School Technology: Making Up Performance Data for Years
February 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
What is the “make up data” trend? Why is it plaguing educational institutions. From Harvard to Stanford, those who are entrusted with shaping young-in-spirit minds are putting ethical behavior in the trash can. I think I know, but let’s look at allegations of another “synthetic” information event. For context in the UK there is a government agency called the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.” The agency is called OFSTED. Now let’s go to the “real” news story.“
A possible scene outside of a prestigious academic institution when regulations about data become enforceable… give it a decade or two. Thanks, MidJourney. Two tries and a good enough illustration.
“Ofsted Inspectors Make Up Evidence about a School’s Performance When IT Fails” reports:
Ofsted inspectors have been forced to “make up” evidence because the computer system they use to record inspections sometimes crashes, wiping all the data…
Quite a combo: Information technology and inventing data.
The article adds:
…inspectors have to replace those notes from memory without telling the school.
Will the method work for postal investigations? Sure. Can it be extended to other activities? What about data pertinent to the UK government initiates for smart software?
Stephen E Arnold, February 9, 2024
Alternative Channels, Superstar Writers, and Content Filtering
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In this post-Twitter world, a duel of influencers is playing out in the blogosphere. At issue: Substack’s alleged Nazi problem. The kerfuffle began with a piece in The Atlantic by Jonathan M. Katz, but has evolved into a debate between Platformer’s Casey Newton and Jesse Singal of Singal-Minded. Both those blogs are hosted by Substack.
To get up to speed on the controversy, see the original Atlantic article. Newton wrote a couple posts about Substack’s responses and detailing Platformer’s involvement. In “Substack Says It Will Remove Nazi Publications from the Platform,” he writes:
“Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies. As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.”
How many publications did Platformer flag, and how many of those did Substack remove? Were they significant publications, and did they really violate the rules? These are the burning questions Singal sought to answer. He shares his account in, “Platformer’s Reporting on Substack’s Supposed ‘Nazi Problem’ Is Shoddy and Misleading.” But first, he specifies his own perspective on Katz’ Atlantic article:
“In my view, this whole thing is little more than a moral panic. Moreover, Katz cut certain corners to obscure the fact that to the extent there are Nazis on Substack at all, it appears they have almost no following or influence, and make almost no money. In one case, for example, Katz falsely claimed that a white nationalist was making a comfortable living writing on Substack, but even the most cursory bit of research would have revealed that that is completely false.”
Singal says he plans a detailed article supporting that assertion, but first he must pick apart Platformer’s position. Readers are treated to details from an email exchange between the bloggers and reasons Singal feels Newton’s responses are inadequate. One can navigate to that post for those details if one wants to get into the weeds. As of this writing, Newton has not published a response to Singal’s diatribe. Were we better off when such duels took place 280 characters at a time?
One positive about newspapers: An established editorial process kept superstars grounded in reality. Now entitlement, more than content, seems to be in the driver’s seat.
Cynthia Murrell, February 7, 2024
Flailing and Theorizing: The Internet Is Dead. Swipe and Chill
February 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I do not spend much time with 20 somethings, 30 something, 40 somethings, 50 somethings, or any other somethings. I watch data flow into my office, sell a few consulting jobs, and chuckle at the downstream consequences of several cross-generation trends my team and I have noticed. What’s a “cross generational trend”? The phrase means activities and general perceptions which are shared among some youthful college graduates and a harried manager working in a trucking company. There is the mobile phone obsession. The software scheduler which strips time from an individual with faux urgency or machine-generated pings and dings. There is the excitement of sports events, many of which may feature scripting. There is anomie or the sense of being along in a kayak carried to what may be a financial precipice. You get the idea.
Now the shriek of fear is emanating from online sources known as champions of the digital way. In this short essay, I want to highlight one of these; specifically, “The Era of the AI-Generated Internet Is Already Here: And It’s Time to Talk about AI Model Collapse.” I want to zoom the conclusion of the “real” news report and focus on the final section of the article, “The Internet Isn’t Completely Doomed.”
Here we go.
First, I want to point out that communication technologies are not “doomed.” In fact, these methods or techniques don’t go away. A good example are the clay decorations in some homes which way, “We love our Frenchie” or an Etsy plaque like this one:
Just a variation of a clay tablet produced in metal for an old-timey look. The communication technologies abundant today are likely to have similar stickiness. Doom, therefore, is Karen rhetoric in my opinion.
