The Famous Google Paper about Attention, a Code Word for Transformer Methods
June 20, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb-26.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Wow, many people are excited a Bloomberg article called “The AI Boom Has Silicon Valley on Another Manic Quest to Change the World: A Guide to the New AI Technologies, Evangelists, Skeptics and Everyone Else Caught Up in the Flood of Cash and Enthusiasm Reshaping the Industry.”
In the tweets and LinkedIn posts one small factoid is omitted from the second hand content. If you want to read the famous DeepMind-centric paper which doomed the Google Brain folks to watch their future from the cheap seats, you can find “Attention Is All You Need”, branded with the imprimatur of the Neural Information Processing Systems Conference held in 2017. Here’s the link to the paper.
For those who read the paper, I would like to suggest several questions to consider:
- What economic gain does Google derive from proliferation of its transformer system and method; for example, the open sourcing of the code?
- What does “attention” mean for [a] the cost of training and [b] the ability to steer the system and method? (Please, consider the question from the point of view of the user’s attention, the system and method’s attention, and a third-party meta-monitoring system such as advertising.)
- What other tasks of humans, software, and systems can benefit from the user of the Transformer system and methods?
I am okay with excitement for a 2017 paper, but including a link to the foundation document might be helpful to some, not many, but some.
Net net: Think about Google’s use of the word “trust” and “responsibility” when you answer the three suggested questions.
Stephen E Arnold, June 20, 2023
Google: Smart Software Confusion
June 19, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-20.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 cannot understand. Not only am I old; I am a dinobaby. Furthermore, I am like one of William James’s straw men: Easy to knock down or set on fire. Bear with me this morning.
I read “Google Skeptical of AI: Google Doesn’t Trust Its Own AI Chatbots, Asks Employees Not to Use Bard.” The write up asserts as “real” information:
It seems that Google doesn’t trust any AI chatbot, including its own Bard AI bot. In an update to its security measures, Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company has asked its employees to keep sensitive data away from public AI chatbots, including their own Bard AI.
The go-to word for the Google in the last few weeks is “trust.” The quote points out that Google doesn’t “trust” its own smart software. Does this mean that Google does not “trust” that which it created and is making available to its “users”?
MidJourney, an interesting but possibly insecure and secret-filled smart software system, generated this image of Googzilla as a gatekeeper. Are gatekeepers in place to make money, control who does what, and record the comings and goings of people, data, and content objects?
As I said, I am a dinobaby, and I think I am dumb. I don’t follow the circular reasoning; for example:
Google is worried that human reviewers may have access to the chat logs that these chatbots generate. AI developers often use this data to train their LLMs more, which poses a risk of data leaks.
Now the ante has gone up. The issue is one of protecting itself from its own software. Furthermore, if the statement is accurate, I take the words to mean that Google’s Mandiant-infused, super duper, security trooper cannot protect Google from itself.
Can my interpretation be correct? I hope not.
Then I read “This Google Leader Says ML Infrastructure Is Conduit to Company’s AI Success.” The “this” refers to an entity called Nadav Eiron, a Stanford PhD and Googley wizard. The use of the word “conduit” baffles me because I thought “conduit” was a noun, not a verb. That goes to support my contention that I am a dumb humanoid.
Now let’s look at the text of this write up about Google’s smart software. I noted this passage:
The journey from a great idea to a great product is very, very long and complicated. It’s especially complicated and expensive when it’s not one product but like 25, or however many were announced that Google I/O. And with the complexity that comes with doing all that in a way that’s scalable, responsible, sustainable and maintainable.
I recall someone telling me when I worked at a Fancy Dan blue chip consulting firm, “Stephen, two objectives are zero objectives.” Obviously Google is orders of magnitude more capable than the bozos at the consulting company. Google can do 25 objectives. Impressive.
I noted this statement:
we created the OpenXLA [an open-source ML compiler ecosystem co-developed by AI/ML industry leaders to compile and optimize models from all leading ML frameworks] because the interface into the compiler in the middle is something that would benefit everybody if it’s commoditized and standardized.
I think this means that Google wants to be the gatekeeper or man in the middle.
Now let’s consider the first article cited. Google does not want its employees to use smart software because it cannot be trusted.
