Telegram, Did You Know about the Kiddie Pix Pyramid Scheme?
November 25, 2025
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/green-dino_thumb_thumb3-5.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
The Independent, a newspaper in the UK, published “Leader of South Korea’s Biggest Telegram Sex Abuse Ring Gets Life Sentence.” The subtitle is a snappy one: “Seoul Court Says Kim Nok Wan Committed Crimes of Extreme Brutality.” Note: I will refer to this convicted person as Mr. Wan. The reason is that he will spend time in solitary confinement. In my experience individuals involved in kiddie crimes are at bottom of the totem pole among convicted people. If the prison director wants to keep him alive, he will be kept away from the general population. Even though most South Koreans are polite, it is highly likely that he will face a less than friendly greeting when he visits the TV room or exercise area. Therefore, my designation of Mr. Wan reflects the pallor his skin will evidence.
Now to the story:
The main idea is that Mr. Wan signed up for Telegram. He relied on Telegram’s Group and Channel function. He organized a social community dubbed the Vigilantes, a word unlikely to trigger kiddie pix filters. Then he “coerced victims, nearly 150 of them minors, into producing explicit material through blackmail and then distribute the content in online chat rooms.”
Telegram’s leader sets an example for others who want to break rules and be worshiped. Thanks, Venice.ai. Too bad you ignored my request for no facial hair. Good enough, the standard for excellence today I believe.
Mr. Wan’s innovation weas to set up what the Independent called “a pyramid hierarchy.” Think of an Herbal Life- or the OneCoin-type operation. He incorporated an interesting twist. According to the Independent:
He also sent a video of a victim to their father through an accomplice and threatened to release it at their workplace.
Let’s shift from the clever Mr. Wan to Telegram and its public and private Groups and Channels. The French arrested Pavel Durov in August 2024. The French judiciary identified a dozen crimes he allegedly committed. He awaits trial for these alleged crimes. Since that arrest, Telegram has, based on our monitoring of Telegram, blocked more aggressively a number of users and Groups for violating Telegram’s rules and regulations such as they are. However, Mr. Wan appears to have slipped through despite Telegram’s filtering methods.
Several observations:
- Will Mr. Durov implement content moderation procedures to block, prevent, and remove content like Mr. Wan’s?
- Will South Korea take a firm stance toward Telegram’s use in the country?
- Will Mr. Durov cave in to Iran’s demands so that Telegram is once again available in that country?
- Did Telegram know about Mr. Wan’s activities on the estimable Telegram platform?
Mr. Wan exploited Telegram. Perhaps more forceful actions should be taken by other countries against services which provide a greenhouse for certain types of online activity to flourish? Mr. Durov is a tech bro, and he has been pictured carrying a real (not metaphorical) goat to suggest that he is the greatest of all time.
That perception appears to be at odds with the risk his platform poses to children in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2025
Why the BAIT Outfits Are Drag Netting for Users
November 25, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Have you wondered why the BAIT (big AI tech) companies are pumping cash into what looks to many like a cash bonfire? Here’s one answer, and I think it is a reasonably good one. Navigate to “Best Case: We’re in a Bubble. Worst Case: The People Profiting Most Know Exactly What They’re Doing.” I want to highlight several passages and then often my usually-ignored observations.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough, but I am not sure how many AI execs wear old-fashioned camping gear.
I noted this statement:
The best case scenario is that AI is just not as valuable as those who invest in it, make it, and sell it believe.
My reaction to this bubble argument is that the BAIT outfits realized after Microsoft said, “AI in Windows” that a monopoly-type outfit was making a move. Was AI the next oil or railroad play? Then Google did its really professional and carefully-planned Code Red or Yellow whatever, the hair-on-fire moment arrived. Now almost three years later, the hot air from the flaming coifs are equaled by the fumes of incinerating bank notes.
The write up offers this comment:
My experience with AI in the design context tends to reflect what I think is generally true about AI in the workplace: the smaller the use case, the larger the gain. The larger the use case, the larger the expense. Most of the larger use cases that I have observed — where AI is leveraged to automate entire workflows, or capture end to end operational data, or replace an entire function — the outlay of work is equal to or greater than the savings. The time we think we’ll save by using AI tends to be spent on doing something else with AI.
