AI and Web Search: A Meh-crosoft and Google Mismatch
January 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a shocking report summary. Is the report like one of those Harvard Medical scholarly articles or an essay from the former president of Stanford University? I don’t know. Nevertheless, let’s look at the assertions in “Report: ChatGPT Hasn’t Helped Bing Compete With Google.” I am not sure if the information provides convincing proof that Googzilla is a big, healthy market dominator or if Microsoft has been fooling itself about the power of the artificial intelligence revolution.
The young inventor presents his next big thing to a savvy senior executive at a techno-feudal company. The senior executive is impressed. Are you? I know I am. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Too bad you timed out and told me, “I apologize for the confusion. I’ll try to create a more cartoon-style illustration this time.” Then you crashed. Good enough, right?
Let’s look at the write up. I noted this passage which is coming to me third, maybe fourth hand, but I am a dinobaby and I go with the online flow:
Microsoft added the generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool to its search engine early last year after investing $10 billion in ChatGPT creator OpenAI. But according to a recent Bloomberg News report — which cited data analytics company StatCounter — Bing ended 2023 with just 3.4% of the worldwide search market, compared to Google’s 91.6% share. That’s up less than 1 percentage point since the company announced the ChatGPT integration last January.
I am okay with the $10 billion. Why not bet big? The tactics works for some each year at the Kentucky Derby. I don’t know about the 91.6 number, however. The point six is troubling. What’s with precision when dealing with a result that makes clear that of 100 random people on line at the ever efficient BWI Airport, only eight will know how to retrieve information from another Web search system; for example, the busy Bing or the super reliable Yandex.ru service.
If we assume that the Bing information of modest user uptake, those $10 billion were not enough to do much more than get the management experts at Alphabet to press the Red Alert fire alarm. One could reason: Google is a monopoly in spirit if not in actual fact. If we accept the market share of Bing, Microsoft is putting life preservers manufactured with marketing foam and bricks on its Paul Allen-esque super yacht.
The write up says via what looks like recycled information:
“We are at the gold rush moment when it comes to AI and search,” Shane Greenstein, an economist and professor at Harvard Business School, told Bloomberg. “At the moment, I doubt AI will move the needle because, in search, you need a flywheel: the more searches you have, the better answers are. Google is the only firm who has this dynamic well-established.”
Yeah, Harvard. Oh, well, the sweatshirts are recognized the world over. Accuracy, trust, and integrity implied too.
Net net: What’s next? Will Microsoft make it even more difficult to use another outfit’s search system. Swisscows.com, you may be headed for the abattoir. StartPage.com, you will face your end.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2024
Content Mastication: A Controversial Business Tactic
January 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In the midst of the unfolding copyright issues, I found this post quite interesting. Torrent Freak published a story titled “Meta Admits Use of ‘Pirated’ Book Dataset to Train AI.” Is the story spot on? I sure don’t know. Nevertheless, the headline is a magnetic one. The story reports:
The cases allege that tech companies, including Meta and OpenAI, used the controversial Books3 dataset to train their models. The Books3 dataset has a clear piracy angle. It was created by AI researcher Shawn Presser in 2020, who scraped the library of ‘pirate’ site Bibliotik. This book archive was publicly hosted by digital archiving collective ‘The Eye‘ at the time, alongside various other data sources.
A combination of old-fashioned content collection and smart systems move information from Point A (a copyright owner’s night table) to a smart software system. MSFT’s second class Copilot Bing thing created this cartoon. Sigh. Not even good enough now in my opinion.
What was in the Books3 data collection? The TF story elucidates:
The general vision was that the plaintext collection of more than 195,000 books, which is nearly 37GB…
What did Meta allegedly do to make its Llama smarter than the average member of the Camelidae family? Let’s roll the TF quote:
Responding to a lawsuit from writer/comedian Sarah Silverman, author Richard Kadrey, and other rights holders, the tech giant admits that “portions of Books3” were used to train the Llama AI model before its public release. “Meta admits that it used portions of the Books3 dataset, among many other materials, to train Llama 1 and Llama 2,” Meta writes in its answer [to a court].
The article does not include any statements like “Thank you for the question” or “I don’t know. My team will provide the answer at the earliest possible moment.” Nope. Just an alleged admission.