Second, the future is a return to the 1980s when for-fee commercial databases were trusted and expensive sources of electronic information. The “doom” write up predicts that content will retreat behind paywalls. I would like to point out that you are reading an essay in a public blog. I put my short writings online in 2008, using the articles as a convenient archive. When I am asked to give a lecture, I check out my blog posts. I find it a way to “refresh” my memory about past online craziness. My hunch is that these free, ad-free electronic essays will persist. Some will be short and often incomprehensible items on Pinboard.in; others will be weird TikTok videos spun into a written item pumped out via a social media channel on the Clear Web or the Dark Web (which seems to persist, doesn’t it?) When an important scientific discovery becomes known, that information becomes findable. Sure, it might be a year after the first announcement, but those ArXiv.org items pop up and are often findable because people love to talk, post, complain, or convert a non-reproducible event into a job at Harvard or Stanford. That’s not going to change.
A collapsed AI robot vibrated itself to pieces. Its model went off the rails and confused zeros with ones and ones with zeros. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. How are those security procedures today?
Third, search engine optimization is going to “change.” In order to get hired or become famous, one must call attention to oneself. Conferences, Zoom webinars, free posts on LinkedIn-type services — none of these will go away or… change. The reason is that unless one is making headlines or creating buzz, one becomes irrelevant. I am a dinobaby and I still get crazy emails about a blockchain report I did years ago. (The somewhat strident outfit does business as IGI with the url igi-global.com. When I open an email from this outfit, I can smell the desperation.) Other outfits are similar, very similar, but they hit the Amazon thing for some pricey cologne to convert the scent of overboardism into something palatable. My take on SEO: It’s advertising, promotion, PT Barnum stuff. It is, like clay tablets, in the long haul.
Finally, what about AI, smart software, machine learning, and the other buzzwords slapped on ho-hum products like a word processor? Meh. These are short cuts for the Cliff’s Notes’ crowd. Intellectual achievement requires more than a subscription to the latest smart software or more imagination than getting Mistral to run on your MacMini. The result of smart software is to widen the gap between people who are genuinely intelligent and knowledge value creators, and those who can use an intellectual automatic teller machine (ATM).
Net net: The Internet is today’s version of online. It evolves, often like gerbils or tribbles which plagued Captain Kirk. The larger impact is the return to a permanent one percent – 99 percent social structure. Believe me, the 99 percent are not going to be happy whether they can post on X.com, read craziness on a Dark Web forum, pay for an online subscription to someone on Substack, or give money to the New York Times. The loss of intellectual horsepower is the consequence of consumerizing online.
This dinobaby was around when online began. My colleagues and I knew that editorial controls, access policies, and copyright were important. Once the ATM-model swept over the online industry, today’s digital world was inevitable. Too bad no one listened when those who were creating online information were ignored and dismissed as Ivory Tower dwellers. “Doom”? No just a dawning of what digital information creates. Have fun. I am old and am unwilling to provide a coloring book and crayons for the digital information future and a model collapse. That’s the least of some folks’s worries. I need a nap.
Stephen E Arnold, February 1, 2024
Why Stuff Does Not Work: Airplane Doors, Health Care Services, and Cyber Security Systems, Among Others
January 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
“The Downward Spiral of Technology” stuck a chord with me. Think about building monuments in the reign of Cleopatra. The workers can check out the sphinx and giant stone blocks in the pyramids and ask, “What happened to the technology? We are banging with bronze and crappy metal compounds and those ancient dudes were zipping along with snappier tech.? That conversation is imaginary, of course.
The author of “The Downward Spiral” is focusing on less dusty technology, the theme might resonate with my made up stone workers. Modern technology lacks some of the zing of the older methods. The essay by Thomas Klaffke hit on some themes my team has shared whilst stuffing Five Guys’s burgers in their shark-like mouths.
Here are several points I want to highlight. In closing, I will offer some of my team’s observations on the outcome of the Icarus emulators.
First, let’s think about search. One cannot do anything unless one can find electronic content. (Lawyers, please, don’t tell me you have associates work through the mostly-for-show books in your offices. You use online services. Your opponents in court print stuff out to make life miserable. But electronic content is the cat’s pajamas in my opinion.)
