AI: There Is Gold in Them There Enterprises Seeking Efficiency
October 23, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a “ride-em-cowboy” write up called “IBM Claims 45% Productivity Gains with Project Bob, Its Multi-Model IDE That Orchestrates LLMs with Full Repository Context.” That, gentle reader, is a mouthful. Let’s take a quick look at what sparked an efflorescence of buzzing jargon.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough like some marketing collateral.
I noted this statement about Bob (no, not the famous Microsoft Bob):
Project Bob, an AI-first IDE that orchestrates multiple LLMs to automate application modernization; AgentOps for real-time agent governance; and the first integration of open-source Langflow into Watsonx Orchestrate, IBM’s platform for deploying and managing AI agents. IBM’s announcements represent a three-pronged strategy to address interconnected enterprise AI challenges: modernizing legacy code, governing AI agents in production and bridging the prototype-to-production gap.
Yep, one sentence. The spirit of William Faulkner has permeated IBM’s content marketing team. Why not make a news release that is a single sentence like the 1300 word extravaganza in “Absalom, Absalom!”?
And again:
Project Bob isn’t another vibe coder, it’s an enterprise modernization tool.
I can visualize IBM customers grabbing the enterprise modernization tool and modernizing the enterprise. Yeah, that’s going to become a 100 percent penetration quicker than I can say, “Bob was the precursor to Clippy.” (Oh, sorry. I was confusing Microsoft’s Bob with IBM’s Bob again. Drat!)
Is it Watson making the magic happen with IDE’s and enterprise modernization? No, Watson is probably there because, well, that’s IBM. But the brains for Bob comes from Anthropic. Now Bob and Claude are really close friends. IBM’s middleware is Watson, actually Watsonx. And the magic of these systems produces …. wait for it … AgentOps and Agentic Workflows.
The write up says:
Agentic Workflows handles the orchestration layer, coordinating multiple agents and tools into repeatable enterprise processes. AgentOps then provides the governance and observability for those running workflows. The new built-in observability layer provides real-time monitoring and policy-based controls across the full agent lifecycle. The governance gap becomes concrete in enterprise scenarios.
Yep, governance. (I still don’t know what that means exactly.) I wonder if IBM content marketing documents should come with a glossary like the 10 pages of explanations of Telegram’s wild and wonderful crypto freedom jargon.
My hunch is that IBM wants to provide the Betty Crocker approach to modernizing an enterprise’s software processes. Betty did wonders for my mother’s chocolate cake. If you want more information, just call IBM. Perhaps the agentic workflow Claude Watson customer service line will be answered by a human who can sell you the deed to a mountain chock full of gold.
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2025
Woof! Innovation Is Doomed But Novel Gym Shoes Continue
October 23, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have worked for commercial and government firms. My exposure ranges from the fun folks at Bell Labs and Bellcore to the less than forward leaning people at a canned fish outfit not far from MIT. Geography is important … sometimes. I have also worked on “innovation teams,” labored in a new product organization, and sat at the hand of the all-time expert of product innovation, Conrad Jones. Ah, you don’t know the name. That ices you out of some important information about innovation. Too bad.
I read “No Science, No Startups: The Innovation Engine We’re Switching Off.” The write up presents a reasonable and somewhat standard view of the “innovation process.” The basic idea is that there is an ecosystem which permits innovation. Think of a fish tank. Instead of water, we have fish, pet fish to be exact. We have a hobbyist. We have a bubbler and a water feed. We even have toys in the fish tank. The owner of the fish tank is a hobbyist. The professional fish person might be an ichthyologist or a crew member on a North Sea fishing boat. The hobbyist buys live fish from the pet side of the fish business. The ichthyologist studies fish. The fishing boat crew member just hauls them in and enjoys every minute of the activity. Winter is particularly fun. I suppose I could point out other aspects of the fish game. How about fish oil? What about those Asian fish sauces? What about the perfume makers who promise that Ambroxan is just as good as ambergris. Then these outfits in Grasse buy whale stuff for their best concoctions.