How will the Meta and parallel copyright legal matter evolve? Beyond Search has zero clue. The US judicial system has deep and mysterious logic. One thing is certain: Senior executives do not like uncertainty and risk. The copyright litigation seems tailored to cause some techno feudalists to imagine a world in which laws, annoying regulators, and people yapping about intellectual property were nudged into a different line of work. One example which comes to mind is building secure bunkers or taking care of the lawn.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2024
Goat Trading: AI at Davos
January 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The AI supercars are racing along the Information Superhighway. Nikkei Asia published what I thought was the equivalent of archaeologists translating a Babylonian clay table about goat trading. Interesting but a bit out of sync with what was happening in a souk. Goat trading, if my understanding of Babylonian commerce, was a combination of a Filene’s basement sale and a hot rod parts swap meet. The article which evoked this thought was “Generative AI Regulation Dominates the Conversation at Davos.” No kidding? Really? I thought some at Davos were into money. I mean everything in Switzerland comes back to money in my experience.
Here’s a passage I found with a nod to the clay tablets of yore:
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, during a speech at Davos, flagged risks that AI poses to human rights, personal privacy and societies, calling on the private sector to join a multi-stakeholder effort to develop a "networked and adaptive" governance model for AI.
Now visualize a market at which middlemen, buyers of goats, sellers of goats, funders of goat transactions, and the goats themselves are in the air. Heady. Bold. Like the hot air filling a balloon, an unlikely construct takes flight. Can anyone govern a goat market or the trajectory of the hot air balloons floated by avid outputters?
Intense discussions can cause a number of balloons to float with hot air power. Talk is input to AI, isn’t it? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
The world of AI reminds me the ultimate outcome of intense discussions about the buying and selling of goats, horses, and AI companies. The official chatter and the “what ifs” are irrelevant in what is going on with smart software. Here’s another quote from the Nikkei write up:
In December, the European Union became the first to provisionally pass AI legislation. Countries around the world have been exploring regulation and governance around AI. Many sessions in Davos explored governance and regulations and why global leaders and tech companies should collaborate.
How are those official documents’ content changing the world of artificial intelligence? I think one can spot a hot air balloon held aloft on the heated emissions from the officials, important personages, and the individuals who are “experts” in all things “smart.”
Another quote, possibly applicable to goat trading in Babylon:
Vera Jourova, European Commission vice president for values and transparency, said during a panel discussion in Davos, that "legislation is much slower than the world of technologies, but that’s law." "We suddenly saw the generative AI at the foundation models of Chat GPT," she continued. "And it moved us to draft, together with local legislators, the new chapter in the AI act. We tried to react on the new real reality. The result is there. The fine tuning is still ongoing, but I believe that the AI act will come into force."
I am confident that there are laws regulating goat trading. I believe that some people follow those laws. On the other hand, when I was in a far off dusty land, I watched how goats were bought and sold. What does goat trading have to do with regulating, governing, or creating some global consensus about AI?
The marketplace is roaring along. You wanna buy a goat? There is a smart software vendor who will help you.
Stephen E Arnold, January xx, 2024
Regulators Shift into Gear to Investigate an AI Tie Up
January 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Solicitors, lawyers, and avocats want to mark the anniversary of the AI big bang. About one year ago, Microsoft pushed Google into hitting its Code Red button. Investment firms, developers, and wild-eyed entrepreneurs knew smart software was the real deal, not a digital file of a cartoon like that NFT baloney. In the last 12 months, AI went from jargon and eliciting yawns to the treasure map to the fabled city of El Dorado (even if it was a suburb of Grants, New Mexico. Google got the message quickly. The lawyers. Well, not too quickly.
Regulators look through the technological pile of 2023 gadgets. Despite being last year’s big thing, the law makers and justice deciders move into action mode. Exciting. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
“EU Joins UK in Scrutinizing OpenAI’s Relationship with Microsoft” documents what happens when lawyers — after decades of inaction — wake to do something constructive. Social media gutted the fabric of many cultural norms. AI isn’t going to be given a 20 year free pass. No way.
