AI Will NOT Suck Power Like a Kiddie Toy
October 1, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The AI “next big thing” has fired up utilities to think about building new plants, some of which may be nuclear. Youthful wizards are getting money to build thorium units. Researchers are dusting off plans for affordable tokamak plasma jobs. Wireless and smart meters are popping up in rural Kentucky. Just in case a big data center needs some extra juice, those wireless gizmos can manage gentle brownouts better than an old-school manual switches.
I read “AI Won’t Use As Much Electricity As We Are Told.” The blog is about utility demand forecasting. Instead of the fancy analytic models used for these forward-looking projections, the author approaches the subject in a somewhat more informal way.
The write up says:
The rise of large data centers and cloud computing produced another round of alarm. A US EPA report in 2007 predicted a doubling of demand every five years. Again, this number fed into a range of debates about renewable energy and climate change. Yet throughout this period, the actual share of electricity use accounted for by the IT sector has hovered between 1 and 2 per cent, accounting for less than 1 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, the unglamorous and largely disregarded business of making cement accounts for around 7 per cent of global emissions.
Okay, some baseline data from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2007. Not bad: 18 years ago.
The write up notes:
Looking the other side of the market, OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, is bringing in around $3 billion a year in sales revenue, and has spent around $7 billion developing its model. Even if every penny of that was spent on electricity, the effect would be little more than a blip. Of course, AI is growing rapidly. A tenfold increase in expenditure by 2030 isn’t out of the question. But that would only double total the total use of electricity in IT. And, as in the past, this growth will be offset by continued increases in efficiency. Most of the increase could be fully offset if the world put an end to the incredible waste of electricity on cryptocurrency mining (currently 0.5 to 1 per cent of total world electricity consumption, and not normally counted in estimates of IT use).
Okay, the idea is that power generation professionals are implementing “logical” and “innovative” tweaks. These squeeze more juice from the lemon so to speak.
The write up ends with a note that power generation and investors are not into “degrowth”; that is, the idea that investments in new power generation facilities may not be as substantial as noted. The thirst for new types of power generation warrants some investment, but a Sputnik response is unwarranted.
Several observations:
- Those in the power generation game like the idea of looser regulations, more funding, and a sense of urgency. Ignoring these boosters is going to be difficult to explain to stakeholders.
- The investors pumping money into mini-reactors and more interesting methods want a payoff. The idea that no crisis looms is going to make some nervous, very nervous.
- Just don’t worry.
I would suggest, however, that the demand forecasting be carried out in a rigorous way. A big data center in some areas may cause some issues. The costs of procuring additional energy to meet the demands of some relaxed, flexible, and understanding outfits like Google-type firms may play a role in the “more power generation” push.
Stephen E Arnold, October 1, 2025
Google and Its End Game
October 1, 2025
No smart software involved. Just a dinobaby’s work.
I read “In Court Filing, Google Concedes the Open Web Is in Rapid Decline.” The write up reveals that change is causing the information highway to morph into a stop light choked Dixie Highway. The article states:
Google says that forcing it to divest its AdX marketplace would hasten the demise of wide swaths of the web that are dependent on advertising revenue. This is one of several reasons Google asks the court to deny the government’s request.
Yes, so much depends on the Google just like William Carlos Williams observed in his poem “The Red Wheelbarrow.” I have modified the original to reflect the Googley era which is now emerging for everyone, including Ars Technica, to see:
so much depends upon the Google, glazed with data beside the chicken regulators.
The cited article notes:
As users become increasingly frustrated with AI search products, Google often claims people actually love AI search and are sending as many clicks to the web as ever. Now that its golden goose is on the line, the open web is suddenly “in rapid decline.” It’s right there on page five of the company’s September 5 filing…
Not only does Google say this, the company has been actively building the infrastructure for Google to become the “Internet.” No way, you say.
Sorry, way. Here’s what’s been going on since the initial public offering:
-
- Attract traffic and monetize via ads access to the traffic
- Increased data collection for marketing and “mining” for nuggets; that is, user behavior and related information
- Little by little, force “creators,” Web site developers, partners, and users to just let Google provide access to the “information” Google provides.