Innovation never stops… with or without a research grant. It may not be AI, but it shows a certain type of thinking. Thanks, Venice.ai, good enough.
The fish business is complicated. Innovation, particularly in technology-centric endeavors, is more complex. The “No Science, No Startups” essay makes innovation simple. Is innovation really little more than science theorists, researchers, and engineers moving insights and knowledge through a poorly disorganized and poorly understood series of activities?
Yes, it is like the fish business. One starts with a herring. Where one ends up can quite surprising, maybe sufficiently baffling to cause people to say, “No way, José.” Here’s an example: Fish bladders use to remove impurities from wine. Eureka! An invention somewhere in the mists of time. That’s fish. Technology in general and digital technology in particular are more slippery. (Yep, a fish reference.)
The cited essay says the pipeline has several process containers filled with people. (Keep in mind that outfits like Google Deepseek want to replace humanoids with smart software. But let’s go with the humans matter approach for this blog post.)
- Scientists who find, gather, discover, or stumble upon completely new things. Remember this from grade school, “Come here, Mr. Watson.”
- Engineers who recycle, glue together, or apply insight X to problem Y and create something novel as product Y.
- MBA-inspired people look and listen (sort of) to what engineers say and experience a Eureka moment. Some moments lead to Pets.com. Others yield a Google-type novelty with help from a National Science Foundation grant. (Check out that PageRank patent.)
The premise is that if the scientific group does not have money, the engineers and the MBA-inspired people will have a tough time coming up with new products, services, applications, or innovations. Is a flawed self-driving system in the family car an innovation or an opportunity to dance with death?
Where is the cited essay going? It is heading toward doom for the US belief that the country is the innovation leader. That’s America’s manifest destiny. The essay says:
Cut U.S. funding, then science will happen in other countries that understand its relationship to making a nation great – like China. National power is derived from investments in Science. Reducing investment in basic and applied science makes America weak.
In general, I think the author of this “No Science, No Startups” is on a logical path. However, I am not sure the cited article’s analysis covers the possibilities of innovation. Let’s go back to fish.
The fish business is complicated and global. The landscape of the fish business changes if an underwater volcano erupts near the fishing areas not too distant from Japan and China. The fish business can take a knock if some once benign microbe does the Darwin thing and rips through the world’s cod. What happens to fish if some countries’ fishing community eat the stock of tuna? What if a TikTok video convinces people not to eat fish or to wear articles of clothing fabricated of fish skin. (Yes, it is a thing.)
Innovation, particularly in technology, has as many if not more points of disruption. The disruptions or to use blue chip consultant speak or exogenous events occur, humanoids have a history of innovating. Vikings in the sixth century kept warm without lighting fires on their wooden boats made water tight with flammable pine tar. (Yep, like those wooden boat hull churches, the spectacle of a big time fire teaches a harsh lesson.)
If I am correct that discontinuities, disruptions, and events humans cannot control occur, here’s what I think about innovation, spending lots of money, and entrepreneurs.
- If Maxwell could innovate, so can theorists and scientists today. Does the government have to fund these people? Possibly but mom might produce some cash or the scientist has a side gib.
- Will individuals not now recognized as scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs come up with novel products and services? The answer is, “Yes.” How do I know? Easy. Someone had to figure out how to make a wheel: No lab, no grants, no money, just a log and a need to move something. Eureka worked then and it will work again.
- Is technology itself the reason big bucks are needed? My view is yes. Each technological innovation seems to have bigger price tags than the previous technological innovation. How much did Apple spend making a “new and innovative” orange iPhone? Answer: Too much. Why? Answer: To sell a fashion item. Is this innovation? Answer: Nope. Its MBA think and that, gentle reader, is infinitely innovative.
If I think about AI, I find myself gravitating to the AI turmoil at Apple and Meta. Money, smart people, and excuses. OpenAI is embracing racy outputs. That’s innovation at three big outfits. World-changing? Nope, stock and financial wobblies. That’s not how innovation is supposed to work, is it?