Is it logical to conclude that Google and its partners should use software which is not trusted? Should Google and its partners not use smart software because it is not secure? Given these constraints, how does Google make advances in smart software?
My perception is:
- Google is not sure what to do
- Google wants to position its untrusted and insecure software as the industry standard
- Google wants to preserve its position in a workflow to maximize its profit and influence in markets.
You may not agree. But when articles present messages which are alarming and clearly focused on market control, I turn my skeptic control knob. By the way, the headline should be “Google’s Nadav Eiron Says Machine Learning Infrastructure Is a Conduit to Facilitate Google’s Control of Smart Software.”
Stephen E Arnold, June 19, 2023
Is Smart Software Above Navel Gazing: Nope, and It Does Not Care
June 15, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Synthetic data. Statistical smoothing. Recursive methods. When we presented our lecture “OSINT Blindspots” at the 2023 National Cyber Crime Conference, the audience perked up. The terms might have been familiar, but our framing caught the more than 100 investigators’ attention. The problem my son (Erik) and I described was butt simple: Faked data will derail a prosecution if an expert witness explains that machine-generated output may be wrong.
We provided some examples, ranging from a respected executive who obfuscates his “real” business from a red-herring business. We profiled how information about a fervid Christian adherence to God’s precepts overshadowed a Ponzi scheme. We explained how an American living in Eastern Europe openly flaunts social norms in order to distract authorities from an encrypted email business set up to allow easy, seamless communication for interesting people. And we included more examples.
An executive at a big time artificial intelligence firm looks over his domain and asks himself, “How long will it take for the boobs and boobettes to figure out that our smart software is wonky?” The illustration was spit out by the clever bits and bytes at MidJourney.
What’s the point in this blog post? Who cares besides analysts, lawyers, and investigators who have to winnow facts which are verifiable from shadow or ghost information activities?
It turns out that a handful of academics seem to have an interest in information manipulation. Their angle of vision is broader than my team’s. We focus on enforcement; the academics focus on tenure or getting grants. That’s okay. Different points of view lead to interesting conclusions.
Consider this academic and probably tough to figure out illustration from “The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget”:
A less turgid summary of the researchers’ findings appears at this location.
The main idea is that gee-whiz methods like Snorkel and small language models have an interesting “feature.” They forget; that is, as these models ingest fake data they drift, get lost, or go off the rails. Synthetic cloth, unlike natural cotton T shirts, look like shirts. But on a hot day, those super duper modern fabrics can cause a person to perspire and probably emit unusual odors.
The authors introduce and explain “model collapse.” I am no academic. My interpretation of the glorious academic prose is that the numerical recipes, systems, and methods don’t work like the nifty demonstrations. In fact, over time, the models degrade. The hapless humanoids who are dependent on these lack the means to figure out what’s on point and what’s incorrect. The danger, obviously, is that clueless and lazy users of smart software make more mistakes in judgment than a person might otherwise reach.
The paper includes fancy mathematics and more charts which do not exactly deliver on the promise of a picture is worth a thousand words. Let me highlight one statement from the journal article:
Our evaluation suggests a “first mover advantage” when it comes to training models such as LLMs. In our work we demonstrate that training on samples from another generative model can induce a distribution shift, which over time causes Model Collapse. This in turn causes the model to mis-perceive the underlying learning task. To make sure that learning is sustained over a long time period, one needs to make sure that access to the original data source is preserved and that additional data not generated by LLMs remain available over time. The need to distinguish data generated by LLMs from other data raises questions around the provenance of content that is crawled from the Internet: it is unclear how content generated by LLMs can be tracked at scale. One option is community-wide coordination to ensure that different parties involved in LLM creation and deployment share the information needed to resolve questions of provenance. Otherwise, it may become increasingly difficult to train newer versions of LLMs without access to data that was crawled from the Internet prior to the mass adoption of the technology, or direct access to data generated by humans at scale.
Bang on.
What the academics do not point out are some “real world” business issues:
- Solving this problem costs money; the point of synthetic and machine-generated data is to reduce costs. Cost reduction wins.
- Furthermore, fixing up models takes time. In order to keep indexes fresh, delays are not part of the game plan for companies eager to dominate a market which Accenture pegs as worth trillions of dollars. (See this wild and crazy number.)
