Redefining Elite in the Age of AI: Nope, Redefining Average Is the News Story
December 12, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Business Insider has come up with an interesting swizzle on the AI thirst fest. “AI Is the Great Equalizer.” The subtitle is quite suggestive about a technology which is over 50 years in the making and just one year into its razzle dazzle next big thing with the OpenAI generative pre-trained transformer.
The teacher (the person with the tie) is not quite as enthusiastic about Billy, Kristie, and Mary. The teacher knows that each is a budding Einstein, a modern day Gertrude Stein, or an Ada Lovelace in the eyes of the parent. The reality is that big-time performers are a tiny percentage of any given cohort. One blue chip consulting firm complained that it had to interview 1,000 people to identify a person who could contribute. That was self-congratulatory like Oscar Meyer slapping the Cinco Jota label on a pack of baloney. But the perceptions about the impact of a rapidly developing technology on average performers is are interesting but their validity is unknown. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, you have the parental pride angle down pat. What inspired you? A microchip?
In my opinion, the main idea in the essay is:
Education and expertise won’t count for as much as they used to.
Does this mean the falling scores for reading and math are a good thing? Just let one of the techno giants do the thinking: Is that the message.
I loved this statement about working in law firms. In my experience, the assertion applies to consulting firms as well. There is only one minor problem, which I will mention after you scan the quote:
This is something the law-school study touches on. “The legal profession has a well-known bimodal separation between ‘elite’ and ‘nonelite’ lawyers in pay and career opportunities,” the authors write. “By helping to bring up the bottom (and even potentially bring down the top), AI tools could be a significant force for equality in the practice of law.”
The write up points out that AI won’t have much of an impact on the “elite”; that is, the individuals who can think, innovate, and make stuff happen. The write up says about company hiring strategies contacted about the impact of AI:
They [These firms’ executives] are aiming to hire fewer entry-level people straight out of school, since AI can increasingly take on the straightforward, well-defined tasks these younger workers have traditionally performed. They plan to bulk up on experts who can ace the complicated stuff that’s still too hard for machines to perform.
The write up in interesting, but it is speculative, not what’s happening.
Here’s what we know about the ChatGPT-type revolution after one year:
- Cyber criminals have figured out how to use generative tools to increase the amount of cyber crime requiring sentences or script generation. Score one for the bad actors.
- Older people are either reluctant or fearful of fooling around with what appears to be “magical” software. Therefore, the uptake at work is likely to be slower and probably more cautious than for some who are younger at heart. Score one for Luddites and automation-related protests.
- The younger folk will use any online service that makes something easier or more convenient. Want to buy contraband? Hit those Telegram-type groups. Want to write a report about a new procedure? Hey, let a ChatGPT-type system do it? Worry about its accuracy or appropriateness? Nope, not too much.
Net net: Change is happening, but the use of smart outputs by people who cannot read, do math, or think about Kant’s ideas are unlikely to do much more than add friction to an already creaky bureaucratic machine. As for the future, I don’t know. This dinobaby is not fearful of admitting it.
As for lawyers, remember what Shakespeare said:
“The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
The statement by Dick the Butcher may apply to quite a few in “knowledge” professions. Including some essayists like this dinobaby and many, many others. The rationale is to just keep the smartest ones. AI is good enough for everything else.
Stephen E Arnold, December 12, 2023
Big Tech, Big Fakes, Bigger Money: What Will AI Kill?
December 7, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I don’t read The Hollywood Reporter. I did one job for a Hollywood big wheel. That was enough for me. I don’t drink. I don’t take drugs unless prescribed by my comic book addicted medical doctor in rural Kentucky. I don’t dress up and wear skin bronzers in the hope that my mobile will buzz. I don’t stay out late. I don’t fancy doing things which make my ethical compass buzz more angrily than my mobile phone. Therefore, The Hollywood Reporter does not speak to me.
One of my research team sent me a link to “The Rise of AI-Powered Stars: Big Money and Risks.” I scanned the write up and then I went through it again. By golly, The Hollywood Reporter hit on an “AI will kill us” angle not getting as much publicity as Sam AI-Man’s minimal substance interview.