Smart software, like recreating certain Web site content, is just one more technology to allow Google to extend its control over its users, its advertisers, and partners.
Courts in the US have essentially hit pause on traffic lights controlling the flows of Google activity. Okay, Google has to share some information. How long will it take for “information” to be defined, adjudicated, and resolved.
The European Union is printing out invoices for Google to pay for assorted violations. Guess what? That’s the cost of doing business.
Net net: The Google will find a way to monetize its properties, slap taxes at key junctions, and shape information is ways that its competitors wish they could.
Yes, there is a new Web or Internet. It’s Googley. Adapt and accept. Feel free to get Google out of your digital life. Have fun.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2025
Google Deletes Political History. No, Google Determines Political History
September 30, 2025
I read “Google Just Erased 7 Yers of Our Political History.” I want to point out that “our” refers to Ireland and the European Union. I don’t know if the US data about political advertising existed. Those data may lurk within the recesses of Google. They may be accessible via Google Dorks or some open source intelligence investigator’s machinations.
The author of the write up interprets Google’s making some data unavailable as a bad thing. I have a different point of view, but let’s see what has over-boiled one Irish person’s potatoes. The write up says:
Google appears to have deleted its political ad archive for the EU; so the last 7 years of ads, of political spending, of messaging, of targeting – on YouTube, on Search and for display ads – for countless elections across 27 countries – is all gone.
What was the utility of this separate collection of allegedly accurate data? The write up answers this question:
The political ad archive – now deleted? – allowed people like me (and many others) to understand what happened in elections, like this longer piece I was able to write during the European & Local elections last year on the use of YouTube by a far right party, Sinn Féin’s big push on search result ads, and the growth of attacks ads in Ireland. Now you need the specific name of an advertiser, and when I looked for, for example, “Sinn Fein”, it (a) only gave me the option of searching for their website, and (b) showed zero results. This is despite Sinn Fein spending upwards of €10k a day during some of the elections last year.
The write up concludes:
But the ad archives were introduced 7 years ago for a reason – in no small part because of the chaos of the Brexit and Trump 2016 votes, and our own advocacy here in Ireland about interference in the 2018 8th amendment referendum. They were introduced to allow for scrutiny of campaigns, and also to provide a historical record so we could go back and look at what had been promised, and what had been spent, and to see if this lined up with what happened later. This erasure of our political past feels dangerous, for scrutiny, for accountability, for shared memory, for enforcement of our rules – for our democracy.
I think I understand. However, I have a different angle on this alleged deletion:
- Google may just clean up, remove a pointer, or move a service. To a user, the information has disappeared. My experience with the Google is that the data remain within the walled garden. A user has to find a way into that garden. Therefore, try those OSINT investigator tricks or hire Bellingcat to help you out
- Google is a large and extremely well-managed outfit. However, it is within the realm of possibility that a team leader allowed an intern or contract worker to be a “decider.” When news of the possible and usually inadvertent or inexplicable deletion floats upward to leadership, the data may reappear. Google may not post a notice to this effect unless it has a significant impact on advertising revenue. There is a small possibility that a big political advertiser complained about the data about political advertising. In that case, there is a teenie tiny possibility that someone just killed the pages with the data to make a sale. I am not saying this happened. I just want to suggest there are some processes that may occur and not be known to the estimable leadership of the outstanding firm.
- Criticizing Google is a good way to never be considered truly Googley. Proof of Googliness may be needed if one or one’s children wish to be employed, hired, or otherwise engaged in a substantive manner with the Google. Grousing about the Google is proof one is not Googley. End of story.
My personal take on this is that Google does not delete history. Google wants to control history. How many Googlers do you know who can recount the anecdote about Yahoo taking the estimable Google to court over the advertising technology Yahoo alleged Google emulated? Yeah, ask that question of Google leadership and see how much of an answer your receive. Believe me this is a good bit of color for Google’s business methods. Too bad it has disappeared to some degree.
If something is not in Google, that something doesn’t exist. That’s the purpose of history.
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2025
Microsoft AI: Options, Chaos, Convergence, or Complexity
September 30, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Have you wondered why it is easy to paste a jpeg image into PowerPoint and have it stay in one place? Have you tried to paste the same jpeg image into Word and have it stay in one place? What’s the difference? I will let you ponder the origin of the two programs and why pasting is baffling in sister products. Hint: Find out who coded the applications.
