Google Results Are Relevant… to Google and the Googley
January 3, 2023
We know that NoNeedforGPS will not be joining Prabhakar Raghavan (Google’s alleged head of search) and the many Googlers repurposed to deal with a threat, a real threat. That existential demon is ChatGPT. Dr. Raghavan (formerly of the estimable Verity which was absorbed into the even more estimable Autonomy which is a terra incognita unto itself) is getting quite a bit of Google guidance, help, support, and New Year cheer from those Googlers thrown into a Soviet style project to make that existential threat go away.
NoNeedforGPS questioned on Reddit.com the relevance of Google’s ad-supported sort of Web search engine. The plaintive cry in the post is an image, which is essentially impossible to read, says:
Why does Google show results that have nothing to do with what is searched?
You silly goose, NoNeedforGPS. You fail to understand the purpose of Google search, and you obviously are not privy to discussions by search wizards who embrace a noble concept: It is better to return a result than a null result. A footnote to this brilliant insight is that a null result — that is, a search results page which says, “Sorry, no matches for your query” — make it tough to match ads and convince the lucky advertiser on a blank page that a null result conveys information.
What? A null result conveys information! Are you crazy there in rural Kentucky with snow piled to a height of four French bulldogs standing atop one another?
No, I don’t think I am crazy, which is a negative word, according to some experts at Stanford University.
When I run a query like “Flokinet climate activist”, I really want to see a null result set. My hunch is that some folks in Eastern Europe want me to see an empty set as well.
Let me put the display of irrelevant “hits” in response to a query in context:
- With a result set — relevant or irrelevant is irrelevant — Google’s super duper ad matcher can do its magic. Once an ad is displayed (even in a list of irrelevant results to the user), some users click on the ads. In fact, some users cannot tell the difference between a relevant hit and an ad. Whatever the reason for the click, Google gets money.
- Many users who run a query don’t know what they are looking for. Here’s an example: A person searches Google for a Greek restaurant. Google knows that there is no Greek restaurant anywhere near the location of the Google user. Therefore, the system displays results for restaurants close to the user. Google may toss in ads for Greek groceries, sponges from Greece, or a Greek history museum near Dunedin, Florida. Google figures one of these “hits” might solve the user’s problem and result in a click that is related to an ad. Thus, there are no irrelevant results when viewed from Google’s UX (user experience) viewpoint via the crystal lenses of Ad Words, SEO partner teams, or a Googler who has his/her/its finger on the scale of Google objectivity.
- The quaint notions of precision and recall have been lost in the mists of time. My hunch is that those who remember that a user often enters a word or phrase in the hopes of getting relevant information related to that which was typed into the query processor are not interested in old fashioned lists of relevant content. The basic reason is that Google gave up on relevance around 2006, and the company has been pursuing money, high school science projects like solving death, and trying to manage the chaos resulting from a management approach best described as anti-suit and pro fun. The fact that Google sort of works is amazing to me.
The sad reality is that Google handles more than 90 percent of the online searches in North America. Years ago I learned that in Denmark, Google handles 100 percent of the online search traffic. Dr. Raghavan can lash hundreds of Googlers to the ChatGPT response meetings, but change may be difficult. Google believes that its approach to smart software is just better. Google has technology that is smarter, more adept at creating college admission essays, and blog posts like this one. Google can do biology, quantum computing, and write marketing copy while wearing a Snorkel and letting code do deep dives.
Net net: NoNeedforGPS does express a viewpoint which is causing people who think they are “expert searchers” to try out DuckDuckGo, You.com, and even the Russian service Yandex.com, among others. Thus, Google is scared. Those looking for information may find a system using ChatGPT returns results that are useful. Once users mired in irrelevant results realizes that they have been operating in the dark, a new dawn may emerge. That’s Dr. Raghavan’s problem, and it may prove to be easier to impress those at a high school reunion than advertisers.
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2023
The AI Copyright Wars Are Underway
January 3, 2023
Adobe develops great software for a high price tag. It really stinks when Adobe slaps the SaaS sticker on software and demands a yearly licensing fee. Adobe is making a smart, yet controversial business move says Axios: “Adobe Will Sell AI-Made Stock Images.”
Adobe decided to open its stock image service to AI-generated images. Adobe sees it as a smart business move, because the company believes AI-generated images will complement human artists. Humans will not be replaced by programs.