Net net: The US is definitely churning out wonky products, students who cannot read or calculate, and research that is bogus. The countries who educate, enforce standards, and put wandering young minds in schools and laboratories will generate new products and services. The difference is that these countries will advance in technological innovation. The countries that embrace lower standards, reduced funding for research, and glorify doom scrolling will become third-world outfits. What countries will be the winners in innovation? The answer is not the country that takes the lead in foot ware made of fish skins.
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2025
I love
AI and Data Exhaustion: Just Use Synthetic Data and Recycle User Prompts
October 23, 2025
That did not take long. The Independent reports, “AI Has Run Out of Training Data, Warns Data Chief.” Yes, AI models have gobbled up the world’s knowledge in just a few years. Neema Raphael, Goldman Sach’s chief data officer and head of engineering, made that declaration on a recent podcast. He added that, as a result, AI models will increasingly rely on synthetic data. Get ready for exponential hallucinations. Writer Anthony Cuthbertson quotes Raphael:
“We’ve already run out of data. I think what might be interesting is people might think there might be a creative plateau… If all of the data is synthetically generated, then how much human data could then be incorporated? I think that’ll be an interesting thing to watch from a philosophical perspective.”
Interesting is one word for it. Cuthbertson notes Raphael’s warning did not come out of the blue. He writes:
“An article in the journal Nature in December predicted that a ‘crisis point’ would be reached by 2028. ‘The internet is a vast ocean of human knowledge, but it isn’t infinite,’ the article stated. ‘Artificial intelligence researchers have nearly sucked it dry.’ OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever said last year that the lack of training data would mean that AI’s rapid development ‘will unquestionably end’. The situation is similar to fossil fuels, according to Mr Sutskever, as human-generated content is a finite resource just like oil or coal. ‘We’ve achieved peak data and there’ll be no more,’ he said. ‘We have to deal with the data that we have. There’s only one internet.’”
So AI firms knew this limitation was coming. Did they warn investors? They may have concerns about this “creative plateau.” The write-up suggests the dearth of fresh data may force firms to focus less on LLMs and more on agentic AI. Will that be enough fuel to keep the hype train going? Sure, hype has a life of its own. Now synthetic data? That’s forever.
Cynthia Murrell, October 23, 2025
Amazon and its Imperative to Dump Human Workers
October 22, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Everyone loves Amazon. The local merchants thank Amazon for allowing them to find their future elsewhere. The people and companies dependent on Amazon Web Services rejoiced when the AWS system failed and created an opportunity to do some troubleshooting and vendor shopping. The customer (me) who received a pair of ladies underwear instead of an AMD Ryzen 5750X. I enjoyed being the butt of jokes about my red, see through microprocessor. Was I happy!
Mice discuss Amazon’s elimination of expensive humanoids. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
However, I read “Amazon Plans to Replace More Than Half a Million Jobs With Robots.” My reaction was that some employees and people in the Amazon job pipeline were not thrilled to learn that Amazon allegedly will dump humans and embrace robots. What a great idea. No health care! No paid leave! No grousing about work rules! No medical costs! No desks! Just silent, efficient, depreciable machines. Of course there will be smart software. What could go wrong? Whoops. Wrong question after taking out an estimated one third of the Internet for a day. How about this question, “Will the stakeholders be happy?” There you go.
The write up cranked out by the Gray Lady reports from confidential documents and other sources says:
Amazon’s U.S. work force has more than tripled since 2018 to almost 1.2 million. But Amazon’s automation team expects the company can avoid hiring more than 160,000 people in the United States it would otherwise need by 2027. That would save about 30 cents on each item that Amazon picks, packs and delivers to customers. Executives told Amazon’s board last year that they hoped robotic automation would allow the company to continue to avoid adding to its U.S. work force in the coming years, even though they expect to sell twice as many products by 2033. That would translate to more than 600,000 people whom Amazon didn’t need to hire.
