Open Source: Free, Easy, and Fast Sort Of
February 29, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Not long ago, I spoke with an open source cheerleader. The pros outweighed the cons from this technologist’s point of view. (I would like to ID the individual, but I try to avoid having legal eagles claw their way into my modest nest in rural Kentucky. Just plug in “John Wizard Doe”, a high profile entrepreneur and graduate of a big time engineering school.)
I think going up suggests a problem.
Here are highlights of my notes about the upside of open source:
- Many smart people eyeball the code and problems are spotted and fixed
- Fixes get made and deployed more rapidly than commercial software which of works on an longer “fix” cycle
- Dead end software can be given new kidneys or maybe a heart with a fork
- For most use cases, the software is free or cheaper than commercial products
- New functions become available; some of which fuel new product opportunities.
There may be a few others, but let’s look at a downside few open source cheerleaders want to talk about. I don’t want to counter the widely held belief that “many smart people eyeball the code.” The method is grab and go. The speed angle is relative. Reviving open source again and again is quite useful; bad actors do this. Most people just recycle. The “free” angle is a big deal. Everyone like “free” because why not? New functions become available so new markets are created. Perhaps. But in the cyber crime space, innovation boils down to finding a mistake that can be exploited with good enough open source components, often with some mileage on their chassis.
But the one point open source champions crank back on the rah rah output. “Over 100,000 Infected Repos Found on GitHub.” I want to point out that GitHub is a Microsoft, the all-time champion in security, owns GitHub. If you think about Microsoft and security too much, you may come away confused. I know I do. I also get a headache.
This “Infected Repos” API IRO article asserts:
Our security research and data science teams detected a resurgence of a malicious repo confusion campaign that began mid-last year, this time on a much larger scale. The attack impacts more than 100,000 GitHub repositories (and presumably millions) when unsuspecting developers use repositories that resemble known and trusted ones but are, in fact, infected with malicious code.
The write up provides excellent information about how the bad repos create problems and provides a recipe for do this type of malware distribution yourself. (As you know, I am not too keen on having certain information with helpful detail easily available, but I am a dinobaby, and dinobabies have crazy ideas.)
If we confine our thinking to the open source champion’s five benefits, I think security issues may be more important in some use cases.The better question is, “Why don’t open source supporters like Microsoft and the person with whom I spoke want to talk about open source security?” My view is that:
- Security is an after thought or a never thought facet of open source software
- Making money is Job #1, so free trumps spending money to make sure the open source software is secure
- Open source appeals to some venture capitalists. Why? RedHat, Elastic, and a handful of other “open source plays”.
Net net: Just visualize a future in which smart software ingests poisoned code, and programmers who rely on smart software to make them a 10X engineer. Does that create a bit of a problem? Of course not. Microsoft is the security champ, and GitHub is Microsoft.
Stephen E Arnold, February 29, 2024
Google Gems for the Week of 19 February, 2024
February 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
This week’s edition of Google Gems focuses on a Hope Diamond and a handful of lesser stones. Let’s go.
THE HOPE DIAMOND
In the chaos of the AI Gold Rush, horses fall and wizard engineers realize that they left their common sense in the saloon. Here’s the Hope Diamond from the Google.
The world’s largest online advertising agency created smart software with a lot of math, dump trucks filled with data, and wizards who did not recall that certain historical figures in the US were not of color. “Google Says Its AI Image-Generator Would Sometimes Overcompensate for Diversity,” an Associated Press story, explains in very gentle rhetoric that its super sophisticate brain and DeepMind would get the race of historical figures wrong. I think this means that Ben Franklin could look like a Zulu prince or George Washington might have some resemblance to Rama (blue skin, bow, arrow, and snappy hat).
My favorite search and retrieval expert Prabhakar Raghavan (famous for his brilliant lecture in Paris about the now renamed Bard) indicated that Google’s image rendering system did not hit the bull’s eye. No, Dr. Raghavan, the digital arrow pierced the micrometer thin plastic wrap of Google’s super sophisticated, quantum supremacy, gee-whiz technology.