The experiences of my team and I support this statement. However, when I go back to the early days of online in the 1970s, the benefits of moving from print research to digital (online) research were fungible. They were quantifiable. Online is where AI lives. As a result, the technology is not global. It is a subset of functions. The more specific the problem, the more likely it is that smart software can help with a segment of the work. The idea that cobbled together methods based on built-in guesses will be wonderful is just plain crazy. Once one thinks of AI as a utility, then it is easier to identify a use case where careful application of the technology will deliver a benefit. I think of AI as a slightly more sophisticated spell checker for writing at the 8th grade level.
The essay points out:
The last ten years have practically been defined by filter bubbles, alternative facts, and weaponized social media — without AI. AI can do all of that better, faster, and with more precision. With a culture-wide degradation of trust in our major global networks, it leaves us vulnerable to lies of all kinds from all kinds of sources and no standard by which to vet the things we see, hear, or read.
Yep, this is a useful way to explain that flows of online information tear down social structures. What’s not referenced, however, is that rebuilding will take a long time. Think about smashing your mom’s favorite Knick- knack. Were you capable of making it as good as new? Sure, a few specialists might be able to do a good job, but the time and cost means that once something is destroyed, that something is gone. The rebuild is at best a close approximation. That’s why people who want to go back to social structures in the 1950s are chasing a fairy tale.
The essay notes:
When a private company can construct what is essentially a new energy city with no people and no elected representation, and do this dozens of times a year across a nation to the point that half a century of national energy policy suddenly gets turned on its head and nuclear reactors are back in style, you have a sudden imbalance of power that looks like a cancer spreading within a national body.
My view is that the BAIT outfits want to control, dominate, and cash in. Hey, if you have cancer and one company has the alleged cure, are you going to take the drug or just die?
Several observations are warranted:
- BAIT outfits want to be the winner and be the only alpha dog. Ruthless behavior will be the norm for these firms.
- AI is the next big thing. The idea is that if one wishes it, thinks it, or invests in it, AI will be. My hunch is that the present methodologies are on the path to becoming the equivalent of a dial up modem.
- The social consequences of the AI utility added to social media are either ignored or not understood. AI is the catalyst needed to turn one substance into an explosion.
Net net: Good essay. I think the downsides referenced in the essay understate the scope of the challenge.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2025
Pavel Durov Can Travel As Some New Features Dribble from the Core Engineers
November 25, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In November 2025, Telegram announced Cocoon, its AI system. Well, it is not yet revolutionizing writing code for smart contracts. Like Apple, Telegram is a bit late to the AI dog race. But there is hope for the company which has faced some headwinds. One blowing from the west is the criminal trial for which Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram waits. Plus, the value of the much-hyped TONcoin and the subject of yet another investigation for financial fancy dancing is tanking.
What’s the good news? Telegram watching outfits like FoneArena and PCNews.ru have reported on some recent Telegram innovations. Keep in mind that Telegram means that a new user install the Messenger mini app. This is an “everything” app. Through the interface one can do a wide range of actions. Yep, that’s why it is called an “everything” app. You can read Telegram’s own explanation in the firm’s blog.
Fone Arena reports that “the Dubai-based virtual company (yeah, go figure that out) has rolled out Live Stories streaming, repeated messages, and gift auctions. Repeated messages will spark some bot developers to build this function into applications. Notifications (wanted and unwanted) are useful in certain types of advertising campaigns. The gift auctions is little more than a hybrid of Google ad auctions and eBay applied to the highly volatile, speculative crypto confections Telegram, users, and developers allegedly find of great value.
The Live Stories streaming is more significant. Rolled out in November 2025, Live Stories allows users to broadcast live streams within the Stories service. Viewers can post comments and interact in real time in a live chat. During a stream, viewers may highlight or pin their messages using Telegram Stars, which is a form of crypto cash. A visible Star counter appears in the corner of the broadcast. Gamification is a big part of the Telegram way. Gambling means crypto transactions. Transactions incur a service charge. A user can kick of a Live Story from a personal accounts or from a Groups or a Channels that have unlocked Story posting via boosts. Owners have to unlock the Live Story, however. Plus, the new service supports real time messaging protocol for external applications such as OBS and XSplit streaming software.
The interface for Live Stories steaming. Is Telegram angling to kill off Twitch and put a dent in Discord? Will the French judiciary forget to try Pavel Durov for his online service’s behavior. It appears that Mr. Durov and his core engineers think so.