Why is Amazon dumping humans? The NYT turns to that institution that found Jeffrey Epstein a font of inspiration. I read this statement in the cited article:
“Nobody else has the same incentive as Amazon to find the way to automate,” said Daron Acemoglu, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies automation and won the Nobel Prize in economic science last year. “Once they work out how to do this profitably, it will spread to others, too.” If the plans pan out, “one of the biggest employers in the United States will become a net job destroyer, not a net job creator,” Mr. Acemoglu said.
Ah, save money. Keep more money for stakeholders. Who knew? Who could have foreseen this motivation?
What jobs will Amazon provide to humans? Obviously leadership will keep leadership jobs. In my decades of professional work experience, I have never met a CEO who really believes anyone else can do his or her job. Well, the NYT has an answer about what humans will do at Amazon; to wit:
Amazon has said it has a million robots at work around the globe, and it believes the humans who take care of them will be the jobs of the future. Both hourly workers and managers will need to know more about engineering and robotics as Amazon’s facilities operate more like advanced factories.
I wish to close this essay with several observations:
- Much of the information in the write up come from company documents. I am not comfortable with the use of this type of information. It strikes me as a short cut, a bit like Google or self-made expert saying, “See what I did!”
- Many words were used to get one message across: Robots and by extension smart software will put people out of work. Basic income time, right? Why not say that?
- The reason wants to dump people is easy to summarize: Humans are expensive. Cut humans, costs drop (in theory). But are there social costs? Sure, but why dwell on those.
Net net: Sigh. Did anyone reviewing this story note the Amazon online collapse? Perhaps there is a relationship between cost cutting at Amazon and the company’s stability?
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2025
Moral Police? Not OpenAI, Dude and Not Anywhere in Silicon Valley
October 22, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Coming up with clever stuff is either the warp or the woof of innovation. With the breakthroughs in software that seems intelligent, clever is morphing into societal responsibility. For decades I have asserted that the flow of digital information erodes notional structures. From my Eagleton Lecture in the mid-1980s to the observations in this blog, the accuracy of my observation is verified. What began as disintermediation in the niche of special librarians has become the driving force for the interesting world now visible to most people.
Worrying about morality in 2025 is like using a horse and buggy to commute in Silicon Valley. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
I can understand the big idea behind Sam AI-Man’s statements as reported in “Sam Altman Says OpenAI Isn’t ‘Moral Police of the World’ after Erotica ChatGPT Post Blows Up.” Technology is — like, you know, so, um — neutral. This means that its instrumental nature appears in applications. Who hassles the fellow who innovated with Trinitrotoluene or electric cars with top speeds measured in hundreds of miles per hour?
The write up says:
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said Wednesday [October 15, 2025] that the company is “not the elected moral police of the world” after receiving backlash over his decision to loosen restrictions and allow content like erotica within its chatbot ChatGPT. The artificial intelligence startup has expanded its safety controls in recent months as it faced mounting scrutiny over how it protects users, particularly minors. But Altman said Tuesday in a post on X that OpenAI will be able to “safely relax” most restrictions now that it has new tools and has been able to mitigate “serious mental health issues.”
This is a sporty paragraph. It contains highly charged words and a message. The message, as I understand it, is, “We can’t tell people what to do or not to do with our neutral and really good smart software.”
Smart software has become the next big thing for some companies. Sure, many organizations are using AI, but the motors driving the next big thing are parked in structures linked with some large high technology outfits.
What’s a Silicon Valley type outfit supposed to do with this moral frippery? The answer, according to the write up:
On Tuesday [October 13, 2025] , OpenAI announced assembled a council of eight experts who will provide insight into how AI impacts users’ mental health, emotions and motivation. Altman posted about the company’s aim to loosen restrictions that same day, sparking confusion and swift backlash on social media.