The write up reports:
Antitrust regulators in the EU have joined their British counterparts in scrutinizing Microsoft’s alliance with OpenAI.
What will happen now? Here’s my short list of actions:
- Legal eagles on both sides of the Atlantic will begin grooming their feathers in order to be selected to deal with the assorted forms, filings, hearings, and advisory meetings. Some of the lawyers will call Ferrari to make sure they are eligible to buy a supercar; others may cast an eye on an impounded oligarch-linked yacht. Yep, big bucks ahead.
- Microsoft and OpenAI will let loose an platoon of humanoid art history and business administration majors. These professionals will create a wide range of informative explainers. Smart software will be pressed into duty, and I anticipate some smart automation to provide Teflon the the flow of digital documentation.
- Firms — possibly some based in the EU and a few bold souls in the US — will present information making clear that competition is a good thing. Governments must regulate smart software
- Entities hostile to the EU and the US will also output information or disinformation. Which is what depends on one’s perspective.
In short, 2024 will be an interesting year because one of the major threat to the Google could be converted to the digital equivalent of a eunuch in an Assyrian ruler’s court. What will this mean? Google wins. Unanticipated consequence? Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2024
Information Voids for Vacuous Intellects
January 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In countries around the world, 2024 is a critical election year, and the problem of online mis- and disinformation is worse than ever. Nature emphasizes the seriousness of the issue as it describes “How Online Misinformation Exploits ‘Information Voids’—and What to Do About It.” Apparently we humans are so bad at considering the source that advising us to do our own research just makes the situation worse. Citing a recent Nature study, the article states:
“According to the ‘illusory truth effect’, people perceive something to be true the more they are exposed to it, regardless of its veracity. This phenomenon pre-dates the digital age and now manifests itself through search engines and social media. In their recent study, Kevin Aslett, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, and his colleagues found that people who used Google Search to evaluate the accuracy of news stories — stories that the authors but not the participants knew to be inaccurate — ended up trusting those stories more. This is because their attempts to search for such news made them more likely to be shown sources that corroborated an inaccurate story.”
Doesn’t Google bear some responsibility for this phenomenon? Apparently the company believes it is already doing enough by deprioritizing unsubstantiated news, posting content warnings, and including its “about this result” tab. But it is all too easy to wander right past those measures into a “data void,” a virtual space full of specious content. The first impulse when confronted with questionable information is to copy the claim and paste it straight into a search bar. But that is the worst approach. We learn:
“When [participants] entered terms used in inaccurate news stories, such as ‘engineered famine’, to get information, they were more likely to find sources uncritically reporting an engineered famine. The results also held when participants used search terms to describe other unsubstantiated claims about SARS-CoV-2: for example, that it rarely spreads between asymptomatic people, or that it surges among people even after they are vaccinated. Clearly, copying terms from inaccurate news stories into a search engine reinforces misinformation, making it a poor method for verifying accuracy.”
But what to do instead? The article notes Google steadfastly refuses to moderate content, as social media platforms do, preferring to rely on its (opaque) automated methods. Aslett and company suggest inserting human judgement into the process could help, but apparently that is too old fashioned for Google. Could educating people on better research methods help? Sure, if they would only take the time to apply them. We are left with this conclusion: instead of researching claims from untrustworthy sources, one should just ignore them. But that brings us full circle: one must be willing and able to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy sources. Is that too much to ask?
Cynthia Murrell, January 18, 2024
Two Surveys. One Message. Too Bad
January 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Generative Artificial Intelligence Will Lead to Job Cuts This Year, CEOs Say.” The data come from a consulting/accounting outfit’s survey of executives at the oh-so-exclusive World Economic Forum meeting in the Piscataway, New Jersey, of Switzerland. The company running the survey is PwC (once an acronym for Price Waterhouse Coopers. The moniker has embraced a number of interesting investigations. For details, navigate to this link.)
Survey says, “Economic gain is the meaning of life.” Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
The big finding from my point of view is:
A quarter of global chief executives expect the deployment of generative artificial intelligence to lead to headcount reductions of at least 5 per cent this year
Good, reassuring number from big gun world leaders.
However, the International Monetary Fund also did a survey. The percentage of jobs affected range from 26 percent in low income countries, 40 percent for emerging markets, and 60 percent for advanced economies.