The message I received from Google when I asked for an illustration of John Hancock, an American historical figure. Too bad because this request goes against Google’s policies. Yep, wizards infused with the high school science club management method.
More important, however, was how Google’s massive stumble complemented OpenAI’s ChatGPT wonkiness. I want to award the Hope Diamond Award for AI Ineptitude to both Google and OpenAI. But, alas, there is just one Hope Diamond. The award goes to the quantumly supreme outfit Google.
[Note: I did not quote from the AP story. Why? Years ago the outfit threatened to sue people who use their stories’ words. Okay, no problemo, even though the newspaper for which I once worked supported this outfit in the days of “real” news, not recycled blog posts. I listen, but I do not forget some things. I wonder if the AP knows that Google Chrome can finish a “real” journalist’s sentences for he/him/she/her/it/them. Read about this “feature” at this link.]
Here are my reasons:
- Google is in catch-up mode and like those in the old Gold Rush, some fall from their horses and get up close and personal with hooves. How do those affect the body of a wizard? I have never fallen from a horse, but I saw a fellow get trampled when I lived in Campinas, Brazil. I recall there was a lot of screaming and blood. Messy.
- Google’s arrogance and intellectual sophistication cannot prevent incredible gaffes. A company with a mixed record of managing diversity, equity, etc. has demonstrated why Xooglers like Dr. Timnit Gebru find the company “interesting.” I don’t think Google is interesting. I think it is disappointing, particularly in the racial sensitivity department.
- For years I have explained that Google operates via the high school science club management method. What’s cute when one is 14 loses its charm when those using the method have been at it for a quarter century. It’s time to put on the big boy pants.
OTHER LITTLE GEMMAS
The previous week revealed a dirt trail with some sharp stones and thorny bushes. Here’s a quick selection of the sharpest and thorniest:
- The Google is running webinars to inform publishers about life after their wonderful long-lived cookies. Read more at Fipp.com.
- Google has released a small model as open source. What about the big model with the diversity quirk? Well, no. Read more at the weird green Verge thing.
- Google cares about AI safety. Yeah, believe it or not. Read more about this PR move on Techcrunch.
- Web search competitors will fail. This is a little stone. Yep, a kidney stone for those who don’t recall Neeva. Read more at Techpolicy.
- Did Google really pay $60 million to get that outstanding Reddit content. Wow. Maybe Google looks at different sub reddits than my research team does. Read more about it in 9 to 5 Google.
- What happens when an uninformed person uses the Google Cloud? Answer: Sticker shock. More about this estimable method in The Register.
- Some spoil sport finds traffic lights informed with Google’s smart software annoying. That’s hard to believe. Read more at this link.
- Google pointed out in a court filing that DuckDuckGo was a meta search system (that is, a search interface to other firm’s indexes) and Neeva was a loser crafted by Xooglers. Read more at this link.
No Google Hope Diamond report would be complete without pointing out that the online advertising giant will roll out its smart software to companies. Read more at this link. Let’s hope the wizards figure out that historical figures often have quite specific racial characteristics like Rama.
I wanted to include an image of Google’s rendering of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. What you see in the illustration above is what I got. Wow. I have more “gemmas”, but I just don’t want to present them.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2024
Qualcomm: Its AI Models and Pour Gasoline on a Raging Fire
February 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Qualcomm’s announcements at the Mobile World Congress pour gasoline on the raging AI fire. The chip maker aims to enable smart software on mobile devices, new gear, gym shoes, and more. Venture Beat’s “Qualcomm Unveils AI and Connectivity Chips at Mobile World Congress” does a good job of explaining the big picture. The online publication reports:
Generative AI functions in upcoming smartphones, Windows PCs, cars, and wearables will also be on display with practical applications. Generative AI is expected to have a broad impact across industries, with estimates that it could add the equivalent of $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion in economic benefits annually.
