Shim said Read AI’s ability to determine what’s important for an individual user also gives Search Copilot an edge over other AI search tools.”
Read AI wants to differentiate itself from its rivals, built-in-platform tools from Zoom, Google, and Microsoft. Read AI does have an advantage over out-of-the-box solutions, because experience tells us those tools stink. Proprietary developed tools are usually better because they’re specifically designed to enhance a specific feature, while out-of-the-box solutions are designed to with the “it’s okay to get by” mentality.
While Read AI made a smart move to upgrade Copilot with the latest AI technology, someone else would have done it eventually.
Whitney Grace, April 3, 2025
Original Research: Not-So-Original Assertions about Content Appropriation
April 2, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
The Social Science Research Council published the 30-plus page report “Beyond Public Access in LLM Pre-Training Data.” The subtitle reveals the principal finding: “Non-Public Non-Public Book Content in OpenAI’s Models.”
The write up states:
Using a legally obtained dataset of 34 copyrighted O’Reilly Media books, we apply the DE-COP membership inference attack method to investigate whether OpenAI’s large language models were trained on copyrighted content without consent. Our AUROC scores show that GPT-4o, OpenAI’s more recent and capable model, demonstrates strong recognition of paywalled O’Reilly book content (AUROC = 82%), compared to OpenAI’s earlier model GPT-3.5 Turbo. In contrast, GPT-3.5 Turbo shows greater relative recognition of publicly accessible O’Reilly book samples. GPT-4o Mini, as a much smaller model, shows no knowledge of public or non-public O’Reilly Media content when tested (AUROC ? 50%). Testing multiple models, with the same cutoff date, helps us account for potential language shifts over time that might bias our findings. These results highlight the urgent need for increased corporate transparency regarding pre-training data sources as a means to develop formal licensing frameworks for AI content training.
I want to mention that the DE-COP method provide one way to determine whether a specific data record was part of the training dataset for a machine learning model. The result of the SSRC’s research suggests that as OpenAI enhanced its models, the OpenAI organization appears to have used non-public content. Smaller (less capable OpenAI) models seemed to know less about the test set; the bigger models knew more.
The write up concludes that developers of smart software are sucking down data without obtaining permission or entering into licensing deals with publishers, copyright holders, or entities working on content not yet available as public content like this dinobaby blog post.
To sum up: A not-to-original assertion that certain organizations just take content and ignore rights is apparently accurate in this set of research. OpenAI accelerates. Speed is a positive. Breaking speed limits is believed to be no big deal.
A bit of a flashback: Over 40 years ago, I participated in a series of meetings to license the right to create abstracts of original articles from more than 1000 different publications. Our efforts were successful. Most publishers of academic business and management publications knew zero about online information services. The idea of summarizing an eight page article about executive compensation was unfamiliar to most of the people with whom our organization interacted over a period of years. Nevertheless, the owner of the database unit of the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Company insisted that we get signed agreements. The process was time consuming and expensive. Some outfits had representatives. So a negotiation went through layers of bureaucracy. Other publishers wanted a sit down meeting and a dog-and-pony show to explain why we wanted to boil down a 600 word article to about 150 words. There were worries about the impact of online access. There were worries about control of editorial content. There were worries about signing away rights. We couldn’t assuage worries, but we chugged along. The reputations of the Courier Journal and Barry Bingham Jr. helped but our small database operation had to follow the rules.
If the data in the cited document are accurate, the attitude of Barry Bingham Jr. would not have gained much traction at OpenAI. Instead of my getting a pat on the head for setting up the licensing deals with the able help of other Courier Journal professionals, I would have gotten kicked on the shin or worse.
Several observations:
- Observing content ownership remains important despite the acceleration toward illegal behaviors in the online sector
- Using show-and-tells and explaining the benefits of participating in digital innovations remains important. Knowledge minimizes anger and other negative reactions to pre-emptive behavior
- Managing the process is as important as demonstrating an unwillingness to conform to industry, social, and legal norms.
Let’s assume that the findings in the SSRC are off by 50 percent. Does that change what appears to be a strong possibility of some fancy dancing at the OpenAI disco?
My conclusion is that taking short cuts is part of the Silicon Valley approach of doing whatever and just saying, “Wow, I am sorry.”