Can a techno feudalist generate new content using what looks like “stars” or “well known” people? Probably. A payoff has to be within sight. Otherwise, move on to the next next big thing. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough cartoon.
Please, read the original and complete article in The Hollywood Reporter. Here’s the passage which rang the insight bell for me:
tech firms are using the power of celebrities to introduce the underlying technology to the masses. “There’s a huge possible business there and I think that’s what YouTube and the music companies see, for better or for worse
Let’s think about these statements.
First, the idea of consumerizing AI for the masses is interesting. However, I interpret the insight as having several force vectors:
- Become the plumbing for the next wave of user generated content (USG)
- Get paid by users AND impose an advertising tax on the USG
- Obtain real-time data about the efficacy of specific smart generation features so that resources can be directed to maintain a “moat” from would-be attackers.
Second, by signing deals with people who to me are essentially unknown, the techno giants are digging some trenches and putting somewhat crude asparagus obstacles where the competitors are like to drive their AI machines. The benefits include:
- First hand experience with the stars’ ego system responds
- The data regarding cost of signing up a star, payouts, and selling ads against the content
- Determining what push back exists [a] among fans and [b] the historical middlemen who have just been put on notice that they can find their future elsewhere.
Finally, the idea of the upside and the downside for particular entities and companies is interesting. There will be winners and losers. Right now, Hollywood is a loser. TikTok is a winner. The companies identified in The Hollywood Reporter want to be winners — big winners.
I may have to start paying more attention to this publication and its stories. Good stuff. What will AI kill? The cost of some human “talent”?
Stephen E Arnold, December 7, 2023
Will TikTok Go Slow in AI? Well, Sure
December 7, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The AI efforts of non-governmental organizations, government agencies, and international groups are interesting. Many resolutions, proclamations, and blog polemics, etc. have been saying, “Slow down AI. Smart software will put people out of work. Destroy humans’ ability to think. Unleash the ‘I’ll be back guy.'”
Getting those enthusiastic about smart software is a management problem. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
My stance in the midst of this fearmongering has been bemusement. I know that predicting the future perturbations of technology is as difficult as picking a Kentucky Derby winner and not picking a horse that will drop dead during the race. When groups issue proclamations and guidelines without an enforcement mechanism, not much is going to happen in the restraint department.
I submit as partial evidence for my bemusement the article “TikTok Owner ByteDance Joins Generative AI Frenzy with Service for Chatbot Development, Memo Says.” What seems clear, if the write up is mostly on the money, is that a company linked to China is joining “the race to offer AI model development as a service.”
Two quick points:
- Model development allows the provider to get a sneak peak at what the user of the system is trying to do. This means that information flows from customer to provider.
- The company in the “race” is one of some concern to certain governments and their representatives.
The write up says:
ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, is working on an open platform that will allow users to create their own chatbots, as the company races to catch up in generative artificial intelligence (AI) amid fierce competition that kicked off with last year’s launch of ChatGPT. The “bot development platform” will be launched as a public beta by the end of the month…
The cited article points out:
China’s most valuable unicorn has been known for using some form of AI behind the scenes from day one. Its recommendation algorithms are considered the “secret sauce” behind TikTok’s success. Now it is jumping into an emerging market for offering large language models (LLMs) as a service.
What other countries are beavering away on smart software? Will these drive in the slow lane or the fast lane?
Stephen E Arnold, December 7, 2023
Just for the Financially Irresponsible: Social Shopping
December 7, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Amazon likes to make it as easy as possible for consumers to fork over their hard-earned cash on a whim. More steps between seeing a product and checking out means more time to reconsider a spontaneous purchase, after all. That is why the company has been working to integrate purchases into social media platforms. Payment-platform news site PYMNTS reports on the latest linkage in, “Amazon Extends Social Shopping Efforts with Snapchat Deal.” Amazon’s partnership with Meta had already granted it quick access to eyeballs and wallets at Facebook and Instagram. Now users of all three platforms will be able to link those social media accounts to their Amazon accounts. We are told:
“It’s a partnership that lets both companies play to their strengths: Amazon gets to help merchants find customers who might not have actively sought out their products. And Meta’s discovery-based model lets users receive targeted ads without searching for them. Amazon also has a deal with Pinterest, signed in April, designed to create more shoppable content by enhancing the platform’s offering of relevant products and brands. These partnerships are happening at a moment when social media has become a crucial tool for consumers to find new products.”
That is one way to put it. Here is another: The deals let Amazon take advantage of users’ cognitive haze: scrolling social media has been linked to information overload, shallow thinking, reduced attention span, and fragmented thoughts. A recipe for perfect victims. I mean, customers. We wonder what Meta is getting in exchange for handing them over?
Cynthia Murrell, December 7, 2023
Forget Deep Fakes. Watch for Shallow Fakes
December 6, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
“A Tech Conference Listed Fake Speakers for Years: I Accidentally Noticed” revealed a factoid about which I knew absolutely zero. The write up reveals:
For 3 years straight, the DevTernity conference listed non-existent software engineers representing Coinbase and Meta as featured speakers. When were they added and what could have the motivation been?
The article identifies and includes what appear to be “real” pictures of a couple of these made-up speakers. What’s interesting is that only females seem to be made up. Is that perhaps because conference organizers like to take the easiest path, choosing people who are “in the news” or “friends.” In the technology world, I see more entities which appear to be male than appear to be non-males.
Shallow fakes. Deep fakes. What’s the problem? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Nice art which you achieved exactly how? Oh, don’t answer that question. I don’t want to know.
But since I don’t attend many conferences, I am not in touch with demographics. Furthermore, I am not up to speed on fake people. To be honest, I am not too interested in people, real or fake. After a half century of work, I like my French bulldog.
The write up points out:
We’ve not seen anything of this kind of deceit in tech – a conference inventing speakers, including fake images – and the mainstream media covered this first-of-a-kind unethical approach to organizing a conference,
That’s good news.
I want to offer a handful of thoughts about creating “fake” people for conferences and other business efforts:
- Why not? The practice went unnoticed for years.
- Creating digital “fakes” is getting easier and the tools are becoming more effective at duplicating “reality” (whatever that is). It strikes me that people looking for a short cut for a diverse Board of Directors, speaker line up, or a LinkedIn reference might find the shortest, easiest path to shape reality for a purpose.
- The method used to create a fake speaker is more correctly termed ka “shallow” fake. Why? As the author of the cited paper points out. Disproving the reality of the fakes was easy and took little time.
Let me shift gears. Why would conference organizers find fake speakers appealing? Here are some hypotheses:
- Conferences fall into a “speaker rut”; that is, organizers become familiar with certain speakers and consciously or unconsciously slot them into the next program because they are good speakers (one hopes), friendly, or don’t make unwanted suggestions to the organizers
- Conference staff are overworked and understaffed. Applying some smart workflow magic to organizing and filling in the blanks spaces on the program makes the use of fakery appealing, at least at one conference. Will others learn from this method?
- Conferences have become more dependent on exhibitors. Over the years, renting booth space has become a way for a company to be featured on the program. Yep, advertising, just advertising linked to “sponsors” of social gatherings or Platinum and Gold sponsors who get to put marketing collateral in a cheap nylon bag foisted on every registrant.
I applaud this write up. Not only will it give people ideas about how to use “fakes.” It will also inspire innovation in surprising ways. Why not “fake” consultants on a Zoom call? There’s an idea for you.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2023
AI: Big Ideas Become Money Savers and Cost Cutters
December 6, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Earlier this week (November 28, 2023,) The British newspaper The Guardian published “Sports Illustrated Accused of Publishing Articles Written by AI.” The main idea is that dependence on human writers became the focus of a bunch of bean counters. The magazine has a reasonably high profile among a demographic not focused on discerning the difference between machine output and sleek, intellectual, well groomed New York “real” journalists. Some cared. I didn’t. It’s money ball in the news business.
The day before the Sports Illustrated slick business and PR move, I noted a Murdoch-infused publication’s revelation about smart software. Barron’s published “AI Will Create—and Destroy—Jobs. History Offers a Lesson.” Barron’s wrote about it; Sports Illustrated got snared doing it.
Barron’s said:
That AI technology will come for jobs is certain. The destruction and creation of jobs is a defining characteristic of the Industrial Revolution. Less certain is what kind of new jobs—and how many—will take their place.
Okay, the Industrial Revolution. Exactly how long did that take? What jobs were destroyed? What were the benefits at the beginning, the middle, and end of the Industrial Revolution? What were the downsides of the disruption which unfolded over time? Decades wasn’t it?
The AI “revolution” is perceived to be real. Investors, testosterone-charged venture capitalists, and some Type A students are going to make the AI Revolution a reality. Damn, the regulators, the copyright complainers, and the dinobabies who want to read, think, and write themselves.
Barron’s noted:
A survey conducted by LinkedIn for the World Economic Forum offers hints about where job growth might come from. Of the five fastest-growing job areas between 2018 and 2022, all but one involve people skills: sales and customer engagement; human resources and talent acquisition; marketing and communications; partnerships and alliances. The other: technology and IT. Even the robots will need their human handlers.
I can think of some interesting jobs. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You did ingest some 19th century illustrations, didn’t you, you digital delight.
Now those are rock solid sources: Microsoft’s LinkedIn and the charming McKinsey & Company. (I think of McKinsey as the opioid innovators, but that’s just my inexplicable predisposition toward an outstanding bastion of ethical behavior.)
My problem with the Sports Illustrated AI move and the Barron’s essay boils down to the bipolarism which surfaces when a new next big thing appears on the horizon. Predicting what will happen when a technology smashes into business billiard balls is fraught with challenges.
One thing is clear: The balls are rolling, and journalists, paralegals, consultants, and some knowledge workers are going to find themselves in the side pocket. The way out might be making TikToks or selling gadgets on eBay.
Some will say, “AI took our jobs, Billy. Now what?” Yes, now what?
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2023
Harvard University: Does Money Influence Academic Research?
December 5, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Harvard University has been on my radar since the ethics misstep. In case your memory is fuzzy, Francesca Gino, a big thinker about ethics and taking shortcuts, was accused of data fraud. The story did not attract much attention in rural Kentucky. Ethics and dishonesty? Come on. Harvard has to do some serious training to catch up with a certain university in Louisville. For a reasonable explanation of the allegations (because, of course, one will never know), navigate to “Harvard Professor Who Studies Dishonesty Is Accused of Falsifying Data” and dig in.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot, you have nailed the depressive void that comes about when philosophers learn that ethics suck.
Why am I thinking about Harvard and ethics? The answer is that I read “Harvard Gutted Initial Team Examining Facebook Files Following $500 Million Donation from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Whistleblower Aid Client Reveals.” I have no idea if the write up is spot on, weaponized information, or the work of someone who did not get into one of the university’s numerous money generating certification programs.
The write up asserts:
Harvard University dismantled its prestigious team of online disinformation experts after a foundation run by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated $500 million to the university, a whistleblower disclosure filed by Whistleblower Aid reveals. Dr. Joan Donovan, one of the world’s leading experts on social media disinformation, says she ran into a wall of institutional resistance and eventual termination after she and her team at Harvard’s Technology and Social Change Research Project (TASC) began analyzing thousands of documents exposing Facebook’s knowledge of how the platform has caused significant public harm.
Let’s assume that the allegation is horse feathers, not to be confused with Intel’s fabulous Horse Ridge. Harvard still has to do some fancy dancing with regard to the ethics professor and expert in dishonesty who is alleged to have violated the esteemed university’s ethics guidelines and was dishonest.
If we assume that the information in Dr. Donovan’s whistleblower declaration is close enough for horse shoes, something equine can be sniffed in the atmosphere of Dr. William James’s beloved institution.
What could Facebook or the Metazuck do which would cause significant public harm? The options range from providing tools to disseminate information which spark body shaming, self harm, and angst among young users. Are old timers possibly affected? I suppose buying interesting merchandise on Facebook Marketplace and experiencing psychological problems as a result of defriending are possibilities too.
If the allegations are proven to be accurate, what are the consequences for the two esteemed organizations? My hunch is zero. Money talks; prestige walks away to put ethics on display for another day.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2023
Why Google Dorks Exist and Why Most Users Do Not Know Why They Are Needed
December 4, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Many people in my lectures are not familiar with the concept of “dorks”. No, not the human variety. I am referencing the concept of a “Google dork.” If you do a quick search using Yandex.com, you will get pointers to different “Google dorks.” Click on one of the links and you will find information you can use to retrieve more precise and relevant information from the Google ad-supported Web search system.
Here’s what QDORKS.com looks like:
The idea is that one plugs in search terms and uses the pull down boxes to enter specific commands to point the ad-centric system at something more closely resembling a relevant result. Other interfaces are available; for example, the “1000 Best Google Dorks List." You get a laundry list of tips,commands, and ideas for wrestling Googzilla to the ground, twisting its tail, and (hopefully) yield relevant information. Hopefully. Good work.
Most people are lousy at pinning the tail on the relevance donkey. Therefore, let someone who knows define relevance for the happy people. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Nice animal with map pins.
Why are Google Dorks or similar guides to Google search necessary? Here are three reasons:
- Precision reduces the opportunities for displaying allegedly relevant advertising. Semantic relaxation allows the Google to suggest that it is using Oingo type methods to find mathematically determined relationships. The idea is that razzle dazzle makes ad blasting something like an ugly baby wrapped in translucent fabric on a foggy day look really great.
- When Larry Page argued with me at a search engine meeting about truncation, he displayed a preconceived notion about how search should work for those not at Google or attending a specialist conference about search. Rational? To him, yep. Logical? To his framing of the search problem, the stance makes perfect sense if one discards the notion of tense, plurals, inflections, and stupid markers like “im” as in “impractical” and “non” as in “nonsense.” Hey, Larry had the answer. Live with it.
- The goal at the Google is to make search as intellectually easy for the “user” as possible. The idea was to suggest what the user intended. Also, Google had the old idea that a person’s past behavior can predict that person’s behavior now. Well, predict in the sense that “good enough” will do the job for vast majority of search-blind users who look for the short cut or the most convenient way to get information.
Why? Control, being clever, and then selling the dream of clicks for advertisers. Over the years, Google leveraged its information framing power to a position of control. I want to point out that most people, including many Googlers, cannot perceive. When pointed out, those individuals refuse to believe that Google does [a] NOT index the full universe of digital data, [b] NOT want to fool around with users who prefer Boolean algebra, content curation to identify the best or most useful content, and [c] fiddle around with training people to become effective searchers of online information. Obfuscation, verbal legerdemain, and the “do no evil” craziness make the railroad run the way Cornelius Vanderbilt-types implemented.
I read this morning (December 4, 2023) the Google blog post called “New Ways to Find Just What You Need on Search.” The main point of the write up in my opinion is:
Search will never be a solved problem; it continues to evolve and improve alongside our world and the web.
I agree, but it would be great if the known search and retrieval functions were available to users. Instead, we have a weird Google Mom approach. From the write up:
To help you more easily keep up with searches or topics you come back to a lot, or want to learn more about, we’re introducing the ability to follow exactly what you’re interested in.
Okay, user tracking, stored queries, and alerts. How does the Google know what you want? The answer is that users log in, use Google services, and enter queries which are automatically converted to search. You will have answers to questions you really care about.
There are other search functions available in the most recent version of Google’s attempts to deal with an unsolved problem:
As with all information on Search, our systems will look to show the most helpful, relevant and reliable information possible when you follow a topic.
Yep, Google is a helicopter parent. Mom will know what’s best, select it, and present it. Don’t like it? Mom will be recalcitrant, like shaping search results to meet what the probabilistic system says, “Take your medicine, you brat.” Who said, “Mother Google is a nice mom”? Definitely not me.
And Google will make search more social. Shades of Dr. Alon Halevy and the heirs of Orkut. The Google wants to bring people together. Social signals make sense to Google. Yep, content without Google ads must be conquered. Let’s hope the Google incentive plans encourage the behavior, or those valiant programmers will be bystanders to other Googlers’ promotions and accompanying money deliveries.
Net net: Finding relevant, on point, accurate information is more difficult today than at any other point in the 50+ year work career. How does the cloud of unknowing dissipate? I have no idea. I think it has moved in on tiny Googzilla feet and sits looking over the harbor, ready to pounce on any creature that challenges the status quo.
PS. Corny Vanderbilt was an amateur compared to the Google. He did trains; Google does information.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2023
Good Fences, Right, YouTube? And Good Fences in Winter Even Better
December 4, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Remember that line from the grumpy American poet Bobby Frost. (I have on good authority that Bobby was not a charmer. And who, pray tell, was my source. How about a friend of the poet’s who worked with him in South Shaftsbury.)
Like those in the Nor’East say, “Good fences make good neighbors.”
The line is not original. Bobby’s pal told me that the saying was a “pretty common one” among the Shaftsburians. Bobby appropriated the line in his poem “Mending Wall. (It is loved by millions of high school students). The main point of the poem is that “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” The key is “something.”
The fine and judicious, customer centric, and well-managed outfit Google is now in the process of understanding the “something that doesn’t love a wall,” digital or stone.
“Inside the Arms Race between YouTube and Ad Blockers” updates the effort of the estimable advertising outfit and — well — almost everyone. The article explains:
YouTube recently took dramatic action against anyone visiting its site with an ad blocker running — after a few pieces of content, it’ll simply stop serving you videos. If you want to get past the wall, that ad blocker will (probably) need to be turned off; and if you want an ad-free experience, better cough up a couple bucks for a Premium subscription.
The write up carefully explains that one must pay a “starting” monthly fee of $13.99 to avoid the highly relevant advertisements for metal men’s wallets, the total home gym which seems only inappropriate for a 79 year old dinobaby like me, and some type of women’s undergarment. Yeah, that ad matching to a known user is doing a bang up job in my opinion. I bet the Skim’s marketing manager is thrilled I am getting their message. How many packs of Skims do I buy in a lifetime? Zero. Yep, zero.
Yes, sir. Good fences make good neighbors. Good enough, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Okay, that’s the ad blocker thing, which I have identified as Google’s digital Battle of Waterloo in honor of a movie about everyone’s favorite French emperor, Nappy B.
But what the cited write up and most of the coverage is not focusing on is the question, “Why the user hostile move?” I want to share some of my team’s ideas about the motive force behind this disliked and quite annoying move by that company everyone loves (including the Skim’s marketing manager?).
First, the emergence of ChatGPT type services is having a growing impact on Google’s online advertising business. One can grind though Google’s financials and not find any specific item that says, “The Duke of Wellington and a crazy old Prussian are gearing up for a fight. So I will share some information we have rounded up by talking to people and looking through the data gathered about Googzilla. Specifically, users want information packaged to answer or to “appear” to answer their question. Some want lists; some want summaries; and some just want to avoid the enter the query, click through mostly irrelevant results, scan for something that is sort of close to an answer, and use that information to buy a ticket or get a Taylor Swift poster, whatever. That means that the broad trend in the usage of Google search is a bit like the town of Grindavik, Iceland. “Something” is going on, and it is unlikely to bode well for the future that charming town in Iceland. That’s the “something” that is hostile to walls. Some forces are tough to resist even by Googzilla and friends.
Second, despite the robust usage of YouTube, it costs more money to operate that service than it does to display from a cache ads and previously spidered information from Google compliant Web sites. Thus, as pressure on traditional search goes up from the ChatGPT type services, the darker the clouds on the search business horizon look. The big storm is not pelting the Googleplex yet, but it does looks ominous perched on the horizon and moving slowly. Don’t get our point wrong: Running a Google scale search business is expensive, but it has been engineered and tuned to deliver a tsunami of cash. The YouTube thing just costs more and is going to have a tough time replacing lost old-fashioned search revenue. What’s a pressured Googzilla going to do? One answer is, “Charge users.” Then raise prices. Gee, that’s the much-loved cable model, isn’t it? And the pressure point is motivating some users who are developers to find ways to cut holes in the YouTube fence. The fix? Make the fence bigger and more durable? Isn’t that a Rand arms race scenario? What’s an option? Where’s a J. Robert Oppenheimer-type when one needs him?
The third problem is that there is a desire on the part of advertisers to have their messages displayed in a non offensive context. Also, advertisers — because the economy for some outfits sucks — now are starting to demand proof that their ads are being displayed in front of buyers known to have an interest in their product. Yep, I am talking about the Skims’ marketing officer as well as any intermediary hosing money into Google advertising. I don’t want to try to convince those who are writing checks to the Google the following: “Absolutely. Your ad dollars are building your brand. You are getting leads. You are able to reach buyers no other outfit can deliver.” Want proof. Just look at this dinobaby. I am not buying health food, hidden carry holsters, and those really cute flesh colored women’s undergarments. The question is, “Are the ads just being dumped or are they actually targeted to someone who is interested in a product category?” Good question, right?
Net net: The YouTube ad blocking is shaping up to be a Google moment. Now Google has sparked an adversarial escalation in the world of YouTube ad blockers. What are Google’s options now that Googzilla is backed into a corner? Maybe Bobby Frost has a poem about it: “Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice.” How do Googzilla fare in the ice?
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2023
The RAG Snag: Convenience May Undermine Thinking for Millions
December 4, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My understanding is that everyone who is informed about AI knows about RAG. The acronym means Retrieval Augmented Generation. One explanation of RAG appears in the nVidia blog in the essay “What Is Retrieval Augmented Generation aka RAG.” nVidia, in my opinion, loves whatever drives demand for its products.
The idea is that machine processes to minimize errors in output. The write up states:
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a technique for enhancing the accuracy and reliability of generative AI models with facts fetched from external sources.
Simplifying the idea, RAG methods gather information and perform reference checks. The checks can be performed by consulting other smart software, the Web, or knowledge bases like an engineering database. nVidia provides a “reference architecture,” which obviously relies on nVidia products.
The write up does an obligatory tour of a couple of search and retrieval systems. Why? Most of the trendy smart software are demonstrations of information access methods wrapped up in tools that think for the “searcher” or person requiring output to answer a question, explain a concept, or help the human to think clearly. (In dinosaur days, the software is performing functions once associated with a special librarian or an informed colleague who could ask questions and conduct a reference interview. I hope the dusty concepts did not make you sneeze.)
“Yes, young man. The idea of using multiples sources can result in learning. We now call this RAG, not research.” The young man, stunned with the insight say, “WTF?” Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I love the dual tassels. The young expert is obviously twice as intelligent as the somewhat more experienced dinobaby with the weird fingers.
The article includes a diagram which I found difficult to read. I think the simple blocks represent the way in which smart software obviates the need for the user to know much about sources, verification, or provenance about the sources used to provide information. Furthermore, the diagram makes the entire process look just like getting the location of a pizza restaurant from an iPhone (no Google Maps for me).
The highlight of the write up are the links within the article. An interested reader can follow the links for additional information.
Several observations:
- The emergence of RAG as a replacement for such concepts as “search”, “special librarian,” and “provenance” makes clear that finding information is a problem not solved for systems, software, and people. New words make the “old” problem appear “new” again.
- The push for recursive methods to figure out what’s “right” or “correct” will regress to the mean; that is, despite the mathiness of the methods, systems will deliver “acceptable” or “average” outputs. A person who thinks that software will impart genius to a user are believing in a dream. These individuals will not be living the dream.
- widespread use of smart software and automation means that for most people, critical thinking will become the equivalent of an appendix. Instead of mother knows best, the system will provide the framing, the context, and the implication that the outputs are correct.
RAG opens new doors for those who operate widely adopted smart software systems will have significant control over what people think and, thus, do. If the iPhone shows a pizza joint, what about other pizza joints? Just ask. The system will not show pizza joints not verified in some way. If that “verification” requires the company advertising to be in the data set, well, that’s the set of pizza joints one will see. The others? Invisible, not on the radar, and doomed to failure seem their fate.
RAG is significant because it is new speak and it marks a disassociation of “knowing” from “accepting” output information as the best and final words on a topic. I want to point out that for a small percentage of humans, their superior cognitive abilities will ensure a different trajectory. The “new elite” will become the individuals who design, shape, control, and deploy these “smart” systems.
Most people will think they are informed because they can obtain information from a device. The mass of humanity will not know how information control influences their understanding and behavior. Am I correct? I don’t know. I do know one thing: This dinobaby prefers to do knowledge acquisition the old fashioned, slow, inefficient, and uncontrolled way.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