Qualcomm, primarily associated with chips, has pushed into what it calls “AI models.” The listing of the models appears on the Qualcomm AI Hub Web page. You can find this page at https://aihub.qualcomm.com/models. To view the available models, click on one of the four model domains, shown below:
Each domain will expand and present the name of the model. Note that the domain with the most models is computer vision. The company offers 60 models. These are grouped by function; for example, image classification, image editing, image generation, object detection, pose estimation, semantic segmentation (tagging objects), and super resolution.
The image below shows a model which analyzes data and then predicts related values. In this case, the position of the subject’s body are presented. The predictive functions of a company like Recorded Future suddenly appear to be behind the curve in my opinion.
There are two models for generative AI. These are image generation and text generation. Models are available for audio functions and for multimodal operations.
Qualcomm includes brief descriptions of each model. These descriptions include some repetitive phrases like “state of the art”, “transformer,” and “real time.”
Looking at the examples and following the links to supplemental information makes clear at first glance to suggest:
- Qualcomm will become a company of interest to investors
- Competitive outfits have their marching orders to develop comparable or better functions
- Supply chain vendors may experience additional interest and uplift from investors.
Can Qualcomm deliver? Let me answer the question this way. Whether the company experiences an nVidia moment or not, other companies have to respond, innovate, cut costs, and become more forward leaning in this chip sector.
I am in my underground computer lab in rural Kentucky, and I can feel the heat from Qualcomm’s AI announcement. Those at the conference not working for Qualcomm may have had their eyebrows scorched.
Stephen E Arnold, February 26, 2024
OpenAI Embarks on Taking Down the Big Guy in Web Search
February 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Google may be getting up there in Internet years; however, due to its size and dark shadow, taking the big fellow down and putting it out of the game may be difficult. Users are accustomed to the Google. Habits, particularly those which become semi automatic like a heroin addict’s fiddling with a spoon, are tough to break. After 25 years, growing out of a habit is reassuring to worried onlookers. But the efficacy of wait-and-see is not getting a bent person straight.
Taking down Googzilla may be a job for lots of little people. Thanks, Google ImageFX. Know thyself, right?
I read “OpenAI Is Going to Face an Uphill Battle If It Takes on Google Search.” The write up describes an aspirational goal of Sam AI-Man’s OpenAI system. The write up says:
OpenAI is reportedly building its own search product to take on Google.
OpenAI is jumping in a CRRC already crowded with special ops people. There is the Kagi subscription search. There is Phind.com and You.com. There is a one-man band called Stract and more. A new and improved Yandex is coming. The reliable Swisscows.com is ruminating in the mountains. The ever-watchful OSINT professionals gather search engines like a mother goose. And what do we get? Bing is going nowhere even with Copilot except in the enterprise market where Excel users are asking, “What the H*ll?” Meanwhile the litigating beast continues to capture 90 percent or more of search traffic and oodles of data. Okay, team, who is going to chop block the Google, a fat and slow player at that?
The write up opines:
But on the search front, it’s still all Google all the way. And even if OpenAI popularized the generative AI craze, the company has a long way to go if it hopes to take down the search giant.
Competitors can dream, plot, innovate, and issue press releases. But for the foreseeable future, the big guy is going to push others out of the way.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2024
Interesting Observations: Do These Apply to Technology Is a Problem Solver Thinking?
February 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read an interesting essay by Nat Eliason, an entity unknown previously to me. “A Map Is Not a Blueprint: Why Fixing Nature Fails.” is a short collection of the way human thought processes create some quite spectacular problems. His examples include weight loss compounds like Ozempic, transfats, and the once-trendy solution to mental issues, the lobotomy.
