Wanna Be an AI Entrepreneur: Part 1, A How To from Crypto Experts
August 16, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
For those looking to learn more about AI, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz has gathered resources from across the Internet for a course of study it grandly calls the “AI Canon.” It is a VCs dream curriculum in artificial intelligence. Naturally, the authors include a link to each resource. The post states:
“Research in artificial intelligence is increasing at an exponential rate. It’s difficult for AI experts to keep up with everything new being published, and even harder for beginners to know where to start. So, in this post, we’re sharing a curated list of resources we’ve relied on to get smarter about modern AI. We call it the ‘AI Canon’ because these papers, blog posts, courses, and guides have had an outsized impact on the field over the past several years. We start with a gentle introduction to transformer and latent diffusion models, which are fueling the current AI wave. Next, we go deep on technical learning resources; practical guides to building with large language models (LLMs); and analysis of the AI market. Finally, we include a reference list of landmark research results, starting with ‘Attention is All You Need’ — the 2017 paper by Google that introduced the world to transformer models and ushered in the age of generative AI.”
Yes, the Internet is flooded with articles about AI, some by humans and some by self-reporting algorithms. Even this curated list is a bit overwhelming, but at least it narrows the possibilities. It looks like a good place to start learning more about this inescapable phenomenon. And while there, one can invest in the firm’s hottest prospects we think.
Cynthia Murrell, August 16, 2023
Does Information Filtering Grant the Power to Control People and Money? Yes, It Does
August 15, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read an article which I found interesting because it illustrates how filtering works. “YouTube Starts Mass Takedowns of Videos Promoting Harmful or Ineffective Cancer Cures.” The story caught my attention because I have seen reports that the US Food & Drug Administration has been trying to explain its use of language in the midst of the Covid anomaly. The problematic word is “quips.” The idea is that official-type information was not intended as more than a “quip.” I noted the explanations as reported in articles similar to “Merely Quips? Appeals Court Says FDA Denunciations of Iv$erm#ctin Look Like Command, Not Advice.” I am not interested in either the cancer or FDA intentions per se.
Two bright engineers built a “filter machine.” One of the engineers (the one with the hat) says, “Cool. We can accept a list of stop words or a list of urls on a watch list and block the content.” The other says, “Yes, and I have added a smart module so that any content entering the Info Shaper is stored. We don’t want to lose any valuable information, do we?” The fellow with the hat says, “No one will know what we are blocking. This means we can control messaging to about five billion people.” The co-worker says, “It is closer to six billion now.” Hey, MidJourney, despite your troubles with the outstanding Discord system, you have produced a semi-useful image a couple of weeks ago.
The idea which I circled in True Blue was:
The platform will also take action against videos that discourage people from seeking professional medical treatment as it sets out its health policies going forward.
I interpreted this to mean that Alphabet Google is now implementing what I would call editorial policies. The mechanism for deciding what content is “in bounds” and what content is “out of bounds” is not clear to me. In the days when there were newspapers and magazines and non-AI generated books, there were people of a certain type and background who wanted to work in departments responsible for defining and implementing editorial policies. In the days before digital online services destroyed the business models upon which these media depended were destroyed, the editorial policies operated as an important component of information machines. Commercial databases had editorial policies too. These policies helped provide consistent content based on the guidelines. Some companies did not make a big deal out of the editorial policies. Other companies and organizations did. Either way, the flow of digital content operated like a sandblaster. Now we have experienced 25 years of Wild West content output.
Why do II — a real and still alive dinobaby — care about the allegedly accurate information in “YouTube Starts Mass Takedowns of Videos Promoting Harmful or Ineffective Cancer Cures”? Here are three reasons:
- Control of information has shifted from hundreds of businesses and organizations to a few; therefore, some of the Big Dogs want to make certain they can control information. Who wants a fake cancer cure? Like other types of straw men, most people say yes to this type of filtering. A B testing can “prove” that people want this type of filtering I would suggest.