What can one make of these numbers; specifically, the five percent to the 60 percent? My team’s thoughts are:
- The gap is interesting, but the CEOs appear to be either downplaying, displaying PR output, or working to avoid getting caught in sticky wicket.
- The methodology and the sample of each survey are different, but both are skewed. The IMF taps analysts, bankers, and politicians. PwC goes to those who are prospects for PwC professional services.
- Each survey suggests that government efforts to manage smart software are likely to be futile. On one hand, CEOs will say, “No big deal.” Some will point to the PwC survey and say, “Here’s proof.” The financial types will hold up the IMF results and say, “We need to move fast or we risk losing out on the efficiency payback.”
What does Bill Gates think about smart software? In “Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates on AI’s Impact on Jobs: It’s Great for White-Collar Workers, Coders” the genius for our time says:
I have found it’s a real productivity increase. Likewise, for coders, you’re seeing 40%, 50% productivity improvements which means you can get programs [done] sooner. You can make them higher quality and make them better. So mostly what we’ll see is that the productivity of white-collar [workers] will go up
Happy days for sure! What’s next? Smart software will move forward. Potential payouts are too juicy. The World Economic Forum and the IMF share one key core tenet: Money. (Tip: Be young.)
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2024
AI Inventors Barred from Patents. For Now
January 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
For anyone wondering whether an AI system can be officially recognized as a patent inventor, the answer in two countries is no. Or at least not yet. We learn from The Fashion Law, “UK Supreme Court Says AI Cannot Be Patent Inventor.” Inventor Stephen Thaler pursued two patents on behalf of DABUS, his AI system. After the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, High Court, and the Court of Appeal all rejected the applications, the intrepid algorithm advocate appealed to the highest court in that land. The article reveals:
“In the December 20 decision, which was authored by Judge David Kitchin, the Supreme Court confirmed that as a matter of law, under the Patents Act, an inventor must be a natural person, and that DABUS does not meet this requirement. Against that background, the court determined that Thaler could not apply for and/or obtain a patent on behalf of DABUS.”
The court also specified the patent applications now stand as “withdrawn.” Thaler also tried his luck in the US legal system but met with a similar result. So is it the end of the line for DABUS’s inventor ambitions? Not necessarily:
“In the court’s determination, Judge Kitchin stated that Thaler’s appeal is ‘not concerned with the broader question whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable, nor is it concerned with the question whether the meaning of the term ‘inventor’ ought to be expanded … to include machines powered by AI ….’”
So the legislature may yet allow AIs into the patent application queues. Will being a “natural person” soon become unnecessary to apply for a patent? If so, will patent offices increase their reliance on algorithms to handle the increased caseload? Then machines would grant patents to machines. Would natural people even be necessary anymore? Once a techno feudalist with truckloads of cash and flocks of legal eagles pulls up to a hearing, rules can become — how shall I say it? — malleable.
Cynthia Murrell, January 17, 2024
Guidelines. What about AI and Warfighting? Oh, Well, Hmmmm.
January 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
It seems November 2023’s AI Safety Summit, hosted by the UK, was a productive gathering. At the very least, attendees drew up some best practices and brought them to agencies in their home countries. TechRepublic describes the “New AI Security Guidelines Published by NCSC, CISA, & More International Agencies.” Writer Owen Hughes summarizes:
“The Guidelines for Secure AI System Development set out recommendations to ensure that AI models – whether built from scratch or based on existing models or APIs from other companies – ‘function as intended, are available when needed and work without revealing sensitive data to unauthorized parties.’ Key to this is the ‘secure by default’ approach advocated by the NCSC, CISA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and various other international cybersecurity agencies in existing frameworks. Principles of these frameworks include:
* Taking ownership of security outcomes for customers.
* Embracing radical transparency and accountability.
* Building organizational structure and leadership so that ‘secure by design’ is a top business priority.
A combined 21 agencies and ministries from a total of 18 countries have confirmed they will endorse and co-seal the new guidelines, according to the NCSC. … Lindy Cameron, chief executive officer of the NCSC, said in a press release: ‘We know that AI is developing at a phenomenal pace and there is a need for concerted international action, across governments and industry, to keep up. These guidelines mark a significant step in shaping a truly global, common understanding of the cyber risks and mitigation strategies around AI to ensure that security is not a postscript to development but a core requirement throughout.’”