What’s this simple pair of questions have to do with putting Anthropic into Microsoft Copilot? I learned about this alleged management move in “Microsoft Adds Claude to Copilot but Cross Cloud AI Could Raise New Governance Challenges.”
My first thought was, “What is governance in the Microsoft Copilot everywhere approach to smart software?” I did the first thing a slouching high school student would do, I asked Claude for clarification:
Here’s my prompt for Claude:
The context for this prompt is Microsoft Corporation’s approach to smart software. The company is involved with OpenAI. The software giant acqui-hired other AI professionals. There is a team working on home-brew artificial intelligence. Now you (Anthropic Claude) will become available to the users of Copilot. In this context, what does the management buzzword “governance” when it comes to wrangling these multiple AI initiatives, deployments, and services?
Here’s a snapshot of Claude’s answer. I have edited it so it fits into this short blog post. Claude is a wordy devil.
…governance” represents the orchestration framework for managing competing priorities, overlapping capabilities, and divergent AI philosophies under a unified strategic vision.
What does the cited Computerworld article say?
Microsoft is presenting Claude not as a replacement for GPT models, but as a complementary option.
Okay, Copilot user. You figure it out. At least, that’s how I interpret this snippet.
The write up adds:
Unlike OpenAI’s GPT models, which run on Azure, Anthropic’s Claude runs on AWS. Microsoft has warned customers that Anthropic models are hosted outside Microsoft-managed environments and subject to Anthropic’s Terms of Service. So every time Claude is used, it crosses cloud borders that bring governance challenges, and new egress bills in latency.
Managing and optimizing seem to be the Copilot user’s job. I wonder if those Microsoft Certified Professionals are up to speed on the Amazon AWS idiosyncrasies. (I know the answer is, “Absolutely.” Do I believe it? Nope.)
Observations
- If OpenAI falls over will Anthropic pick up the slack? Nope, at least not until the user figures out how to perform this magic trick.
- Will users of Copilot know when to use which AI system? Eventually but the journey will be an interesting and possibly expensive one. Tuition in the School of Hard AI Knocks is not cheap.
- Will users craft solutions that cross systems and maintain security and data access controls / settings? I know the answer will be, “Yes, Microsoft has security nailed.” I am a bit skeptical.
Net net: I think the multi AI model approach provides a solid foundation for chaos, complexity, and higher costs. But I am a dinobaby. What do I know?
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2025
Google Is Entering Its Janus Era
September 30, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Romans found the “god” Janus a way to demarcate the old from the new. (Yep, January is a variant of this religious belief: A threshold between old and new.
Venice.ai imagines Janus as a statue.
Google is at its Janus moment. Let me explain.
The past at Google was characterized by processing a two or three word “query” and providing the user with a list of allegedly relevant links. Over time, the relevance degraded and the “pay to play” ads began to become more important. Ed Zitron identified Prabhakar Raghavan as the Google genius associated with this money-making shift. (Good work, Prabhakar! Forget those Verity days.)
The future is signaled with two parallel Google tactics. Let me share my thoughts with you.
The first push at Google is its PR / marketing effort to position itself as the Big Dog in technology. Examples range from Google’s AI grand wizard passing judgment on the inferiority of a competitor. A good example of this approach is the Futurism write up titled “CEO of DeepMind Points Out the Obvious: OpenAI Is Lying about Having PhD Level AI.” The outline of Google’s approach is to use a grand wizard in London to state the obvious to those too stupid to understand that AI marketing is snake oil, a bit of baloney, and a couple of measuring cups of jargon. Thanks for the insight, Google.
The second push is that Google is working quietly to cut what costs it can. The outfit has oodles of market cap, but the cash burn for [a] data centers, [b] hardware and infrastructure, [c] software fixes when kids are told to eat rocks and glue cheese on pizza (remember the hallucination issues?), and [d] emergency red, yellow, orange, or whatever colors suits the crisis convert directly into additional costs. (Can you hear Sundar saying, “I don’t want to hear about costs. I want Gmail back online. Why are you still in my office?)