- The mechanisms to shape content have been a murky subject for Google and other high technology companies. If the “Mass Takedowns” write up is accurate, Google is making explicit its machine to manage information. Control of information in a society in which many people lack certain capabilities in information analysis and the skills to check the provenance of information are going to operate in a “frame” defined by a commercial enterprise.
- The different governmental authorities appear to be content to allow a commercial firm to become the “decider in chief” when it comes to information flow. With concentration and consolidation comes power in my opinion.
Is there a fix? No, because I am not sure that independent thinking individuals have the “horsepower” to redirect the direction the big machine is heading.
Why did I bother to write this? My hope is that someone start thinking about the implications of a filtering machine. If one does not have access to certain information like a calculus book, most people cannot solve calculus problems. The same consequence when information is simply not available. Ban books? Sure, great idea. Ban information about a medication? Sure, great idea. Ban discourse on the Internet? Sure, great idea.
You may see where this type of thinking leads. If you don’t, may I suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. You can find a copy at this link. (Verified on August 15, 2023, but it may be disappeared at any time. And if you can’t read it, you will not know what the savvy French guy spelled out in the mid 19th century.) If you don’t know something, then the information does not exist and will not have an impact on one’s “thinking.”
One final observation to young people, although I doubt I have any youthful readers: “Keep on scrolling.”
Stephen E Arnold, August 15, 2023
Killing Horses? Okay. Killing Digital Information? The Best Idea Ever!
August 14, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Fans at the 2023 Kentucky Derby were able to watch horses killed. True, the sport of kings parks vehicles and has people stand around so the termination does not spoil a good day at the races. It seems logical to me that killing information is okay too. Personally I want horses to thrive without brutalization with mint juleps, and in my opinion, information deserves preservation. Without some type of intentional or unintentional information, what would those YouTuber videos about ancient technology have to display and describe?
“In the Age of Culling” — an article in the online publication tedium.co — I noted a number of ideas which resonated with me. The first is one of the subheads in the write up; to wit:
CNet pruning its content is a harbinger of something bigger.
The basic idea in the essay is that killing content is okay, just like killing horses.
The article states:
I am going to tell you right now that CNET is not the first website that has removed or pruned its archives, or decided to underplay them, or make them hard to access. Far from it.
The idea is that eliminating content creates an information loss. If one cannot find some item of content, that item of content does not exist for many people.
I urge you to read the entire article.
I want to shift the focus from the tedium.co essay slightly.
With digital information being “disappeared,” the cuts away research, some types of evidence, and collective memory. But what happens when a handful of large US companies effectively shape the information training smart software. Checking facts becomes more difficult because people “believe” a machine more than a human in many situations.
Two girls looking at a museum exhibit in 2028. The taller girl says, “I think this is what people used to call a library.” The shorter girl asks, “Who needs this stuff. I get what I need to know online. Besides this looks like a funeral to me.” The taller girl replies, “Yes, let’s go look at the plastic dinosaurs. When you put on the headset, the animals are real.” Thanks MidJourney for not including the word “library” or depicting the image I requested. You are so darned intelligent!
Consider the power information filtering and weaponizing conveys to those relying on digital information. The statement “harbinger of something bigger” is correct. But if one looks forward, the potential for selective information may be the flip side of forgetting.
Trying to figure out “truth” or “accuracy” is getting more difficult each day. How does one talk about a subject when those in conversation have learned about Julius Caesar from a TikTok video and perceive a problem with tools created to sell online advertising?
This dinobaby understands that cars are speeding down the information highway, and their riders are in a reality defined by online. I am reluctant to name the changes which suggest this somewhat negative view of learning. One believes what one experiences. If those experiences are designed to generate clicks, reduce operating costs, and shape behavior — what’s the information landscape look like?
No digital archives? No past. No awareness of information weaponization? No future. Were those horses really killed? Were those archives deleted? Were those Shakespeare plays removed from the curriculum? Were the tweets deleted?
Let’s ask smart software. No thanks, I will do dinobaby stuff despite the efforts to redefine the past and weaponize the future.
Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2023
MBAs Want to Win By Delivering Value. It Is Like an Abstraction, Right?
August 11, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Is it completely necessary to bring technology into every aspect of one’s business? Maybe, maybe not. But apparently some believe such company-wide “digital transformation” is essential for every organization these days. And, of course, there are consulting firms eager to help. One such outfit, Third Stage Consulting Group, has posted some advice in, “How to Measure Digital Transformation Results and Value Creation.” Value for whom? Third Stage, perhaps? Certainly, if one takes writer Eric Kimberling on his invitation to contact him for a customized strategy session.
Kimberling asserts that, when embarking on a digital transformation, many companies fail to consider how they will keep the project on time, on budget, and in scope while minimizing operational disruption. Even he admits some jump onto the digital-transformation bandwagon without defining what they hope to gain:
“The most significant and crucial measure of success often goes overlooked by many organizations: the long-term business value derived from their digital transformation. Instead of focusing solely on basic reasons and justifications for undergoing the transformation, organizations should delve deeper into understanding and optimizing the long-term business value it can bring. For example, in the current phase of digital transformation, ERP [Enterprise Resource Planning] software vendors are pushing migrations to new Cloud Solutions. While this may be a viable long-term strategy, it should not be the sole justification for the transformation. Organizations need to define and quantify the expected business value and create a benefits realization plan to achieve it. … Considering the significant investments of time, money, and effort involved, organizations should strive to emerge from the transformation with substantial improvements and benefits.”
So companies should consider carefully what, if anything, they stand to gain by going through this process. Maybe some will find the answer is “nothing” or “not much,” saving themselves a lot of hassle and expense. But if one decides it is worth the trouble, rest assured many consultants are eager to guide you through. For a modest fee, of course.
Cynthia Murrell, August 11, 2023
Generative AI: Good or Bad the Content Floweth Forth
August 11, 2023
Hollywood writers are upset that major studios want to replace them with AI algorithms. While writing bots have not replaced human writers yet AI algorithms such as ChatGPT, Ryter, Writing.io, and more are everywhere. Threat Source Newsletter explains that, “Every Company Has Its Own Version of ChatGPT Now.”
A flood of content. Thinking drowned. Thanks Mid Journey. I wanted words but got letters. Great Job.
AI writing algorithms are also known as AI assistants. They are programmed to answer questions and perform text-based tasks. The text-based tasks include writing résumés, outlines, press releases, Web site content, and more. While the AI assistants still cannot pass the Turing test, it is not stopping big tech companies from developing their own bots. Meta released Llama 2 and IBM rebranded its powerful computer system from Watson to watsonx (it went from a big W to a lower case w and got an “x” too).
While Llama 2, the “new” Watson, and ChatGPT are helpful automation tools they are also dangerous tools for bad actors. Bad actors use these tools to draft spam campaigns, phishing emails, and scripts. Author Jonathan Munshaw tested AI assistants to see how they responded to illegal prompts.
Llama 2 refused to assist in generating an email for malware, while ChatGPT “gladly” helped draft an email. When Munshaw asked both to write a script to ask a grandparent for a gift card, each interpreted the task differently. Llama 2 advised Munshaw to be polite and aware of the elderly relative’s financial situation. ChatGPT wrote a TV script.
Munshaw wrote that:
“I commend Meta for seeming to have tighter restrictions on the types of asks users can make to its AI model. But, as always, these tools are far from perfect and I’m sure there are scripts that I just couldn’t think of that would make an AI-generated email or script more convincing.”
It will be awhile before writers are replaced by AI assistants. They are wonderful tools to improve writing but humans are still needed for now.
Whitney Grace, August 10, 2023
The Zuckbook Becomes Cooperative?
August 10, 2023
The Internet empowers people to voice their opinions without fear of repercussions or so they think. While the Internet generally remains anonymous, social media companies must bow to the letter of the law or face fines or other reprisals. Ars Technnica shares how a European court forced Meta to share user information in a civil case: “Facebook To Unmask Anonymous Dutch User Accused Of Repeated Defamatory Posts.”
The Netherlands’ Court of the Hague determined that Meta Ireland must share the identity of a user who defamed the claimant, a male Facebook user. The anonymous user “defamed” the claimant by stating he secretly recorded women he dated. The anonymous user posted the negative statements in private Facebooks groups about dating experiences. The claimant could not access the groups but he did see screenshots. He claimed the posts have harmed his reputation.
After cooperating, executives at a big time technology firm celebrate with joy and enthusiasm. Thanks, MidJourney. You have happiness down pat.
The claimant asked Meta to remove the posts but the company refused based on the grounds of freedom of expression. Meta encouraged the claimant to contact the other user, instead the claimant decided to sue.
Initially, the claimant asked the court to order Meta to delete the posts, identify the anonymous user, and flag any posts in other private Facebook groups that could defame the claimant.
While arguing the case, Meta had defended the anonymous user’s right to freedom of expression, but the court decided that the claimant—whose name is redacted in court documents—deserved an opportunity to challenge the allegedly defamatory statements.
Partly for that reason, the court ordered Meta to provide “basic subscriber information” on the anonymous user, including their username, as well as any names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account. The court did not order Meta to remove the posts or flag any others that may have been shared in private groups, though.”
The court decided that freedom of speech is not unlimited and the posts could be defamatory. The court also noted posts did not have to be deemed unlawful to de-anonymous a user.
This has the potential to be a landmark case in online user privacy and accountability on social media platforms. In the future, users might need to practice more restraint and think about consequences before posting online. They might want to read etiquette books from the pre-Internet days when constructive behavior was not an anomaly.
Whitney Grace, August 10, 2023
Technology and AI: A Good Enough and Opaque Future for Humans
August 9, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
“What Self Driving Cars Tell Us about AI Risks” provides an interesting view of smart software. I sensed two biases in the write up which I want to mention before commenting on the guts of the essay. The first bias is what I call “engineering blindspots.” The idea is that while flaws exist, technology gets better as wizards try and try again. The problem is that “good enough” may not lead to “better now” in a time measured by available funding. Therefore, the optimism engineers have for technology makes them blind to minor issues created by flawed “decisions” or “outputs.”
A technology wizard who took classes in ethics (got a gentleperson’s “C”, advanced statistics (got close enough to an “A” to remain a math major), and applied machine learning experiences a moment of minor consternation at a smart water treatment plant serving portions of New York City. The engineer looks at his monitor and says, “How did that concentration of 500 mg/L of chlorine get into the Newtown Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant?” MidJourney has a knack for capturing the nuances of an engineer’s emotions who ends up as a water treatment engineer, not an AI expert in Silicon Valley.
The second bias is that engineers understand inherent limitations. Non engineers “lack technical comprehension” and that smart software at this time does not understand “the situation, the context, or any unobserved factors that a person would consider in a similar situation.” The idea is that techno-wizards have a superior grasp of a problem. The gap between an engineer and a user is a big one, and since comprehension gaps are not an engineering problem, that’s the techno-way.
You may disagree. That’s what makes allegedly honest horse races in which stallions don’t fall over dead or have to be terminated in order to spare the creature discomfort and the owners big fees.
Now what about the innards of the write up?
- Humans make errors. This begs the question, “Are engineers human in the sense that downstream consequences are important, require moral choices, and like the humorous medical doctor adage “Do no harm”?
- AI failure is tough to predict? But predictive analytics, Monte Carlo simulations, and Fancy Dan statistical procedures like a humanoid setting a threshold because someone has to do it.
- Right now mathy stuff cannot replicate “judgment under uncertainty.” Ah, yes, uncertainty. I would suggest considering fear and doubt too. A marketing trifecta.
- Pay off that technical debt. Really? You have to be kidding. How much of the IBM mainframe’s architecture has changed in the last week, month, year, or — do I dare raise this issue — decade? How much of Google’s PageRank has been refactored to keep pace with the need to discharge advertiser paid messages as quickly as possible regardless of the user’s query? I know. Technical debt. No an issue.
- AI raises “system level implications.” Did that Israeli smart weapon make the right decision? Did the smart robot sever a spinal nerve? Did the smart auto mistake a traffic cone for a child? Of course not. Traffic cones are not an issue for smart cars unless one puts some on the road and maybe one on the hood of a smart vehicle.
Net net: Are you ready for smart software? I know I am. At the AutoZone on Friday, two individuals were unable to replace the paper required to provide a customer with a receipt. I know. I watched for 17 minutes until one of the young professionals gave me a scrawled handwritten note with the credit card code transaction number. Good enough. Let ‘er rip.
Stephen E Arnold, August 9, 2023
Someone Is Thinking Negatively and Avoiding Responsibility
August 9, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I have no idea how old the “former journalist” who wrote “I Feel Like an Old Shoe: Workers Feel Degraded and Cast Aside Because of Ageism.” Let’s consider a couple of snippets. Then I will offer several observations which demonstrate my lack of sympathy for individuals who want to blame their mental state on others. Spoiler: Others don’t care about anyone but themselves in my experience.
A high school student says to her teacher, “You are the reason I failed this math test. If you were a better teacher, I would have understood the procedure. But, no. You were busy focusing on the 10 year old genius who transferred into our class from Wuhan.” Baffled, the teacher says, “It is your responsibility to learn. There is plenty of help available from me, your classmates, or your tutor, Mr. Rao. You have to take responsibility and stop blaming others for what you did.” Thanks, MidJourney. Were you, by chance, one of those students who blame others for your faults?
Here’s a statement I noted:
“Employers told me individuals over 45 and particularly those over the age of 55 must be ‘exceptional’ in order to be hired. The most powerful finding for me however had to do with participants [of a survey] explaining that once they were labeled ‘old,’ they felt degraded and cast aside. One person told me, ‘I feel like an old shoe that’s of no use any more.’”
Okay, blame the senior managers, some of whom will be older, maybe old-age home grade like Warren Buffet or everyone’s favorite hero of Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), or possibly Mr. Biden. Do these people feel old and like an old shoe? I suppose but they put on a good show. Are these people exceptional? Sure, why not label them as such. My point is that they persevere.
Now this passage from the write up:
Over all, there are currently about the same number of younger and older workers. Nevertheless, the share of older workers has increased for almost all occupations.
These data originate from Statistics Canada. For my purposes, let’s assume that Canada data are similar to US data. If an older worker feels like an “old shoe,” perhaps a personal version of the two slit experiment is operation. The observer alters the reality. What this means is that when the worker looks at himself or herself, the reality is fiddled. Toss in some emotional baggage, like a bad experience in kindergarten, and one can make a case for “they did this to me.”
My personal view is that some radical empiricism may be helpful to those who are old and want to blame others for their perceived status, their prospects, or there personal situation.
I am not concerned about my age. I am going to be 79 in a few weeks. I am proud to be a dinobaby, a term coined by someone at IBM I have heard to refer to the deadwood. The idea was that “old” meant high salary and often an informed view of a business or technical process. Younger folks wanted to outsource and salary, age, and being annoying in meetings were convenient excuses for cost reduction.
I am working on a project for an AI outfit. I have a new book (which is for law enforcement professionals, not the humilus genus. I have a keynote speech to deliver in October 2023. In short, I keep doing what I have been doing since I left a PhD program to work for that culturally sensitive outfit which helped provide technical services to those who would make bombs and other oddments.
If a person in my lecture comes up to me and says, “I disagree,” I listen. I don’t whine, make excuses, or dodge the comment. I deal with it to the best of my ability. I am not going to blame anything or anyone for my age or my work product. People who grouse are making clear to me that they lack the mental wiring to provide immediate and direct problem solving skills and to be spontaneously helpful.
Sorry. The write up is not focusing on the fix which is inside the consciousness of the individuals who want to blame others for their plight in life.
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2023
Research 2023: Is There a Methodology of Control via Mendacious Analysis
August 8, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “How Facebook Does (and Doesn’t) Shape Our Political Views.” I am not sure what to conclude from the analysis of four studies about Facebook (is it Zuckbook?) presumably completed with some cooperation from the social media giant itself. The message I carried away from the write up is that tainted research may be the principal result of these supervised studies.
The up and coming leader says to a research assistant, “I am telling you. Manipulate or make up the data. I want the results I wrote about supported by your analysis. If you don’t do what I say, there will be consequences.” MidJourney does know how to make a totally fake leader appear intense.
Consider the state of research in 2023. I have mentioned the problem with Stanford University’s president and his making up data. I want to link the Stanford president’s approach to research with Facebook (Meta). The university has had some effect on companies in the Silicon Valley region. And Facebook (Meta) employs a number of Stanford graduates. For me, then, it is logical to consider the approach of the university to objective research and the behavior of a company with some Stanford DNA to share certain characteristics.
“How Facebook Does (and Doesn’t) Shape Our Political Views” offers this observation based on “research”:
“… the findings are consistent with the idea that Facebook represents only one facet of the broader media ecosystem…”
The summary of the Facebook-chaperoned research cites an expert who correctly in my my identifies two challenges presented by the “research”:
- Researchers don’t know what questions to ask. I think this is part of the “don’t know what they don’t know.” I accept this idea because I have witnessed it. (Example: A reporter asking me about sources of third party data used to spy on Americans. I ignored the request for information and disconnected from the reporter’s call.)
- The research was done on Facebook’s “terms”. Yes, powerful people need control; otherwise, the risk of losing power is created. In this case, Facebook (Meta) wants to deflect criticism and try to make clear that the company’s hand was not on the control panel.
Are there parallels between what the fabricating president of Stanford did with data and what Facebook (Meta) has done with its research initiative? Shaping the truth is common to both examples.
In Stanford’s Ideal Destiny, William James said this about about Stanford:
It is the quality of its men that makes the quality of a university.
What links the actions of Stanford’s soon-to-be-former president and Facebook (Meta)? My answer would be, “Creating a false version of objective data is the name of the game.” Professor James, I surmise, would not be impressed.
Stephen E Arnold, August 8, 2023
Another High School Tactic: I Am Hurt, Coach
August 7, 2023
This is a rainy Monday (August 7, 2023). From my point of view, the content flowing across my monitoring terminal is not too exciting. More security issue, 50-50 financial rumor mongering, and adult Internet users may be monitored (the world is coming to an end!). But in the midst of this semi-news was an item called “Musk Says He May Need Surgery, Will Get MRI on Back and Neck.” Wow. The ageing icon of self-driving autos which can run over dinobabies like me has dipped into his management Book of Knowledge for a tactic to avoid a “cage match” with the lovable Zuck, master of Threads and beloved US high-technology social media king thing.
“What do you mean, your neck hurts? I need you for the big game on Saturday. Win and you will be more famous than any other wizard with smart cars, rockets, and a social media service.” says the assistant coach. Thanks MidJourney, you are a sport.
You can get the information from the cited story, which points out:
The world’s richest person said he will know this week whether surgery will be required, ahead of his proposed cage fight with Meta Platforms Inc. co-founder Mark Zuckerberg. He previously said he “might need an operation to strengthen the titanium plate holding my C5/C6 vertebrae together.”
Mr. Zuckerberg allegedly is revved and ready. The write up reports:
Zuckerberg posted Sunday on Threads that he suggested Aug. 26 for the match and he’s still awaiting confirmation. “I’m ready today,” he said. “Not holding my breath.”
From my point of view, the tactic is similar to “the dog ate my homework.” This variant — I couldn’t do my homework because I was sick — comes directly from the Guide to the High School Science Club Management Method, known internationally as GHSSCMM. The information in this well-known business manual has informed outstanding decision making in personnel methods (Dr. Timnit Gebru, late of Google), executives giving themselves more money before layoffs (too many companies to identify in a blog post like this), and appearing in US Congressional hearings (Thank you for the question. I don’t know. I will have the information delivered to your office).
Health problems can be problematic. Will the cage match take place? What if Mr. Musk says, “I can fight.” Will Mr. Zuckerberg respond, “I sprained my ankle”? What does the GHSSCMM suggest in a tit-for-tat dynamic?
Perhaps we should ask both Mr. Musk’s generative AI system and the tame Zuckerberg LLAMLA? That’s “real” news.
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