Observations are warranted:
- Live Stories is likely to catch the attention of some of the more interesting crypto promoters who make use of Telegram
- Telegram’s monitoring service will have to operate in real time because dropping in a short but interesting video promo for certain illegal or controversial activities will have to operate better than the Cleveland Browns American football team
- The soft hooks to pump up service charges or “gas fees” in the lingo of the digital currency enthusiasts are an important part of gift and auction play. Think hooking users on speculative investments in digital goodies and then scraping off those service charges.
Net net: Will Cocoon make it easier for developers to code complex bots, mini apps, and distributed applications (dApps)? Answer: Not yet. Just go buy a gift on Telegram. PS. Mr. Zuckerberg, Telegram has aced you again it seems.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2025
Tim Apple, Granny Scarfs, and Snooping
November 24, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I spotted a write in a source I usually ignore. I don’t know if the write up is 100 percent on the money. Let’s assume for the purpose of my dinobaby persona that it indeed is. The write up is “Apple to Pay $95 Million Settle Suit Accusing Siri Of Snoopy Eavesdropping.” Like Apple’s incessant pop ups about my not logging into Facetime, iMessage, and iCloud, Siri being in snoop mode is not surprising to me. Tim Apple, it seems, is winding down. The pace of innovation, in my opinion, is tortoise like. I haven’t nothing against turtle like creatures, but a granny scarf for an iPhone. That’s innovation, almost as cutting edge as the candy colored orange iPhone. Stunning indeed.
Is Frederick the Great wearing an Apple Granny Scarf? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
What does the write up say about this $95 million sad smile?
Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the privacy-minded company of deploying its virtual assistant Siri to eavesdrop on people using its iPhone and other trendy devices. The proposed settlement filed Tuesday in an Oakland, California, federal court would resolve a 5-year-old lawsuit revolving around allegations that Apple surreptitiously activated Siri to record conversations through iPhones and other devices equipped with the virtual assistant for more than a decade.
Apple has managed to work the legal process for five years. Good work, legal eagles. Billable hours and legal moves generate income if my understanding is correct. Also, the notion of “surreptitiously” fascinates me. Why do the crazy screen nagging? Just activate what you want and remove the users’ options to disable the function. If you want to be surreptitious, the basic concept as I understand it is to operate so others don’t know what you are doing. Good try, but you failed to implement appropriate secretive operational methods. Better luck next time or just enable what you want and prevent users from turning off the data vacuum cleaner.
The write up notes:
Apple isn’t acknowledging any wrongdoing in the settlement, which still must be approved by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. Lawyers in the case have proposed scheduling a Feb. 14 court hearing in Oakland to review the terms.
I interpreted this passage to mean that the Judge has to do something. I assume that lawyers will do something. Whoever brought the litigation will do something. It strikes me that Apple will not be writing a check any time soon, nor will the fine change how Tim Apple has set up that outstanding Apple entity to harvest money, data, and good vibes.
I have several questions:
- Will Apple offer a complementary Granny Scarf to each of its attorneys working this case?
- Will Apple’s methods of harvesting data be revealed in a white paper written by either [a] Apple, [b] an unhappy Apple employee, or [c] a researcher laboring in the vineyards of Stanford University or San Jose State?
- Will regulatory authorities and the US judicial folks take steps to curtail the “we do what we want” approach to privacy and security?
I have answers for each of these questions. Here we go:
- No. Granny Scarfs are sold out
- No. No one wants to be hassled endlessly by Apple’s legions of legal eagles
- No. As the recent Meta decision about WhatsApp makes clear, green light, tech bros. Move fast, break things. Just do it.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
Google: AI or Else. What a Pleasant, Implicit Threat
November 24, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Do you remember that old chestnut of a how-to book. I think its title was How to Win Friends and Influence People. I think the book contains a statement like this:
“Instead of condemning people, let’s try to understand them. Let’s try to figure out why they do what they do. That’s a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism; and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness. “To know all is to forgive all.” ”
The Google leadership has mastered this approach. Look at its successes. An advertising system that sells access to users from an automated bidding system running within the Google platform. Isn’t that a way to breed sympathy for the company’s approach to serving the needs of its customers? Another example is the brilliant idea of making a Google-centric Agentic Operating System for the world. I know that the approach leaves plenty of room for Google partners, Google high performers, and Google services. Won’t everyone respond in a positive way to the “space” that Google leaves for others?