As a result of these two tactical moves, Google’s leadership is working overtime to project the cool, calm demeanor of a McKinsey-type consultant who just learned that his largest engagement client has decided to shift to another blue-chip firm. I would consider praying to Janus if that we me in my consulting role. I would also think about getting reassigned to project involving frequent travel to Myanmar and how to explain that to my wife.
Venice.ai puts a senior manager at a big search company in front of a group of well-paid but very nervous wizards.
What’s an example of sending a cost signal to the legions of 9-9-6 Googlers? Navigate to “Google Isn’t Kidding Around about Cost Cutting, Even Slashing Its FT subscription.” [Oh, FT means the weird orange newspaper, the Financial Times.] The write up reports as actual factual that Google is dumping people by “eliminating 35 percent of managers who oversee teams of three people or fewer.” Does that make a Googler feel good about becoming a Xoogler because he or she is in the same class as a cancelled newspaper subscription. Now that’s a piercing signal about the value of a Googler after the baloney some employees chew through to get hired in the first place.
The context for these two thrusts is that the good old days are becoming a memory. Why? That’s easy to answer. Just navigate to “Report: The Impact of AI Overviews in the Cultural Sector.” Skip the soft Twinkie filling and go for the numbers. Here’s a sampling of why Google is amping up its marketing and increasing its effort to cut what costs it can. (No one at Google wants to admit that the next big thing may be nothing more than a repeat of the crash of the enterprise search sector which put one executive in jail and others finding their future elsewhere like becoming a guide or posting on LinkedIn for a “living.”)
Here are some data and I quote from “Report: The Impact…”:
- Organic traffic is down 10% in early 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. On the surface, that may not sound bad, but search traffic rose 30% in 2024. That’s a 40-point swing in the wrong direction.
- 80% of organizations have seen decreases in search traffic. Of those that have increased their traffic from Google, most have done so at a much slower rate than last year.
- Informational content has been hit hardest. Visitor information, beginner-level articles, glossaries, and even online collections are seeing fewer clicks. Transactional content has held up better, so organizations that mostly care about their event and exhibition pages might not be feeling the effect yet.
- Visibility varies. On average, organizations appear in only 6% of relevant AI Overviews. Top performers are achieving 13% and they tend to have stronger SEO foundations in place.
My view of this is typical dinobaby. You Millennials, GenX, Y, Z, and Gen AI people will have a different view. (Let many flowers bloom.):
- Google is for the first time in its colorful history faced with problems in its advertising machine. Yeah, it worked so well for so long, but obviously something is creating change at the Google
- The mindless AI hyperbole has not given way to direct criticism of a competitor who has a history of being somewhat unpredictable. Nothing rattles the cage of big time consultants more than uncertainty. OpenAI is uncertainty on steroids.
- The impact of Google’s management methods is likely to be a catalyst for some volatile compounds at the Google. Employees and possibly contractors may become less docile. Money can buy their happiness I suppose, but the one thing Google wants to hang on to at this time is money to feed the AI furnace.
Net net: Google is going to be an interesting outfit to monitor in the next six months. Will the European Union continue to send Google big bills for violating its rules? Will the US government take action against the outfit one Federal judge said was a monopoly? Will Google’s executive leadership find itself driven into a corner if revenues and growth stall and then decline? Janus, what do you think?
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2025
Spelling Adobe: Is It Ado-BEEN, Adob-AI, or Ado-DIE?
September 29, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Yahoo finance presented an article titled “Morgan Stanley Warns AI Could Sink 42-Year-Old Software Giant.” The ultimate source may have been Morgan Stanley. An intermediate source appears to be The Street. What this means is that the information may or may not be spot on. Nevertheless, let’s see what Yahoo offers as financial “news.”
The write up points out that generative AI forced Adobe to get with the smart software program. The consequence of Adobe’s forced march was that:
The adoption headlines looked impressive, with 99% of the Fortune 100 using AI in an Adobe app, and roughly 90% of the top 50 accounts with an AI-first product.
Win, right? Nope. The article reports:
Adobe shares have tanked 20.6% YTD and more than 11% over six months, reflecting skepticism that AI features alone can push its growth engine to the next level.