Here’s a table from the Mr. Klaffke essay:
Two things are important in this comparison of the “old” tech and the “new” tech deployed by the estimable Google outfit. Number one: Search in Google’s early days made an attempt to provide content relevant to the query. The system was reasonably good, but it was not perfect. Messrs. Brin and Page fancy danced around issues like disambiguation, date and time data, date and time of crawl, and forward and rearward truncation. Flash forward to the present day, the massive contributions of Prabhakar Raghavan and other “in charge of search” deliver irrelevant information. To find useful material, navigate to a Google Dorks service and use those tips and tricks. Otherwise, forget it and give Swisscows.com, StartPage.com, or Yandex.com a whirl. You are correct. I don’t use the smart Web search engines. I am a dinobaby, and I don’t want thresholds set by a 20 year old filtering information for me. Thanks but no thanks.
The second point is that search today is a monopoly. It takes specialized expertise to find useful, actionable, and accurate information. Most people — even those with law degrees, MBAs, and the ability to copy and paste code — cannot cope with provenance, verification, validation, and informed filtering performed by a subject matter expert. Baloney does not work in my corner of the world. Baloney is not a favorite food group for me or those who are on my team. Kudos to Mr. Klaffke to make this point. Let’s hope someone listens. I have given up trying to communicate the intellectual issues lousy search and retrieval creates. Good enough. Nope.
Yep, some of today’s tools are less effective than modern gizmos. Hey, how about those new mobile phones? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough. How’s the MSFT email security today? Oh, I asked that already.
Second, Mr Klaffke gently reminds his reader that most people do not know snow cones from Shinola when it comes to information. Most people assume that a computer output is correct. This is just plain stupid. He provides some useful examples of problems with hardware and user behavior. Are his examples ones that will change behaviors. Nope. It is, in my opinion, too late. Information is an undifferentiated haze of words, phrases, ideas, facts, and opinions. Living in a haze and letting signals from online emitters guide one is a good way to run a tiny boat into a big reef. Enjoy the swim.
Third, Mr. Klaffke introduces the plumbing of the good-enough mentality. He is accurate. Some major social functions are broken. At lunch today, I mentioned the writings about ethics by Thomas Dewey and William James. My point was that these fellows wrote about behavior associated with a world long gone. It would be trendy to wear a top hat and ride in a horse drawn carriage. It would not be trendy to expect that a person would work and do his or her best to do a good job for the agreed-upon wage. Today I watched a worker who played with his mobile phone instead of stocking the shelves in the local grocery store. That’s the norm. Good enough is plenty good. Why work? Just pay me, and I will check out Instagram.
I do not agree with Mr. Klaffke’s closing statement; to wit:
The problem is not that the “machine” of humanity, of earth is broken and therefore needs an upgrade. The problem is that we think of it as a “machine”.
The problem is that worldwide shared values and cultural norms are eroding. Once the glue gives way, we are in deep doo doo.
Here are my observations:
- No entity, including governments, can do anything to reverse thousands of years of cultural accretion of norms, standards, and shared beliefs.
- The vast majority of people alive today are reverting back to some fascinating behaviors. “Fascinating” is not a positive in the sense in which I am using the word.
- Online has accelerated the stress on social glue; smart software is the turbocharger of abrupt, hard-to-understand change.
Net net: Please, read Mr. Klaffke’s essay. You may have an idea for remediating one or more of today’s challenges.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2024
Research: A Slippery Path to Wisdom Now
January 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
When deciding whether to believe something on the Internet all one must do is google it, right? Not so fast. Citing five studies performed between 2019 and 2022, Scientific American describes “How Search Engines Boost Misinformation.” Writer Lauren Leffer tells us:
“Encouraging Internet users to rely on search engines to verify questionable online articles can make them more prone to believing false or misleading information, according to a study published today in Nature. The new research quantitatively demonstrates how search results, especially those prompted by queries that contain keywords from misleading articles, can easily lead people down digital rabbit holes and backfire. Guidance to Google a topic is insufficient if people aren’t considering what they search for and the factors that determine the results, the study suggests.”