What am I confused about the arrow of time? Sam AI-Man did one thing on the 13th of October and then explained that his firm is not the moral police on the 14th of October. Okay, make a move and then crawfish. That works for me, and I think the approach will become part of the managerial toolkit for many Silicon Valley outfits.
For example, what if AI does not generate enough data to pay off the really patient, super understanding, and truly king people who fund the AI effort? What if the “think it and it will become real” approach fizzles? What if AI turns out to be just another utility useful for specific applications like writing high school essays or automating a sales professional’s prospect follow up letter? What if….? No, I won’t go there.
Several observations:
- Silicon Valley-type outfits now have the tools to modify social behavior. Whether it is Peter Thiel as puppet master or Pavel Durov carrying a goat to inspire TONcoin dApp developers, these individuals can control hearts and minds.
- Ignoring or imposing philosophical notions with technology was not a problem when an innovation like Teslas A/C motor was confined to a small sector of industry. But today, the innovations can ripple globally in seconds. It should be no surprise that technology and ideology are for now intertwined.
- Control? Not possible. The ink, as the saying goes, has been spilled on the blotter. Out of the bottle. Period.
The waffling is little more than fire fighting. The uncertainty in modern life is a “benefit” of neutral technology. How do you like those real time ads that follow you around from online experience to online experience? Sam AI-Man and others of his ilk are not the moral police. That concept is as outdated as a horse-and-buggy on El Camino Real. Quaint but anachronistic. Just swipe left for another rationalization. It is 2025.
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2025
A Newsletter Firm Appears to Struggle for AI Options
October 17, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Adapting to AI’s Evolving Landscape: A Survival Guide for Businesses.” The premise of the article will be music to the ears of venture funders and go-go Silicon Valley-type AI companies. The write up says:
AI-driven search is upending traditional information pathways and putting the heat on businesses and organizations facing a web traffic free-fall. Survival instincts have companies scrambling to shift their web strategies — perhaps ending the days of the open internet as we know it. After decades of pursuing web-optimization strategies that encouraged high-volume content generation, many businesses are now feeling that their content-marketing strategies might be backfiring.
I am not exactly sure about this statement. But let’s press forward.
I noted this passage:
Without the incentive of web clicks and ad revenue to drive content creation, the foundation of the web as a free and open entity is called into question.
Okay, smart software is exploiting the people who put up SEO-tailored content to get sales leads and hopefully make money. From my point of view, technology can be disruptive. The impacts, however, can be positive or negative.
What’s the fix if there is one? The write up offers these thought starters:
- Embrace micro transactions. [I suppose this is good if one has high volume. It may not be so good if shipping and warehouse costs cannot be effectively managed. Vendors of high ticket items may find a micro-transaction for a $500,000 per year enterprise software license tough to complete via Venmo.]
- Implement a walled garden. [That works if one controls the market. Google wants to “register” Android developers. I think Google may have an easier time with the walled-garden tactic than a local bakery specializing in treats for canines.]
- Accepts the monopolies. [You have a choice?]
My reaction to the write up is that it does little to provide substantive guidance as smart software continues to expand like digital kudzu. What is important is that the article appears in the consumer oriented publication from Kiplinger of newsletter fame. Unfortunately the article makes clear that Kiplinger is struggling to find a solution to AI. My hunch is that Kiplinger is looking for possible solutions. The firm may want to dig a little deeper for options.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2025
Apple: Waking Up Is Hard to Do
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a letter. I think this letter or at least parts of it were written by a human. These days it can be tough to know. The letter appeared in “Wiley Hodges’s Open Letter to Tim Cook Regarding ICEBlock.” Mr. Hodge, according to the cited article, retired from Apple, the computer and services company in 2022.
The letter expresses some concern that Apple removed an app from the Apple online store. Here’s a snippet from the “letter”:
Apple and you are better than this. You represent the best of what America can be, and I pray that you will find it in your heart to continue to demonstrate that you are true to the values you have so long and so admirably espoused.
