A Pivot al Moment in Management Consulting
October 4, 2023
The practice of selling “management consulting” has undergone a handful of tectonic shifts since Edwin Booz convinced Sears, the “department” store outfit to hire him. (Yes, I am aware I am cherry picking, but this is a blog post, not a for fee report.)
The first was the ability of a consultant to move around quickly. Trains and Chicago became synonymous with management razzle dazzle. The center of gravity shifted to New York City because consulting thrives where there are big companies. The second was the institutionalization of the MBA as a certification of a 23 year old’s expertise. The third was the “invention” of former consultants for hire. The innovator in this business was Gerson Lehrman Group, but there are many imitators who hire former blue-chip types and resell them without the fee baggage of the McKinsey & Co. type outfits. And now the fourth earthquake is rattling carpetland and the windows in corner offices (even if these offices are in an expensive home in Wyoming.)
A centaur and a cyborg working on a client report. Thanks, MidJourney. Nice hair style on the cyborg.
Now we have the era of smart software or what I prefer to call the era of hyperbole about semi-smart semi-automated systems which output “information.” I noted this write up from the estimable Harvard University. Yes, this is the outfit who appointed an expert in ethics to head up the outfit’s ethics department. The same ethics expert allegedly made up data for peer reviewed publications. Yep, that Harvard University.
“Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier” is an essay crafted by the D^3 faculty. None of this single author stuff in an institution where fabrication of research is a stand up comic joke. “What’s the most terrifying word for a Harvard ethicist?” Give up? “Ethics.” Ho ho ho.
What are the highlights of this esteemed group of researches, thinkers, and analysts. I quote:
- For tasks within the AI frontier, ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance, boosting speed by over 25%, human-rated performance by over 40%, and task completion by over 12%.
- The study introduces the concept of a “jagged technological frontier,” where AI excels in some tasks but falls short in others.
- Two distinct patterns of AI use emerged: “Centaurs,” who divided and delegated tasks between themselves and the AI, and “Cyborgs,” who integrated their workflow with the AI.
Translation: We need fewer MBAs and old timers who are not able to maximize billability with smart or semi smart software. Keep in mind that some consultants view clients with disdain. If these folks were smart, they would not be relying on 20-somethings to bail them out and provide “wisdom.”
This dinobaby is glad he is old.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2023
Blue Chip Consultancy Gets Cute and Caught
October 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I was not going to read “PwC Caught Hiding Terms of secret Review.” However, my eye spotted the delectable name “Ziggy Switkowski” and I had to devour the write up. Imagine a blue chip outfit and a blue chip consultant named Ziggy.
The story reports about PwC (once the esteemed Price Waterhouse Coopers firm) and how it conducted a “secret internal investigation” in a “tax affair.” To me, the fuzzy words suggest tax fraud, but I am a dinobaby and a resident of Harrods Creek, Kentucky.
The Ziggy affair warranted this comment by the Klaxon, an Australian online publication:
“There’s only one reason why you’re not releasing your terms of reference,” governance expert Dr Andy Schmulow told The Klaxon last night. “And that’s because you know you’ve set up a sham inquiry”.
Imagine that! A blue chip consulting firm and a professional named Ziggy. What’s not to believe?
The article adds a rhetorical flourish; to wit:
In an interim report called “PwC: A calculated breach of trust” the inquiry found PwC was continuing to obfuscate, with its actions indicating “poor corporate culture” and a lack of “governance and accountability”. “PwC does not appear to understand proper process, nor do they see the need for transparency and accountability,” the report states. “Given the extent of the breach and subsequent cover-up now revealed on the public record, when is PwC going to come clean and begin to do the right thing?”
My hunch is that blue chip consulting firms may have a different view of what’s appropriate and what’s not. Tax irregularities. Definitely not worth the partners’ time. But Ziggy?
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2023
Google and Its Embarrassing Document: Sounds Like Normal Google Talk to Me
October 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “DOJ Finally Posted That Embarrassing Court Doc Google Wanted to Hide.” I was surprised that the anti-trust trial exhibit made its way to this link. My initial reaction was that the judge was acting in a non-Googley way. I am not sure some of the people I know want Google’s activities to be impaired in any way.
The senior technology executive who seems to look like a gecko lizard is explaining how a business process for an addictive service operates. Those attending the meeting believe that a “lock in” approach is just the ticket to big bucks in the zippy world of digital trank. Hey, MidJourney, nice lizard. Know any?
