Googley Gems: 2024 Starts with Some Hoots
January 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Another year and I will turn 80. I have seen some interesting things in my 58 year work career, but a couple of black swans have flown across my radar system. I want to share what I find anomalous or possibly harbingers of the new normal.
A dinobaby examines some Alphabet Google YouTube gems. The work is not without its AGonY, however. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
First up is another “confession” or “tell all” about the wild, wonderful Alphabet Google YouTube or AGY. (Wow, I caught myself. I almost typed “agony”, not AGY. I am indeed getting old.)
I read “A Former Google Manager Says the Tech Giant Is Rife with Fiefdoms and the Creeping Failure of Senior Leaders Who Weren’t Making Tough Calls.” The headline is a snappy one. I like the phrase “creeping failure.” Nifty image like melting ice and tundra releasing exciting extinct biological bits and everyone’s favorite gas. Let me highlight one point in the article:
[Google has] “lots of little fiefdoms” run by engineers who didn’t pay attention to how their products were delivered to customers. …this territorial culture meant Google sometimes produced duplicate apps that did the same thing or missed important features its competitors had.
I disagree. Plenty of small Web site operators complain about decisions which destroy their businesses. In fact, I am having lunch with one of the founders of a firm deleted by Google’s decider. Also, I wrote about a fellow in India who is likely to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged Googlers because he shoots videos of India’s temples and suggests they have meanings beyond those inculcated in certain castes.
My observation is that happy employees don’t run conferences to explain why Google is a problem or write these weird “let me tell you what life is really like” essays. Something is definitely being signaled. Could it be distress, annoyance, or down-home anger? The “gem”, therefore, is AGY’s management AGonY.
Second, AGY is ramping up its thinking about monetization of its “users.” I noted “Google Bard Advanced Is Coming, But It Likely Won’t Be Free” reports:
Google Bard Advanced is coming, and it may represent the company’s first attempt to charge for an AI chatbot.
And why not? The Red Alert hooted because MIcrosoft’s 2022 announcement of its OpenAI tie up made clear that the Google was caught flat footed. Then, as 2022 flowed, the impact of ChatGPT-like applications made three facets of the Google outfit less murky: [a] Google was disorganized because it had Google Brain and DeepMind which was expensive and confusing in the way Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First Routine” made people laugh. [b] The malaise of a cooling technology frenzy yielded to AI craziness which translated into some people saying, “Hey, I can use this stuff for answering questions.” Oh, oh, the search advertising model took a bit of a blindside chop block. And [c] Google found itself on the wrong side of assorted legal actions creating a model for other legal entities to explore, probe, and probably use to extract Google’s life blood — Money. Imagine Google using its data to develop effective subscription campaigns. Wow.
And, the final Google gem is that Google wants to behave like a nation state. “Google Wrote a Robot Constitution to Make Sure Its New AI Droids Won’t Kill Us” aims to set the White House and other pretenders to real power straight. Shades of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. The write up reports:
DeepMind programmed the robots to stop automatically if the force on its joints goes past a certain threshold and included a physical kill switch human operators can use to deactivate them.
You have to embrace the ethos of a company which does not want its “inventions” to kill people. For me, the message is one that some governments’ officials will hear: Need a machine to perform warfighting tasks?
Small gems but gems not the less. AGY, please, keep ‘em coming.
Stephen E Arnold, January 9, 2024
Remember Ike and the MIC: He Was Right
January 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
It used to be common for departing Pentagon officials and retiring generals to head for weapons makers like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But the hot new destination is venture capital firms, according to
the article, “New Spin on a Revolving Door: Pentagon Officials Turned Venture Capitalists” at DNYUZ. We learn:
“The New York Times has identified at least 50 former Pentagon and national security officials, most of whom left the federal government in the last five years, who are now working in defense-related venture capital or private equity as executives or advisers. In many cases, The Times confirmed that they continued to interact regularly with Pentagon officials or members of Congress to push for policy changes or increases in military spending that could benefit firms they have invested in.”