It does seem to me that Apple is a flexible outfit. The purpose of the letter is unknown to me. On the surface, it is a single former employee’s expression of unhappiness at how “leadership” leads and deciders “decide.” However, below the surface it a signal that some people thought a for profit, pragmatic, and somewhat frisky Fancy Dancing organization was like Snow White, the Easter bunny, or the Lone Ranger.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Sorry. That’s not how big companies work or many little companies for that matter. Most organizations do what they can to balance a PR image with what the company actually does. Examples range from arguing via sleek and definitely expensive lawyers that what they do does not violate laws. Also, companies work out deals. Some of these involve doing things to fit in to the culture of a particular company. I have watched money change hands when registering a vehicle in the government office in Sao Paulo. These things happen because they are practical. Apple, for example, has an interesting relationship with a certain large country in Asia. I wonder if there is a bit of the old soft shoe going on in that region of the world.
These are, however, not the main point of this blog post. There cited article contains this statement:
Hodges, earlier in his letter, makes reference to Apple’s 2016 standoff with the FBI over a locked iPhone belonging to the mass shooter in San Bernardino, California. The FBI and Justice Department pressured Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow them to backdoor the iPhone’s passcode lock. Apple adamantly refused.
Okay, the time delta is nine years. What has changed? Obviously social media, the economic situation, the relationship among entities, and a number of lawsuits. These are the touchpoints of our milieu. One has to surf on the waves of change and the ripples and waves of datasphere.
But I want to highlight several points about my reaction to the this blog post containing the Hodge’s letter:
- Some people are realizing that their hoped-for vision of Apple, a publicly traded company, is not the here-and-now Apple. The fairy land of a company that cares is pretty much like any other big technology outfit. Shocker.
- Apple is not much different today than it was nine years ago. Plucking an example which positioned the Cupertino kids as standing up for an ideal does not line up with the reality. Technology existed then to gain access to digital devices. Believing the a company’s PR reflected reality illustrates how crazy some perceptions are. Saying is not doing.
- Apple remains to me one of the most invasive of the technology giants. The constant logging in, the weirdness of forcing people to have data in the iCloud when those people do not know the data are there or want it there for that matter, the oddball notifications that tell a user that an “new device” is connected when the iPad has been used for years, and a few other quirks like hiding files are examples of the reality of the company.
News flash: Apple is like the other Silicon Valley-type big technology companies. These firms have a game plan of do it and apologize. Push forward. I find it amusing that adults are experiencing the same grief as a sixth grader with a crush on the really cute person in home room. Yep, waking up is hard to do. Stop hitting the snooze alarm and join the real world.
Net net: The essay is a hoot. Here is an adult realizing that there is no Santa with apparently tireless animals and dwarfs at the North Pole. The cited article contains what appears to be another expression of annoyance, anger, and sorrow that Apple is not what the humans thought it was. Apple is Apple, and the only change agent able to modify the company is money and/or fear, a good combo in my experience.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
Deepseek: Why Trust Any Smart Software?
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
We have completed our work on my new book “The Telegram Labyrinth.” In the course of researching and writing about Pavel Durov’s online messaging system, we learned one thing: Software is not what it seems to the user. Most Telegram users believe that Telegram is end to end encrypted. It is, but only if the user goes through some hoops. The vast majority of users don’t go through hoops. Those millions upon millions of users know much about the third-party bots chugging away in Groups and Channels (public and private). Even fewer users realize that a service charge is applied to each monetary transaction in the Telegram system. That money flows to the GOAT (greatest of all time) technical wizard, Pavel Durov and some close associates. Who knew?
I read “The Demonization of Deepseek: How NIST Turned Open Science into a Security Scare.” The write up focuses on a study or analysis conducted by what used to be the National Bureau of Standards. (I loved those traffic jams on Quince Orchard Road in Gaithersburg, Maryland.) The software put under the NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) is the China-linked Deepseek smart software.
