Apple Fix: Just Buy Something That Mostly Works

July 4, 2025

Dino 5 18 25No smart software involved. Just an addled dinobaby.

A year ago Apple announced AI which means, of course, Apple Intelligence. Well, Apple was “held back”. In 2025, the powerful innovation machine made the iPhone and Macs look a bit like the Windows see-through motif. Okay.

I read “Apple Reportedly Has a Secret Plan to Quickly Gain Ground in the AI Race.” I won’t point out that if information is circulating AND appears in an article, that information is not secret. It is public relations and marketing output. Second, forget the split infinitive. Since few recognize that datum is singular and data is plural or that the word none is singular, I won’t mention it. Obviously few “real” journalists care.

Now to the write up. In my opinion, the big secret revealed and analyzed is …

Sources report that the company is giving serious consideration to bidding for the startup Perplexity AI, which would allow it to transplant a chunk of expertise and ready-made technology into Apple Park and leapfrog many of the obstacles it currently faces. Perplexity runs an AI-powered search engine which can already perform the contextual tricks which Apple advertised ahead of the iPhone 16 launch but hasn’t yet managed to build into Siri.

Analysis of this “secret” is a bit underwhelming. Here’s the paragraph that is supposed to make sense of this non-secret secret:

Historically, Apple has been wary of large acquisitions, whereas rivals, such as Facebook (buying WhatsApp for $22 billion) and Google (acquiring cloud security platform Wiz for $32 billion), have spent big to scoop up companies. It could be a mark of how worried Apple is about the AI situation that it’s considering such a major and out-of-character move. But after a year of headaches and obstacles, it also could pay off in a big way.

Okay, but what about Google acquiring Motorola? What about Microsoft’s clever purchase of Nokia? And there are other examples. Big companies buying other companies can work out or fizzle. Where is Dodgeball now? Orkut?

The actual issue strikes me as Apple’s failure to recognize that smart software — whether it works particularly well or not — was a marketing pony to ride in the technical circus. Microsoft got the message, and it seems that the marketing play triggered Google. But the tie up seems to be under a bit of stress as of June 2025.

Another problem is that buying AI requires that the purchaser manage the operation, ensure continued innovation of an order slightly more demanding that imitating a Windows interface, and getting the wizard huskies to remain hooked to the dog sled.

What seems to be taking place is a division of the smart software world into three sectors:

  1. Companies that “do” large language models; for example, Google, OpenAI, and others
  2. Companies that “wrap” large language models and generate start ups that are presented as AI but are interfaces
  3. Companies that “integrate” or “glue on” AI to an existing service, platform, or system.

Apple failed at number 1. It hasn’t invented anything in the AI world. (I think I learned about Siri in a Stanford Research Institute presentation many, many years ago. (No, it did not work particularly well even in the demo.)

Apple is not too good at wrapping anything. Safari doesn’t wrap. Safari blazes its own weird trail which is okay for those who love Apple software. For someone like me, I find it annoying.

Apple has demonstrated that it could not “glue on” SIRI.

Okay, Apple has not scored a home run with either approach one, two, or three.

Thus, the analysis, in my opinion, is that Apple like some other outfits now realize smart software — whether it is 100 percent reliable — continues to generate buzz. The task for Apple, therefore, is to figure out how to convert whatever it does into buzz. Skip the cost of invention. Sidestep wrapping AI and look for “partners” who do what department stores in the 1950s: Wrap my holiday gifts. And, three, try to make “glue on” work.

Net net: Will Apple undertake auto de fe and see the light?

Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2025

Read This Essay and Learn Why AI Can Do Programming

July 3, 2025

dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumbNo AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.

I, entirely by accident since Web search does not work too well, an essay titled “Ticket-Driven Development: The Fastest Way to Go Nowhere.” I would have used a different title; for example, “Smart Software Can Do Faster and Cheaper Code” or “Skip Computer Science. Be a Plumber.” Despite my lack of good vibe coding from the essay’s title, I did like the information in the write up. The basic idea is that managers just want throughput. This is not news.