Nice idea, but we noted “OpenAI’s Policy No Longer Explicitly Bans the Use of Its Technology for Military and Warfare.” The article reports that OpenAI:
updated the page on January 10 "to be clearer and provide more service-specific guidance," as the changelog states. It still prohibits the use of its large language models (LLMs) for anything that can cause harm, and it warns people against using its services to "develop or use weapons." However, the company has removed language pertaining to "military and warfare." While we’ve yet to see its real-life implications, this change in wording comes just as military agencies around the world are showing an interest in using AI.
We are told cybersecurity experts and analysts welcome the guidelines. But will the companies vending and developing AI products willingly embrace principles like “radical transparency and accountability”? Will regulators be able to force them to do so? We have our doubts. Nevertheless, this is a good first step. If only it had been taken at the beginning of the race.
Cynthia Murrell, January 16, 2024
Cybersecurity AI: Yet Another Next Big Thing
January 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Not surprisingly, generative AI has boosted the cybersecurity arms race. As bad actors use algorithms to more efficiently breach organizations’ defenses, security departments can only keep up by using AI tools. At least that is what VentureBeat maintains in, “How Generative AI Will Enhance Cybersecurity in a Zero-Trust World.” Writer Louis Columbus tells us:
“Deep Instinct’s recent survey, Generative AI and Cybersecurity: Bright Future of Business Battleground? quantifies the trends VentureBeat hears in CISO interviews. The study found that while 69% of organizations have adopted generative AI tools, 46% of cybersecurity professionals feel that generative AI makes organizations more vulnerable to attacks. Eighty-eight percent of CISOs and security leaders say that weaponized AI attacks are inevitable. Eighty-five percent believe that gen AI has likely powered recent attacks, citing the resurgence of WormGPT, a new generative AI advertised on underground forums to attackers interested in launching phishing and business email compromise attacks. Weaponized gen AI tools for sale on the dark web and over Telegram quickly become best sellers. An example is how quickly FraudGPT reached 3,000 subscriptions by July.”
That is both predictable and alarming. What should companies do about it? The post warns:
“‘Businesses must implement cyber AI for defense before offensive AI becomes mainstream. When it becomes a war of algorithms against algorithms, only autonomous response will be able to fight back at machine speeds to stop AI-augmented attacks,’ said Max Heinemeyer, director of threat hunting at Darktrace.”
Before AI is mainstream? Better get moving. We’re told the market for generative AI cybersecurity solutions is already growing, and Forrester divides it into three use cases: content creation, behavior prediction, and knowledge articulation. Of course, Columbus notes, each organization will have different needs, so adaptable solutions are important. See the write-up for some specific tips and links to further information. The tools may be new but the dynamic is a constant: as bad actors up their game, so too must security teams.
Cynthia Murrell, January 15, 2024
Believe in Smart Software? Sure, Why Not?
January 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Predictions are slippery fish. Grab one, a foot long Lake Michigan beastie. Now hold on. Wow, that looked easy. Predictions are similar. But slippery fish can get away or flop around and make those in the boat look silly. I thought about fish and predictions when I read “What AI will Never Be Able To Do.” The essay is a replay of an answer from an AI or smart software system.
My initial reaction was that someone came up with a blog post that required Google Bard and what seems to be minimal effort to create. I am thinking about how a high school student might rely on ChatGPT to write an essay about a current event or a how-to essay. I reread the write up and formulated several observations. The table below presents the “prediction” and my comment about that statement. I end the essay with a general comment about smart software.
The presentation of word salad reassurances underscores a fundamental problem of smart software. The system can be tuned to reassure. At the same time, the companies operating the software can steer, shape, and weaponize the information presented. Those without the intellectual equipment to research and reason about outputs are likely to accept the answers. The deterioration of education in the US and other countries virtually guarantees that smart software will replace critical thinking for many people.
Don’t believe me. Ask one of the engineers working on next generation smart software. Just don’t ask the systems or the people who use another outfit’s software to do the thinking.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
