Big Tech and AI: Trust Us. We Just Ooze Trust
May 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Amid rising concerns, The Register reports, “Top AI Players Pledge to Pull the Plug on Models that Present Intolerable Risk” at the recent AI Seoul Summit. How do they define “intolerable?” That little detail has yet to be determined. The non-binding declaration was signed by OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and other AI heavyweights. Reporter Laura Dobberstein writes:
“The Seoul Summit produced a set of Frontier AI Safety Commitments that will see signatories publish safety frameworks on how they will measure risks of their AI models. This includes outlining at what point risks become intolerable and what actions signatories will take at that point. And if mitigations do not keep risks below thresholds, the signatories have pledged not to ‘develop or deploy a model or system at all.’”
We also learn:
“Signatories to the Seoul document have also committed to red-teaming their frontier AI models and systems, sharing information, investing in cyber security and insider threat safeguards in order to protect unreleased tech, incentivizing third-party discovery and reporting of vulnerabilities, AI content labelling, prioritizing research on the societal risks posed by AI, and to use AI for good.”
Promises, promises. And where are these frameworks so we can hold companies accountable? Hang tight, the check is in the mail. The summit produced a document full of pretty words, but as the article notes:
“All of that sounds great … but the details haven’t been worked out. And they won’t be, until an ‘AI Action Summit’ to be staged in early 2025.”
If then. After all, there’s no need to hurry. We are sure we can trust these AI bros to do the right thing. Eventually. Right?
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2024
Meta Mismatch: Good at One Thing, Not So Good at Another
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “While Meta Stuffs AI Into All Its Products, It’s Apparently Helpless to Stop Perverts on Instagram From Publicly Lusting Over Sexualized AI-Generated Children.” The main idea is that Meta has a problems stopping “perverts.” You know a “pervert,” don’t you. One can spot ‘em when one sees ‘em. The write up reports:
As Facebook and Instagram owner Meta seeks to jam generative AI into every feasible corner of its products, a disturbing Forbes report reveals that the company is failing to prevent those same products from flooding with AI-generated child sexual imagery. As Forbes reports, image-generating AI tools have given rise to a disturbing new wave of sexualized images of children, which are proliferating throughout social media — the Forbes report focused on TikTok and Instagram — and across the web.
What is Meta doing or not doing? The write up is short on technical details. In fact, there are no technical details. Is it possible that any online service allowing anyone able to comment or upload certain content will do something “bad”? Online requires something that most people don’t want. The secret ingredient is spelling out an editorial policy and making decisions about what is appropriate or inappropriate for an “audience.” Note that I have converted digital addicts into an audience, albeit one that participates.
Two fictional characters are supposed to be working hard and doing their level best. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How has that Cloud outage affected the push to more secure systems? Hello, hello, are you there?
Editorial policies require considerable intellectual effort, crafted workflow processes, and oversight. Who does the overseeing? In the good old days when publishing outfits like John Wiley & Sons-type or Oxford University Press-type outfits were gatekeepers, individuals who met the cultural standards were able to work their way up the bureaucratic rock wall. Now the mantra is the same as the probability-based game show with three doors and “Come on down!” Okay, “users” come on down, wallow in anonymity, exploit a lack of consequences, and surf on the darker waves of human thought. Online makes clear that people who read Kant, volunteer to help the homeless, and respect the rights of others are often at risk from the denizens of the psychological night.
Personally I am not a Facebook person, a users or Instagram, or a person requiring the cloak of a WhatsApp logo. Futurism takes a reasonably stand:
it’s [Meta, Facebook, et al] clearly unable to use the tools at its disposal, AI included, to help stop harmful AI content created using similar tools to those that Meta is building from disseminating across its own platforms. We were promised creativity-boosting innovation. What we’re getting at Meta is a platform-eroding pile of abusive filth that the company is clearly unable to manage at scale.
How long has been Meta trying to be a squeaky-clean information purveyor? Is the article going overboard?
I don’t have answers, but after years of verbal fancy dancing, progress may be parked at a rest stop on the information superhighway. Who is the driver of the Meta construct? If you know, that is the person to whom one must address suggestions about content. What if that entity does not listen and act? Government officials will take action, right?
PS. Is it my imagination or is Futurism.com becoming a bit more strident?