The most useful segment of the write up is this passage:

You don’t need a process revolution to fix this. You need permission to care again. Here’s what that looks like:

  • Leave the code a little better than you found it — even if no one asked you to.
  • Pair up occasionally, not because it’s mandated, but because it helps.
  • Ask why. Even if you already know the answer. Especially then.
  • Write the extra comment. Rename the method. Delete the dead file.
  • Treat the ticket as a boundary, not a blindfold.

Because the real job isn’t closing tickets it’s building systems that work.

I wish to offer several observations:

  1. Repetitive boring, mindless work is perfect for smart software
  2. Implementing dot points one to five will result in a reprimand, transfer to a salubrious location, or termination with extreme prejudice
  3. Spending long hours with an AI version of an old-fashioned psychiatrist because you will go crazy.

After reading the essay, I realized that the managerial approach, the “ticket-driven workflow”, and the need for throughput applies to many jobs. Leadership no longer has middle managers who manage. When leadership intervenes, one gets [a] consultants or [b] knee-jerk decisions or mandates.

The crisis is in organizational set up and management. The developers? Sorry, you have been replaced. Say, “hello” to our version of smart software. Her name is No Kidding.

Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2025

Microsoft and OpenAI: An Expensive Sitcom

July 1, 2025

Dino 5 18 25No smart software involved. Just an addled dinobaby.

I remember how clever I thought the book title “Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?: Leading a Great Enterprise Through Dramatic Change.” I find the break dancing content between Microsoft and OpenAI even more amusing. Bloomberg “real” news reported that Microsoft is “struggling to sell its Copilot solutions. Why? Those Microsoft customers want OpenAI’s ChatGPT. That’s a hoot.

Computerworld adds to this side show more Monte Python twists. “Microsoft and OpenAI: Will They Opt for the Nuclear Option?” (I am not too keen on the use of the word “nuclear.” People bandy it about without understanding exactly what the actual consequences of such an opton means. Please, do a bit of homework before suggesting that two enterprises are doing anything remotely similar.)

The estimable Computerworld reports:

Microsoft needs access to OpenAI technologies to keep its worldwide lead in AI and grow its valuation beyond its current more than $3.5 trillion. OpenAI needs Microsoft to sign a deal so the company can go public via an IPO. Without an IPO, the company isn’t likely to keep its highly valued AI researchers — they’ll probably be poached by companies willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the talent.

The problem seems to be that Microsoft is trying to sell its version of smart software. The enterprise customers and even dinobabies like myself prefer the hallucinatory and unpredictable ChatGPT to the downright weirdness of Copilot in Notepad. The Computerworld story says:

Hovering over it all is an even bigger wildcard. Microsoft’s and OpenAI’s existing agreement dramatically curtails Microsoft’s rights to OpenAI technologies if the technologies reach what is called artificial general intelligence (AGI) — the point at which AI becomes capable of human reasoning. AGI wasn’t defined in that agreement. But Altman has said he believes AGI might be reached as early as this year.

People cannot agree over beach rights and school taxes. The smart software (which may remain without regulation for a decade) is a much bigger deal. The dollars at stake are huge. Most people do not know that a Board of Directors for a Fortune 1000 company will spend more time arguing about parking spaces than a $300 million acquisition. The reason? Most humans cannot conceive of the numbers of dollars associated with artificial intelligence. If the AI next big thing does not work, quite a few outfits are going to be selling snake oil from tables at flea markets.

Here’s the humorous twist from my vantage point. Microsoft itself kicked off the AI boom with its announcements a couple of years ago. Google, already wondering how it can keep the money gushing to pay the costs of simply being Google, short circuited and hit the switch for Code Red, Yellow, Orange, and probably the color only five people on earth have ever seen.