Loss, right? Maybe. The article asserts:
Although Adobe’s AI adoption is real, the monetization cadence is lagging the marketing sizzle. Also, Upsell ARPU and seat expansion are happening. Yet ARR growth hasn’t re-accelerated, which raises some uncomfortable questions for the Adobe bulls.
Is the Adobe engine of growth and profit emitting wheezes and knocks? The write up certainly suggests that the go-to tool for those who want to do brochures, logos, and videos warrants a closer look. For example:
- Essentially free video creation tools with smart software included are available from Blackmagic, the creators of actual hardware and the DaVinci video software. For those into surveillance, there is the “free” CapCut
- The competition is increasing. As the number of big AI players remains stable, the outfits building upon these tools seems to be increasing. Just the other day I learned about Seedream. (Who knew?)
- Adobe’s shift to a subscription model makes sense to the bean counters but to some users, Adobe is not making friends. The billing and cooing some expected from Adobe is just billing.
- The product proliferation with AI and without AI is crazier than Google’s crypto plays. (Who knew?)
- Established products have been kicked to the curb, leaving some users wondering when FrameMaker will allow a user to specify specific heights for footnotes. And interfaces? Definitely 1990s.
From my point of view, the flurry of numbers in the Yahoo article skip over some signals that the beloved golden retriever of arts and crafts is headed toward the big dog house in the CMYK sky.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2025
Jobs 2025: Improving Yet? Hmmm
September 26, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Computerworld published “Resume.org: Turmoil Ahead for US Job Market As GenAI Disruption Kicks Up Waves.” The information, if it is spot on, is not good news.
A 2024 college graduate ponders the future. Ideas and opportunities exist. What’s the path forward?
The write up says:
A new survey from Resume.org paints a stark picture of the current job market, with 50% of US companies scaling back hiring and one in three planning layoffs by the end of the year.
Well, that’s snappy. And there’s more:
The online resume-building platform surveyed 1,000 US business leaders and found that high-salary employees and those lacking AI skills are most at risk. Generational factors play a role, too: 30% of companies say younger employees are more likely to be affected, while 29% cite older employees. Additionally, 19% report that H-1B visa holders are at greater risk of layoffs.
Allegedly accurate data demand a chart. How’s this one?
What’s interesting is the younger, dinobabies, and H1B visa holders are safer in their jobs that those who [a] earn a lot of money (excepting the CEO and other carpetland dwellers), employees with no AI savvy, the most recently hired, and entry level employees.
Is there a bright spot in the write up? Yes, and I have put in bold face the super good news (for some):
Experis parent company ManpowerGroup recently released a survey of more than 40,000 employers putting the US Net Employment Outlook at +28% going into the final quarter of 2025. … GenAI is part of the picture, but it’s not replacing workers as many fear, she said. Instead, one-in-four employers are hiring to keep pace with tech. The bigger issue is an ongoing skills gap — 41% of US IT employers say complex roles are hardest to fill, according to Experis.
Now the super good news applies to job seekers who are able to do the AI thing and handle “complex roles.” In my experience, complex problems tumble into the email of workers at every level. I have witnessed senior managers who have been unable to cope with the complex problems. (If these managers could, why would they hire a blue chip consulting firm and its super upbeat, Type A workers? Answer: Consulting firms are hired for more than problem solving. Sometimes these outfits are retained to push a unit to the sidelines or derail something a higher up wants to stop without being involved in obtaining the totally objective data.)
Several observations:
- Bad things seem to be taking place in the job market. I don’t know the cause but the discharge from the smoking guns is tough to ignore
- AI AI AI. Whether it works or not is not the question. AI means cost reduction. (Allegedly)
- Education and intelligence, connections, and personality may not work their magic as reliably as in the past.
As the illustration in this blog post suggests, alternative employment paths may appear viable. Imagine this dinobaby on OnlyFans.