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2024
Silicon Valley and Its Bad Old Days? You Mean Today Days I Think
May 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Sam AI-Man knows how to make headlines. I wonder if he is aware of his PR prowess. The kids in Redmond tried their darnedest to make the “real” media melt down with an AI PC. And what happens? Sam AI-Man engages in the Scarlett Johansson voice play. Now whom does one believe? Did Sam AI-Man take umbrage at Ms. Johansson’s refusal to lend her voice to ChatGPTo? Did she recognize an opportunity to convert the digital voice available on ChatGPTo as “hers” fully aware she could become a household name. Star power may relate to visibility in the “real” media, not the wonky technology blogs.
It seems to be a mess, doesn’t it? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. What happened to good, old Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other services on the morning of May 23, 2024. Oh, well, the consequences of close enough for horseshoes thinking perhaps?
And how do I know the dust up is “real”? There’s the BBC’s story “Scarlett Johansson’s AI Row Has Echoes of Silicon Valley’s Bad Old Days.” I will return to this particularly odd write up in a moment. Also there is the black hole of money (the estimable Washington Post) and its paywalled story “Scarlett Johansson Says OpenAI Copied Her Voice after She Said No.” Her is the title of a Hollywood type movie, not a TikTok confection.
Let’s look at the $77 million in losses outfit’s story first. The WaPo reports:
In May, two days before OpenAI planned to demonstrate the technology, Altman contacted her again, asking her to reconsider, she said. Before she could respond, OpenAI released a demo of its improved audio technology, featuring a voice called “Sky.” Many argued the coquettish voice — which flirted with OpenAI employees in the presentation — bore an uncanny resemblance to Johansson’s character in the 2013 movie “Her,” in which she performed the voice of a super-intelligent AI assistant. “When I heard the released demo, I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference,” Johansson wrote. “Mr. Altman even insinuated that the similarity was intentional, tweeting a single word ‘her’ — a reference to the film in which I voiced a chat system, Samantha, who forms an intimate relationship with a human,” she added.
I am not sure that an AI could improve this tight narrative. (We won’t have to wait long before AI writes WaPo stories I have heard. Why? Maybe $77 million in losses?
Now let’s look at the BBC’s article with the reference to “bad old days.” The write up reports:
“Move fast and break things” is a motto that continues to haunt the tech sector, some 20 years after it was coined by a young Mark Zuckerberg. Those five words came to symbolize Silicon Valley at its worst – a combination of ruthless ambition and a rather breathtaking arrogance – profit-driven innovation without fear of consequence. I was reminded of that phrase this week when the actor Scarlett Johansson clashed with OpenAI.
Sam AI-Man’s use of a digital voice which some assert “sounds” like Ms. Johansson’s voice is a reminder of the “bad old days.” One question: When did the Silicon Valley “bad old days” come to an end?
Opportunistic tactics require moving quickly. Whether something is broken or not is irrelevant. Look at Microsoft. Once again Sam AI-Man was able to attract attention. Google’s massive iteration of the technological equivalent of herring nine ways found itself “left of bang.” Sam AI-Man announced ChatGPTo the day before the Sundar & Prabakar In and Out Review.
Let’s summarize:
- Sam AI-Man got publicity by implementing an opportunistic tactic. Score one for the AI-Man
- Ms. Johansson scored one because she was in the news and she may have a legal play, but that will take months to wend its way through the US legal system
- Google and Microsoft scored zero. Google played second fiddle to the ChatGPTo thing and Microsoft was caught in exhaust of the Sam AI-Man voice blast.
Now when did the “bad old days” of Silicon Valley End? Exactly never. It is so easy to say, “I’m sorry. So sorry.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2024
Rentals Are In, Ownership Is Out
May 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
We thought the age of rentals was over and we bid farewell to Blockbuster with a nostalgic wave. We were so wrong and it started with SaaS or software as a service. It should also be streaming as a service. The concept sounds good: updated services, tech support, and/or an endless library of entertainment that includes movies, TV shows, music, books, and videogames. The problem is the fees keep getting higher, the tech support doesn’t speak English, the software has bugs, and you don’t own the entertainment.
You don’t own your favorite shows, movies, music, videogames, and books anymore unless you buy physical copies or move the digital downloads off the hosting platform. Australians were scratching their heads over the ownership of their digital media recently The Guardian reported: “‘My Whole Library Is Wiped Out’: What It Means To Own Movies And TV In The Age Of Streaming Services.”