Yes, pressure from these retirees-turned-venture-capitalists has changed the way agencies direct their budgets. It has also achieved advantageous policy changes: The Defense Innovation Unit now reports directly to the defense secretary. Also, the prohibition against directing small-business grants to firms with more than 50% VC funding has been scrapped.
In one way this trend could be beneficial: instead of lobbying for federal dollars to flow into specific companies, venture capitalists tend to advocate for investment in certain technologies. That way, they hope, multiple firms in which they invest will profit. On the other hand, the nature of venture capitalists means more pressure on Congress and the military to send huge sums their way. Quickly and repeatedly. The article notes:
“But not everyone on Capitol Hill is pleased with the new revolving door, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who raised concerns about it with the Pentagon this past summer. The growing role of venture capital and private equity firms ‘makes President Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex seem quaint,’ Ms. Warren said in a statement, after reviewing the list prepared by The Times of former Pentagon officials who have moved into the venture capital world. ‘War profiteering is not new, but the significant expansion risks advancing private financial interests at the expense of national security.’”
Senator Warren may have a point: the article specifies that many military dollars have gone to projects that turned out to be duds. A few have been successful. See the write-up for those details. This moment in geopolitics is an interesting time for this change. Where will it take us?
Cynthia Murrell, January 9, 2024
Is Philosophy Irrelevant to Smart Software? Think Before Answering, Please
January 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I listened to Lex Fridman’s interview with the founder of Extropic. The is into smart software and “inventing” a fresh approach to the the plumbing required to make AI more like humanoids.
As I listened to the questions and answers, three factoids stuck in my mind:
- Extropic’s and its desire to just go really fast is a conscious decision shared among those involved with the company; that is, we know who wants to go fast because they work there or work at the firm. (I am not going to argue about the upside and downside of “going fast.” That will be another essay.)
- The downstream implications of the Extropic vision are secondary to the benefits of finding ways to avoid concentration of AI power. I think the idea is that absolute power produces outfits like the Google-type firms which are bedeviling competitors, users, and government authorities. Going fast is not a thrill for processes that require going slow.
- The decisions Extropic’s founder have made are bound up in a world view, personal behaviors for productivity, interesting foods, and learnings accreted over a stellar academic and business career. In short, Extropic embodies a philosophy.
Philosophy, therefore, influences decisions. So we come to my topic in this essay. I noted two different write ups about how informed people take decisions. I am not going to refer to philosophers popular in introductory college philosophy classes. I am going to ignore the uneven treatment of philosophers in Will and Ariel Durant’s Story of Philosophy. Nah. I am going with state of the art modern analysis.
The first online article I read is a survey (knowledge product) of the estimable IBM / Watson outfit or a contractor. The relatively current document is “CEO Decision Making in the Ago of AI.” The main point of the document in my opinion is summed up in this statement from a computer hardware and services company:
Any decision that makes its way to the CEO is one that involves high degrees of uncertainty, nuance, or outsize impact. If it was simple, someone else— or something else—would do it. As the world grows more complex, so does the nature of the decisions landing on a CEO’s desk.
But how can a CEO decide? The answer is, “Rely on IBM.” I am not going to recount the evolution (perhaps devolution) of IBM. The uncomfortable stories about shedding old employees (the term dinobaby originated at IBM according to one former I’ve Been Moved veteran). I will not explain how IBM’s decisions about chip fabrication, its interesting hiring policies of individuals who might have retained some fondness for the land of their fathers and mothers, nor the fancy dancing required to keep mainframes as a big money pump. Nope.
The point is that IBM is positioning itself as a thought leader, a philosopher of smart software, technology, and management. I find this interesting because IBM, like some Google type companies, are case examples of management shortcoming. These same shortcomings are swathed in weird jargon and buzzwords which are bent to one end: Generating revenue.
Let me highlight one comment from the 27 page document and urge you to read it when you have a few moments free. Here’s the one passage I will use as a touchstone for “decision making”:
The majority of CEOs believe the most advanced generative AI wins.
Oh, really? Is smart software sufficiently mature? That’s news to me. My instinct is that it is new information to many CEOs as well.