I asked ChatGPT 4 via You.com this question:
Should I create an online product and just use content from the Harvard Business Review without permission?
Here’s the response:
No, you should not create an online product using content from the Harvard Business Review (HBR) without permission. Doing so would likely violate copyright laws and HBR’s usage policies. Here’s why:
HBR’s Copyright and Usage Policies
- HBR Material is Copyrighted: Harvard Business Review explicitly states that its content is protected by copyright, and no part of its publications may be reproduced without permission.
- Usage Restrictions: HBR has strict policies regarding how its content can be used. For example, even in academic settings, HBR articles cannot be freely distributed unless done through specific channels like creating course packs via "Harvard Business Publishing for Educators"
Permission is Required: If you want to use HBR content, you must obtain explicit permission. This includes reproducing, distributing, or using their material in any form.
Legal and Ethical Implications
- Copyright Infringement: Using HBR content without permission would likely constitute copyright infringement, which can result in legal action, fines, or other penalties.
- Ethical Concerns: Beyond legal issues, using someone else’s intellectual property without authorization is unethical and could harm your reputation or business.
What You Should Do Instead
- Seek Permission: Contact Harvard Business Review to request permission to use their content. They may have licensing options available for your intended use.
- Create Original Content: Instead of using HBR’s material, consider creating your own original content inspired by their ideas (but without copying their text or proprietary materials).
- Use Public Domain or Licensed Content: Look for content that is in the public domain or available under a license (e.g., Creative Commons) that allows commercial use.
Conclusion
Using HBR content without permission is not only illegal but also against their explicit policies. To avoid legal and ethical issues, either seek proper licensing or create your own original material.
In this case, the OpenAI’s AI may be more intelligent that some people engaged in content acquisition at the firm. But I am a dinobaby. I try to follow the social, legal, and ethical rules as my parents who had only high school educations taught me. I am a dinobaby. A sad dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2025
The AI Market: The Less-Educated
April 2, 2025
Writing is an essential function of education and communication. Writing is an innate skill as well as one that can be curated through dedicated practice. Digital writing tools such as spelling and grammar checkers and now AI like Grammarly and ChatGPT have influenced writing. Stanford University studied how AI writing tools have impacted writing in professional industries. The discovered that less-educated parts of the US heavily rely on AI. Ars Technica reviews the study in: “Researchers Surprised To Find Less-Educated Areas Adopting AI Writing Tools Faster.”
Stanford’s AI study tracked LLM adoption from January 2022 to September 2024 with a dataset that included US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumer complaints, corporate press releases, job postings, and UN press releases. The researchers used a statistical detection system that tracked word usage patterns. The system found that 14-24% of these communications showed AI assistance. The study also found an interesting pattern:
“The study also found that while urban areas showed higher adoption overall (18.2 percent versus 10.9 percent in rural areas), regions with lower educational attainment used AI writing tools more frequently (19.9 percent compared to 17.4 percent in higher-education areas). The researchers note that this contradicts typical technology adoption patterns where more educated populations adopt new tools fastest.”
The researchers theorize that AI-writing tools serve as equalizing measures for less-educated individuals. They also noted that AI-writing tools are being adopted because the market is saturated or the LLMs are becoming more advanced. IT will be difficult to distinguish between human and machine written text. They predict negative outcomes from this:
“ ‘The growing reliance on AI-generated content may introduce challenges in communication,’ the researchers write. ‘In sensitive categories, over-reliance on AI could result in messages that fail to address concerns or overall release less credible information externally. Over-reliance on AI could also introduce public mistrust in the authenticity of messages sent by firms.’”
It’s not good to blindly trust AI, especially with the current state of datasets. Can you imagine the critical thinking skills these future leaders and entrepreneurs will develop? On that thought, what will happen to imagination?
Whitney Grace, April 2, 2025
The First AI-Written Paper To Pass Peer Review
April 2, 2025
Cheating. I am not going to bring this topic up.