Humans can generate a map of a “territory” or a problem space. Then humans dig in and try to make sense of their representation. The problem is that humans may approach a problem and get the solution wrong. No surprise there. One of the engines of innovation is coming up with a solution to a problem created by something incorrectly interpreted. A recent example is the befuddlement of Mark Zuckerberg when a member of the Senate committee questioning him about his company suggested that the quite wealthy entrepreneur had blood on his hands. No wonder he apologized for creating a service that has the remarkable power of bringing people closer together, well, sometimes.
Immature home economics students can apologize for a cooking disaster. Techno feudalists may have a more difficult time making amends. But there are lawyers and lobbyists ready and willing to lend a hand. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
What I found interesting in Mr. Eliason’s essay was the model or mental road map humans create (consciously or unconsciously) to solve a problem. I am thinking in terms of social media, AI generated results for a peer-reviewed paper, and Web search systems which filter information to generate a pre-designed frame for certain topics.
Here’s the list of the five steps in the process creating interesting challenges for those engaged in and affected by technology today:
- Smart people see a problem, study it, and identify options for responding.
- The operations are analyzed and then boiled down to potential remediations.
- “Using our map of the process we create a solution to the problem.”
- The solution works. The downstream issues are not identified or anticipated in a thorough manner.
- New problems emerge as a consequence of having a lousy mental map of the original problem.
Interesting. Creating a solution to a technology-sparked problem without consequences may be one key to success. “I had no idea” or “I’m a sorry” makes everything better.
Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2024
Embrace Good Enough … or Less Than Good. Either Way Is Okay Today
February 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
As humans we want to be the best individual that we can be. We especially think about how to improve ourselves and examine our flaws during the New Year. Sophie McBain from The Guardian evaluated different approaches to life in the article, “The Big Idea: Is Being ‘Good Enough’ Better Than Perfection?” McBain discusses the differences between people who are fine with the “good enough” vs. perfection mentality.
A high school teacher admires a student who built an innovative chair desk. Yep, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
She uses Internet shopping to explain the differences between the two personality types. Perfectionists aka “maximizers” want to achieve the best of everything. It’s why they search for the perfect item online reading “best of…” lists and product reviews. This group spends hours finding the best items.“Good enough” people aka “satisfiers” review the same information but in lesser amounts and quickly make a decision.
Maximizers do better professionally, but they’re less happy in their personal lives. Satisfiers are happier because they use their time to pursue activities that make them happy. The Internet blasting ideal life styles also contributes to depressive outlooks:
“In his 2022 book, The Good-Enough Life, Avram Alpert argues that personal quests for greatness, and the unequal social systems that fuel these quests, are at the heart of much that is wrong in the world, driving overconsumption and environmental degradation, stark inequalities and increased unhappiness among people who feel locked in endless competition with one another. Instead of scrambling for a handful of places at the top, Alpert believes we’d all be better off dismantling these hierarchies, so that we no longer cultivate our talents to pursue wealth, fame or power, but only to enrich our own lives and those of others.”
McBain finishes her article by encouraging people to examine their life through a “good enough” lens. It’s a kind sentiment to share at the start of a New Year but it also encourages people to settle. If people aren’t happy with their life choice, they should critically evaluate them and tackle solutions. “Good enough” is great for unimportant tasks but “maximizing” potential for a better future is a healthier outlook.
Whitney Grace, February 16, 2024
Amazon: The Online Bookstore Has a Wet Basement and Termites
February 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a less-than-positive discussion of my favorite online bookstore Amazon. The analysis appears in the “real” news publication New York Magazine. The essay is a combo: Some news, some commentary, some management suggestions.
Two dinobabies are thinking about the good old days at Amazon. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Your indigestion on February 9, 2024, appears to have worked itself out. How’s that security coming along? Heh heh heh.