- Fiddling around to improve existing models is secondary to capturing the hearts and minds of those eager to worship a few big outfits’ approach to smart software. No one wants to see the problem because that takes mental effort. Those inside one of firms vying to own information framing don’t want to be the nail that sticks up. Not only do the nails get pounded down, they are forced to leave the platform. I call this the Dr. Timnit Gebru effect.
Net net: Good paper. Nothing substantive will change in the short or near term.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2023
Two Creatures from the Future Confront a Difficult Puzzle
June 15, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-12.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 was interested in a suggestion a colleague made to me at lunch. “Check out the new printed World Book encyclopedia.”
I replied, “A new one. Printed? Doesn’t information change quickly today.”
My lunch colleague said, “That’s what I have heard.”
I offered, “Who wants a printed, hard-to-change content objects? Where’s the fun in sneaky or sockpuppet edits? Do you really want to go back to non-fluid information?”
My hungry debate opponent said, “What? Do you mean misinformation is good?”
I said, “It’s a digital world. Get with the program.”
Navigate to World Book.com and check out the 10 page sample about dinosaurs. When I scanned the entry, there was no information about dinobabies. I was disappointed because the dinosaur segment is bittersweet for these reasons:
- The printed encyclopedia is a dinosaur of sorts, an expensive one to produce and print at that
- As a dinobaby, I was expecting an IBM logo or maybe an illustration of a just-RIF’ed IBM worker talking with her attorney about age discrimination
- Those who want to fill a bookshelf can buy books at a second hand bookstore or connect with a zippy home designer to make the shelf tasteful. I think there is wallpaper of books on a shelf as an alternative.
Two aliens are trying to figure out what a single volume of a World Book encyclopedia contains? I assume the creatures will be holding the volume 6 “I”, the one with information about the Internet. The image comes from the creative bits at MidJourney.
Let me dip into my past. Ah, you are not interested? Tough. Here we go down memory lane:
In 1953 or 1954, my father had an opportunity to work in Brazil. Off our family went. One of the must-haves was a set of World Book encyclopedias. The covers were brown; the pictures were most black and white; and the information was, according to my parents, accurate.
The schools in Campinas, Brazil, at that time used one language. Portuguese. No teacher spoke English. Therefore, after failing every class except mathematics, my parents decided to get me a tutor. The course work was provided by something called Calvert in Baltimore, Maryland. My teacher would explain the lesson, watch me read, ask me a couple of questions, and bail out after an hour or two. That lasted about as long as my stint in the Campinas school near our house. My tutor found himself on the business end of a snake. The snake lived; the tutor died.
My father — a practical accountant — concluded that I should read the World Book encyclopedia. Every volume. I think there were about 20 plus a couple of annual supplements. My mother monitored my progress and made me write summaries of the “interesting” articles. I recall that interesting or not, I did one summary a day and kept my parents happy.
I hate World Books. I was in the fourth or fifth grade. Campinas had great weather. There were many things to do. Watch the tarantulas congregate in our garage. Monitor the vultures circling my mother when she sunbathed on our deck. Kick a soccer ball when the students got out of school. (I always played. I sucked, but I had a leather, size five ball. Prior to our moving to the neighborhood, the kids my age played soccer with a rock wrapped in rags. The ball was my passport to an abuse free stint in rural Brazil.)
But a big chunk of my time was gobbled by the yawing white maw of a World Book.
When we returned to the US, I entered the seventh grade. No one at the public school in Illinois asked about my classes in Brazil. I just showed up in Miss Soape’s classroom and did the assignments. I do know one thing for sure: I was the only student in my class who did not have to read the assigned work. Reading the World Book granted me a free ride through grade school, high school, and the first couple of years at college.
Do I recommend that grade school kids read the World Book cover to cover?
No, I don’t. I had no choice. I had no teacher. I had no radio because the electricity was on several hours a day. There was no TV because there were no broadcasts in Campinas. There were no English language anything. Thus, the World Book, which I hate, was the only game in town.
Will I buy the print edition of the 2023 World Book? Not a chance.
Will other people? My hunch is that sales will be a slog outside of library acquisitions and a few interior decorators trying to add color to a client’s book shelf.