Humans have taken one small stop towards obsolesce when it comes to writing papers. Sakana AI reports that "The AI Scientist Generates Its First Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publication." This is the first known fully AI-generated paper that passed the same review process that human scientists submit their papers too. Here’s how the paper was written:
"The paper was generated by an improved version of the original AI Scientist, called The AI Scientist-v2. We will be sharing the full details of The AI Scientist-v2 in an upcoming release. This paper was submitted to an ICLR 2025 workshop that agreed to work with our team to conduct an experiment to double-blind review AI-generated manuscripts. We selected this workshop because of its broader scope, challenging researchers (and our AI Scientist) to tackle diverse research topics that address practical limitations of deep learning. The workshop is hosted at ICLR, one of three premier conferences in machine learning and artificial intelligence research, along with NeurIPS and ICML.3
The ICLR leadership and organizers were involved with the project. The paper was blindly submitted to the ICLR review team, although they were told that they might be reviewing AI generated papers.
The AI algorithm was told to research and write about a broad topic. When the process was done, three papers were selected for submission so the review board wouldn’t be overburdened. Here are the results:
“We looked at the generated papers and submitted those we thought were the top 3 (factoring in diversity and quality—We conducted our own detailed analysis of the 3 papers, please read on in our analysis section). Of the 3 papers submitted, two papers did not meet the bar for acceptance. One paper received an average score of 6.33, ranking approximately 45% of all submissions. These scores are higher than many other accepted human-written papers at the workshop, placing the paper above the average acceptance threshold. Specifically, the scores were:
• Rating: 6: Marginally above acceptance threshold
• Rating: 7: Good paper, accept
• Rating: 6: Marginally above acceptance threshold”
The AI Scientist conducted the experiment out of pure scientific curiosity to measure how current AI algorithms compare to human intellect. No problem.
Whitney Grace, April 2, 2025
Free AI Sites (Well, Mostly Free Sort of)
April 1, 2025
Dinobaby says, “No smart software involved. That’s for “real” journalists and pundits.
One of my team generated images of French bulldogs. After months of effort, he presented me with a picture of our French bulldog complete with one floppy ear. The image was not free. I pay for the service because free image generation systems work and then degrade because of the costs associated with doing smart software without oodles of cash.
Another person proudly emailed everyone a link to Best AI Websites and the page “Free AI Tools.” The interfaces, functionality, and the outputs vary. The linked Web page is a directory presented with some of that mobile interface zip.l
There are more than 30 tools anyone can try. Here’s what the “directory” interface looks like:
The first click displays the BestFreeAIWebsites’ write up for each “service” or “tool.” Then a direct link to the free AI site is displayed. There is a “submit” button to allow those with a free AI tool to add theirs to the listing. The “add” function is a common feature of Telegram bot and Channel listings.
Here is a selection of the “free” services that are available as of March 28, 2025, in alphabetical order:
- HUUK.ai, a trip planner
- Metavoice at https://studio.themetavoice.xyz/, a “one click voice changer”
- Presentpicker.ai, a service to help a user choose a gift.
- Remaker.ai, a face swap tool
- Yomii.app, a real estate investing assistant
ChatGPT features numerous times in the list of “free” AI tools. Google shows up a couple of times with Bard and Gemini. The majority of the services “wrap” functionality around the big dogs in the LLM space.
Are these services “free”? Our view is that the “free” is a way to get people to give the services a try. If the experience is positive, upgrades are available.
As one of my team worked through the listings, he said, “Most of these services have been available as Telegram bots from other developers.” If he is correct, perhaps Telegram’s AI functions should be included in the listing?
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2025
Apple CEO Chases Chinese AI and Phone Sales
March 31, 2025
While the hullabaloo about making stakes in China’s burgeoning market has died down, Big Tech companies still want pieces of the Chinese pie or dumpling would be a better metaphor here. An example of Big Tech wanting to entrench itself in the ChinBaiese market is Apple. Mac Rumors reports that Apple CEO Tim Cook was recently in China and he complimented start-up Deepseek for its AI models. The story, “Apple CEO Tim Cook Praises China’s Deepseek”
While Cook didn’t say he would pursue a partnership with Deepseek, he was impressed with their AI models. He called them excellent, because Deepseek delivers AI models with high performance capabilities that have lower costs and compute requirements. Deepseek’s research has been compared to OpenAI for achieving similar results by using less resources.