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
I read “Google Boss Warns No Company Is Going to Be Immune If AI Bubble Bursts.” What an excellent example of putting the old-fashioned precepts of Dale Carnegie’s book into practice. The soon-to-be-sued BBC article states:
Speaking exclusively to BBC News, Sundar Pichai said while the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) investment had been an “extraordinary moment”, there was some “irrationality” in the current AI boom… “I think no company is going to be immune, including us,” he said.
My memory doesn’t work the way it did when I was 13 years old, but I think I heard this same Silicon Valley luminary say, “Code Red” when Microsoft announced a deal to put AI in its products and services. With the klaxon sounding and flashing warning lights, Google began pushing people and money into smart software. Thus, the AI craze was legitimized. Not even the spat between Sam Altman and Elon Musk could slow the acceleration. And where are we now?
The chief Googler, a former McKinsey & Company consultant, is explaining that the AI boom is rational and irrational. Is that a threat from a company that knee jerked its way forward? Is Google saying that I should embrace AI or suffer the consequences? Mr. Pichai is worried about the energy needs of AI. That’s good. Because one doesn’t need to be an expert in utility forecast demand analysis to figure out that if the announced data centers are built, there will probably be brown outs or power rationing. Companies like Google can pay its electric bills; others may not have the benefit of that outstanding advertising system to spit out cash with the heart beat of an atomic clock.
I am not sure that Dale Carnegie would have phrased statements like these if they are words tumbling from Google’s leader as presented in the article:
“We will have to work through societal disruptions.” he said, adding that it would also “create new opportunities”. “It will evolve and transition certain jobs, and people will need to adapt,” he said. Those who do adapt to AI “will do better”. “It doesn’t matter whether you want to be a teacher [or] a doctor. All those professions will be around, but the people who will do well in each of those professions are people who learn how to use these tools.”
This sure sounds like a dire prediction for people who don’t “learn how to use these tools.” I would go so far as to suggest that one of the progenitors of the AI craziness is making another threat. I interpret the comment as meaning, “Get with the program or you will never work again anywhere.”
How uplifting. Imagine that old coot Dale Carnegie saying in the 1930s that you will do poorly if you don’t get with the Googley AI program? Here’s one of Dale’s off-the-wall comments was:
“The only way to influence people is to talk in terms of what the other person wants.”
The statements in the BBC story make one thing clear: I know what Google wants. I am not sure it is what other people want. Obviously the wacko Dale Carnegie is not in tune with the McKinsey consultant’s pragmatic view of what Google wants. Poor Dale. It seems his observations do not line up with the Google view of life for those who don’t do AI.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
Collaboration: Why Ask? Just Do. (Great Advice, Job Seeker)
November 24, 2025
Another short essay from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If you see an image, we used AI. The dinobaby is not an artist like Grandma Moses.
I read
I am too old to have an opinion about collaboration in 2025. I am a slacker, not a user of Slack. I don’t “GoTo” meetings; I stay in my underground office. I don’t “chat” on Facebook or smart software. I am, therefore, qualified to comment on the essay “Collaboration Sucks.” The main point of the essay is that collaboration is not a positive. (I know that this person has not worked at a blue chip consulting firm. If you don’t collaborate, you better have telepathy. Otherwise, you will screw up in a spectacular fashion with the client and the lucky colleagues who get to write about your performance or just drop hints to a Carpetland dweller.
The essay states:
We aim to hire people who are great at their jobs and get out of their way. No deadlines, minimal coordination, and no managers telling you what to do. In return, we ask for extraordinarily high ownership and the ability to get a lot done by yourself. Marketers ship code, salespeople answer technical questions without backup, and product engineers work across the stack.
To me, this sounds like a Silicon Valley commandment along with “Go fast and break things” or “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” Allegedly Rear Admiral Grace Hopper offered this observation. However, Admiral Craig Hosmer told me that her attitude did more harm to females in the US Navy’s technical services than she thought. Which Admiral does one believe? I believe what Admiral Hosmer told me when I provided technical support to his little Joint Committee on Nuclear Energy many years ago.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough. Good enough.
The idea that a team of really smart and independent specialists can do great things is what has made respected managers familiar with legal processes around the world. I think Google just received an opportunity to learn from its $600 million fine levied by Germany. Moving fast, Google made some interesting decisions about German price comparison sites. I won’t raise again the specter of the AI bubble and the leadership methods of Sam AI-Man. Everything is working out just swell, right?