Adobe will accept these images as long as they are properly labeled. Getty Images, another stock photo supplier, says differently because they do not want to deal with the legal risks. Adobe is happily proceeding forward, because it means more money in their pockets:
“Adobe, by contrast, seems comfortable with the legal risk. Although it is requiring creators to affirm they have proper rights to the works they submit, it will indemnify buyers of stock images should there be any legal challenges.”
There are also the questions:
“That’s significant given that there are a number of unanswered questions around generative AI, including whether people whose works have been part of training the AI systems have any legal claim to the systems or the works they produce.”
It is a future fact that copyright trolls will legally go after people who use AI software to create substantially similar images. We cannot wait to see that litigation.
Whitney Grace, January 3, 2022
CNN Surfaces an Outstanding Quote from the Zuck
December 30, 2022
Tucked in “The Year That Brought Silicon Valley Back Down to Earth” was an outstanding quotation from the chief Meta professional, Mark (the Zucker) Zuckerberg. Here’s the quote:
“Unfortunately, this did not play out the way I expected.”
The CNN article revisits what are by now old tropes and saws.
When I spotted the title, I thought a handful of topics would be mentioned; for example:
- The medical testing fraud
- The crazy “value” of wild hair styles and digital currency, lawyer parents, and disappearing billions. Poof.
- Assorted security issues (Yes, I am thinking of Microsoft and poisoned open source libraries. Hey, isn’t GitHub part of the Softies’ empire?)
- Apple’s mystical interactions with China
- Taylor Swift’s impact on Congressional interest in online ticket excitement
- An annual update on Google’s progress in solving death
- Amazon’s interaction with trusted third party sellers (Yes, I am thinking of retail thefts)
- Tesla’s outer space thinking about self driving
- Palantir’s ads asserting that it is the leader in artificial intelligence.
None of these made the CNN story. However, that quote from the Zuck touches some of these fascinating 2022 developments.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2022
Apple Think: Characteristics of Working in a Ring with Echoes
December 30, 2022
Have you been reminded to think in 360 degrees. The idea, as I recall, is to look at a problem, opportunity, or action from different angles. Instead of screwing up because a decider verifies a preconceived idea, the 360 method is supposed to avoid overlooking the obvious.
What about those Apple AirTags? Was 360 degree think in operation when the idea of finding a lost phone was hatched? In my opinion, an Apple AirTag is useful for many good news use cases. iPhone users will want several, maybe six, maybe a dozen. Just clip one on a key ring, and in theory one can locate those keys. Find your luggage. Keep an eye on the cat. The trick is to sign up for the assorted Apple services which make the AirTag function.
Many Apple employees work in a circular structure which looks like a hula hoop. Could the building be a concretization of the metaphor for 360 degree thinking? If so, I cannot understand why the AirTag application for stalking was not identified as a use case? What about tracking an expensive auto so a car thief can drive off after the owner leaves the vehicle at the mall? Could an assassin use the AirTag to verify the target was at a location without having to use other means to achieve the kind of future Mr. Putin envisions for Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy?
Did the Apple professionals doing 360 degree thinking in the circular building consider these applications of the AirTag? My hunch is that Apple does Ring Think. It makes money, but the unforeseen consequences appear to be mere downstream details.
What about iPhone’s ability to detect a user who is in a car crash. The idea is that an accident is detected by the iPhone. Authorities are notified. Help is dispatched. Perfect. Has something been overlooked by Ring Think via the 360 degree analysis.
You decide.
“Apple Watch and iPhone Crash Detection Software an Issue for Search and Rescue Crews” reports:
One of the new features on the iPhone and Apple Watch is crash detection. It is designed to detect car crashes and if needed, alert the local authorities.
Perfect. Car crash. Alert authorities. What did the Apple wizards overlook? Here’s a quote from the write up:
“It’s quite sophisticated,” Dwight Yochim, a senior manager with the B.C. Search and Rescue Association told Global News. “It [the crash detection in an iPhone] recognizes a sudden change in speed, sound of crunching metal and glass and even the airbag deploying. But for whatever reason, people in the backcountry and maybe it’s just our B.C. backcountry enthusiasts, they’re just hardcore, and the falling and the kind of crashing through the woods literally is setting it off.”
Apple allegedly has issued software to help address the accidental alert. These unintentional, accidental alerts have consequences. The write up reports that Mr. Yochim said:
“We do 2,000 calls a year now. And we did a report a couple of years ago that showed that we’re probably going to hit 3,000 in about 10 years. So the more of these false calls we have, the more time it takes away from our members,” Yochim said. “They’re putting in 400,000 hours now in training, administration and incidents. And so every one of these calls is four or five hours for a dozen people to respond. Then you find out there’s some puzzled subject at the end going, ‘I didn’t even realize I activated it’.”