Telstra TV Box Office informed customers that the company would shutter in June and they would lose their purchased media unless they paid another fee to switch everything to Fetch. Customers expected to watch their purchased digital media indefinitely, but they were actually buying into a hosting platform. The problem stems from the entertainment version of SaaS: digital rights management.
People buy digital files but they don’t read the associated terms and conditions. The terms and conditions are long, legalese documents that no one reads. They do clearly state, however, why the digital rights management expectations are. Shaanan Chaney of Melbourne University said it’s unfair for customers to read those documents, but the companies aren’t liable:
“ ‘Such provisions are fairly standard among tech companies. Customers can rent or buy films via Amazon Prime, and the company’s terms of service states the content ‘will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming … but may become unavailable … Amazon will not be liable to you’.”
Apple iTunes has a similar clause in their terms and conditions, but they suggest customers download their media and backing them up. Digital rights management is important, but it’s run by large corporations that don’t care about consumers (and often creators). Companies do deserve to be paid and run their organizations as they wish, but they should respect their customers (and creators).
Buying physical copies is still a good idea. Life is a subscription and no way to cancel
Whitney Grace, May 23, 2024
US Big Tech to EU: Please, Knock Off the Outputs
May 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “Big Tech to EU: “Drop Dead.” I think the write up depicts the US alleged quasi monopolies of indifference to the wishes of the European Union. Stated another way, “The Big Dogs are battling for AI dominance.” The idea is that these outfits do not care what the EU wants. The Big Dogs care about what they want.
The write up contains several interesting statements. Let me highlight a handful and encourage you to read this article which explains some of the tension between governments and companies with more cash than some nation states. In fact, some of the Big Boys control more digitally inclined people than the annoying countries complaining about predatory business models. The illustration shows how much attention some Big Dogs allow EU and other government regulatory authorities.
The Big Dogs of technology participate in a Microsoft Teams’s session with and EU official. The Big Dogs seem to be more interested in their mobile phones than the political word salad from the august official. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.
Consider this statement:
Right from the start, it was obvious that the tech giants were going to war against the [European Digital Markets Act or] DMA, and the freedom it promised to their users.
But isn’t that what companies in a free market do?
Here’s another gem:
Apple charges app vendors a whopping 30 percent commission on most transactions, both the initial price of the app and everything you buy from it thereafter. This is a remarkably high transaction fee —compare it to the credit-card sector, itself the subject of sharp criticism for its high 3-5 percent fees. To maintain those high commissions, Apple also restricts its vendors from informing their customers about the existence of other ways of paying (say, via their website) and at various times has also banned its vendors from offering discounts to customers who complete their purchases without using the app.
What’s the markup for blue chip consulting firms or top end lawyers? Plus, Apple is serving its shareholders. As a public company, that is what shareholders have a right to expect. Once again, the underlying issue is how capitalism works in the US market.
And this statement:
These are high-stakes clashes. As the tech sector grew more concentrated, it also grew less accountable, able to substitute lock-in and regulatory capture for making good products and having their users’ backs. Tech has found new ways to compromise our privacy rights, our labor rights, and our consumer rights – at scale.
Once again the problem is capitalism. The companies have to generate growth, revenue, and profits. Can a government agency manage the day-to-day operations of these technology-centric firms? Governments struggle to maintain roads and keep their Web sites updated. The solution may have been a bit more interest 25 years ago. In my opinion, the “better late than never” approach is not going to work unless governments put these outfits out of business… one way or another.
Net net: The write up is not about Big Dog tech companies ignoring the DMA. The write up wants the basic function of publicly-traded companies to change. Go to a zoo. Find a jungle cat. Tell it to change its stripes. How is that going to work out?
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2024
Googzilla Makes a Move in a High Stakes Contest
May 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The trusted “real news” outfit Thomson Reuters published this popular news story about dancing with Googzilla. The article is titled by the click seekers as “Google Cuts Mystery Check to US in Bid to Sidestep Jury Trial.” I love the “mystery check.” I thought FinCEN was on the look out for certain types of transactions.
The contest is afoot. Thanks, MSFT Copilot.