The write up presents seven reasons why collaboration sucks. Most of the reasons revolve around flaws in a person. I urge you to read the seven variations on the theme of insecurity, impostor syndrome, and cluelessness.
My view is that collaboration, like any business process, depends on the context of the task and the work itself. In some organizations, employees can do almost anything because middle managers (if they are still present) have little idea about what’s going on with workers who are in an office half a world away, down the hall but playing Foosball, pecking away at a laptop in a small, overpriced apartment in Plastic Fantastic (aka San Mateo), or working from a van and hoping the Starlink is up.
I like the idea of crushing collaboration. I urge those who want to practice this skill join a big time law firm, a blue chip consulting firm, or engage in the work underway at a pharmaceutical research lab. I love the tips the author trots out; specifically:
- Just ship the code, product, whatever. Ignore inputs like Slack messages.
- Tell the boss or leader, you are the “driver.” (When I worked for the Admiral, I would suggest that this approach was not appropriate for the context of that professional, the work related to nuclear weapons, or a way to win his love, affection, and respect. I would urge the author to track down a four star and give his method a whirl. Let me know how that works out.)
- Tell people what you need. That’s a great idea if one has power and influence. If not, it is probably important to let ChatGPT word an email for you.
- Don’t give anyone feedback until the code or product has shipped. This a career builder in some organizations. It is quite relevant when a massive penalty ensures because an individual withheld knowledge and thus made the problem worse. (There is something called “discovery.” And, guess what, those Slack and email messages can be potent.)
- Listen to inputs but just do what you want. (In my 60 year work career, I am not sure this has ever been good advice. In an AI outfit, it’s probably gold for someone. Isn’t there something called Fool’s Gold?)
Plus, there is one item on the action list for crushing collaboration I did not understand. Maybe you can divine its meaning? “If you are a team lead, or leader of leads, who has been asked for feedback, consider being more you can just do stuff.”
Several observations:
- I am glad I am not working in Sillycon Valley any longer. I loved the commute from Berkeley each day, but the craziness in play today would not match my context. Translation: I have had enough of destructive business methods. Find someone else to do your work.
- The suggestions for killing collaboration may kill one’s career except in toxic companies. (Notice that I did not identify AI-centric outfits. How politic of me.)
- The management failure implicit in this approach to colleagues, suggestions, and striving for quality is obvious to me. My fear is that some young professionals may see this collaboration sucks approach and fail to recognize the issues it creates.
Net net: When you hire, I suggest you match the individual to the context and the expertise required to the job. Short cuts contribute to the high failure rate of start ups and the dead end careers some promising workers create for themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
AI Doubters: You Fall Short. Just Get With the Program
November 21, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Watching the Google strike terror in the heart of Sam AI-Man is almost as good as watching a mismatch in bare knuckle fights broadcast on free TV. Promoters have a person who appears fit and mean. The opponent usually looks less physically imposing and often has a neutral or slightly frightened expression. After a few minutes, the big person wins.
Is the current state of AI like a bare knuckles fight?
Here’s another example. A math whiz in a first year algebra class is asked by the teacher, “Why didn’t you show your work?” The young person looks confused and says, “The answer is obvious.” The teacher says you have to show your work. The 13-year old replies, “There is nothing to show. The answer just is.”
A young wizard has no use for an old fuddy duddy who wants to cling to the past. The future leadership gem thinks, “Dude, I am in Hilbert space.”
I thought that BAIT executives had outgrown or at least learned to mask their ability to pound the opponent to the canvas and figured out how to keep their innate superiority in check. Not surprisingly, I was wrong.
My awareness of the mismatch surfaced when I read “Microsoft AI CEO Puzzled by People Being Unimpressed by AI.” The hyperbole surrounding AI or smart software is the equivalent of the physically fit person pummeling an individual probably better suited to work as an insurance clerk into the emergency room. It makes clear that the whiz kid in math class has no clue that other people do not see what “just is.”
Let’s take a look at a couple of statements in the article.
I noted this allegedly accurate passage:
It cracks me up when I hear people call AI underwhelming. I grew up playing Snake on a Nokia phone! The fact that people are unimpressed that we can have a fluent conversation with a super smart AI that can generate any image/video is mind blowing to me.