I am not all that interested in AirTags and automatic alerts. The issue is that these are two specific examples of functionality that has a number of applications. Some good and some bad.
However, what less visible, more subtle examples of failed 360 analysis and Ring Think are in the Apple ecosystem? What if some of the flubs and ignored applications have far greater consequences. Instead of knowing a human trafficker will target an individual for abduction, the latent use case is invisible and will emerge without warning?
What’s the responsibility of a company which relies on Ring Think to minimize the impact of their innovations?
Here’s a thought for the New Year: There is no remediation. Society has to live with technical activities. Therefore, why should an Apple type of organization leave its spaceship shaped structure and worry about a kidnapped child?
Why bother? Or, it’s not our problem because we are only human. And, my fave, we’re not able to predict the future. But the big reason is look at the good our work does.
Yep, I got it.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2022
Apple Signals and Messages Telegram Its Intentions
December 30, 2022
Apple is losing its touch. Once the outfit was a religion with chips. Now it is a subscription machine with no right to repair.
Telegram is an encrypted message service that has avoided paying Apple fees, but according to TechRadar that has come to an end: “Telegram Forced To Crack Down On Paid Posts Because Apple Wasn’t Getting A Cut.”
Telegram used to allow users to set up paid content posts with third-party payment bots. This allowed content creators to avoid paying Apple’s fees and their fans paid them directly. Content creators received close to 100% of their fans’ donations without sending a chunk to Apple. Unfortunately, Apple wants its 30% and Telegram is forced to comply. If Telegram does not comply with Apple, then it will be removed from the App Store.
Apple has a monopoly in the app market and even other tech giants, like Elon Musk and Spotify, are saying 30% is too much. South Korea passed a law that allowed content creators to use third-party payment services other than Apple:
“You have the likes of Spotify calling the tech giant “anti-competitive” because of App Store rules that make buying an audiobook overly complicated. Newfound Twitter wrangler Elon Musk said back in May that 30 percent is “10 times higher than it should be” and South Korea thought so, too. Last year, the nation passed a law forcing Apple and Google to allow developers to use third-payment systems and not pay the hefty tax.”
Apple does not care that it charges 30%, because they have a monopoly and all its decisions are unilateral. That is what happens when they use an OS other than Windows. Will Apple compete with Telegram to capture more encrypted messaging traffic?
Absolutely.
Whitney Grace, December 30, 2022
Amazon: Filled with Holiday Cheer
December 27, 2022
In the modern world, Amazon is a catch-22; you can live without it but you would be hard-pressed not to. While buying a product on Amazon is usually simple, the return process is worse than a pain in the neck. A Canadian family has learned the hard way that Amazon will pull a scam whenever possible. CBC explains the frustrations in, “Family Says Amazon Shipped Fake Product, Refuses Refund Until ‘Correct Item’ Returned.”
Matthew Legault’s parents purchased him a computer as a high school graduation gift. He was excited about the present, until he took it apart and noticed the graphics card was hollowed out and filled with putty. The Legaults returned the defective computer and asked for a refund. Amazon, however, said they threw out the “computer” because it was a danger to employees. Amazon also demanded the Legaults need to ship the correct item.
Do you see where the cyclical problem is going?
The Legaults are like many unhappy Amazon customers, who are told that an item was disposed of to “end the conversation.”
What is hysterical is that Legault patriarch thinks Amazon cares about him:
“François says his history with Amazon should have stood for something — he’s been a loyal customer for years, and rarely returned anything. ‘The box had obviously been tampered with,’ he said. ‘We kind of expected that Amazon would have better quality controls, better procedures to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen.’”
HAHA!
NOPE!
Amazon is not a brick and mortar store. Amazon does not inspect anything and simply boxes returns up to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Amazon has lost revenue since the end of the COVID pandemic. The company is laying off employees.
A word of advice from the victims: take a video of yourself opening the package, so Amazon will not have any fodder against you.
The Legaults eventually got their refund when the story aired. It also helps to threaten legal action.
Is it possible that the post Bezos Amazon does not care about anyone or anything? Some more advice: order expensive products from the manufacturer’s Web site or in a physical store. Just a thought.
Whitney Grace, December 27, 2022
Google: Rank Ordering Its Wizards, Shamen, and Necromancers
December 27, 2022
Okay, six percent of the magic workers are not sufficiently Google. The figure does not count Timnit Gebru types.