In my opinion, the news hook for “The Junkification of Amazon: Why Does It Feel Like the Company Is Making Itself Worse?” is that Amazon needs to generate revenue, profits, and thrill pulses for stakeholders. I understand this idea. But there is a substantive point tucked into the write up. Here it is:
The view of Amazon from China is worth considering everywhere. Amazon lets Chinese manufacturers and merchants sell directly to customers overseas and provides an infrastructure for Prime shipping, which is rare and enormously valuable. It also has unilateral power to change its policies or fees and to revoke access to these markets in an instant
Amazon has found Chinese products a useful source of revenue. What I think is important is that Temu is an outfit focused on chopping away at Amazon’s vines around the throats of its buyers and sellers. My hunch is that Amazon is not able to regain the trust buyers and sellers once had in the company. The article focuses on “junkification.” I think there is a simpler explanation; to wit:
Amazon has fallen victim to decision craziness. Let me offer a few suggestions.
First, consider the Kindle. A person who reads licenses an ebook for a Kindle. The Kindle software displays:
- Advertisements which are intended to spark another purchase
- An interface which does not provide access to the specific ebooks stored on the device
- A baffling collection of buttons, options, and features related to bookmarks and passages a reader finds interesting. However, the tools are non-functional when someone like me reads content like the Complete Works of William James or keeps a copy of the ever-popular Harvard “shelf of books” on a Kindle.
For me, the Kindle is useless, so I have switched to reading ebooks on my Apple iPad. At least, I can figure out what’s on the device, what’s available from the Apple store, and where the book I am currently reading is located. However, Amazon has not been thinking about how to make really cheap Kindle more useful to people who still read books.
A second example is the wild and crazy collection of Amazon.com features. I attempted to purchase a pair of grey tactical pants. I found the fabric I wanted. I skipped the weird pop ups. I ignored the videos. And the reviews? Sorry. Sales spam. I located the size I needed. I ordered. The product would arrive two days after I ordered. Here’s what happened:
- The pants were marked 32 waist, 32 inseam, but the reality was a 28 inch waist and a 28 inch inseam. The fix? I ordered the pants directly from the US manufacturer and donated the pants to the Goodwill.
- Returns at Amazon are now a major hassle at least in Prospect, Kentucky.
- The order did not come in two days as promised. The teeny weensy pants came in five days. The norm? Incorrect delivery dates. Perfect for porch pirates, right?
A third example is one I have mentioned in this blog and in my lectures about online fraud. I ordered a CPU. Amazon shipped me a pair of red panties. Nope, neither my style nor a CPU. About 90 days after the rather sporty delivery, emails, and an article in this blog, Amazon refunded my $550. The company did not want me to return the red panties. I have them hanging on my server room’s Movin’ Cool air conditioner.
The New York Magazine article does not provide much about what’s gone wrong at Amazon. I think my examples make clear these management issues:
- Decisions are not customer centric. Money is more important that serving the customer which is a belabored point in numerous Jeff Bezos letters before he morphed into a Miami social magnet.
- The staff at Amazon have no clue about making changes that ensure a positive experience for buyers or sellers. Amazon makes decisions to meet goals, check off an item on a to do list, or expend the minimum amount of mental energy to provide a foundation for better decisions for buyers and sellers.
- Amazon’s management is unable to prevent decision rot in several, quite different businesses. The AWS service has Byzantine pricing and is struggling to remain competitive in the midst of AI craziness. The logistics business cannot meet delivery targets displayed to a customer when he or she purchases a product. The hardware business is making customers more annoyed than at any previous time. Don’t believe me? Just ask a Ring customer about the price increase or an Amazon Prime customer about advertising in Amazon videos. And Kindle users? It is obvious no one at Amazon pays much attention to Kindle users so why start now? The store front functions are from Bizarro World. I have had to write down on notecards where to find my credit card “points,” how to navigate directly to listings for used music CDs, where my licensed Amazon eBooks reside and once there what the sort options actually do, and what I need to do when a previously purchased product displays lawn mowers, not men’s white T shirts.
Net net: I appreciate the Doctorow-esque word “junkification.” That is close to what Amazon is doing: Converting products and services into junk. Does Amazon’s basement have a leak? Are those termites up there?