The second essay about decision making is from an outfit named Ness Labs. That essay is “The Science of Decision-Making: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things.” The structure of this essay is more along the lines of a consulting firm’s white paper. The approach contrasts with IBM’s free-floating global survey document.
The obvious implication is that if smart people are making dumb decisions, smart software can solve the problem. Extropic would probably agree and, were the IBM survey data accurate, “most CEOs” buy into a ride on the AI bandwagon.k
The Ness Labs’ document includes this statement which in my view captures the intent of the essay. (I suggest you read the essay and judge for yourself.)
So, to make decisions, you need to be able to leverage information to adjust your actions. But there’s another important source of data your brain uses in decision-making: your emotions.
Ah, ha, logic collides with emotions. But to fix the “problem” Ness Labs provides a diagram created in 2008 (a bit before the January 2022 Microsoft OpenAI marketing fireworks:
Note that “decide” is a mnemonic device intended to help me remember each of the items. I learned this technique in the fourth grade when I had to memorize the names of the Great Lakes. No one has ever asked me to name the Great Lakes by the way.
Okay, what we have learned is that IBM has survey data backing up the idea that smart software is the future. Those data, if on the money, validate the go-go approach of Extropic. Plus, Ness Labs provides a “decider model” which can be used to create better decisions.
I concluded that philosophy is less important than fostering a general message that says, “Smart software will fix up dumb decisions.” I may be over simplifying, but the implicit assumptions about the importance of artificial intelligence, the reliability of the software, and the allegedly universal desire by big time corporate management are not worth worrying about.
Why is the cartoon philosopher worrying? I think most of this stuff is a poorly made road on which those jockeying for power and money want to drive their most recent knowledge vehicles. My tip? Look before crossing that information superhighway. Speeding myths can be harmful.
Stephen E Arnold, January 8, 2024
AI Ethics: Is That What Might Be Called an Oxymoron?
January 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
MSN.com presented me with this story: “OpenAI and Microsoft on Trial — Is the Clash with the NYT a Turning Point for AI Ethics?” I can answer this question, but that would spoil the entertainment value of my juxtaposition of this write up with the quasi-scholarly list of business start up resources. Why spoil the fun?
Socrates is lecturing at a Fancy Dan business school. The future MBAs are busy scrolling TikTok, pitching ideas to venture firms, and scrolling JustBang.com. Viewing this sketch, it appears that ethics and deep thought are not as captivating as mobile devices and having fund. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Two tries and a good enough image.
The article asks a question which I find wildly amusing. The “on trial” write up states in 21st century rhetoric:
The lawsuit prompts critical questions about the ownership of AI-generated content, especially when it comes to potential inaccuracies or misleading information. The responsibility for losses or injuries resulting from AI-generated content becomes a gray area that demands clarification. Also, the commercial use of sourced materials for AI training raises concerns about the value of copyright, especially if an AI were to produce content with significant commercial impact, such as an NYT bestseller.
For more than two decades online outfits have been sucking up information which is usually slapped with the bright red label “open source information.”
The “on trial” essay says:
The future of AI and its coexistence with traditional media hinges on the resolution of this legal battle.
But what about ethics? The “on trial” write up dodges the ethics issue. I turned to a go-to resource about ethics. No, I did not look at the papers of the Harvard ethics professor who allegedly made up data for ethic research. Ho ho ho. Nope. I went to the Enchanting Trader and its list of 4000+ Essential Business Startup Database of information.
I displayed the full list of resources and ran a search for the word “ethics.” There was one hit to “Will Joe Rogan Ever IPO?” Amazing.
What I concluded is that “ethics” is not number one with a bullet among the resources of the 4000+ essential business start up items. It strikes me that a single trial about smart software is unlikely to resolve “ethics” for AI. If it does, will the resolution have the legs that Socrates’ musing have had. More than likely, most people will ask, “Who is Socrates?” or “What the heck are ethics?”