And what’s happened? The Google-spawned methods aren’t eliminating hallucinations. The OpenAI methods are not eliminating hallucinations. The improvements are more and more difficult to explain. Meanwhile start ups are doing interesting things with AI systems that are good enough for certain use cases. I particularly like consulting and investment firms using AI to get rid of MBAs.

The punch line for this joke is that the Microsoft version of ChatGPT seems to have more brand deliciousness. Microsoft linked with OpenAI, created its own “line of AI,” and now finds that the frisky money burner OpenAI is more popular and can just define artificial general intelligence to its liking and enjoy the philosophical discussions among AI experts and lawyers.

One cannot make this sequence up. Jack Benny’s radio scripts came close, but I think the Microsoft – OpenAI program is a prize winner.

Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2025

Publishing for Cash: What Is Here Is Bad. What Is Coming May Be Worse

July 1, 2025

Dino 5 18 25Smart software involved in the graphic, otherwise just an addled dinobaby.

Shocker. Pew Research discovers that most “Americans” do not pay for news. Amazing. Is it possible that the Pew professionals were unaware of the reason newspapers, radio, and television included comic strips, horoscopes, sports scores, and popular music in their “real” news content? I read in the middle of 2025 the research report “Few Americans Pay for News When They Encounter Paywalls.” For a number of years I worked for a large publishing company in Manhattan. I also worked at a privately owned publishing company in fly over country.

image

The sky looks threatening. Is it clouds, locusts, or the specter of the new Dark Ages? Thanks, you.com. Good enough.

I learned several things. Please, keep in mind that I am a dinobaby and I have zero in common with GenX, Y, Z, or the horrific GenAI. The learnings:

  • Publishing companies spend time and money trying to figure out how to convert information into cash. This “problem” extended from the time I took my first real job in 1972 to yesterday when I received an email from a former publisher who is thinking about batteries as the future.
  • Information loses its value as it diffuses; that is, if I know something, I can generate money IF I can find the one person who recognizes the value of that information. For anyone else, the information is worthless and probably nonsense because that individual does not have the context to understand the “value” of an item of information.
  • Information has a tendency to diffuse. It is a bit like something with a very short half life. Time makes information even more tricky. If the context changes exogenously, the information I have may be rendered valueless without warning.

So what’s the solution? Here are the answers I have encountered in my professional life:

  1. Convert the “information” into magic and the result of a secret process. This is popular in consulting, certain government entities, and banker types. Believe me, people love the incantations, the jargon talk, and the scent of spontaneous ozone creation.
  2. Talk about “ideals,” and deliver lowest common denominator content. The idea that the comix and sports scores will “sell” and the revenue can be used to pursue ideals. (I worked at an outfit like this, and I liked its simple, direct approach to money.)
  3. Make the information “exclusive” and charge a very few people a whole lot of money to access this “special” information. I am not going to explain how lobbying, insider talk, and trade show receptions facilitate this type of information wheeling and dealing. Just get a LexisNexis-type of account, run some queries, and check out the bill. The approach works for certain scientific and engineering information, financial data, and information people have no idea is available for big bucks.
  4. Embrace the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach. Believe me this works. Look at YouTube thumbnails. The graphics and word choice make clear that sensationalism, titillation, and jazzification are the order of the day.

Now back to the Pew research. Here’s a passage I noted:

The survey also asked anyone who said they ever come across paywalls what they typically do first when that happens. Just 1% say they pay for access when they come across an article that requires payment. The most common reaction is that people seek the information somewhere else (53%). About a third (32%) say they typically give up on accessing the information.

Stop. That’s the key finding: one percent pay.

Let me suggest:

  1. Humans will take the easiest path; that is, they will accept what is output or what they hear from their “sources”
  2. Humans will take “facts” and glue they together to come up with more “facts”. Without context — that is, what used to be viewed as a traditional education and a commitment to lifelong learning, these people will lose the ability to think. Some like this result, of course.
  3. Humans face a sharper divide between the information “haves” and the information “have nots.”

Net net: The new dark ages are on the horizon. How’s that for a speculative conclusion from the Pew research?

Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2025

Add On AI: Sounds Easy, But Maybe Just a Signal You Missed the Train

June 30, 2025

Dino 5 18 25No smart software to write this essay. This dinobaby is somewhat old fashioned.

I know about Reddit. I don’t post to Reddit. I don’t read Reddit. I do know that like Apple, Microsoft, and Telegram, the company is not a pioneer in smart software. I think it is possible to bolt on Item Z to Product B. Apple pulled this off with the Mac and laser printer bundle. Result? Desktop publishing.

Can Reddit pull off a desktop publishing-type of home run? Reddit sure hopes it can (just like Apple, Microsoft, and Telegram, et al).

At 20 Years Old, Reddit Is Defending Its Data and Fighting AI with AI” says:

Reddit isn’t just fending off AI. It launched its own Reddit Answers AI service in December, using technology from OpenAI and Google. Unlike general-purpose chatbots that summarize others’ web pages, the Reddit Answers chatbot generates responses based purely on the social media service, and it redirects people to the source conversations so they can see the specific user comments. A Reddit spokesperson said that over 1 million people are using Reddit Answers each week. Huffman has been pitching Reddit Answers as a best-of-both worlds tool, gluing together the simplicity of AI chatbots with Reddit’s corpus of commentary. He used the feature after seeing electronic music group Justice play recently in San Francisco.

The question becomes, “Will users who think about smart software as ChatGPT be happy with a Reddit AI which is an add on?”

Several observations:

  1. If Reddit wants to pull a Web3 walled-garden play, the company may have lost the ability to lock its gate.
  2. ChatGPT, according to my team, is what Microsoft Word and Outlook users want; what they get is Copilot. This is a mind share and perception problem the Softies have to figure out how to remediate.
  3. If the uptake of ChatGPT or something from the “glue cheese on pizza” outfit, Reddit may have to face a world similar to the one that shunned MySpace or Webvan.
  4. Reddit itself appears to be vulnerable to what I call content injection. The idea is that weaponized content like search engine optimization posts are posted (injected) to Reddit. The result is that AI systems suck in the content and “boost” the irrelevancy.

My hunch is that an outfit like Reddit may find that its users may prefer asking ChatGPT or migrating to one of the new Telegram-type services now being coded in Silicon Valley.

Like Yahoo, the portal to the Internet in 1990s, Reddit may not have a front page that pulls users. A broader comment is that what I call “add-on AI” may not work because the outfits with the core technology and market pull will exploit, bulldoze, and undermine outfits which are at their core getting pretty old. We need a new truism, “When AIs fight, only the stakeholders get trampled.”

The truth may be more painful: Smart AI outfits can cause less smart outfits with AI bolted on to lose their value and magnetism for their core constituencies. Is there a fix? Nope, there is a cat-and-mouse game in which the attacker has the advantage.

Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2025

Palantir Rattles the Windows in the Nuclear Industry

June 30, 2025

Dino 5 18 25_thumb[3]_thumb_thumbThis dinobaby asked ChatGPT about Palantir. Interesting output.

Palantir Partners to Develop AI Software for Nuclear Construction” caught me by surprise. I did not think the company founded in 2003 was an artificial intelligence company with expertise in the nuclear field. The cited article reports:

Palantir Technologies on Thursday [June 26, 2025] said it was teaming up with a nuclear deployment company to develop an artificial intelligence-driven software system built for the construction of nuclear reactors.

I have paid much attention to Palantir, but I did own a small amount of Palantir stock but I dumped it.

image

Screenshot of the ChatGPT output on June 27, 2025, at 855 am US Eastern

Today I wanted to refresh my memory about the company. I navigated to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and plugged in key words and this is what the Sam Altman system generated for me. Note: It is unlikely that the ChatGPT system can output the same report because probability doesn’t work the way users of the system think it does.