Stephen E Arnold, February 15, 2024
What Does Eroding Intelligence Create? Take-a-Chance Apps in Curated App Stores
February 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am a real and still-alive dinobaby. I read “Undergraduates’ Average IQ Has Fallen 17 Points Since 1939. Here’s Why.” The headline tells the story. At least, Dartmouth is planning to use testing to make sure its admitted students can read and write. But it appears that interesting people are empowering certain business tactics whether they have great test scores or not.
“Warning: Fraudulent App Impersonating LastPass Currently Available in Apple App Store” strikes me as a good example of how tactics take advantage of what one might call somewhat slow or unaware people. The write up states:
The app attempts to copy our branding and user interface, though close examination of the posted screenshots reveal misspellings and other indicators the app is fraudulent.
Are there similarly structured apps in the Goggle Play store? You bet. A couple of days ago, I downloaded and paid a $1.95 for an app that allegedly would display the old-school per-core graphic load which Microsoft removed from Task Manager. Guess what? It did not load.
Several observations:
- The “stores” are not preventing problematic apps from being made available to users
- The people running the store are either unable to screen apps or just don’t care
- The baloney about curation is exactly that.
I wonder if the people running these curated app stores are unaware of what these misfires do to a customer. On the other hand, perhaps the customers neither know nor care that curated apps are creeping into fraud territory.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
Does Cheap and Sneaky Work Better than Expensive and Hyperbole?
February 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My father was a member of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR). He loved reading about that historical “special operation.” I think he imagine himself in a make-shift uniform, hiding behind some bushes, and then greeting the friend of George III with some old-fashioned malice. My hunch is that John Arnold’s descendants wrote anti-British editorials and gave speeches. But what do I know? Not much that’s for sure.
The David and Goliath trope may be applicable to the cheap drone tactic. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
I thought about how a rag-tag, under-supplied collection of colonials could bedevil the British when I read The Guardian’s essay “Deadly, Cheap and Widespread: How Iran-Supplied Drones Are Changing the Nature of Warfare.” The write up opines that the drone which killed several Americans in Iraq:
is most likely to the smaller Shahed 101 or delta winged Shahed 131, both believed to be in Kataib Hezbollah’s arsenal …with estimated ranges of at least 700km (434 miles) and a cost of $20,000 (£15,700) or more. (Source Fabian Hinz, a weapons expert)
The point strikes me as a variant of David versus Goliath. The giant gets hurt by a lesser opponent with a cheap weapon. Iran is using drones, not exotic hardware like the F-16s Türkiye craves. A flimsy drone does not require the obvious paraphernalia of power the advanced jet does. Tin snips, some parts from Shenzhen retail outlets, and model airplane controls. No hangers, mechanics, engineers, and specially trained pilots.
Shades of the Colonials I think. The article continues:
The drones …are best considered cheap substitutes for guided cruise missiles, most effective against soft or “static structures” which force those under threat to “either invest money in defenses or disperse and relocate which renders things like aircraft on bases more inefficient”
Is there a factoid in this presumably accurate story from a British newspaper? Yes. My take-away is that simple and basic can do considerable harm. Oh, let me add “economical”, but that is rarely a popular concept among some government entities and approved contractors.
Net net: How about thinking like some of those old-time Revolutionaries in what has become the US?
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
Universities and Innovation: Clever Financial Plays May Help Big Companies, Not Students
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read an interesting essay in The Economist (a newspaper to boot) titled “Universities Are Failing to Boost Economic Growth.” The write up contained some facts anchored in dinobaby time; for example, “In the 1960s the research and development (R&D) unit of DuPont, a chemicals company, published more articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech combined.”
A successful academic who exists in a revolving door between successful corporate employment and prestigious academic positions innovate with [a] a YouTube program, [b] sponsors who manufacture interesting products, and [c] taking liberties with the idea of reproducible results from his or her research. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Getting more invasive today, right?