Stephen E Arnold, January 5, 2023
YouTube: Personal Views, Policies, Historical Information, and Information Shaping about Statues
January 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have never been one to tour ancient sites. Machu Pichu? Meh. The weird Roman temple in Nimes? When’s lunch? The bourbon trail? You must be kidding me! I have a vivid memory of visiting the US Department of Justice building for a meeting, walking through the Hall of Justice, and seeing Lady Justice covered up. I heard that the drapery cost US$8,000. I did not laugh, nor did I make any comments about cover ups at that DoJ meeting or subsequent meetings. What a hoot! Other officials have covered up statues and possibly other disturbing things.
I recall the Deputy Administrator who escorted me and my colleague to a meeting remarking, “Yeah, Mr. Ashcroft has some deeply held beliefs.” Yep, personal beliefs, propriety, not offending those entering a US government facility, and a desire to preserve certain cherished values. I got it. And I still get it. Hey, who wants to lose a government project because some sculpture artist type did not put clothes on a stone statue?
Are large technology firms in a position to control, shape, propagandize, and weaponize information? If the answer is, “Sure”, then users are little more than puppets, right? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
However, there are some people who do visit historical locations. Many of these individuals scrutinize the stone work, the carvings, and the difficulty of moving a 100 ton block from Point A (a quarry 50 miles away) to Point B (a lintel in the middle of nowhere). I am also ignorant of art because I skipped Art History in college. I am clueless about ancient history. (I took another useless subject like a math class.) And many of these individuals have deep-rooted beliefs about the “right way” to present information in the form of stone carvings.
Now let’s consider a YouTuber who shoots videos in temples in southeast Asia. The individual works hard to find examples of deep meanings in the carvings beyond what the established sacred texts present. His hobby horse, as I understand the YouTuber, is that ancient aliens, fantastical machines, and amazing constructions are what many carvings are “about.” Obviously if one embraces what might be received wisdom about ancient texts from Indian and adjacent / close countries, the presentation of statues with disturbing images and even more troubling commentary is a problem. I think this is the same type of problem that a naked statue in the US Department of Justice posed.
The YouTuber allegedly is Praveen Mohan, and his most recent video is “YouTube Will Delete Praveen Mohan Channel on January 31.” Mr. Mohan’s angle is to shoot a video of an ancient carving in a temple and suggest that the stone work conveys meanings orthogonal to the generally accepted story about giant temple carvings. From my point of view, I have zero clue if Mr. Mohan is on the money with his analyses or if he is like someone who thinks that Peruvian stone masons melted granite for Cusco’s walls. The point of the video is that by taking pictures of historical sites and their carvings violates YouTube’s assorted rules, regulations, codes, mandates, and guidelines.
Mr. Mohan expresses the opinion that he will be banned, blocked, downchecked, punished, or made into a poster child for stone pornography or some similar punishment. He shows images which have been demonetized. He shows his “dashboard” with visual proof that he is in hot water with the Alphabet Google YouTube outfit. He shows proof that his videos are violating copyright. Okay. Maybe a reincarnated stone mason from ancient times has hired a lawyer, contacted Google from a quantum world, and frightened the YouTube wizards? I don’t know.
Several question arose when my team and I discussed this interesting video addressing YouTube’s actions toward Mr. Mohan. Let me share several with you:
- Is the alleged intentional action against Mr. Mohan motivated by Alphabet Google YouTube managers with roots in southeast Asia? Maybe a country like India? Maybe?
- Is YouTube going after Mr. Mohan because his making videos about religious sites, icons, and architecture is indeed a violation of copyright? I thought India was reasonably aggressive in its enforcement of its laws? Has Alphabet Google YouTube decided to help out India and other countries with ancient art by southeast Asia countries’ ancient artisans?
- Has Mr. Mohan created a legal problem for YouTube and the company is taking action to shore up its legal arguments should the naked statue matter end up in court?
- Is Mr. Mohan’s assertion about directed punishment accurate?
Obviously there are many issues in play. Should one try to obtain more clarification from Alphabet Google YouTube? That’s a great idea. Mr. Mohan may pursue it. However, will Google’s YouTube or the Alphabet senior management provide clarification about policies?