What you haven’t fallen succumbed to the marketing punches yet? And you don’t get it? I can almost hear a voice saying, “Yep, you Mr. Dinobaby, are a loser.” The person saying “cracks me up” is the notable Mustafa Suleyman. He is Microsoft’s top dog in smart software. He is famous in AI circles. He did not understand this “show your work” stuff. He would be a very good bet in a bare knuckles contest is my guess.
A second snippet:
Over in the comments, some users pushed back on the CEO’s use of the word “unimpressed,” arguing that it’s not the technology itself that fails to impress them, but rather Microsoft’s tendency to put AI into everything just to appease shareholders instead of focusing on the issues that most users actually care about, like making Windows’ UI more user-friendly similar to how it was in Windows 7, fixing security problems, and taking user privacy more seriously.
The second snippet is a response to Mr. Suleyman’s bafflement. The idea that 40 year old Microsoft is reinventing itself with AI troubles the person who brings up Windows’ issues. SolarWinds is officially put to bed, pummeled by tough lawyers and the news cycle. The second snippet brings up an idea that strikes some as ludicrous; specifically, paying attention to what users want.
Several observations:
- Microsoft and other AI firms know what’s best for me and you
- The AI push is a somewhat overwrought attempt to make a particular technical system the next big thing. The idea is that if we say it and think it and fund it, AI will be like electricity, the Internet, and an iPhone.
- The money at stake means that those who do not understand the value of smart software are obstructionists. These individuals and organizations will have to withstand the force of the superior combatants.
Will AI beat those who just want software to assist them complete a task, not generate made up or incorrect outputs, and allow people to work in a way that is comfortable to them? My hunch is that users of software will have to get with the program. The algebra teacher will, one way or another, fail to contain the confidence, arrogance, and intelligence of the person who states, “It just is.”
Stephen E Arnold, November 21, 2025
AI Spending Killing Jobs, Not AI Technology
November 21, 2025
Another short essay from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If you see an image, we used AI. The dinobaby is not an artist like Grandma Moses.
Fast Company published “AI Isn’t Replacing Jobs. AI Spending Is.” The job losses are real. Reports from recruiting firms and anecdotal information make it clear that those over 55 are at risk and most of those under 23 are likely to be candidates for mom’s basement or van life.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Pretty lame, but I grew bored with trying different prompts.
The write up says:
From Amazon to General Motors to Booz Allen Hamilton, layoffs are being announced and blamed on AI. Amazon said it would cut 14,000 corporate jobs. United Parcel Service (UPS) said it had reduced its management workforce by about 14,000 positions over the past 22 months. And Target said it would cut 1,800 corporate roles. Some academic economists have also chimed in: The St. Louis Federal Reserve found a (weak) correlation between theoretical AI exposure and actual AI adoption in 12 occupational categories.
Then the article delivers an interesting point:
Yet we remain skeptical of the claim that AI is responsible for these layoffs. A recent MIT Media Lab study found that 95% of generative AI pilot business projects were failing. Another survey by Atlassian concluded that 96% of businesses “have not seen dramatic improvements in organizational efficiency, innovation, or work quality.” Still another study found that 40% of the business people surveyed have received “AI slop” at work in the last month and that it takes nearly two hours, on average, to fix each instance of slop. In addition, they “no longer trust their AI-enabled peers, find them less creative, and find them less intelligent or capable.”
Here’s the interesting conclusion or semi-assertion:
When companies are financially stressed, a relatively easy solution is to lay off workers and ask those who are not laid off to work harder and be thankful that they still have jobs. AI is just a convenient excuse for this cost-cutting.
Yep, AI spending is not producing revenue. The sheep herd is following AI. But fodder is expensive. Therefore, cull the sheep. Wool sweaters at a discount, anyone? Then the skepticism of a more or less traditional publishing outfit surfaces; to wit:
The wild exaggerations from LLM promoters certainly help them raise funds for their quixotic quest for artificial general intelligence. But it brings us no closer to that goal, all while diverting valuable physical, financial, and human resources from more promising pursuits.
Several observations are probably unnecessary, but I as an official dinobaby choose to offer them herewith:
- The next big thing that has been easy to juice has been AI. Is it the next big thing? Nope, it is utility software. Does anyone need multiple utility applications? Nope. Does anyone want multiple utility tools that do mostly the same thing with about the same amount of made up and incorrect outputs? Nope.
- The drivers for AI are easy to identify: [a] It was easy to hype, [b] People like the idea of a silver bullet until the bullets misfire and blow off the shooter’s hand or blind the gun lover, [c] No other “next big thing” is at hand.