Here’s the core of the story: On one side of the multi-dimensional Go board is the US Department of Justice. Yes, that was the department with the statues in the area where employees once were paid each week. On the other side of the game board is Googzilla. This is the digital construct which personifies the Alphabet, Google, YouTube, DeepMind, et al outfit. Some in Google’s senior management are avid game players. After all, one must set up a system in which no matter who plays a Googzilla-branded game, the “just average wizards” who run the company wins. The mindset has worked wonders in the online advertising and SEO sector. The SEO “experts” were the people who made a case to their clients for the truism “If you want traffic, it is a pay-to-play operation.” The same may be said for YouTube and content creators who make content so Google can monetize that digital flow and pay a sometimes unknown amount to a creator who is a one-person 1930s motion picture production company. Ditto for the advertisers who use the Google system to buy advertising and benefit by providing advertising space. What’s Google do? It makes the software that controls the game.
Where’s this going? Google is playing a game with the Department of Justice. I am certain some in the DoJ understand this approach. Others may not grasp the concept of Googzilla’s absolute addiction to gaming and gamesmanship. Casinos are supposed to make money. There are exceptions, of course. I can think of a high-profile case history of casino failure, but Google is a reasonably competent casino operator. Sure, there are some technical problems when the Cloud back end fails and the staff become a news event because they protest with correctly spelled signage. But overall, I would suggest that the depth of Googzilla’s game playing is not appreciated by its users, its competition, or some of the governments trying to regain data and control of information pumped into the creatures financial blood bank.
Let’s look at the information the trusted outfit sought to share as bait for a begging-for-dollars marketing play:
Google has preemptively paid damages to the U.S. government, an unusual move aimed at avoiding a jury trial in the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit over its digital advertising business. Google disclosed the payment, but not the amount, in a court filing last week that said the case should be heard and decided by a judge directly. Without a monetary damages claim, Google argued, the government has no right to a jury trial.
That’s the move. The DoJ now has to [a] ignore the payment and move forward to a trial with a jury deciding if Googzilla is a “real” monopoly or a plain vanilla, everyday business like the ones Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft have helped go out of business. [b] Cash the check and go back to scanning US government job listings for a positive lateral arabesque on a quest to the SES (senior executive service). [c] Keep the check and pile on more legal pressure because the money was an inducement, not a replacement for the US justice system. With an election coming up, I can see option [d] on the horizon: Do nothing.
The idea is that in multi-dimensional Go, Google wants to eliminate the noise of legal disputes. Google wins if the government cashes the check. Google wins if the on-rushing election causes a slow down of an already slow process. Google wins if the DoJ keeps piling on the pressure. Google has the money and lawyers to litigate. The government has a long memory but that staff and leadership turnover shifts the odds to Googzilla. Google Calendar keeps its attorneys filing before deadlines and exploiting the US legal system to its fullest extent. If the US government sues Google because the check was a bribe, Google wins. The legal matter shifts to resolving the question about the bribe because carts rarely are put in front of horses.
In this Googzilla-influenced games, Googzilla has created options and set the stage to apply the same tactic to other legal battles. The EU may pass a law prohibiting pre-payment in lieu of a legal process, but if that does not move along at the pace of AI hyperbole, Google’s DoJ game plan can be applied to the lucky officials in Brussels and Strasbourg.
The Reuters’ report says:
Stanford Law School’s Mark Lemley told Reuters he was skeptical Google’s gambit would prevail. He said a jury could ultimately decide higher damages than whatever Google put forward.
“Antitrust cases regularly go to juries. I think it is a sign that Google is worried about what a jury will do,” Lemley said. Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google’s move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote.
Okay, two different opinions. The Google check is proactive.
Why? Here are some reasons my research group offered this morning:
- Google has other things to do with its legal resources; namely, deal with the copyright litigation which is knocking on its door
- The competitive environment is troubling so Googzilla wants to delete annoyances like the DoJ and staff who don’t meet the new profile of the ideal Googler any longer
- Google wants to set a precedent so it can implement its pay-to-play game plan for legal hassles.
I am 99 percent confident that Google is playing a game. I am not sure that others perceive the monopoly litigation as one. Googzilla has been refining its game plan, its game-playing skills, and its gaming business systems for 25 years. How long has the current crop of DoJ experts been playing Googley games? I am not going to bet against Googzilla. Remember what happened in the 2021 film Godzilla vs. Kong. Both beasties make peace and go their separate ways. If that happens, Googzilla wins.
Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2024
TikTok Rings the Alarm for Yelp
May 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Social media influencers have been making and breaking restaurants since MySpace was still a thing. GrubStreet, another bastion for foodies and restaurant owners, reported that TikTok now controls the Internet food scene over Yelp: “How TikTok Took Over The Menu.” TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube are how young diners are deciding where to eat. These are essential restaurant discovery tools. Aware of the power of these social media platforms, restaurants are adapting their venues to attract popular influencer food critics. These influencers replace the traditional newspaper food critic and become ad hoc publicists for the restaurants. They’re lured to venues with free food or even a hefty cash payment.
The new restaurant critic business created SOP for ideas business practices, and ingredients to appeal to the social media algorithms. Many influencers ask the businesses “collab” in exchange for a free meal. Established influencers with huge followings not only want a free lunch but also demand paychecks. There are entire companies established on connecting restaurants and other business with social media influencers. The services have an a la carte pricing menu.
Another problem from the new type of food critics are the LED lights required to shoot the food. LED lights are the equivalent of camera flashes and can disturb other diners. Many restaurants welcome filming with the lights while other places ban them. (Filming is still allowed though.)
Huge tactics to lure influencers is creating scarcity and create an experience with table side actions. Another important tactic is almost sinful:
“Above all, the goal is excess; the most unforgivable social-media sin for any restaurant is to project an image of austerity…The chef Eyal Shani knows how to generate this particular energy. His HaSalon restaurants serve 12-foot-long noodles and encourage diners to dance on their tables, waving white napkins over their heads while disco blares from speakers. “Thirty years ago, it was about the content” of a dish or an idea, says Shani, who runs 40 restaurants around the world and has seen trends ebb and flow over the decades. ‘People tried to understand the structure of your creation.’ Today, it’s much more visual: ‘It’s very flat — it’s not about going into depth.’”
If restaurants focus more on shallowness and showmanship, then quality is going to tank. It’s going to go the way of the American attention span. TikTok ruins another thing.
Whitney Grace, May 22, 2023
AI and Work: Just the Ticket for Monday Morning
May 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Well, here’s a cheerful essay for the average worker in a knowledge industry. “If Your Work’s Average, You’re Screwed It’s Over for You” is the ideal essay to kick off a new work week. The source of the publication is Digital Camera World. I thought traditional and digital cameras were yesterday’s news. Therefore, I surmise the author of the write up misses the good old days of Kodak film, chemicals, and really expensive retouching.
How many US government professionals will find themselves victims of good enough AI? Answer: More than than the professional photographers? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, a standard your security systems seem to struggle to achieve.
What’s the camera-focuses (yeah, lame pun) essay report. Consider this passage:
there’s one thing that only humans can do…
Okay, one thing. I give up. What’s that? Create other humans? Write poetry? Take fentanyl and lose the ability to stand up for hours? Captain a boat near orcas who will do what they can to sink the vessel? Oh, well. What’s that one thing?
"But I think the thing that AI is going to have an impossible job of achieving is that last 1% that stands between everything [else] and what’s great. I think that that last 1%, only a human can impart that.
AI does the mediocre. Humans, I think, do the exceptional. The logic seems to point to someone in the top tier of humans will have a job. Everyone else will be standing on line to get basic income checks, pursuing crime, or reading books. Strike that. Scrolling social media. No doom required. Those not in the elite will know doom first hand.
Here’s another passage to bring some zip to a Monday morning:
What it’s [smart software] going to do is, if your work’s average, you’re screwed. It’s [having a job] over for you. Be great, because AI is going to have a really hard time being great itself.
Observations? Just that cost cutting may be Job One.
Stephen E Arnold, May 20, 2024
Googzilla Versus OpenAI: Moving Up to Pillow Fighting
May 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Mike Tyson is dressed in a Godzilla outfit. He looks like a short but quite capable Googzilla. He is wearing a Google hat. (I have one, but it is soiled. Bummer.) Googzilla is giving the stink eye to Sam AI-Man, who has followed health routines recommended by Huberman Lab and Anatoly, the fellow who hawks supplements after shaming gym brutes dressed as a norm core hero.
Sam AI-Man asks an important question. Googzilla seems to be baffled. But the cane underscores that he is getting old for a thunder lizard selling online advertising. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are the security initiatives coming along? Oh, too bad.
Now we have the first exhibition: Googzilla is taking on Sam AI-Man.