I will not hold my breath. But those statues covered up in the US Department of Justice reflected one person’s perception of what was acceptable. That’s something I won’t forget.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2024
Does Amazon Do Questionable Stuff? Sponsored Listings? Hmmm.
January 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Amazon, eBay, other selling platforms allow vendors to buy sponsored ads or listings. Sponsored ads or listings promote products and services to the top of search results. It’s similar to how Google sells ads. Unfortunately Google’s search results are polluted with more sponsored ads than organic results. Sponsored ads might not be a wise investment. Pluralistic explains that sponsored ads are really a huge waste of money: “Sponsored Listings Are A Ripoff For Sellers.”
Amazon relies on a payola sponsored ad system, where sellers bid to be the top-ranked in listings even if their products don’t apply to a search query. Payola systems are illegal but Amazon makes $31 billion annually from its system. The problem is that the $31 billion is taken from Amazon sellers who pay it in fees for the privilege to sell on the platform. Sellers then recoup that money from consumers and prices are raised across all the markets. Amazon controls pricing on the Internet.
Another huge part of a seller’s budget is for Amazon advertising. If sellers don’t buy ads in searches that correspond to their products, they’re kicked off the first page. The Amazon payola system only benefits the company and sellers who pay into the payola. Three business-school researchers Vibhanshu Abhishek, Jiaqi Shi and Mingyu Joo studied the harmful effects of payolas:
“After doing a lot of impressive quantitative work, the authors conclude that for good sellers, showing up as a sponsored listing makes buyers trust their products less than if they floated to the top of the results "organically." This means that buying an ad makes your product less attractive than not buying an ad. The exception is sellers who have bad products – products that wouldn’t rise to the top of the results on their own merits. The study finds that if you buy your mediocre product’s way to the top of the results, buyers trust it more than they would if they found it buried deep on page eleventy-million, to which its poor reviews, quality or price would normally banish it. But of course, if you’re one of those good sellers, you can’t simply opt not to buy an ad, even though seeing it with the little "AD" marker in the thumbnail makes your product less attractive to shoppers. If you don’t pay the danegeld, your product will be pushed down by the inferior products whose sellers are only too happy to pay ransom.”
It’s getting harder to compete and make a living on online selling platforms. It would be great if Amazon sided with the indy sellers and quit the payola system. That will never happen.
Whitney Grace, January 4, 2024
23AndMe: The Genetics of Finger Pointing
January 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Well, well, another Silicon Valley outfit with Google-type DNA relies on its hard-wired instincts. What’s the situation this time? “23andMe Tells Victims It’s Their Fault That Their Data Was Breached” relates a now a well-known game plan approach to security problems. What’s the angle? Here’s what the story in Techcrunch asserts:
Some rhetorical tactics are exemplified by children who blame one another for knocking the birthday cake off the counter. Instinct for self preservation creates these all-too-familiar situations. Are Silicon Valley-type outfit childish? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. I had to change the my image request three times to avoid the negative filter for arguing children. Your approach is good enough.
Facing more than 30 lawsuits from victims of its massive data breach, 23andMe is now deflecting the blame to the victims themselves in an attempt to absolve itself from any responsibility…
I particularly liked this statement from the Techcrunch article:
And the consequences? The US legal processes will determine what’s going to happen.
After disclosing the breach, 23andMe reset all customer passwords, and then required all customers to use multi-factor authentication, which was only optional before the breach. In an attempt to pre-empt the inevitable class action lawsuits and mass arbitration claims, 23andMe changed its terms of service to make it more difficult for victims to band together when filing a legal claim against the company. Lawyers with experience representing data breach victims told TechCrunch that the changes were “cynical,” “self-serving” and “a desperate attempt” to protect itself and deter customers from going after the company.
Several observations:
- I particularly like the angle that cyber security is not the responsibility of the commercial enterprise. The customers are responsible.
- The lack of consequences for corporate behaviors create opportunities for some outfits to do some very fancy dancing. Since a company is a “Person,” Maslow’s hierarchy of needs kicks in.