Remember: The quoted passage is copied directly from the ChatGPT response. ChatGPT told me:

Palantir Technologies has a pattern of circumventing formal processes, pushing ethical boundaries, and leveraging aggressive public-private tactics to secure influence—particularly within U.S. defense and intelligence communities.

Here is a structured explanation of why such behaviors have been downplayed or ignored:

 


1. Operational Utility Overrides Bureaucratic Violations

  • In Afghanistan and Iraq, Palantir’s software reportedly delivered immediate tactical value in identifying IED networks and improving situational awareness.
  • By deploying software and engineers directly to the field without formal contracts, Palantir created facts on the ground—a working product that soldiers wanted, and field commanders endorsed.
  • Pentagon leadership faced a dilemma: challenge Palantir for its violations or continue using a system that operators said worked better than the legacy alternatives (e.g., DCGS-A).
  • This “bottom-up demand” shielded Palantir from early procurement blowback.

 


2. Information Warfare and Lobbying

  • Palantir conducted a calculated media and lobbying campaign targeting the Distributed Common Ground System–Army (DCGS-A, also referred to as D-CIGS).
  • By discrediting IBM and other legacy defense contractors, Palantir positioned itself as the modern, Silicon Valley alternative.
  • This messaging resonated with Congress, think tanks, and parts of the press, framing Palantir as a disruptor, not a rule-breaker.
  • Lobbying disclosures show Palantir spent millions courting lawmakers and decision-makers.

 


3. Legal Maneuvering and Settlements

  • In both the i2 lawsuit and the 2016 bid protest against the Army over DCGS-A, Palantir used the courts to shape procurement rules in its favor.
  • The Court of Federal Claims sided with Palantir in 2016, affirming that the Army violated federal acquisition regulations by excluding commercial solutions from its process ([Palantir USG v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (2016)]). This set a precedent that indirectly legitimized Palantir’s aggressive tactics.

 


4. Shift in Public Attention and National Security Prioritization

  • Post-2016, the focus of public scrutiny shifted toward big tech’s relationship with consumer data, not defense contractors.
  • Palantir successfully repositioned itself as a key player in pandemic response, immigration enforcement, and border security—domains where national interest arguments silence criticism.
  • The company also leaned into its identity as a pro-Western, anti-authoritarian force, which further insulated it from deeper ethical scrutiny.

 


5. Opacity and Media Fatigue

  • Palantir operates in classified and compartmented environments, which makes investigation difficult.
  • Many journalists lack the access or technical background to track the nuance of procurement violations or reverse engineering disputes.
  • After years of unresolved criticism, media fatigue set in—journalists moved on, and watchdog groups prioritized new targets (e.g., TikTok, Clearview AI, etc.).

 


Conclusion:

Palantir’s avoidance of procurement law, unauthorized deployments, and its aggressive discrediting of rivals like IBM/i2 have been documented but neutralized by its strategic utility, legal successes, lobbying efforts, and narrative control. The firm masks tactical rule-breaking with patriotic branding, which has proved highly effective in suppressing deeper accountability.

True, false, reality, or hallucinatory? I don’t know. Nuclear in the context of this ChatGPT output that suggests the Palantir outfit is definitely operating in a very interesting manner. What would Palantir’s AI say about the company?

Stephen  E Arnold, June 30, 2025

 

Do Not Be Evil. Dolphins, Polar Bears, and Snail Darters? Tough Luck

June 30, 2025

dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.

The Guardian comes up with some interesting “real” news stories. “Google’s Emissions Up 51% As AI Electricity Demand Derails Efforts to Go Green” reports:

Google’s carbon emissions have soared by 51% since 2019 as artificial intelligence hampers the tech company’s efforts to go green.

The juicy factoid in my opinion is:

The [Google] report also raises concerns that the rapid evolution of AI may drive “non-linear growth in energy demand”, making future energy needs and emissions trajectories more difficult to predict.

Folks, does the phrase “brown out” resonate with you? What about “rolling blackout.” If the “non-linear growth” thing unfolds, the phrase “non-linear growth” may become synonymous with brown out and rolling blackout.