I may be a dinobaby, but I have figured out how to look up information online.
The book thing: I think many young people will be as baffled about an encyclopedia as the two aliens in the illustration.
By the way, the full set is about $1,200. A cheap smartphone can be had for about $250. What will kids use to look up information? If you said, the printed encyclopedia, you are a rare bird. If you move to a remote spot on earth, you will definitely want to lug a set with you. Starlink can be expensive.
Stephen E Arnold, June 14, 2023
Smart Software: The Dream of Big Money Raining for Decades
June 14, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb-3.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The illustration — from the crafty zeros and ones at MidJourney — depicts a young computer scientist reveling in the cash generated from his AI-infused innovation.
For a budding wizard, the idea of cash falling around the humanoid is invigorating. It is called a “coder’s high” or Silicon Valley fever. There is no known cure, even when FTX-type implosions doom a fellow traveler to months of litigation and some hard time among individuals typically not in an advanced math program.
Where’s the cyclone of cash originate?
I would submit that articles like “Generative AI Revenue Is Set to Reach US$1.3 Trillion in 2032” are like catnip to a typical feline living amidst the cubes at a Google-type company or in the apartment of a significant other adjacent a blue chip university in the US.
Here’s the chart that makes it easy to see the slope of the growth:
I want to point out that this confection is the result of the mid tier outfit IDC and the fascinating Bloomberg terminal. Therefore, I assume that it is rock solid, based on in-depth primary research, and deep analysis by third-party consultants. I do, however, reserve the right to think that the chart could have been produced by an intern eager to hit the gym and grabbing a sushi special before the good stuff was gone.
Will generative AI hit the $1.3 trillion target in nine years? In the hospital for recovering victims of spreadsheet fever, the coder’s high might slow recovery. But many believe — indeed, fervently hope to experience the realities of William James’s mystics in his Varieties of Religious Experience.
My goodness, the vision of money from Generative AI is infectious. So regulate mysticism? Erect guard rails to prevent those with a coder’s high from driving off the Information Superhighway?
Get real.
Stephen E Arnold, June 12, 2023
Can One Be Accurate, Responsible, and Trusted If One Plagiarizes
June 14, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-14.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.
Now that AI is such a hot topic, tech companies cannot afford to hold back due to small flaws. Like a tendency to spit out incorrect information, for example. One behemoth seems to have found a quick fix for that particular wrinkle: simple plagiarism. Eager to incorporate AI into its flagship Search platform, Google recently released a beta version to select users. Forbes contributor Matt Novak was among the lucky few and shares his observations in, “Google’s New AI-Powered Search Is a Beautiful Plagiarism Machine.”
The author takes us through his query and results on storing live oysters in the fridge, complete with screenshots of the Googlebot’s response. (Short answer: you can for a few days if you cover them with a damp towel.) He highlights passages that were lifted from websites, some with and some without tiny tweaks. To be fair, Google does link to its source pages alongside the pilfered passages. But why click through when you’ve already gotten what you came for? Novak writes:
“There are positive and negative things about this new Google Search experience. If you followed Google’s advice, you’d probably be just fine storing your oysters in the fridge, which is to say you won’t get sick. But, again, the reason Google’s advice is accurate brings us immediately to the negative: It’s just copying from websites and giving people no incentive to actually visit those websites.
Why does any of this matter? Because Google Search is easily the biggest driver of traffic for the vast majority of online publishers, whether it’s major newspapers or small independent blogs. And this change to Google’s most important product has the potential to devastate their already dwindling coffers. … Online publishers rely on people clicking on their stories. It’s how they generate revenue, whether that’s in the sale of subscriptions or the sale of those eyeballs to advertisers. But it’s not clear that this new form of Google Search will drive the same kind of traffic that it did over the past two decades.”
Ironically, Google’s AI may shoot itself in the foot by reducing traffic to informative websites: it needs their content to answer queries. Quite the conundrum it has made for itself.
Cynthia Murrell, June 14, 2023
Sam AI-man Speak: What I Meant about India Was… Really, Really Positive
June 13, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb-2.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I have noted Sam AI-man of OpenAI and his way with words. I called attention to an article which quoted him as suggesting that India would be forever chasing the Usain Bolt of smart software. Who is that? you may ask. The answer is, Sam AI-man.