When Cook visited China he reportedly made an agreement with Alibaba Group to integrate its Qwen models into Apple Intelligence. There are also rumors that Apple’s speaking with Baidu about providing LLMs for the Chinese market.
Does this mean that Tim Apple hopes he can use Chinese smart tech in the iPhone and make that more appealing to Chinese users? Hmmmm.
Cook conducted more business during his visit:
In addition to his comments on AI, Cook announced plans to expand Apple’s cooperation with the China Development Research Foundation, alongside continued investments in clean energy development. Throughout his visit, Cook posted updates on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, showcasing a range of Apple products being used in classrooms, creative environments, and more.
Cook’s comments mark a continuation of Apple’s intensified focus on the Chinese market at a time when the company is facing declining iPhone shipments and heightened competition from domestic brands. Apple’s smartphone shipments in China are believed to have fallen by 25% year-over-year in the fourth quarter of 2024, while annual shipments dropped 17% to 42.9 million units, placing Apple behind local competitors Vivo and Huawei.”
It’s evident that Apple continues to want a piece of the Chinese dumpling, but also seeks to incorporate Chinese technology into its products. Subtle, Tim Apple, subtle.
Whitney Grace, March 31, 2025
Cypersecurity Pros, Bit of an Issue. You Think?
March 28, 2025
Be aware. A dinobaby wrote this essay. No smart software involved.
I read a research report in the Register titled “MINJA Sneak Attack Poisons AI Models for Other Chatbot Users.” The write up is interesting and, I think, important. The weakness is that the essay does not make explicit that this type of vulnerability can be automated and the outputs used to create the type of weaponized content produced by some intelligence agencies (and PR firms).
The write up provides diagrams and useful detail. For this short blog post, my take on the technique is a manipulation of an LLM’s penchant for adapting to the prompts during a human-interface interaction. If the bad actor crafts misleading information, the outputs can be skewed.
How serious is the behavior in LLMs? In my view, the PR and hype about AI renders the intentional fiddling to a trivial concern. That’s not where the technique nor the implications of its effectiveness belong. Triggering wonky behavior is as easy as mismatching patient data as the article illustrates.
Before one gets too excited about autonomous systems using LLMs to just do it, more attention to the intentional weaponization of LLMs is needed.
Will the AI wizards fix this problem? Sure, someday, but it is an issue that requires time, money, and innovation. We live in an era of marketing. I know I cannot trust most people. Now I know that I can’t trust a MINJA that sneaks into my search or research and delivers a knock out blow.
The Register could have been a bit more energetic in its presentation of this issue. The cited essay does a good job of encouraging bad actors and propagandists to be more diligent in their use of LLMs.
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2025
OpenAI and Alleged Environmental Costs: No Problem
March 28, 2025
We know ChatGPT uses an obscene amount of energy and water. But it can be difficult to envision exactly how much. Digg offers some helpful infographics in, "Do You Know How Much Energy ChatGPT Actually Uses?" Writer Darcy Jimenez tells us:
"Since it was first released in 2022, ChatGPT has gained a reputation for being particularly bad for the environment — for example, the GPT-4 model uses as many as 0.14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) generating something as simple as a 100-word email. It can be tricky to fully appreciate the environmental impact of using ChatGPT, though, so the researchers at Business Energy UK made some visualizations to help. Using findings from a 2023 research paper, they calculated the AI chatbot’s estimated water and electricity usage per day, week, month and year, assuming its 200 million weekly users feed it five prompts per day."
See the post for those enlightening graphics. Here are just a few of the astounding statistics:
"Electricity: each day, ChatGPT uses 19.99 million kWh. That’s enough power to charge 4 million phones, or run the Empire State Building for 270 days. … ChatGPT uses a whopping 7.23 billion kWh per year, which is more electricity than the world’s 112 lowest-consumption countries consume over the same period. It’s also enough to power every home in Wyoming for two and a half years."
And:
"Water: The 19.58 million gallons ChatGPT drinks every day could fill a bath for each of Colorado Springs’s 488,664 residents. That amount is also equivalent to everyone in Belgium flushing their toilet at the same time. … In the space of a year, the chatbot uses 7.14 billion gallons of water. That’s enough to fill up the Central Park Reservoir seven times, or power Las Vegas’s Fountains of Bellagio shows for almost 600 years."