Stephen E Arnold, September 26, 2025
Modern Management Method and Modern Pricing Plan
September 25, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
Despite the sudden drop in quantity and quality in my newsfeed outputs, one of my team spotted a blog post titled “Slack Is Extorting Us with a $195K/Year Bill Increase.” Slack is, I believe, a unit of Salesforce. That firm is in the digital Rolodex business. Over the years, Salesforce has dabbled with software to help sales professionals focus. The effort was part of Salesforce’s attention retention push. Now Salesforce is into collaborative tools for professionals engaged in other organizational functions. The pointy end of the “force” is smart software. The leadership of Salesforce has spoken about the importance of AI and suggested that other firms’ collaboration software is not keeping up with Slack.
A forward-leaning team of deciders reaches agreement about pricing. The alpha dog is thrilled with the idea of a price hike. The beta buddies are less enthusiastic. But it is accounting job to collect on booked but unpaid revenue. The AI system called Venice produced this illustration.
The write up says:
For nearly 11 years, Hack Club – a nonprofit that provides coding education and community to teenagers worldwide – has used Slack as the tool for communication. We weren’t freeloaders. A few years ago, when Slack transitioned us from their free nonprofit plan to a $5,000/year arrangement, we happily paid. It was reasonable, and we valued the service they provided to our community.
The “attention” grabber in this blog post is this paragraph:
However, two days ago, Slack reached out to us and said that if we don’t agree to pay an extra $50k this week and $200k a year, they’ll deactivate our Slack workspace and delete all of our message history.
I think there is a hint of a threat to the Salesforce customer. I am probably incorrect. Salesforce is popular, and it is owned by a high profile outfit embracing attention and AI. Assume that the cited passage reflects how the customer understood the invoice and its 3,000 percent plus increase and the possible threat. My question is, “What type of management process is at work at Salesforce / Slack?”
Here are my thoughts. Please, remember that I am a dinobaby and generally clueless about modern management methods used to establish pricing.
- Salesforce has put pressure on Slack to improve its revenue quickly. The Slack professionals knee jerked and boosted bills to outfits likely to pay up and keep quiet. Thus, the Hack Club received a big bill. Do this enough times and you can demonstrate more revenue, even though it may be unpaid. Let the bean counters work to get the money. I wonder if this is passive resistance from Slack toward Salesforce’s leadership? Oh, of course not.
- Salesforce’s pushes for attention and AI are not pumping the big bucks Salesforce needs to avoid the negative consequences of missing financial projections. Bad things happen when this occurs.
- Salesforce / Slack are operating in a fog of unknowing. The hope for big payoffs from attention and AI are slow to materialize. The spreadsheet fever that justifies massive investments in AI is yielding to some basic financial realities: Customers are buying. Sticking AI into communications is not a home run for Slack users, and it may not be for the lucky bean counters who have to collect on the invoices for booked but unpaid revenue.
The write up states:
Anyway, we’re moving to Mattermost. This experience has taught us that owning your data is incredibly important, and if you’re a small business especially, then I’d advise you move away too.
Salesforce / Slack loses a customer and the costs associated with handling data for what appears to be a lower priority and lower value customer.
Modern management methods are logical and effective. Never has a dinobaby learned so much about today’s corporate tactics than I have from my reading about outfits like Salesforce / and Slack.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2025
Fixing AI Convenience Behavior: Lead, Collaborate, and Mindset?
September 24, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “AI-Generated “Workslop” Is Destroying Productivity.” Six people wrote the article for the Harvard Business Review. (Whatever happened to independent work?)
The write up reports:
Employees are using AI tools to create low-effort, passable looking work that ends up creating more work for their coworkers.
Let’s consider this statement in the context of college students’ behavior when walking across campus. I was a freshman in college in 1962. The third rate institution had a big green area with no cross paths. The enlightened administration put up “keep off the grass” signs.
What did the students do? They walked the shortest distance between two points. Why? Why go the long way? Why spend extra time? Why be stupid? Why be inconvenienced?
The cited write up from the estimable Harvard outfit says:
But while some employees are using this ability [AI tools] to polish good work, others use it to create content that is actually unhelpful, incomplete, or missing crucial context about the project at hand. The insidious effect of workslop is that it shifts the burden of the work downstream, requiring the receiver to interpret, correct, or redo the work. In other words, it transfers the effort from creator to receiver.
Yep, convenience. Why waste effort?