MidJourney’s incredible insight engine generated an image of a young, impatient business man getting a robot to write his next speech. Good move, young business man. Go with regressing to the norm and recycling truisms.
The remarkable explainer appears in “Unacademy CEO Responds To Sam Altman’s Hopeless Remark; Says Accept The Reality.” Here’s the statement I noted:
Following the initial response, Altman clarified his remarks, stating that they were taken out of context. He emphasized that his comments were specifically focused on the challenge of competing with OpenAI using a mere $10 million investment. Altman clarified that his intention was to highlight the difficulty of attempting to rival OpenAI under such constrained financial circumstances. By providing this clarification, he aimed to address any misconceptions that may have arisen from his earlier statement.
To see the original “hopeless” remark, navigate to this link.
Sam AI-man is an icon. My hunch is that his public statements have most people in awe, maybe breathless. But India as hopeless in smart software. Just not too swift. Why not let ChatGPT craft one’s public statements. Those answers are usually quite diplomatic, even if wrong or wonky some times.
Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2023
Google: FUD Embedded in the Glacier Strategy
June 9, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-11.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.
Fly to Alaska. Stand on a glacier and let the guide explains the glacier moves, just slowly. That’s the Google smart software strategy in a nutshell. Under Code Red or Red Alert or “My goodness, Microsoft is getting media attention for something other than lousy code and security services. We have to do something sort of quickly.”
One facet of the game plan is to roll out a bit of FUD or fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That will send chills to some interesting places, won’t it. You can see this in action in the article “Exclusive: Google Lays Out Its Vision for Securing AI.” Feel the fear because AI will kill humanoids unless… unless you rely on Googzilla. This is the only creature capable of stopping the evil that irresponsible smart software will unleash upon you, everyone, maybe your dog too.
The manager of strategy says, “I think the fireball of AI security doom is going to smash us.” The top dog says, “I know. Google will save us.” Note to image trolls: This outstanding illustration was generated in a nonce by MidJourney, not an under-compensated creator in Peru.
The write up says:
Google has a new plan to help organizations apply basic security controls to their artificial intelligence systems and protect them from a new wave of cyber threats.
Note the word “plan”; that is, the here and now equivalent of vaporware or stuff that can be written about and issued as “real news.” The guts of the Google PR is that Google has six easy steps for its valued users to take. Each step brings that user closer to the thumping heart of Googzilla; to wit:
- Assess what existing security controls can be easily extended to new AI systems, such as data encryption;
- Expand existing threat intelligence research to also include specific threats targeting AI systems;
- Adopt automation into the company’s cyber defenses to quickly respond to any anomalous activity targeting AI systems;
- Conduct regular reviews of the security measures in place around AI models;
- Constantly test the security of these AI systems through so-called penetration tests and make changes based on those findings;
- And, lastly, build a team that understands AI-related risks to help figure out where AI risk should sit in an organization’s overall strategy to mitigate business risks.
Does this sound like Mandiant-type consulting backed up by Google’s cloud goodness? It should because when one drinks Google juice, one gains Google powers over evil and also Google’s competitors. Google’s glacier strategy is advancing… slowly.
Stephen E Arnold, June 9, 2023
How Does One Train Smart Software?
June 8, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/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.
It is awesome when geekery collides with the real world, such as the development of AI. These geekery hints prove that fans are everywhere and the influence of fictional worlds leave a lasting impact. Usually these hints are naming a new discovery after a favorite character or franchise, but it might not be good for copyrighted books beloved by geeks everywhere. The New Scientist reports that “ChatGPT Seems To Be Trained On Copyrighted Books Like Harry Potter.”
In order to train AI models, AI developers need large language models or datasets. Datasets can range from information on social media platforms to shopping databases like Amazon. The problem with ChatGPT is that it appears its developers at OpenAI used copyrighted books as language models. If OpenAI used copyrighted materials it brings into question if the datasets were legality created.