Those of us with critical thinking skills may believe that caveat goes without saying but, alas, it does not. Apparently evaluating the reliability of sources through lateral reading must be taught to most searchers. Another important but underutilized practice is to rephrase a query before hitting enter. Certain terms are predominantly used by purveyors of misinformation, so copy-and-pasting a dubious headline will turn up dubious sources to support it. We learn:
“For example, one of the misleading articles used in the study was entitled ‘U.S. faces engineered famine as COVID lockdowns and vax mandates could lead to widespread hunger, unrest this winter.’ When participants included ‘engineered famine’—a unique term specifically used by low-quality news sources—in their fact-check searches, 63 percent of these queries prompted unreliable results. In comparison, none of the search queries that excluded the word ‘engineered’ returned misinformation. ‘I was surprised by how many people were using this kind of naive search strategy,’ says the study’s lead author Kevin Aslett, an assistant professor of computational social science at the University of Central Florida. ‘It’s really concerning to me.’”
That is putting it mildly. These studies offer evidence to support suspicions that thoughtless searching is getting us into trouble. See the article for more information on the subject. Maybe a smart LLM will spit it out for you, and let you use it as your own?
Cynthia Murrell, January 19, 2024
Do You Know the Term Quality Escape? It Is a Sign of MBA Efficiency Talk
January 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am not too keen on leaving my underground computer facility. Given the choice of a flight on a commercial airline and doing a Zoom, fire up the Zoom. It works reasonably well. Plus, I don’t have to worry about screwed up flight controls, air craft maintenance completed in a country known for contraband, and pilots trained on flawed or incomplete instructional materials. Why am I nervous? As a Million Mile traveler on a major US airline, I have survived a guy dying in the seat next to me, assorted “return to airport” delays, and personal time spent in a comfy seat as pilots tried to get the mechanics to give the okay for the passenger jet to take off. (Hey, it just landed. What’s up? Oh, right, nothing.)
Another example of a quality escape: Modern car, dead battery, parts falling off, and a flat tire. Too bad the driver cannot plug into the windmill. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough because the auto is not failing at 14,000 feet.
I mention my thrilling life as a road warrior because I read “Boeing 737-9 Grounding: FAA Leaves No Room For “Quality Escapes.” In that “real” news report I spotted a phrase which was entirely new to me. Imagine. After more than 50 years of work in assorted engineering disciplines at companies ranging from old-line industrial giants like Halliburton to hippy zippy outfits in Silicon Valley, here was a word pair that baffled me:
Quality Escape
Well, quality escape means that a product was manufactured, certified, and deployed which was did not meet “standards”. In plain words, the door and components were not safe and, therefore, lacked quality. And escape? That means failure. An F, flop, or fizzle.
“FAA Opens Investigation into Boeing Quality Control after Alaska Airlines Incident” reports:
… the [FAA] agency has recovered key items sucked out of the plane. On Sunday, a Portland schoolteacher found a piece of the aircraft’s fuselage that had landed in his backyard and reached out to the agency. Two cell phones that were likely flung from the hole in the plane were also found in a yard and on the side of the road and turned over to investigators.
I worked on an airplane related project or two when I was younger. One of my team owned two light aircraft, one of which was acquired from an African airline and then certified for use in the US. I had a couple of friends who were jet pilots in the US government. I picked up some random information; namely, FAA inspections are a hassle. Required work is expensive. Stuff breaks all the time. When I was picking up airplane info, my impression was that the FAA enforced standards of quality. One of the pilots was a certified electrical engineer. He was not able to repair his electrical equipment due to FAA regulations. The fellow followed the rules because the FAA in that far off time did not practice “good enough” oversight in my opinion. Today? Well, no people fell out of the aircraft when the door came off and the pressure equalization took place. iPhones might survive a fall from 14,000 feet. Most humanoids? Nope. Shoes, however, do fare reasonably well.
Several questions:
- Exactly how can a commercial aircraft be certified and then shed a door in flight?
- Who is responsible for okaying the aircraft model in the first place?
- Didn’t some similar aircraft produce exciting and consequential results for the passengers, their families, pilots, and the manufacturer?
- Why call crappy design and engineering “quality escape”? Crappy is simpler, more to the point.
Yikes. But if it flies, it is good enough. Excellence has a different spin these days.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2024
British Library: The Math of Can Kicking Security Down the Road
January 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a couple of blog posts about the security issues at the British Library. I am not currently working on projects in the UK. Therefore, I noted the issue and moved on to more pressing matters. Examples range from writing about the antics of the Google to keeping my eye on the new leader of the highly innovative PR magnet, the NSO Group.