I did not know that. I recall, however, that my former boss at Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the mid-1970s had me and couple of other compliant worker bees work on a project to update a big-time report about innovation. My recollection is that our interviews with universities were less productive than conversations held at a number of leading companies around the world. The gulf between university research departments had yet to morph into what were later called “technology transfer departments.” Over the years, as the Economist newspaper points out:
The golden age of the corporate lab then came to an end when competition policy loosened in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, growth in university research convinced many bosses that they no longer needed to spend money on their own. Today only a few firms, in big tech and pharma, offer anything comparable to the DuPonts of the past.
The shift, from my point of view, was that big companies could shift costs, outsource research, and cut themselves free from the wonky wizards that one could find wandering around the Cherry Hill Mall near the now-gone Bell Laboratories.
Thus, the schools became producers of innovation.
The Economist newspaper considers the question, “Why can’t big outfits surf on these university insights?” My question is, “Is the Economist newspaper overlooking the academic linkages that exist between the big companies producing lots of cash and a number of select universities. IBM is proud to be camped out at MIT. Google operates two research annexes at Stanford University and the University of Washington. Even smaller companies have ties; for example, Megatrends is close to Indiana University by proximity and spiritually linked to a university in a country far away. Accidents? Nope.
The Economist newspaper is doing the Oxford debate thing: From a superior position, the observations are stentorious. The knife like insights are crafted to cut those of lesser intellect down to size. Chop slice dice like a smart kitchen appliance.
I noted this passage:
Perhaps, with time, universities and the corporate sector will work together more profitably. Tighter competition policy could force businesses to behave a little more like they did in the post-war period, and beef up their internal research.
Is the Economist newspaper on the right track with this university R&D and corporate innovation arguments?
In a word, “Yep.”
Here’s my view:
- Universities teamed up with companies to get money in exchange for cheaper knowledge work subsidized by eager graduate students and PR savvy departments
- Companies used the tie ups to identify ideas with the potential for commercial application and the young at heart and generally naive students, faculty, and researchers as a recruiting short cut. (It is amazing what some PhDs would do for a mouse pad with a prized logo on it.)
- Researchers, graduate students, esteemed faculty, and probably motivated adjunct professors with some steady income after being terminated in a “real” job started making up data. (Yep, think about the bubbling scandals at Harvard University, for instance.)
- Universities embraced the idea that education is a business. Ah, those student loan plays were useful. Other outfits used the reputation to recruit students who would pay for the cost of a degree in cash. From what countries were these folks? That’s a bit of a demographic secret, isn’t it?
Where are we now? Spend some time with recent college graduates. That will answer the question, I believe. Innovation today is defined narrowly. A recent report from Google identified companies engaged in the development of mobile phone spyware. How many universities in Eastern Europe were on the Google list? Answer: Zero. How many companies and state-sponsored universities were on the list? Answer: Zero. How comprehensive was the listing of companies in Madrid, Spain? Answer: Incomplete.
I want to point out that educational institutions have quite distinct innovation fingerprints. The Economist newspaper does not recognize these differences. A small number of companies are engaged in big-time innovation while most are in the business of being cute or clever. The Economist does not pay much attention to this. The individuals, whether in an academic setting or in a corporate environment, are more than willing to make up data, surf on the work of other unacknowledged individuals, or suck of good ideas and information and then head back to a home country to enjoy a life better than some of their peers experience.
If we narrow the focus to the US, we have an unrecognized challenge — Dealing with shaped or synthetic information. In a broader context, the best instruction in certain disciplines is not in the US. One must look to other countries. In terms of successful companies, the financial rewards are shifting from innovation to me-too plays and old-fashioned monopolistic methods.
How do I know? Just ask a cashier (human, not robot) to make change without letting the cash register calculate what you will receive. Is there a fix? Sure, go for the next silver bullet solution. The method is working quite well for some. And what does “economic growth” mean? Defining terms can be helpful even to an Oxford Union influencer.
Stephen E Arnold, February 7, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