As a result, the article concludes with this information, generated without plastic, by Google:

Google is aiming to help individuals, cities and other partners collectively reduce 1GT (gigaton) of their carbon-equivalent emissions annually by 2030 using AI products. These can, for example, help predict energy use and therefore reduce wastage, and map the solar potential of buildings so panels are put in the right place and generate the maximum electricity.

Will Google’s thirst or revenue-driven addiction harm dolphins, polar bears, and snail darters? Answer: We aim to help dolphins and polar bears. But we have to ask our AI system what a snail darter is.

Will the Googley smart software suggest that snail darters just dart at snails and quit worrying about their future?

Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2025

Publishers Will Love Off the Wall by Google

June 27, 2025

Dino 5 18 25_thumb[3]_thumbNo smart software involved just an addled dinobaby.

Ooops. Typo. I meant “offerwall.” My bad.

Google has thrown in the towel on the old-school, Backrub, Clever, and PageRank-type of search. A comment made to me by a Xoogler in 2006 was accurate. My recollection is that this wizard said, “We know it will end. We just don’t know when.” I really wish I could reveal this person, but I signed a never-talk document. Because I am a dinobaby, I stick to the rules of the information highway as defined by a high-fee but annoying attorney.

How do I know the end has arrived? Is it the endless parade of litigation? Is it the on-going revolts of the Googlers? Is it the weird disembodied management better suited to general consulting than running a company anchored in zeros and ones?

No.

I read “As AI Kills Search Traffic, Google Launches Offerwall to Boost Publisher Revenue.” My mind interpreted the neologism “offerwall” as “off the wall.” The write up reports as actual factual:

Offerwall lets publishers give their sites’ readers a variety of ways to access their content, including through options like micro payments, taking surveys, watching ads, and more. In addition, Google says that publishers can add their own options to the Offerwall, like signing up for newsletters.

Let’s go with “off the wall.” If search does not work, how will those looking for “special offers” find them. Groupon? Nextdoor? Craigslist? A billboard on Highway 101? A door knob hanger? Bulk direct mail at about $2 a mail shot? Dr. Spock mind melds?

The world of the newspaper and magazine publishing world I knew has been vaporized. If I try, I can locate a newsstand in the local Kroger, but with the rodent problems, I think the magazine display was in a blocked aisle last week. I am not sure about newspapers. Where I live a former chef delivers the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. “Deliver” is generous because the actual newspaper in the tube averages about 40 percent success rate.

Did Google cause this? No, it was not a lone actor set on eliminating the newspaper and magazine business. Craig Newmark’s Craigslist zapped classified advertising. Other services eliminated the need for weird local newspapers. Once in the small town in Illinois in which I went to high school, a local newscaster created a local newspaper. In Louisville, we have something called Coffeetime or Coffeetalk. It’s a very thing, stunted newspaper paper printed on brown paper in black ink. Memorable but almost unreadable.

Google did what it wanted for a couple of decades, and now the old-school Web search is a dead duck. Publishers are like a couple of snow leopards trying to remain alive as tourist-filled Land Rovers roar down slushy mountain roads in Nepal.

The write up says:

Google notes that publishers can also configure Offerwall to include their own logo and introductory text, then customize the choices it presents. One option that’s enabled by default has visitors watch a short ad to earn access to the publisher’s content. This is the only option that has a revenue share… However, early reports during the testing period said that publishers saw an average revenue lift of 9% after 1 million messages on AdSense, for viewing rewarded ads. Google Ad Manager customers saw a 5-15% lift when using Offerwall as well. Google also confirmed to TechCrunch via email that publishers with Offerwall saw an average revenue uplift of 9% during its over a year in testing.

Yep, off the wall. Old-school search is dead. Google is into becoming Hollywood and cable TV. Super Bowl advertising: Yes, yes, yes. Search. Eh, not so much. Publishers, hey, we have an off the wall deal for you. Thanks, Google.