That geo-fencing capability is quite helpful to some professionals. The second thing that surprised me was… no wait. Let me quote the Ars Technica article first. The write up says:
The document in question contains meeting notes that Google’s vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, “created for a course on communications,” Bloomberg reported. In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google’s search advertising “is one of the world’s greatest business models ever created” with economics that only certain “illicit businesses” selling “cigarettes or drugs” “could rival.” At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn’t recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students “things I don’t believe as part of the presentation.” He also claimed that the notes were “full of hyperbole and exaggeration” and did not reflect his true beliefs, “because there was no business purpose associated with it.”
Gee, I believe this. Sincere, open comment about one’s ability to “recall” is in line with other Google professionals’ commentary; for example, Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer, but we will provide your office with that information. (Note: I am paraphrasing something I may have heard or hallucinated with Bard, or I may not “recall” where and when I heard that type of statement.)
Ars Technica is doing the he said thing in this statement:
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak’s statements “don’t reflect the company’s opinion” and “were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing.” The spokesman also noted that Roszak “testified he didn’t believe the statements to be true.” According to Bloomberg, Google lawyer Edward Bennett told the court that Roszak’s notes suggest that the senior executive’s plan for his presentation was essentially “cosplaying Gordon Gekko”—a movie villain who symbolizes corporate greed from 1987’s Wall Street.
I think the Gordon Gekko comparison is unfair. The lingo strikes me as normal Silicon Valley sell-it-with-sizzle lingo.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2023
Teens, Are You Bing-ing Yet?
October 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The online advertising and all-time champion of redacting documents has innovated again. “Google Expands Its Generative AI Search Experience to Teens Expected to Interact With a Chatbot—Is It Safe?” reports:
Google is opening its generative AI search experience to teenagers aged 13 to 17 in the United States with a Google Account. This expansion allows every teen to participate in Search Labs and engage with AI technology conversationally.
What will those teens do with smart software interested in conversational interactions. As a dinobaby, the memories of my teen experiences are fuzzy. I do recall writing reports for some of my classmates. If I were a teenie bopper with access to generative outputs, I would probably use that system to crank out for-fee writings. On the other hand, those classmates would just use the system themselves. Who wants to write about Lincoln’s night at the theater or how eager people from Asia built railroads.
The article notes:
Google is implementing an update to enhance the AI model’s ability to identify false or offensive premise queries, ensuring more accurate and higher-quality responses. The company is also actively developing solutions to enable large language models to self-assess their initial responses on sensitive subjects and rewrite them based on quality and safety criteria.
That’s helpful. Imagine training future Google advertising consumers to depend on the Google for truth. Redactions included, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2023
Do Teens Read or Screen Surf? Yes, Your Teens
October 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I am glad I am old. I read “Study Reveals Some Teens Receive 5,000 Notifications Daily, Most Spend Almost Two Hours on TikTok.” The write up is a collection of factoids. I don’t know if these are verifiable, but taken as a group, the message is tough to swallow. Here’s a sample of the data:
- Time spent of TikTok: Two hours a day or 38 percent of daily online use. Why? “Reading and typing are exhausting.”
- 20 percent of the teenies in the sample receive more than 500 notifications a day. A small percentage get 5,000 per day.
- 97 percent of teenies were on their phone during the school day.
The future is in the hands of the information gatekeepers and quasi-monopolies, not parents and teachers it seems.
What will a population of swipers, scrollers, and kick-backer do?
My answer is, “Not much other than information grazing.”
Sheep need herders and border collies nipping at their heels.
Thus, I am glad I am old.
Stephen E Arnold, October 2, 2023
The Murdoch Effect: Outstanding Information 24×7
October 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Rupert Murdoch is finally retiring and leaving his propaganda empire to his son Lachlan, who may or may not be even more right-wing than dear old dad. While other outlets ponder what this means for the future of News Corp, Gizmodo examines “All the Ways Rupert Murdoch Left his Grubby Fingerprints on Tech.” Writer Kyle Barr writes:
“You don’t become the biggest name in worldwide media without also becoming something of a major influence on tech. With his direct influence now waning, we can do a bit of an obituary on the mogul’s efforts to influence the world of tech, and how both his direct and unintended efforts have contributed to the shape of our current digital landscape. News Corp wanted to be the biggest name in digital media, and at every step it failed to compete with other big names, leaving it to rely on the bread and butter of its conservative news apparatus. Murdoch’s billions were involved in consolidating the world’s online media experience. His no-holds-barred operating philosophy would end up violating people’s privacy and setting us up for the state of current social media and content streaming. All the while, News Corp’s entities would struggle to find an actual, legitimate foothold in the digital frontier. Instead, Fox News and other Murdoch-owned brands facilitated a new media environment where disinformation ruled the day and truth was laid aside for conservative grievance.”
The write-up shares 11 indelible blotches Murdoch made on the tech landscape in slideshow form. A few key moments include buying up MySpace, thereby clearing the way for Facebook and its countless consequences; helping Mr. Trump rise to power; and buying and forwarding the decimation of one of my favorite childhood institutions, National Geographic. A couple noteworthy fumbles include investment in the fraudulent Theranos and the Dominion Lawsuit against Fox News. See the article for more of Barr’s examples. Now, we wonder, what marks will the junior Murdoch make?
Cynthia Murrell, October 2, 2023
Have You Tried to Delete Chat or Any Other Information from a Google System?
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-6.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Several years ago, I mistyped my email address on an Android device I was testing. When I set up another Android mobile, the misspelled email appeared. We searched available files on the mobile, Google’s email list for the account, and even poked under the hood to locate the misspelled email. There was no “delete” function, but its omission would not have made a difference. The misspelled email was there but not there. SMS messages are often equally slippery. Delete a thread and bang, it’s back. Somewhere, somehow, the wizards at Google have the ability to “find” information even thought the user cannot. Innovation, oversight, carelessness, or a stupid user? My thought is that the blame falls upon the stupid user.
A young engineer strokes the controls of the deletion and online tracking subsystem. With some careful knob twisting, the giant machine can output a reality shaped by the operator’s whims, fancies, and goals. Hey, MidJourney, how about that circular picture?
“History Is Turned Off”: What Google’s (Deleted) Chats Mean for Its Antitrust Battle with the DOJ”, if accurate, suggests a different capability exists for some Googlers. The article asserts:
lawyers for the U.S. government have tried to draw attention to a giant black hole at the center of the trial: a “remarkable” number of deleted employee chat conversations apparently about issues relevant to its lawsuit and others. “[A]lso can we change the setting of this group to history off,” CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in an October 2021 chat to one of his lieutenants ahead of a “leaders circle” meeting. History off meant their conversation would be deleted from the servers after 24 hours. Nine seconds later, Pinchai apparently tried to delete his message. When asked later under oath about the attempted deletion, he answered, “I don’t recall.”
True or false? The article adds this assertion:
In defending its auto-deletions, Google told the court that not saving all of those old chats would have been too burdensome, but it couldn’t prove that Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.”
The cited article contains additional information about missing data, deletions, or lapses of one sort or another. Googlers, it appears, are human.
Several observations:
- Those deletion tools appear to exist and work.
- Google’s storage subsystems do not contain certain information.
- Googler’s operate in a dimension which is different from the one in which users and possibly some non-Googley lawyers and advisors fellow travelers do not.
But will this assertion about “managing” information or “shaping” data matter? With the redacted documents and the restrictions placed on information reaching the public humming along, it seems as if a Silicon Valley reality distortion field is online and working. History is not turned off; it is framed and populated with filtered information. Thus, what Google does is the reality for many.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
What Is the US High-Tech Service Hosing Bad Info? X Marks the Spot for the EU
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-7.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I do my little, inconsequential blog posts to pass my time. I am a dinobaby, not an entitled and over-confident Millennial or troubled GenX or GenY grouser. The Twitter thing did not seem useful to me as a career builder, personal megaphone, and individualized hype machine. Sure, we once had a script to post headlines of my blog posts, but I don’t think that I had a single constructive outcome from that automated effort. However, Twitter or X did provide me with examples of bad actors, general scams, and assorted craziness for my lectures. But Twitter or X did not mark the spot for me.
Exactly who is the happy humanoid lost in space? Is it an EU regulator? Is it a certain Silicon Valley wizard? Is it journalist who wants to be famous on the X Twitter thing? Thanks, MidJourney. Your gradient descent is accelerating.
But the EU is a different beastie. I am a dinobaby; the EU is chock full of educated regulators, policy makers, and big thinkers. “The EU Says Twitter/X Is the Worst Platform for Disinformation” explains that X (the spot marker) is making it tough to report election misinformation just as the EU wants it to be easier to report the allegedly bad stuff. The article states:
The European Union has identified X, formerly Twitter, as the social media platform with the highest ratio of misinformation/disinformation posts. The news came just as X disabled a feature that allows users to report misinformation related to elections.
The article adds:
It was found that X, which is no longer under the voluntary Code, is the worst social media platform when it comes to this practice. It was also discovered that those spreading disinformation had a lot more followers than those who did not and they tend to have joined the platform more recently. The Code has 44 signatories, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, TikTok, and LinkedIn. Musk’s platform pulled out of the Code in May, a move that followed EU warnings that a lack of moderation could be inadvertently helping Vladimir Putin as Russian propaganda relating to the war in Ukraine isn’t being removed.
True or false? That depends, of course.
What’s interesting is that the X.com Twitter thing charts its own course on its poly-dimensional business road map. How will this work out? Probably in ways beyond the ken of a dinobaby. No wonder so many regulators are uncomfortable with US high-tech type companies.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
YouTube and Those Kiddos. Greed or Weird Fascination?
September 26, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google and its YouTube subsidiary are in probably in trouble again because they are spying on children. Vox explores if “Is YouTube Tracking Your Kids Again?” and sending them targeted ads. Two reports find that YouTube continues to collect data on kids despite promises not to do so. If YouTube is collecting data and sending targeted ads to young viewers it would violate the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection act (COPPA) and Google’s consent decree with the FTC.
Google agreed to the consent decree with the FTC to stop collecting kids’ online activity and selling it to advertisers. In order to regulate and comply with the decree and COPPA, YouTube creators must say if their channels or individual videos are kid friendly. If they are designated kid friendly then Google doesn’t collect data on the viewers. This only occurs on regular YouTube and not YouTube Kids.
Fairplay and Analytics researched YouTube data collection and released compromising reports. Fairplay, a children’s online safety group, had an ad campaign on YouTube and asked for it to target made for kids videos. The group discovered their ads played on videos that were kids only, basically confirming that targeted ads are still being shown to kids. Analytics found evidence that supports kid data collection too:
“The firm found trackers that Google uses specifically for advertising purposes and what appear to be targeted ads on “made for kids” videos. Clicking on those ads often took viewers to outside websites that definitely did collect data on them, even if Google didn’t. The report is careful to say that the advertising cookies might not be used for personalized advertising — only Google knows that — and so may still be compliant with the law. And Adalytics says the report is not definitively saying that Google violated COPPA: ‘The study is meant to be viewed as a highly preliminary observational analysis of publicly available information and empirical data.’”
Google denies the allegations and claims the information in the reports are skewed. YouTube states that ads on made for kids videos are contextual rather than targeted, implying they are shown to all kids instead of individualizing content. If Google and YouTube are to be in violation of the FTC decree and COPPA, Alphabet Inc would pay a very expensive fine.
It is hard to define what services and products that Google can appropriately offer kids. Google has a huge education initiative with everything from laptops to email services. Republicans and Democrats agree that it is important to protect kids online and hold Google and other companies liable. Will Google pay fines and not worry about the consequences? I have an idea. Let’s ask Meta’s new kid-oriented AI initiative. That sounds like a fine idea.
Whitney Grace, September 26, 2023
Amazon Switches To AI Review Summaries
September 22, 2023
The online yard sale eBay offers an AI-generated description feature for sellers. Following in the same vein, Engadget reports that, “Amazon Begins Rolling Out AI-Generated Review Summaries” for products with clickable keywords. Amazon announced in June 2023 that it was testing an AI summary tool across a a range of products. The company officially launched the tool in August declaring that AI is at the heart of Amazon.
Amazon developed the AI summary tool so consumers can read buyers’ opinions without scrolling through pages of information. The summaries are described as a wrap-up of customer consensus akin to film blurbs on Rotten Tomatoes. The AI summaries contain clickable tags that showcase common words and consistent themes from reviews. Clicking on the tags will take consumers to the full review with the information.
AI-generated review summaries bring up another controversial topic: Amazon and fake reviews. Fake reviews litter the selling platform like a slew of counterfeit products Amazon, eBay, and other online selling platforms battle. While Amazon claims it takes a proactive stance to detect and delete the reviews, it does not catch all the fakes. It is speculated that AI-generated reviews from ChatGPT or other chatbots are harder for Amazon to catch.
In regards to using its own AI summary tool, Amazon plans to only use it on verified purchases and using more AI models to detect fake reviews. Humans will be used for clarification with their more discerning organic brains. Amazon said about its news tool:
“‘We continue to invest significant resources to proactively stop fake reviews,’ Amazon Community Shopping Director Vaughn Schermerhorn said. ‘This includes machine learning models that analyze thousands of data points to detect risk, including relations to other accounts, sign-in activity, review history, and other indications of unusual behavior, as well as expert investigators that use sophisticated fraud-detection tools to analyze and prevent fake reviews from ever appearing in our store. The new AI-generated review highlights use only our trusted review corpus from verified purchases, ensuring that customers can easily understand the community’s opinions at a glance.’”
AI tools are trained using language models that contain known qualitative errors. The same AI tools are used to teach more AI and so on. While we do not know what Amazon is using to train its AI summary tool, we would not be surprised if the fake reviews are using similar training models to Amazon’s. It will come down to Amazon AI vs. counterfeit AI. Who will win?
Whitney Grace, September 22, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