Associate Professor David Bamman of the University of California, Berkley campus, and his team studied ChatGPT. They hypothesized that OpenAI used copyrighted material. Using 600 fiction books from 1924-2020, Bamman and his team selected 100 passages from each book that ha a single, named character. The name was blanked out of the passages, then ChatGPT was asked to fill them. ChatGPT had a 98% accuracy rate with books ranging from J.K. Rowling, Ray Bradbury, Lewis Carroll, and George R.R. Martin.
If ChatGPT is only being trained from these books, does it violate copyright?
“ ‘The legal issues are a bit complicated,’ says Andres Guadamuz at the University of Sussex, UK. ‘OpenAI is training GPT with online works that can include large numbers of legitimate quotes from all over the internet, as well as possible pirated copies.’ But these AIs don’t produce an exact duplicate of a text in the same way as a photocopier, which is a clearer example of copyright infringement. ‘ChatGPT can recite parts of a book because it has seen it thousands of times,’ says Guadamuz. ‘The model consists of statistical frequency of words. It’s not reproduction in the copyright sense.’”
Individual countries will need to determine dataset rules, but it is preferential to notify authors their material is being used. Fiascos are already happening with stolen AI generated art.
ChatGPT was mostly trained on science fiction novels, while it did not read fiction from minority authors like Toni Morrison. Bamman said ChatGPT is lacking representation. That his one way to describe the datasets, but it more likely pertains to the human AI developers reading tastes. I assume there was little interest in books about ethics, moral behavior, and the old-fashioned William James’s view of right and wrong. I think I assume correctly.
Whitney Grace, June 8, 2023
IBM Dino Baby Unhappy about Being Outed as Dinobaby in the Baby Wizards Sandbox
June 5, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-1.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 learned the term “dinobaby” reading blog posts about IBM workers who alleged Big Blue wanted younger workers. After thinking about the term, I embraced it. This blog post features an animated GIF of me dancing in my home office. I try to avoid the following: [a] Millennials, GenX, GenZ, and GenY super wizards; [b] former IBM workers who grouse about growing old and not liking a world without CICS; and [c] individuals with advanced degrees who want to talk with me about “smart software.” I have to admit that I have not been particularly successful in this effort in 2023: Conferences, Zooms, face-to-face meetings, lunches, yada yada. Either I am the most magnetic dinobaby in Harrod’s Creek, or these jejune world changers are clueless. (Maybe I should live in a cave on a mountain and accept acolytes?)
I read “Laid-Off 60-Year-Old Kyndryl Exec Says He Was Told IT Giant Wanted New Blood.” The write up includes a number of interesting statements. Here’s one:
BM has been sued numerous times for age discrimination since 2018 when it was reported that company leadership carried out a plan to de-age its workforce – charges IBM has consistently denied, despite US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) findings to the contrary and confidential settlements.
Would IBM deny allegations of age discrimination? There are so many ways to terminate employees today. Why use the “you are old, so you are RIF’ed” ploy? In my opinion, it is an example of the lack of management finesse evident in many once high-flying companies today. I term the methods apparently in use at outfits like Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others as “high school science club management methods” or H2S2M2. The acronym has not caught one, but I assume that someone with a subscription to ChatGPT will use AI to write a book on the subject soon.
The write up also includes this statement:
Liss-Riordan [an attorney representing the dinobaby] said she has also been told that an algorithm was used to identify those who would lose their jobs, but had no further details to provide with regard to that allegation.
Several observations are warranted:
- Discrimination is nothing new. Oldsters will be nuked. No question about it. Why? Old people like me (I am 78) make younger folks nervous because we belong in warehouses for the soon dead, not giving lectures to the leaders of today and tomorrow.
- Younger folks do not know what they do not know. Consequently, opportunities exist to [a] make fun of young wizards as I do in this blog Monday through Friday since 2008 and [b] charge these “masters of the universe” money to talk about that which is part of their great unknowing. Billing is rejuvenating.
- No one cares. One can sue. One can rage. One can find solace in chemicals, fast cars, or climbing a mountain. But it is important to keep one thing in mind: No one cares.
Net net: Does IBM practice dark arts to rid the firm of those who slow down Zoom meetings, raise questions to which no one knows answers, and burdens on benefits plans? My hunch is that IBM type outfits will do what’s necessary to keep the camp ground free of old timers. Who wouldn’t?
Stephen E Arnold, June 5, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