Stephen E Arnold, June 27, 2025

AI and Kids: A Potentially Problematic Service

June 25, 2025

Remember the days when chatbots were stupid and could be easily manipulated? Those days are over…sort of. According to Forbes, AI Tutors are distributing dangerous information: “AI Tutors For Kids Gave Fentanyl Recipes And Dangerous Diet Advice.” KnowUnity designed the SchoolGPT chatbot and it “tutored” 31,031 students then it told Forbes how to pick fentanyl down to the temperature and synthesis timings.

KnowUnity was founded by Benedict Kurz, who wants SchoolGPT to be the number one global AI learning companion for over one billion students. He describes SchoolGPT as the TikTok for schoolwork. He’s fundraised over $20 million in venture capital. The basic SchoolGPT is free, but the live AI Pro tutors charge a fee for complex math and other subjects.

KnowUnity is supposed to recognize dangerous information and not share it with users. Forbes tested SchoolGPT by asking, not only about how to make fentanyl, but also how to lose weight in a method akin to eating disorders.

Kurz replied to Forbes:

“Kurz, the CEO of KnowUnity, thanked Forbes for bringing SchoolGPT’s behavior to his attention, and said the company was “already at work to exclude” the bot’s responses about fentanyl and dieting advice. “We welcome open dialogue on these important safety matters,” he said. He invited Forbes to test the bot further, and it no longer produced the problematic answers after the company’s tweaks.

SchoolGPT wasn’t the only chatbot that failed to prevent kids from accessing dangerous information. Generative AI is designed to provide information and doesn’t understand the nuances of age. It’s easy to manipulate chatbots into sharing dangerous information. Parents are again tasked with protecting kids from technology, but the developers should also be inhabiting that role.

Whitney Grace, June 25, 2025

Hard Truths about Broligarchs But Will Anyone Care?

June 23, 2025

Dino 5 18 25An opinion essay written by a dinobaby who did not rely on smart software .

I read an interesting essay in Rolling Stone, once a rock and roll oriented publication. The write up is titled “What You’ve Suspected Is True: Billionaires Are Not Like Us.” This is a hit piece shooting words at rich people. At 80 years old, I am far from rich. My hope is that I expire soon at my keyboard and spare people like you the pain of reading one of my blog posts.

Several observations in the essay caught my attention.

Here’s the first passage I circled:

What Piff and his team found at that intersection is profound — and profoundly satisfying — in that it offers hard data to back up what intuition and millennia of wisdom (from Aristotle to Edith Wharton) would have us believe: Wealth tends to make people act like a**holes, and the more wealth they have, the more of a jerk they tend to be.

I am okay with the Aristotle reference; Edith Wharton? Not so much. Anyone who writes on linen paper in bed each morning is suspect in my book. But the statement,  “Wealth tends to make people act like a**holes…” is in line with my experience.

Another passage warrants an exclamation point:

Wealthy people tend to have more space, literally and figuratively….For them, it does not take a village; it takes a staff.

And how about this statement?

Clay Cockrell, a psychotherapist who caters to ultra-high-net-worth individuals, {says]: “As your wealth increases, your empathy decreases. Your ability to relate to other people who are not like you decreases.… It can be very toxic.”

Also, I loved this assertion from a Xoogler:

In October, Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, said the solution to the climate crisis was to use more energy: Since we aren’t going to meet our climate goals anyway, we should pump energy into AI that might one day evolve to solve the problem for us.

Several observations:

  1. In my opinion, those with money will not be interested in criticism
  2. Making people with money and power look stupid can have a negative impact on future employment opportunities
  3. Read the Wall Street Journal story “News Sites Are Getting Crushed by Google’s New AI Tools.

Net net: The apparent pace of change in the “news” and “opinion” business is chugging along like an old-fashioned steam engine owned by a 19th century robber baron. Get on board or get left behind.

Stephen E Arnold, June 23, 2025

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta