OpenAI Embarks on Taking Down the Big Guy in Web Search
February 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Google may be getting up there in Internet years; however, due to its size and dark shadow, taking the big fellow down and putting it out of the game may be difficult. Users are accustomed to the Google. Habits, particularly those which become semi automatic like a heroin addict’s fiddling with a spoon, are tough to break. After 25 years, growing out of a habit is reassuring to worried onlookers. But the efficacy of wait-and-see is not getting a bent person straight.
Taking down Googzilla may be a job for lots of little people. Thanks, Google ImageFX. Know thyself, right?
I read “OpenAI Is Going to Face an Uphill Battle If It Takes on Google Search.” The write up describes an aspirational goal of Sam AI-Man’s OpenAI system. The write up says:
OpenAI is reportedly building its own search product to take on Google.
OpenAI is jumping in a CRRC already crowded with special ops people. There is the Kagi subscription search. There is Phind.com and You.com. There is a one-man band called Stract and more. A new and improved Yandex is coming. The reliable Swisscows.com is ruminating in the mountains. The ever-watchful OSINT professionals gather search engines like a mother goose. And what do we get? Bing is going nowhere even with Copilot except in the enterprise market where Excel users are asking, “What the H*ll?” Meanwhile the litigating beast continues to capture 90 percent or more of search traffic and oodles of data. Okay, team, who is going to chop block the Google, a fat and slow player at that?
The write up opines:
But on the search front, it’s still all Google all the way. And even if OpenAI popularized the generative AI craze, the company has a long way to go if it hopes to take down the search giant.
Competitors can dream, plot, innovate, and issue press releases. But for the foreseeable future, the big guy is going to push others out of the way.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2024
Interesting Observations: Do These Apply to Technology Is a Problem Solver Thinking?
February 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read an interesting essay by Nat Eliason, an entity unknown previously to me. “A Map Is Not a Blueprint: Why Fixing Nature Fails.” is a short collection of the way human thought processes create some quite spectacular problems. His examples include weight loss compounds like Ozempic, transfats, and the once-trendy solution to mental issues, the lobotomy.
Humans can generate a map of a “territory” or a problem space. Then humans dig in and try to make sense of their representation. The problem is that humans may approach a problem and get the solution wrong. No surprise there. One of the engines of innovation is coming up with a solution to a problem created by something incorrectly interpreted. A recent example is the befuddlement of Mark Zuckerberg when a member of the Senate committee questioning him about his company suggested that the quite wealthy entrepreneur had blood on his hands. No wonder he apologized for creating a service that has the remarkable power of bringing people closer together, well, sometimes.
Immature home economics students can apologize for a cooking disaster. Techno feudalists may have a more difficult time making amends. But there are lawyers and lobbyists ready and willing to lend a hand. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
What I found interesting in Mr. Eliason’s essay was the model or mental road map humans create (consciously or unconsciously) to solve a problem. I am thinking in terms of social media, AI generated results for a peer-reviewed paper, and Web search systems which filter information to generate a pre-designed frame for certain topics.
Here’s the list of the five steps in the process creating interesting challenges for those engaged in and affected by technology today:
- Smart people see a problem, study it, and identify options for responding.
- The operations are analyzed and then boiled down to potential remediations.
- “Using our map of the process we create a solution to the problem.”
- The solution works. The downstream issues are not identified or anticipated in a thorough manner.
- New problems emerge as a consequence of having a lousy mental map of the original problem.
Interesting. Creating a solution to a technology-sparked problem without consequences may be one key to success. “I had no idea” or “I’m a sorry” makes everything better.
Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2024
Embrace Good Enough … or Less Than Good. Either Way Is Okay Today
February 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
As humans we want to be the best individual that we can be. We especially think about how to improve ourselves and examine our flaws during the New Year. Sophie McBain from The Guardian evaluated different approaches to life in the article, “The Big Idea: Is Being ‘Good Enough’ Better Than Perfection?” McBain discusses the differences between people who are fine with the “good enough” vs. perfection mentality.
A high school teacher admires a student who built an innovative chair desk. Yep, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
She uses Internet shopping to explain the differences between the two personality types. Perfectionists aka “maximizers” want to achieve the best of everything. It’s why they search for the perfect item online reading “best of…” lists and product reviews. This group spends hours finding the best items.“Good enough” people aka “satisfiers” review the same information but in lesser amounts and quickly make a decision.
Maximizers do better professionally, but they’re less happy in their personal lives. Satisfiers are happier because they use their time to pursue activities that make them happy. The Internet blasting ideal life styles also contributes to depressive outlooks:
“In his 2022 book, The Good-Enough Life, Avram Alpert argues that personal quests for greatness, and the unequal social systems that fuel these quests, are at the heart of much that is wrong in the world, driving overconsumption and environmental degradation, stark inequalities and increased unhappiness among people who feel locked in endless competition with one another. Instead of scrambling for a handful of places at the top, Alpert believes we’d all be better off dismantling these hierarchies, so that we no longer cultivate our talents to pursue wealth, fame or power, but only to enrich our own lives and those of others.”
McBain finishes her article by encouraging people to examine their life through a “good enough” lens. It’s a kind sentiment to share at the start of a New Year but it also encourages people to settle. If people aren’t happy with their life choice, they should critically evaluate them and tackle solutions. “Good enough” is great for unimportant tasks but “maximizing” potential for a better future is a healthier outlook.
Whitney Grace, February 16, 2024
Amazon: The Online Bookstore Has a Wet Basement and Termites
February 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a less-than-positive discussion of my favorite online bookstore Amazon. The analysis appears in the “real” news publication New York Magazine. The essay is a combo: Some news, some commentary, some management suggestions.
Two dinobabies are thinking about the good old days at Amazon. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Your indigestion on February 9, 2024, appears to have worked itself out. How’s that security coming along? Heh heh heh.
In my opinion, the news hook for “The Junkification of Amazon: Why Does It Feel Like the Company Is Making Itself Worse?” is that Amazon needs to generate revenue, profits, and thrill pulses for stakeholders. I understand this idea. But there is a substantive point tucked into the write up. Here it is:
The view of Amazon from China is worth considering everywhere. Amazon lets Chinese manufacturers and merchants sell directly to customers overseas and provides an infrastructure for Prime shipping, which is rare and enormously valuable. It also has unilateral power to change its policies or fees and to revoke access to these markets in an instant
Amazon has found Chinese products a useful source of revenue. What I think is important is that Temu is an outfit focused on chopping away at Amazon’s vines around the throats of its buyers and sellers. My hunch is that Amazon is not able to regain the trust buyers and sellers once had in the company. The article focuses on “junkification.” I think there is a simpler explanation; to wit:
Amazon has fallen victim to decision craziness. Let me offer a few suggestions.
First, consider the Kindle. A person who reads licenses an ebook for a Kindle. The Kindle software displays:
- Advertisements which are intended to spark another purchase
- An interface which does not provide access to the specific ebooks stored on the device
- A baffling collection of buttons, options, and features related to bookmarks and passages a reader finds interesting. However, the tools are non-functional when someone like me reads content like the Complete Works of William James or keeps a copy of the ever-popular Harvard “shelf of books” on a Kindle.
For me, the Kindle is useless, so I have switched to reading ebooks on my Apple iPad. At least, I can figure out what’s on the device, what’s available from the Apple store, and where the book I am currently reading is located. However, Amazon has not been thinking about how to make really cheap Kindle more useful to people who still read books.
A second example is the wild and crazy collection of Amazon.com features. I attempted to purchase a pair of grey tactical pants. I found the fabric I wanted. I skipped the weird pop ups. I ignored the videos. And the reviews? Sorry. Sales spam. I located the size I needed. I ordered. The product would arrive two days after I ordered. Here’s what happened:
- The pants were marked 32 waist, 32 inseam, but the reality was a 28 inch waist and a 28 inch inseam. The fix? I ordered the pants directly from the US manufacturer and donated the pants to the Goodwill.
- Returns at Amazon are now a major hassle at least in Prospect, Kentucky.
- The order did not come in two days as promised. The teeny weensy pants came in five days. The norm? Incorrect delivery dates. Perfect for porch pirates, right?
A third example is one I have mentioned in this blog and in my lectures about online fraud. I ordered a CPU. Amazon shipped me a pair of red panties. Nope, neither my style nor a CPU. About 90 days after the rather sporty delivery, emails, and an article in this blog, Amazon refunded my $550. The company did not want me to return the red panties. I have them hanging on my server room’s Movin’ Cool air conditioner.
The New York Magazine article does not provide much about what’s gone wrong at Amazon. I think my examples make clear these management issues:
- Decisions are not customer centric. Money is more important that serving the customer which is a belabored point in numerous Jeff Bezos letters before he morphed into a Miami social magnet.
- The staff at Amazon have no clue about making changes that ensure a positive experience for buyers or sellers. Amazon makes decisions to meet goals, check off an item on a to do list, or expend the minimum amount of mental energy to provide a foundation for better decisions for buyers and sellers.
- Amazon’s management is unable to prevent decision rot in several, quite different businesses. The AWS service has Byzantine pricing and is struggling to remain competitive in the midst of AI craziness. The logistics business cannot meet delivery targets displayed to a customer when he or she purchases a product. The hardware business is making customers more annoyed than at any previous time. Don’t believe me? Just ask a Ring customer about the price increase or an Amazon Prime customer about advertising in Amazon videos. And Kindle users? It is obvious no one at Amazon pays much attention to Kindle users so why start now? The store front functions are from Bizarro World. I have had to write down on notecards where to find my credit card “points,” how to navigate directly to listings for used music CDs, where my licensed Amazon eBooks reside and once there what the sort options actually do, and what I need to do when a previously purchased product displays lawn mowers, not men’s white T shirts.
Net net: I appreciate the Doctorow-esque word “junkification.” That is close to what Amazon is doing: Converting products and services into junk. Does Amazon’s basement have a leak? Are those termites up there?
Stephen E Arnold, February 15, 2024
What Does Eroding Intelligence Create? Take-a-Chance Apps in Curated App Stores
February 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am a real and still-alive dinobaby. I read “Undergraduates’ Average IQ Has Fallen 17 Points Since 1939. Here’s Why.” The headline tells the story. At least, Dartmouth is planning to use testing to make sure its admitted students can read and write. But it appears that interesting people are empowering certain business tactics whether they have great test scores or not.
“Warning: Fraudulent App Impersonating LastPass Currently Available in Apple App Store” strikes me as a good example of how tactics take advantage of what one might call somewhat slow or unaware people. The write up states:
The app attempts to copy our branding and user interface, though close examination of the posted screenshots reveal misspellings and other indicators the app is fraudulent.
Are there similarly structured apps in the Goggle Play store? You bet. A couple of days ago, I downloaded and paid a $1.95 for an app that allegedly would display the old-school per-core graphic load which Microsoft removed from Task Manager. Guess what? It did not load.
Several observations:
- The “stores” are not preventing problematic apps from being made available to users
- The people running the store are either unable to screen apps or just don’t care
- The baloney about curation is exactly that.
I wonder if the people running these curated app stores are unaware of what these misfires do to a customer. On the other hand, perhaps the customers neither know nor care that curated apps are creeping into fraud territory.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
Does Cheap and Sneaky Work Better than Expensive and Hyperbole?
February 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My father was a member of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR). He loved reading about that historical “special operation.” I think he imagine himself in a make-shift uniform, hiding behind some bushes, and then greeting the friend of George III with some old-fashioned malice. My hunch is that John Arnold’s descendants wrote anti-British editorials and gave speeches. But what do I know? Not much that’s for sure.
The David and Goliath trope may be applicable to the cheap drone tactic. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
I thought about how a rag-tag, under-supplied collection of colonials could bedevil the British when I read The Guardian’s essay “Deadly, Cheap and Widespread: How Iran-Supplied Drones Are Changing the Nature of Warfare.” The write up opines that the drone which killed several Americans in Iraq:
is most likely to the smaller Shahed 101 or delta winged Shahed 131, both believed to be in Kataib Hezbollah’s arsenal …with estimated ranges of at least 700km (434 miles) and a cost of $20,000 (£15,700) or more. (Source Fabian Hinz, a weapons expert)
The point strikes me as a variant of David versus Goliath. The giant gets hurt by a lesser opponent with a cheap weapon. Iran is using drones, not exotic hardware like the F-16s Türkiye craves. A flimsy drone does not require the obvious paraphernalia of power the advanced jet does. Tin snips, some parts from Shenzhen retail outlets, and model airplane controls. No hangers, mechanics, engineers, and specially trained pilots.
Shades of the Colonials I think. The article continues:
The drones …are best considered cheap substitutes for guided cruise missiles, most effective against soft or “static structures” which force those under threat to “either invest money in defenses or disperse and relocate which renders things like aircraft on bases more inefficient”
Is there a factoid in this presumably accurate story from a British newspaper? Yes. My take-away is that simple and basic can do considerable harm. Oh, let me add “economical”, but that is rarely a popular concept among some government entities and approved contractors.
Net net: How about thinking like some of those old-time Revolutionaries in what has become the US?
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
Universities and Innovation: Clever Financial Plays May Help Big Companies, Not Students
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read an interesting essay in The Economist (a newspaper to boot) titled “Universities Are Failing to Boost Economic Growth.” The write up contained some facts anchored in dinobaby time; for example, “In the 1960s the research and development (R&D) unit of DuPont, a chemicals company, published more articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech combined.”
A successful academic who exists in a revolving door between successful corporate employment and prestigious academic positions innovate with [a] a YouTube program, [b] sponsors who manufacture interesting products, and [c] taking liberties with the idea of reproducible results from his or her research. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Getting more invasive today, right?
I did not know that. I recall, however, that my former boss at Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the mid-1970s had me and couple of other compliant worker bees work on a project to update a big-time report about innovation. My recollection is that our interviews with universities were less productive than conversations held at a number of leading companies around the world. The gulf between university research departments had yet to morph into what were later called “technology transfer departments.” Over the years, as the Economist newspaper points out:
The golden age of the corporate lab then came to an end when competition policy loosened in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, growth in university research convinced many bosses that they no longer needed to spend money on their own. Today only a few firms, in big tech and pharma, offer anything comparable to the DuPonts of the past.
The shift, from my point of view, was that big companies could shift costs, outsource research, and cut themselves free from the wonky wizards that one could find wandering around the Cherry Hill Mall near the now-gone Bell Laboratories.
Thus, the schools became producers of innovation.
The Economist newspaper considers the question, “Why can’t big outfits surf on these university insights?” My question is, “Is the Economist newspaper overlooking the academic linkages that exist between the big companies producing lots of cash and a number of select universities. IBM is proud to be camped out at MIT. Google operates two research annexes at Stanford University and the University of Washington. Even smaller companies have ties; for example, Megatrends is close to Indiana University by proximity and spiritually linked to a university in a country far away. Accidents? Nope.
The Economist newspaper is doing the Oxford debate thing: From a superior position, the observations are stentorious. The knife like insights are crafted to cut those of lesser intellect down to size. Chop slice dice like a smart kitchen appliance.
I noted this passage:
Perhaps, with time, universities and the corporate sector will work together more profitably. Tighter competition policy could force businesses to behave a little more like they did in the post-war period, and beef up their internal research.
Is the Economist newspaper on the right track with this university R&D and corporate innovation arguments?
In a word, “Yep.”
Here’s my view:
- Universities teamed up with companies to get money in exchange for cheaper knowledge work subsidized by eager graduate students and PR savvy departments
- Companies used the tie ups to identify ideas with the potential for commercial application and the young at heart and generally naive students, faculty, and researchers as a recruiting short cut. (It is amazing what some PhDs would do for a mouse pad with a prized logo on it.)
- Researchers, graduate students, esteemed faculty, and probably motivated adjunct professors with some steady income after being terminated in a “real” job started making up data. (Yep, think about the bubbling scandals at Harvard University, for instance.)
- Universities embraced the idea that education is a business. Ah, those student loan plays were useful. Other outfits used the reputation to recruit students who would pay for the cost of a degree in cash. From what countries were these folks? That’s a bit of a demographic secret, isn’t it?
Where are we now? Spend some time with recent college graduates. That will answer the question, I believe. Innovation today is defined narrowly. A recent report from Google identified companies engaged in the development of mobile phone spyware. How many universities in Eastern Europe were on the Google list? Answer: Zero. How many companies and state-sponsored universities were on the list? Answer: Zero. How comprehensive was the listing of companies in Madrid, Spain? Answer: Incomplete.
I want to point out that educational institutions have quite distinct innovation fingerprints. The Economist newspaper does not recognize these differences. A small number of companies are engaged in big-time innovation while most are in the business of being cute or clever. The Economist does not pay much attention to this. The individuals, whether in an academic setting or in a corporate environment, are more than willing to make up data, surf on the work of other unacknowledged individuals, or suck of good ideas and information and then head back to a home country to enjoy a life better than some of their peers experience.
If we narrow the focus to the US, we have an unrecognized challenge — Dealing with shaped or synthetic information. In a broader context, the best instruction in certain disciplines is not in the US. One must look to other countries. In terms of successful companies, the financial rewards are shifting from innovation to me-too plays and old-fashioned monopolistic methods.
How do I know? Just ask a cashier (human, not robot) to make change without letting the cash register calculate what you will receive. Is there a fix? Sure, go for the next silver bullet solution. The method is working quite well for some. And what does “economic growth” mean? Defining terms can be helpful even to an Oxford Union influencer.
Stephen E Arnold, February 7, 2024
Surprising Real Journalism News: The Chilling Claws of AI
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I wanted to highlight two interesting items from the world of “real” news and “real” journalism. I am a dinobaby and not a “real” anything. I do, however, think these two unrelated announcements provide some insight into what 2024 will encourage.
The harvesters of information wheat face a new reality. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. How’s that email security? Ah, good enough. Okay.
The first item comes from everyone’s favorite, free speech service X.com (affectionately known to my research team as Xhitter). The item appears as a titbit from Max Tani. The message is an allegedly real screenshot of an internal memorandum from a senior executive at the Wall Street Journal. The screenshot purports to make clear that the Murdoch property is allowing some “real” journalists to find their future elsewhere. Perhaps in a fast food joint in Olney, Maryland? The screenshot is difficult for my 79-year-old eyes to read, but I got some help from one of my research team. The X.com payload says:
Today we announced a new structure in Washington [DC] that means a number of our colleagues will be leaving the paper…. The new Washington bureau will focus on politics, policy, defense, law, intelligence and national security.
Okay, people are goners. The Washington, DC bureau will focus on Washington, DC stuff. What was the bureau doing? Oh, perhaps that is why “our colleagues will be leaving the paper.” Cost cutting and focusing are in vogue.
The second item is titled “Q&A: How Thomson Reuters Used GenAI to Enable a Citizen Developer Workforce.” I want to alert you that the Computerworld article is a mere 3,800 words. Let me summarize the gist of the write up: “AI is going to replace expensive “real” journalists., My hunch is that some of the lawyers involved in annotating, assembling, and blessing the firm’s legal content. To Thomson Reuters’ credit, the company is trying to swizzle some sweetener into what may be a bitter drink for some involved with the “trust” crowd.
Several observations:
- It is about 13 months since Microsoft made AI its next big thing. That means that these two examples are early examples of what is going to happen to many knowledge workers
- Some companies just pull the pin; others are trying to find ways to avoid PR problems and lawsuits
- The more significant disruptions will produce a reasonably new type of worker push back.
Net net: Imagine what the next year will bring as AI efficiency digs in, bites tail feathers, and enriches those who sit in the top one percent.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
Google Gems for 6 February 2024
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Google has been busy. In order to provide an easy way to highlight groups of Googley action, we have grouped these into four clusters. These are arbitrary. Links are provided to the source of the gems.
Looking for Google Gems, a creation of MSFT Copilot Bing thing.
BIG MOVES
In the last week, everyone’s favorite online advertising entity worked tirelessly to demonstrate its lovable nature. Here are several big moves my research team and I found notable:
The first item concerns the estimable Google Play “store.” Customers were able to download what The Sun described as “spy apps.” What’s this situation, if true, say about Google’s ability to screen apps for its store? To learn more, navigate to this link.
The second “big” item is that Google’s management expertise was on display at an “all hands” meeting. According to Inc. Magazine:
“We’re talking about simplifying areas where we have unnecessary layers and removing bureaucracy to make sure the company works better,” Pichai said. The thing is, the only reason any of that is true is because Google has built that bureaucracy and added those layers. That didn’t happen on accident. It happened over time as the company grew and added managers and processes and products. It happened because of intentional choices about how to run the business. It just turns out that some of those choices didn’t pan out. “Part of leadership is also making the tough decisions that are needed,” Pichai said in response to one question.
The munchkins at the Google do not seem to be happy. Whose fault is this? I assume that the 23andMe approach is the explanation: “It’s your fault.”
The third item illustrates Google’s deft tactical actions when “responsible innovation” needs amping up. According to Wired Magazine, Google split up the team. If you are Google, creating a duplicative structure makes perfect sense particularly in the artificial intelligence sector. More complexity is a plus I assume.
The fourth item touches upon Google’s effort to make sure its users don’t wander off the reservation. The PressGazette reports:
Google is planning to force news publishers to group their websites into sets of five if they want to use certain functions in its new Privacy Sandbox online advertising system, which it has proposed will replace cookie functionality. Each group of five will then be published on GitHub, the coding website, where anyone will be able to see them.
The final Brobdingnagian item is Google’s unsurprising appeal of its recent jury trial loss to Epik, the online game outfit. No surprise, of course, but it’s the spirit of the Google which I find admirable: Never give up when one has numerous lawyers.
HELPING USERS
Google cares about its users. Users equal revenue. This is a basic fact among those who understand the company’s motivations. Let’s run down a handful of user-centric actions:
First, Google has dumped public access to cached Web pages, according to SERoundTable. The work-around is for the user to go to the woefully incomplete Internet Archive which is a far from comprehensive repository of Web pages. Helpful.
Second, users of Google Pixel phones or some Samsung mobiles. What about users of other Android devices? Sorry, according to Forbes, you are out of luck.
Third, Google and AI aggregator Hugging Face are cozying up in the cloud. Will this have an impact on the competitive AI space? Of course, not. Read more in the Verge, the explanation for the informed elite.
Fourth, Google has a “secret” browser. Learn more from Matan-h. Is this the first one? Nope, the second.
Fifth, if you own a Samsung TV and used the Google Assistant, you may have to find a new helper. TomsGuide.com reports that Google is removing this feature.
Sixth, Google’s smart watch can be used as — wait for it — a television remote. Learn more from Techradar.
Finally, Google continues its war against ad blockers. The goal is revenue. The AndroidPolice thinks the Google is behaving in a less than user-friendly way. Imagine that.
HORN TOOTING
Last week displayed some subdued Google horn toots. Let’s take a look:
Google is strapping AI to Google Maps. The idea is to make suggestions. What if a person just wants directions? Dumb question. Users will get smart recommendations. For a breathy explanation of Google wonderfulness, check out the Verge story.
Plus, after 14 months, the Google has rolled out image generation that is the apex of artistic excellence. How great is that? VentureBeat explains the achievement. Tom’s Hardware take a more techy approach to the announcement.
MONEY
One cannot overlook Google’s towering financial skyscrapers.
First, its annual revenue continues to climb. Details appear in Alphabet’s report.
Second, YouTube has become the little money factory Googlers lusted after. Even Variety lets its respect for cash flow sparkle in the insider’s news service. I want to point out that AndroidPolice asserted that YouTube has fewer paid subscribers than does Spotify. Is the solution an acquisition, predatory pricing, or removing Spotify from search results. These are actions Google would avoid, of course.
Third, Google is pinching pennies, not just firing employees to boost margins. Nope. According to Marketwatch, Google showed a $1.2 billion loss due to dumping office space. Is this important? Not to the former employees, but the landlords and banks counting on Google lease deals might be irritated.
A GEM TO REMEMBER
I mentioned Google’s management excellence elsewhere in this catalog of gems. I want to close with a nod to Yahoo News (who knew the Yahooligans did news?). The story recycles information about Google’s terminating employees, thus creating Xooglers in abundance. “Google’s Layoffs Already Impacted Its Culture. Now They’re Affecting Its Bottom Line” reports that employees (Xooglers) belonged to a “happy family.” Really?
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
Robots, Hard and Soft, Moving Slowly. Very Slooowly. Not to Worry, Humanoids
February 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
CNN that bastion of “real” journalism published a surprising story: “We May Not Lose Our Jobs to Robots So Quickly, MIT Study Finds.” Wait, isn’t MIT the outfit which had a tie up with the interesting Jeffrey Epstein? Oh, well.
The robots have learned that they can do humanoid jobs quickly and easily. But the robots are stupid, right? Yes, they are, but the managers looking for cost reductions and workforce reductions are not. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. How the security of the MSFT email today?
The story presents as actual factual an MIT-linked study which seems to go against the general drift of smart software, smart machines, and smart investors. The story reports:
new research suggests that the economy isn’t ready for machines to put most humans out of work.
The fresh research finds that the impact of AI on the labor market will likely have a much slower adoption than some had previously feared as the AI revolution continues to dominate headlines. This carries hopeful implications for policymakers currently looking at ways to offset the worst of the labor market impacts linked to the recent rise of AI.
The story adds:
One key finding, for example, is that only about 23% of the wages paid to humans right now for jobs that could potentially be done by AI tools would be cost-effective for employers to replace with machines right now. While this could change over time, the overall findings suggest that job disruption from AI will likely unfurl at a gradual pace.
The intriguing facet of the report and the research itself is that it seems to suggest that the present approach to smart stuff is working just fine, thank you very much. Why speed up or slow down? The “unfurling” is a slow process. No need for these professionals to panic as major firms push forward with a range of hard and soft robots:
- Consulting firms. Has MIT checked out Deloitte’s posture toward smart software and soft robots?
- Law firms. Has MIT talked to any of the Top 20 law firms about their use of smart software?
- Academic researchers. Has MIT talked to any of the graduate students or undergraduates about their use of smart software or soft robots to generate bibliographies, summaries of possibly non-reproducible studies, or books mentioning their professor?
- Policeware vendors. Companies like Babel Street and Recorded Future are putting pedal to the metal with regard to smart software.
My hunch is that MIT is not paying attention to the happy robots at Tesla or the bad actors using software robots to poke through the cyber defenses of numerous outfits.
Does CNN ask questions? Not that I noticed. Plus, MIT appears to want good news PR. I would too if I were known to be pals with certain interesting individuals.
Stephen E Arnold, February 1, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