Two well-educated professionals kick a security can down the road. Why bother to pick it up? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. I gave up trying to get you to produce a big can and big shoe. Sigh.
I read “British Library to Burn Through Reserves to Recover from Cyber Attack.” The weird orange newspaper usually has semi-reliable, actual factual information. The write up reports or asserts (the FT is a newspaper, after all):
The British Library will drain about 40 per cent of its reserves to recover from a cyber attack that has crippled one of the UK’s critical research bodies and rendered most of its services inaccessible.
I won’t summarize what the bad actors took down. Instead, I want to highlight another passage in the article:
Cyber-intelligence experts said the British Library’s service could remain down for more than a year, while the attack highlighted the risks of a single institution playing such a prominent role in delivering essential services.
A couple of themes emerge from these two quoted passages:
- Whatever cash the library has, spitting distance of half is going to be spent “recovering,” not improving, enhancing, or strengthening. Just “recovering.”
- The attack killed off “most” of the British Libraries services. Not a few. Not one or two. Just “most.”
- Concentration for efficiency leads to failure for downstream services. But concentration makes sense, right. Just ask library patrons.
My view of the situation is familiar of you have read other blog posts about Fancy Dan, modern methods. Let me summarize to brighten your day:
First, cyber security is a function that marketers exploit without addressing security problems. Those purchasing cyber security don’t know much. Therefore, the procurement officials are what a falcon might label “easy prey.” Bad for the chihuahua sometimes.
Second, when security issues are identified, many professionals don’t know how to listen. Therefore, a committee decides. Committees are outstanding bureaucratic tools. Obviously the British Library’s managers and committees may know about manuscripts. Security? Hmmm.
Third, a security failure can consume considerable resources in order to return to the status quo. One can easily imagine a scenario months or years in the future when the cost of recovery is too great. Therefore, the security breach kills the organization. Termination can be rationalized by a committee, probably affiliated with a bureaucratic structure further up the hierarchy.
I think the idea of “kicking the security can” down the road a widespread characteristic of many organizations. Is the situation improving? No. Marketers move quickly to exploit weaknesses of procurement teams. Bad actors know this. Excitement ahead.
Stephen E Arnold, January 9, 2024
Pegasus Equipped with Wings Stomps Around and Leaves Hoof Prints
January 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The NSO Group’s infamous Pegasus spyware is in the news again, this time in India. Newsclick reveals, “New Forensic Report Finds ‘Damning Revelations’ of ‘Repeated’ Pegasus Use to Target Indian Scribes.” The report is a joint project by Amnesty International and The Washington Post. It was spurred by two indicators. First, routine monitoring exercise in June 2023 turned up traces of Pegasus on certain iPhones. Then, in October, several journalists and Opposition party politicians received Apple alerts warning of “State-sponsored attackers.” The article tells us:
“‘As a result, Amnesty International’s Security Lab undertook a forensic analysis on the phones of individuals around the world who received these notifications, including Siddharth Varadarajan and Anand Mangnale. It found traces of Pegasus spyware activity on devices owned by both Indian journalists. The Security Lab recovered evidence from Anand Mangnale’s device of a zero-click exploit which was sent to his phone over iMessage on 23 August 2023, and designed to covertly install the Pegasus spyware. … According to the report, the ‘attempted targeting of Anand Mangnale’s phone happened at a time when he was working on a story about an alleged stock manipulation by a large multinational conglomerate in India.’”
This was not a first for The Wire co-founder Siddharth Varadarajan. His phone was also infected with Pegasus back in 2018, according to forensic analysis ordered by the Supreme Court of India. The latest findings have Amnesty International urging bans on invasive, opaque spyware worldwide. Naturally, The NSO Group continues to insist all its clients are “vetted law enforcement and intelligence agencies that license our technologies for the sole purpose of fighting terror and major crime” and that it has policies in place to prevent “targeting journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders or political dissidents that are not involved in terror or serious crimes.” Sure.
Meanwhile, some leaders of India’s ruling party blame Apple for those security alerts, alleging the “company’s internal threat algorithms were faulty.” Interesting deflection. We’re told an Apple security rep was called in and directed to craft some other, less alarming explanation for the warnings. Is this because the government itself is behind the spyware? Unclear; Parliament refuses to look into the matter, claiming it is sub judice. How convenient.