The cited article discusses the NIST study. Let’s see what it says about the China-linked artificial intelligence system. Presumably Deepseek did more with less; that is, the idea was to demonstrate that Chinese innovation could make US methods of large language models. The result would be better, faster, and cheaper. Cheap has a tendency to win in some product and service categories. Also, “good enough” is a winner in today’s market. (How about the reliability of some of those 2025 automobiles and trucks?)
The write up says:
NIST’s recent report on Deepseek is not a neutral technical evaluation. It is a political hit piece disguised as science. There is no evidence of backdoors, spyware, or data exfiltration. What is really happening is the U.S. government using fear and misinformation to sabotage open science, open research, and open source. They are attacking gifts to humanity with politics and lies to protect corporate power and preserve control. Deepseek’s work is a genuine contribution to human knowledge, and it is being discredited for reasons that have nothing to do with security.
Okay, that’s clear.
Let’s look at how the cited write up positions Deepseek:
Deepseek built competitive AI models. Not perfect, but impressive given their budget. They spent far less than OpenAI or Anthropic and still achieved near-frontier performance. Then they open-sourced everything under Apache 2.0.
The point of the write up is that analysis has been politicized. This is an interesting allegation. I am not confident that any “objective” analysis is indeed without spin. Remember those reports about smoking cigarettes and the work of the Tobacco Institute. (I am a dinobaby, but I remember.)
The write up does identify three concerns a user of Deepseek should have. Let me quote from the cited article:
- Using Deepseek’s API: If you send sensitive data to Deepseek’s hosted service, that data goes through Chinese infrastructure. This is a real data sovereignty issue, the same as using any foreign cloud provider.
- Jailbreak susceptibility: If you’re building production applications, you need to test ANY model for vulnerabilities and implement application-level safeguards. Don’t rely solely on model guardrails. Also – use an inference time guard model (such as LlamaGuard or Qwen3Guard) to classify and filter both prompts and responses.
- Bias and censorship: All models reflect their training data. Be aware of this regardless of which model you use.
Let me offer several observations:
- Most people are unaware of what can be accomplished from software use. Assumptions about what it does and does not do are dangerous. We have tested Deepseek running locally. It is okay. This means it can do some things well like translate a passage in English into German. It has no clue about timely issues because most LLMs are not updated in near real time. Some are, but others are not. Who needs timely information when cheating on a high school essay? Answer: no one.
- The write up focuses on Deepseek, but its implications are much more broad. I think that the mindless write ups from consulting firms and online magazines is a very big problem. Critical thinking is just not the common. It is a problem in the US but other countries have this blind spot as well.
- The idea that political perceptions alter what should be an objective analysis is troubling to me. I have written a number of reports for government agencies; for example, a report about Japan’s obsession with a database industry for the Office of Technology Assessment. Yep, I am a dinobaby remember. I may have been right or wrong in my report, but I was not influenced by any political concept or actor. I could have been because I did a stint in the office of Admiral / Congressman Craig Hosmer. My OTA work was not part of the “game” for me.
Net net: Trust is important. I think it is being eroded. I also believe that there are few people who present information without fear or favor. Now here’s the key part of my perception: One cannot trust smart software or any of the programmer assembled, hidden threshold, and masked training methods that go into these confections. More critical thinking is needed. A deceptive business practice if well crafted cannot be perceived. Remember Telegram Messenger is 13 years young and users of the system don’t have much awareness of bots, mini apps, and dapps. What don’t people know about smart software?
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
Who Is Afraid of the Big Bad AI Wolf? Mr. Beast Perhaps?
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The story “MrBeast Warns of ‘Scary Times’ as AI Threatens YouTube Creators” is apparently about You Tube creators. Mr. Beast, a notable YouTube personality, is the source of the information. Is the article about YouTube creators? Yep, but it is also about Mr. Beast.