The fix is to eliminate smart software. But that won’t happen. Why? Smart software provides a way to cut humanoids from the costs of running a business. Efficiency works. Well, mostly.
The write up says:
we jettison hard mental work to technologies like Google because it’s easier to, for example, search for something online than to remember it. Unlike this mental outsourcing to a machine, however, workslop uniquely uses machines to offload cognitive work to another human being. When coworkers receive workslop, they are often required to take on the burden of decoding the content, inferring missed or false context.
And what about changing this situation? Did the authors trot out the old chestnuts from Kurt Lewin and the unfreeze, change, refreeze model? Did the authors suggest stopping AI deployment? Nope. The fix involves:
- Leadership
- Mindsets
- Collaboration
Just between you and me, I think this team of authors is angling for some juicy consulting assignments. These will involve determining who, how much, what, and impact of using slop AI. Then there will be a report with options. The team will implement “options” and observe the results. If the process works, the client will sign a long=term contract with the team.
Keep off the grass!
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2025
A Googler Explains How AI Helps Creators and Advertisers in the Googley Maze
September 24, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
Most of Techmeme’s stories are paywalled. But one slipped through. (I wonder why?) Anyhow, the article in question is “An Interview with YouTube Neal Mohan about Building a Stage for Creators.” The interview is a long one. I want to focus on a couple of statements and offer a handful of observations.
The first comment by the Googler Mohan is this one:
Moving away from the old model of the cliché Madison Avenue type model of, “You go out to lunch and you negotiate a deal and it’s bespoke in this particular fashion because you were friends with the head of ad sales at that particular publisher”. So doing away with that model, and really frankly, democratizing the way advertising worked, which in our thesis, back to this kind of strategy book, would result in higher ROI for publishers, but also better ROI for advertisers.
The statement makes clear that disrupting advertising was the key to what is now the Google Double Click model. Instead of Madison Avenue, today there is the Google model. I think of it as a maze. Once one “gets into” the Google Double Click model, there is no obvious exit.
The art was generated by Venice.ai. No human needed. Sorry freelance artists on Fiverr.com. This is the future. It will come to YouTube as well.
Here’s the second I noted:
everything that we build is in service of people that are creative people, and I use the term “creator” writ large. YouTubers, artists, musicians, sports leagues, media, Hollywood, etc., and from that vantage point, it is really exceedingly clear that these AI capabilities are just that, they’re capabilities, they’re tools. But the thing that actually draws us to YouTube, what we want to watch are the original storytellers, the creators themselves.
The idea, in my interpretation, is that Google’s smart software is there to enable humans to be creative. AI is just a tool like an ice pick. Sure, the ice pick can be driven into someone’s heart, but that’s an extreme example of misuse of a simple tool. Our approach is to keep that ice pick for the artist who is going to create an ice sculpture.
Please, read the rest of this Googley interview to get a sense of the other concepts Google’s ad system and its AI are delivering to advertisers and “creators.”
Here’s my view:
- Google wants to get creators into the YouTube maze. Google wants advertisers to use the now 30 year old Google Double Click ad system. Everyone just enter the labyrinth.
- The rats will learn that the maze is the equivalent of a fish in an aquarium. What else will the fish know? Not too much. The aquarium is life. It is reality.
- Google has a captive, self-sustaining ecosystem. Creators create; advertisers advertise because people or systems want the content.
Now let me ask a question, “How does this closed ecosystem make more money?” The answer, according to Googler Mohan, a former consultant like others in Google leadership, is to become more efficient. How does one become more efficient? The answer is to replace expensive, popular creators with cheaper AI driven content produced by Google’s AI system.
Therefore, the words say one thin: Creator humans are essential. However, the trajectory of Google’s behavior is that Google wants to maximize its revenues. Just the threat or fear of using AI to knock off a hot new human engineered “content object” will allow the Google to reduce what it pays to a human until Google’s AI can eliminate those pesky, protesting, complaining humans. The advertisers want eyeballs. That’s what Google will deliver. Where will the advertisers go? Craigslist, Nextdoor, X.com?
Net net: Money is more important to Google than human creators. I know I am a dinobaby and probably incorrect. That’s how I see the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