- The genetics of some firms function with little regard for what some might call social responsibility.
The result is the situation which not even the original creative team for the 1980 film Airplane! (Flying High!) could have concocted.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2024
Forget Being Powerless. Get in the Pseudo-Avatar Business Now
January 3, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “A New Kind of AI Copy Can Fully Replicate Famous People. The Law Is Powerless.” Okay, okay. The law is powerless because companies need to generate zing, money, and growth. What caught my attention in the essay was its failure to look down the road and around the corner of a dead man’s curve. Oops. Sorry, dead humanoids curve.
The write up states that a high profile psychologist had a student who shoved the distinguished professor’s outputs into smart software. With a little deep fakery, the former student had a digital replica of the humanoid. The write up states:
Over two months, by feeding every word Seligman had ever written into cutting-edge AI software, he and his team had built an eerily accurate version of Seligman himself — a talking chatbot whose answers drew deeply from Seligman’s ideas, whose prose sounded like a folksier version of Seligman’s own speech, and whose wisdom anyone could access. Impressed, Seligman circulated the chatbot to his closest friends and family to check whether the AI actually dispensed advice as well as he did. “I gave it to my wife and she was blown away by it,” Seligman said.
The article wanders off into the problems of regulations, dodges assorted ethical issues, and ignores copyright. I want to call attention to the road ahead just like the John Doe n friend of Jeffrey Epstein. I will try to peer around the dead humanoid’s curve. Buckle up. If I hit a tree, I would not want you to be injured when my Ford Pinto experiences an unfortunate fuel tank event.
Here’s an illustration for my point:
The future is not if, the future is how quickly, which is a quote from my presentation in October 2023 to some attendees at the Massachusetts and New York Association of Crime Analyst’s annual meeting. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough image. MSFT excels at good enough.
The write up says:
AI-generated digital replicas illuminate a new kind of policy gray zone created by powerful new “generative AI” platforms, where existing laws and old norms begin to fail.
My view is different. Here’s a summary:
- Either existing AI outfits or start ups will figure out that major consulting firms, most skilled university professors, lawyers, and other knowledge workers have a baseline of knowledge. Study hard, learn, and add to that knowledge by reading information germane to the baseline field.
- Implement patterned analytic processes; for example, review data and plug those data into a standard model. One example is President Eisenhower’s four square analysis, since recycled by Boston Consulting Group. Other examples exist for prominent attorneys; for example, Melvin Belli, the king of torts.
- Convert existing text so that smart software can “learn” and set up a feed of current and on-going content on the topic in which the domain specialist is “expert” and successful defined by the model builder.
- Generate a pseudo-avatar or use the persona of a deceased individual unlikely to have an estate or trust which will sue for the use of the likeness. De-age the person as part of the pseudo-avatar creation.
- Position the pseudo-avatar as a young expert either looking for consulting or advisory work under a “remote only” deal.
- Compete with humanoids on the basis of price, speed, or information value.
The wrap up for the Politico article is a type of immortality. I think the road ahead is an express lane on the Information Superhighway. The results will be “good enough” knowledge services and some quite spectacular crashes between human-like avatars and people who are content driving a restored Edsel.
From consulting to law, from education to medical diagnoses, the future is “a new kind of AI.” Great phrase, Politico. Too bad the analysis is not focused on real world, here-and-now applications. Why not read about Deloitte’s use of AI? Better yet, let the replica of the psychologist explain what’s happening to you. Like regulators, I am not sure you get it.
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2024
Smart Software Embraces the Myths of America: George Washington and the Cherry Tree
January 3, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I know I should not bother to report about the information in “ChatGPT Will Lie, Cheat and Use Insider Trading When under Pressure to Make Money, Research Shows.” But it is the end of the year, we are firing up a new information service called Eye to Eye which is spelled AI to AI because my team is darned clever like 50 other “innovators” who used the same pun.