I read an analysis of this high-stakes battle in “ChatGPT 4o vs Gemini 1.5 Pro: It’s Not Even Close.” The article appeared in the delightfully named online publication “Beebom.” I am writing in Beyond Search, which is — quite frankly — a really boring name. But I am a dinobaby, and I am going to assume that Beebom has a much more tuned in owner operator.
The article illustrates a best practice in database comparison, just tweaked to provide some insights into how alike or different the Googzilla is from the AI-Man. There’s a math test. There is a follow the instructions query. There is an image test. A programming challenge. You get the idea. The article includes what a reader will need to run similar brain teasers to Googzilla and Sam AI-Man.
Who cares? Let’s get to the results.
The write up says:
It’s evidently clear that Gemini 1.5 Pro is far behind ChatGPT 4o. Even after improving the 1.5 Pro model for months while in preview, it can’t compete with the latest GPT-4o model by OpenAI. From commonsense reasoning to multimodal and coding tests, ChatGPT 4o performs intelligently and follows instructions attentively. Not to miss, OpenAI has made ChatGPT 4o free for everyone.
Welp. This statement is not going to make Googzilla happy. Anyone who plays Foosball with the beastie today will want to be alert that re-Fooses are not allowed. You lose when you what the ball out of the game.
But the sun has not set over the Googzilla computer lab. The write up opines:
The only thing going for Gemini 1.5 Pro is the massive context window with support for up to 1 million tokens. In addition, you can upload videos too which is an advantage. However, since the model is not very smart, I am not sure many would like to use it just for the larger context window.
I chuckled at the last line of the write up:
If Google has to compete with OpenAI, a substantial leap is required.
Several observations:
- Who knows the names of the “new” products Google rolled out?
- With numerous “new” products, has Google a grand vision or is it one of those high school stunts in which passengers in a luxury car jump out and run around the car shouting. Then the car drives off?
- Will Google’s management align its AI with its staff management methods in the context of the regulatory scrutiny?
- Where’s DeepMind in this somewhat confusing flood of “new” smart products?
Net net: Google is definitely showing the results of having its wizards work under Code Red’s flashing lights. More pillow fights ahead. (Can you list the “new” products announced at Google I/O? Don’t worry. Neither can I.)
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2024
IBM: A Management Beacon Shines Brightly
May 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
To be frank, I don’t know if the write up called “IBM Sued Again for Alleged Discrimination. This Time Against White Males” is on the money. I don’t really care. The item is absolutely delicious. For context, older employees were given an opportunity to train their replacements and then find their future elsewhere. I think someone told me that was “age discrimination.” True or not, a couple of interesting Web sites disappeared. These reported on the hilarious personnel management policies in place at Big Blue during the sweep of those with silver hair. Hey, as a dinobaby, I know getting older adds a cost burden to outfits who really care about their employees. Plus, old employees are not “fast,” like those whip smart 24 year olds with fancy degrees and zero common sense. I understood the desire to dump expensive employees and find cheaper, more flexible workers. Anyone can learn PL/I, but only the young can embrace the intricacies of Squarespace.
Old geezers and dinobabies have no place on a team of young, bright, low wage athletes. Thanks, ChatGPT. Good enough in one try. Microsoft Copilot crashed. Well, MSFT is busy with security and AI or is it AI and security. I don’t know, do you?
The cited article reports:
The complaint claims that in the pursuit of greater racial and gender diversity within the Linux distro maker, Red Hat axed senior director Allan Kingsley Wood, an employee of eight years. According to the suit, that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative within Red Hat “necessitates prioritizing skin color and race as primary hiring factors,” and this, and not other factors, led to him being laid off. Basically, Wood claims he was unfairly let go for being a White man, rather for performance or the like, because Red Hat was focused on prioritizing in an unlawfully discriminatory fashion people of other races and genders to diversify its ranks.
The impact? The professional has an opportunity to explore the greenness on the side of the fence closer to the unemployment benefits claims office. The write up concludes this way:
It’s too early to tell how likely Wood is to succeed in his case. A 2020 lawsuit against Google on similar grounds didn’t even make it to court because the plaintiff withdrew. On the other hand, IBM has been settling age-discrimination claims left and right, so perhaps we’ll see that happen here. We’ve reached out to Red Hat and AFL for further comment on the impending court battle, and we’ll update if we hear back.
I will predict the future. The parties to this legal matter (assuming it is not settled among gentlemen) will not get back to the author of the news report. In my opinion, IBM remains a paragon of outstanding personnel management.
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