- Incorrect investment decisions are more problematic than diversified investment decisions. What do oligopolistic outfits do? Lead their followers. If we think in terms of sheep, there are a lot of sheet facing a very steep cliff.
Net net: Only a couple of sheep will emerge as Big Sheep. The other sheep? Well, if not a sweater, how about a lamb chop. Ooops. Some sheep may not want to become food items on a Styrofoam tray wrapped in plastic with a half off price tag. Imagine that.
Stephen E Arnold, November 21, 2025
Data Centers: Going information Dark
November 21, 2025
Data Center NDAs: Keeping Citizens in the Dark Until the Ink is Dry
Transparency is a dirty word in Silicon Valley. And now, increasingly, across the country. NBC News discusses “How NDAs Keep AI Data Center Details Hidden from Americans.” Reporter Natalie Kainz tells us about Dr. Timothy Grosser of Mason County, Kentucky, who turned down a generous but mysterious offer to buy his 250-acre farm. Those who brought him the proposal refused to tell him who it came from or what the land would be used for. They asked him to sign a non-disclosure agreement before revealing such details. The farmer, who has no intention of selling his land to anyone for any price, adamantly refused. Later, he learned a still-unnamed company is scouting the area for a huge data center. Kainz writes:
“Grosser experienced firsthand what has become a common but controversial aspect of the multibillion-dollar data center boom, fueled by artificial intelligence services. Major tech companies launching the huge projects across the country are asking land sellers and public officials to sign NDAs to limit discussions about details of the projects in exchange for morsels of information and the potential of economic lifelines for their communities. It often leaves neighbors searching for answers about the futures of their communities. … Those in the data center industry argue the NDAs serve a particular purpose: ensuring that their competitors aren’t able to access information about their strategies and planned projects before they’re announced. And NDAs are common in many types of economic development deals aside from data centers. But as the facilities have spread into suburbs and farmland, they’ve drawn pushback from dozens of communities concerned by how they could upend daily life.”
Such concerns include inflated electricity prices, water shortages, and air pollution. We would add the dangerous strain on power grids and substantial environmental damage. Residents are also less than thrilled about sights and sounds that would spoil their areas’ natural beauty.
Companies say the NDAs are required to protect trade secrets and stay ahead of the competition. Residents are alarmed to be kept in the dark, sometimes until construction is nearly under way. And local officials are caught between a rock and a hard place– They want the economic boost offered by data centers but are uneasy signing away their duty to inform their constituents. Even in the face of freedom of information requests, which is a point stipulated in at least one contract NBC was privy to. But hey, we cannot let the rights of citizens get in the way of progress, can we?
Cynthia Murrell, November 21, 2025
Will Farmers Grow AI Okra?
November 20, 2025
A VP at Land O’ Lakes laments US farmers’ hesitance to turn their family farms into high-tech agricultural factories. In a piece at Fast Company, writer and executive Brett Bruggeman insists “It’s Time to Rethink Ag Innovation from the Ground Up.” Yep, time to get rid of those pesky human farmers who try to get around devices that prevent tinkering or unsanctioned repairs. Humans can’t plow straight anyway. As Bruggeman sees it:
“The problem isn’t a lack of ideas. Every year, new technologies emerge with the potential to transform how we farm, from AI-powered analytics to cutting-edge crop inputs. But the simple truth is that many promising solutions never scale, not because they don’t work but because they can’t break through the noise, earn trust, or integrate into the systems growers rely on.”
Imagine that. Farmers are reluctant to abandon methods that have worked for decades. So how is big-agro-tech to convince these stubborn luddites? You have to make them believe you are on their side. The post continues:
“Bringing local agricultural retailers and producers together for pilot testing and performance discussions is central to finding practical and scalable solutions. Sitting at the kitchen table with farmers provides invaluable data and feedback—they know the land, the seasons, and the day-to-day pressures associated with the crop or livestock they raise. When innovation flows through this channel, it’s far more likely to be understood, adopted, and create lasting value. … So, the cooperative approach offers a blueprint worth considering—especially for industries wrestling with the same adoption gaps and trust barriers that agriculture faces. Capital alone isn’t enough. Relationships matter. Local connections matter. And innovation that ignores the end user is destined to stall.”
Ah, the good old kitchen table approach. Surely, farmers will be happy to interrupt their day for these companies’ market research.
Cynthia Murrell, November 20, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