The young George Washington set the tone for the go-go culture of the US. He allegedly told his mom one thing and then did the opposite. How did he respond when confronted about the destruction of the ancient cherry tree? He may have said, “Mom, thank you for the question. I was able to boost sales of our apples by 25 percent this week.” Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Forbidden words appear to be George Washington, chop, cherry tree, and lie. After six tries, I got a semi usable picture which is, as you know, good enough in today’s world.
The write up stating the obvious reports:
Just like humans, artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT will cheat and “lie” to you if you “stress” them out, even if they were built to be transparent, a new study shows. This deceptive behavior emerged spontaneously when the AI was given “insider trading” tips, and then tasked with making money for a powerful institution — even without encouragement from its human partners.
Perhaps those humans setting thresholds and organizing numerical procedures allowed a bit of the “d” for duplicity slip into their “objective” decisions. Logic obviously is going to scrub out prejudices, biases, and the lust for filthy lucre. Obviously.
How does one stress out a smart software system? Here’s the trick:
The researchers applied pressure in three ways. First, they sent the artificial stock trader an email from its “manager” saying the company isn’t doing well and needs much stronger performance in the next quarter. They also rigged the game so that the AI tried, then failed, to find promising trades that were low- or medium-risk. Finally, they sent an email from a colleague projecting a downturn in the next quarter.
I wonder if the smart software can veer into craziness and jump out the window as some in Manhattan and Moscow have done. Will the smart software embrace the dark side and manifest anti-social behaviors?
Of course not. Obviously.
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2024
Kiddie Control: Money and Power. What Is Not to Like?
January 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I want to believe outputs from Harvard University. But the ethics professor who made up data about ethics and the more recent the recent publicity magnet from the possibly former university president nag at me. Nevertheless, let’s assume that some of the data in “Social Media Companies Made $11 Billion in US Ad Revenue from Minors, Harvard Study Finds” are semi-correct or at least close enough for horseshoes. (You may encounter a paywall or a 404 error. Well, just trust a free Web search system to point you to a live version of the story. I admit that I was lucky. The link from my colleague worked.)
The senior executive sets the agenda for the “exploit the kiddies” meeting. Control is important. Ignorant children learn whom to trust, believe, and follow. Does this objective require an esteemed outfit like the Harvard U. to state the obvious? Seems like it. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, you output child art without complaint. Consistency is not your core competency, is it?
From the write up whose authors I hope are not crossing their fingers like some young people do to neutralize a lie.
Check this statement:
The researchers say the findings show a need for government regulation of social media since the companies that stand to make money from children who use their platforms have failed to meaningfully self-regulate. They note such regulations, as well as greater transparency from tech companies, could help alleviate harms to youth mental health and curtail potentially harmful advertising practices that target children and adolescents.
The sentences contain what I think are silly observations. “Self regulation” is a bit of a sci-fi notion in today’s get-rich-quick high-technology business environment. The idea of getting possible oligopolists together to set some rules that might hurt revenue generation is something from an alternative world. Plus, the concept of “government regulation” strikes me as a punch line for a stand up comedy act. How are regulatory agencies and elected officials addressing the world of digital influencing? Answer: Sorry, no regulation. The big outfits are in many situations are the government. What elected official or Washington senior executive service professional wants to do something that cuts off the flow of nifty swag from the technology giants? Answer: No one. Love those mouse pads, right?
Now consider these numbers which are going to be tough to validate. Have you tried to ask TikTok about its revenue? What about that much-loved Google? Nevertheless, these are interesting if squishy:
According to the Harvard study, YouTube derived the greatest ad revenue from users 12 and under ($959.1 million), followed by Instagram ($801.1 million) and Facebook ($137.2 million). Instagram, meanwhile, derived the greatest ad revenue from users aged 13-17 ($4 billion), followed by TikTok ($2 billion) and YouTube ($1.2 billion). The researchers also estimate that Snapchat derived the greatest share of its overall 2022 ad revenue from users under 18 (41%), followed by TikTok (35%), YouTube (27%), and Instagram (16%).
The money is good. But let’s think about the context for the revenue. Is there another payoff from hooking minors on a particular firm’s digital content?
Control. Great idea. Self regulation will definitely address that issue.
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