Wow. See the write-up for more mind-boggling comparisons. Dolphin lovers and snail darter fans may want to check out the write up.
Cynthia Murrell, March 28, 2025
Programmers: The Way of the Dodo Bird?
March 27, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
Let’s just assume that the US economy is A-OK. One discipline is indispensable now and in the future. What is it? The programmer.
Perhaps not if the information in “Employment for Computer Programmers in the U.S. Has Plummeted to Its Lowest Level Since 1980—Years Before the Internet Existed” is accurate.
The write up states:
There are now fewer computer programmers in the U.S. than there were when Pac-Man was first invented—years before the internet existed as we know it. Computer-programmer employment dropped to its lowest level since 1980, the Washington Post reported, using data from the Current Population Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There were more than 300,000 computer-programming jobs in 1980. The number peaked above 700,000 during the dot-com boom of the early 2000s but employment opportunities have withered to about half that today. U.S. employment grew nearly 75% in that 45-year period, according to the Post.
What’s interesting is that article makes a classification decision I wasn’t expecting; specifically:
Computer programmers are different from software developers, who liaise between programmers and engineers and design bespoke solutions—a much more diverse set of responsibilities compared to programmers, who mostly carry out the coding work directly. Software development jobs are expected to grow 17% from 2023 to 2033, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau meanwhile projects about a 10% decline in computer programming employment opportunities from 2023 to 2033.
Let’s go with the distinction.
Why are programmers’ jobs disappearing? The write up has the answer:
There has been a 27.5% plummet in the 12-month average of computer-programming employment since about 2023—coinciding with OpenAI’s introduction of ChatGPT the year before. ChatGPT can handle coding tasks without a user needing more detailed knowledge of the code being written. The correlation between the decline of programmer jobs and the rise of AI tools signals to some experts that the burgeoning technology could begin to cost some coding experts their jobs.
Now experts are getting fired? Does that resonate with everyone? Experts.
There is an upside if one indulges in a willing suspension of disbelief. The write up says:
Programmers will be required to perform complicated tasks, Krishna argued, and AI can instead serve to eliminate the simpler, time-consuming tasks those programmers would once need to perform, which would increase productivity and subsequently company performance.
My question, “Did AI contribute to this article?” In my opinion, something is off. It might be dependent on the references to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and “real” newspapers as sources for the numbers. Would a high school debate teacher give the green light to the logic in categorizing and linking those heading for the termination guillotine and those who are on the path to carpet land. The use of AI hype as fact is interesting as well.
I am thrilled to be a dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2025
The Chinese AI PR Keeps Flowing
March 27, 2025
Is China moving ahead in the AI race? Some seem to think so. Interesting Engineering reports, "‘World’s First’ Fully Autonomous AI Agent Unveiled in China, Handles Real-World Tasks." Writer Christopher McFadden tells us:
"A group of Chinese software engineers have developed what they have called the ‘world’s first’ fully autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agent. Called ‘Manus,’ the AI agent can independently perform complex tasks without human guidance. Unlike AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, or Grok, which need human input to perform things, Manus can proactively make decisions and complete tasks independently. To this end, the AI agent doesn’t necessarily need to wait for instructions to do something. For example, if a human asks, ‘ Find me an apartment,’ Manus can conduct research, evaluate multiple factors (crime rates, weather, market trends), and provide tailored recommendations."
Apparently, Manus works like a contractor directing their subcontractors. We learn:
"Rather than using just one AI model, Manus operates like an executive managing multiple specialized sub-agents. This allows it to tackle complex, multi-step workflows seamlessly. Moreover, the AI agent can work asynchronously, meaning it completes tasks in the background and notifies users only when results are ready, without constant human supervision. This is a significant development; most AIs have relied heavily on humans to initiate tasks. Manus represents a shift toward fully independent AI, raising exciting possibilities and serious concerns about job displacement and responsibility."
A fully independent AI? Perhaps. If so, the escalated threat to human jobs may be real. Manus has some questioning whether the US is truly the unrivaled leader in the AI space. We shall see if the expectations pan out or are, once again, overblown.
Cynthia Murrell, March 27, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