Cynthia Murrell, January 8, 2024
AI Risk: Are We Watching Where We Are Going?
December 27, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
To brighten your New Year, navigate to “Why We Need to Fear the Risk of AI Model Collapse.” I love those words: Fear, risk, and collapse. I noted this passage in the write up:
When an AI lives off a diet of AI-flavored content, the quality and diversity is likely to decrease over time.
I think the idea of marrying one’s first cousin or training an AI model on AI-generated content is a bad idea. I don’t really know, but I find the idea interesting. The write up continues:
Is this model at risk of encountering a problem? Looks like it to me. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. Falling off the I beam was a non-starter, so we have a more tame cartoon.
Model collapse happens when generative AI becomes unstable, wholly unreliable or simply ceases to function. This occurs when generative models are trained on AI-generated content – or “synthetic data” – instead of human-generated data. As time goes on, “models begin to lose information about the less common but still important aspects of the data, producing less diverse outputs.”
I think this passage echoes some of my team’s thoughts about the SAIL Snorkel method. Googzilla needs a snorkel when it does data dives in some situations. The company often deletes data until a legal proceeding reveals what’s under the company’s expensive, smooth, sleek, true blue, gold trimmed kimonos
The write up continues:
There have already been discussions and research on perceived problems with ChatGPT, particularly how its ability to write code may be getting worse rather than better. This could be down to the fact that the AI is trained on data from sources such as Stack Overflow, and users have been contributing to the programming forum using answers sourced in ChatGPT. Stack Overflow has now banned using generative AIs in questions and answers on its site.
The essay explains a couple of ways to remediate the problem. (I like fairy tales.) The first is to use data that comes from “reliable sources.” What’s the definition of reliable? Yeah, problem. Second, the smart software companies have to reveal what data were used to train a model. Yeah, techno feudalists totally embrace transparency. And, third, “ablate” or “remove” “particular data” from a model. Yeah, who defines “bad” or “particular” data. How about the techno feudalists, their contractors, or their former employees.
For now, let’s just use our mobile phone to access MSFT Copilot and fix our attention on the screen. What’s to worry about? The person in the cartoon put the humanoid form in the apparently risky and possibly dumb position. What could go wrong?
Stephen E Arnold, December 27, 2023
The High School Science Club Got Fined for Its Management Methods
December 4, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I almost missed this story. “Google Reaches $27 Million Settlement in Case That Sparked Employee Activism in Tech” which contains information about the cost of certain management methods. The write up asserts:
Google has reached a $27 million settlement with employees who accused the tech giant of unfair labor practices, setting a record for the largest agreement of its kind, according to California state court documents that haven’t been previously reported.
The kindly administrator (a former legal eagle) explains to the intelligent teens in the high school science club something unpleasant. Their treatment of some non sci-club types will cost them. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Who’s in charge of the OpenAI relationship now?
The article pegs the “worker activism” on Google. I don’t know if Google is fully responsible. Googzilla’s shoulders and wallet are plump enough to carry the burden in my opinion. The article explains:
In terminating the employee, Google said the person had violated the company’s data classification guidelines that prohibited staff from divulging confidential information… Along the way, the case raised issues about employee surveillance and the over-use of attorney-client privilege to avoid legal scrutiny and accountability.
Not surprisingly, the Google management took a stand against the apparently unjust and unwarranted fine. The story notes via a quote from someone who is in the science club and familiar with its management methods::
“While we strongly believe in the legitimacy of our policies, after nearly eight years of litigation, Google decided that resolution of the matter, without any admission of wrongdoing, is in the best interest of everyone,” a company spokesperson said.
I want to point out that the write up includes links to other articles explaining how the Google is refining its management methods.
Several questions:
- Will other companies hit by activist employees be excited to learn the outcome of Google’s brilliant legal maneuvers which triggered a fine of a mere $27 million
- Has Google published a manual of its management methods? If not, for what is the online advertising giant waiting?
- With more than 170,000 (plus or minus) employees, has Google found a way to replace the unpredictable, expensive, and recalcitrant employees with its smart software? (Let’s ask Bard, shall we?)
After 25 years, the Google finds a way to establish benchmarks in managerial excellence. Oh, I wonder if the company will change it law firm line up. I mean $27 million. Come on. Loose the semantic noose and make more ads “relevant.”
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