The write up says:
MrBeast may not personally face the threat of being replaced by AI as his brand thrives on large-scale, real-world stunts that rely on authenticity and human emotion. But his concern runs deeper than self-preservation. It’s about the millions of smaller creators who depend on platforms like YouTube to make a living. As one of the most influential figures on the internet, his words carry weight. The 27-year-old recently topped Forbes’ 2025 list of highest-earning creators, earning roughly $85 million and building a following of over 630 million across platforms.
Okay, Mr. Beast’s fame depended on YouTube. He is still in the YouTube fold. However, he has other business enterprises. He recognizes that smart software could create problems for creators.
I think smart software is another software tool. It is becoming a utility like a PDF editor.
The problem with Mr. Beast’s analysis is that it appears to be focused on other creators. I am not so sure. I think the comments presented in the write up reveal more about Mr. Beast than they do about the “other” creators. One example is:
“When AI videos are just as good as normal videos, I wonder what that will do to YouTube and how it will impact the millions of creators currently making content for a living… scary times,” MrBeast — whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson — wrote on X.
I am no expert on human psychology, but I see the use of the word “impact” and “scary” as a glimpse of what Mr. Beast is thinking. His production costs allegedly rival those of traditional commercial video outfits. The ideas and tropes have become increasingly strained and bizarre. YouTube acts in a unilateral way and outputs smarm to the creators desperate to know why the flow of their money has been reduced if not cut off. Those disappearing van life videos are just one example of how video magnets can melt down and be crushed under the wheels of the Google bus.
My thought is that Google will use AI to create alterative Mr. Beast-type videos with AI. Then squeeze the Mr. Beast type creators and let the traffic flow to Mother Google. No royalties required, so Google wins. Mr. Beast-type creators can find their future and money elsewhere. Simple.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2025
The Ka-Ching Game: The EU Rings the Big Tech Cash Register Tactic
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The unusually tinted Financial Times published another “they will pay up and change, really” write up. The article is “Meta and Apple Close to Settling EU Cases.” [Note: You have to pay to read the FT’s orange write up.] The main idea is that these U S big technology outfits are cutting deals. The objective is to show that these two firms are interested in making friends with European Commission professionals. The combination of nice talk and multi-million euro payments should do the trick. That’s the hope.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The cute penalty method the EU crafted involved daily financial penalties for assorted alleged business practices. The penalties had an escalator feature. If the U S big tech outfits did not comply or pretend to comply, then the EU could send an invoice for up to five percent of the firm’s gross revenues. Could the E U collect? Well, that’s another issue. If Apple leaves the E U, the elected officials would have to use an Android mobile. If Meta departed, the elected officials would have to listen to their children’s complaints about their ruined social life. I think some grandmothers would be honked if the flow of grandchildren pictures were interrupted. (Who needs this? Take the money, Christina.)
Several observations:
- The EU will take money; the EU will cook up additional rules to make the Wild West outfits come to town but mostly behave
- The U S big tech companies will write a check, issue smarmy statements, and do exactly what they want to do. Decades of regulatory inefficacy creates certain opportunities. Some U S outfits spot those and figure out how to benefit from lack of action or ineptitude
- The efforts to curtail the U S big tech companies have historically been a rinse and repeat exercise. That won’t change.
The problem for the EU with regard to the U S is different from the other challenges it faces. In my opinion, the E U like other countries is:
- Unprepared for the new services in development by U S firms. I address these in a series of lectures I am doing for some government types in Colorado. Attendance at the talks is restricted, so I can’t provide any details about these five new services hurtling toward the online markets in the U S and elsewhere
- Unable to break its cycle of clever laws, U S company behavior, and accept money. More is needed. A good example of how one country addressed a problem online took place in France. That was a positive, decisive action and will interrupt the flow of cash from fines. Perhaps more E U countries should consider this French approach?
- The Big Tech outfits are not constrained by geographic borders. In case you have not caught up with some of the ideas of Silicon Valley, may I suggest you read the enervating and somewhat weird writings of a fellow named René Gerard?
Net net: Yep, a deal. No big surprise. Will it work? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