Google is not afraid to fire anyone who ignites controversy within the company related to diversity and women. Sometimes it is not bad press that causes Google to lay off its employees, instead it is the economy. The Daily Hunt reports that, “Google Asked Managers To Fire 10,000 ‘Poor Performers’ As Mass Layoffs Hit Tech Sector.”
The US federal government’s raising interest rates and tech companies that make a large portion of their profits from ads are feeling the pain. Meta, Google, Amazon, Twitter, and more companies are firing more workers. Alphabet is telling its managers to lay off all employees who are rated as “poor performers.” The hope is to get rid of at least 10,000 workers and there might be some subterfuge behind it:
“As per a report from Forbes, Google might even bank on these rankings to avoid paying bonuses and stock grants. Google’s managers have been reportedly asked to categorize 10,000 employees as “poor performers” so that 10,000 people can be fired. Alphabet has a total workforce of 187,000 people, which is one of the largest workforces in tech.”
Google’s workforce is described as bloated and pays its employees 70% more than Microsoft compensates its staff or 153% compared to the top twenty big tech companies. Google pays more than its competition to hoard talent and increases its stranglehold on the tech industry.
Googzilla has to pay for NFL football any way it can.
Whitney Grace, December 27, 2022
Google and Its Puzzles: Insiders Only, Please
December 26, 2022
ProPublica made available an article of some importance in my opinion. “Porn, Piracy, Fraud: What Lurks Inside Google’s Black Box Ad Empire” walks through the intentional, quite specific engineering of its crucial advertising system to maximize revenue and befuddle (is “defraud” a synonym?) advertisers. I was asked more than a decade ago to do a presentation of my team’s research into Google’s advertising methodology. I declined. At that time, I was doing some consulting work for a company I am not permitted to name. That contract stipulated that I would not talk about a certain firm’s business technologies. I signed because… money.
The ProPublica essay does the revealing about what is presented as a duplicitous, underhanded, and probably illegal business process subsystem. I don’t have to present any of the information I have gathered over the years. I can cite this important article and point out several rocks which the capable writers at ProPublica either did not notice or flipped them over and concluded, “Nah, nothing to see here.”
I urge you to do two things. First, read the ProPublica write up. Number Two: Print it out. My hunch is that it may be disappeared or become quite difficult to find at some point in the future. Why? Ah, grasshopper, that is a question easily answered by the managers who set up Foundem and who were stomped by Googzilla. Alternatively you could chase down a person at the French government tax authority and ask, “Why were French tax forms not findable via a Google search for several years.” These individuals might have the information you need. Shifting gears: Ask Magix, the software company responsible for Sony Vegas why cracks for the software appear in YouTube videos. If you use your imagination, you will come up with ideas for gathering first person information about the lovable online advertising company’s systems and methods. Hint: Look up Dr. Timnit Gebru and inquire about her interactions with one of Google chief scientists. I guarantee that a useful anecdote will bubble up.
So what’s in the write up. Let me highlight a main point and then cite a handful of interesting statements in the article.
What is the main point? In my opinion, ProPublica’s write up says, “The GOOG maximizes its return at the expense of the advertisers and of the users.”
Who knew? Not me. I think the Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind outfit is the most wonderfulest company in the world. Remember: You heard this here first. I have a priceless Google mouse pad too.
Consider these three statements from the essay. First, Google lingo is interesting:
Google spokesperson Michael Aciman said the company uses a combination of human oversight, automation and self-serve tools to protect ad buyers and said publisher confidentiality is not associated with abuse or low quality.
The idea is that Google is interested in using a hybrid method to protect ad buyers. Plus there is a difference between publishers and confidentiality. I find it interesting that instead of talking about [a] the ads themselves (porn, drugs, etc.), [b] the buyers of advertising which is a distinct industry dependent upon Google for revenue, [c] the companies who want to get their message in front of people allegedly interested in the product of service, or [d] the user of search or some other Google service. Google wants to “protect ad buyers.” And what about the others I have identified? Google doesn’t care. Logical sure but doesn’t Google have the other entities in mind? That’s a question regulators should have asked and had answered after Google settle the litigation with Yahoo over advertising technology, at the time of Google’s acquisition of Oingo (Applied Semantics), or at the time Google acquired DoubleClick. In my opinion, much of the ProPublica write up operates in a neverland of weird Google speak, not the reality of harvesting money from those largely in the dark about what’s happening in the business processes.
Second, consider this statement:
we matched 70% of the accounts in Google’s ad sellers list to one or more domains or apps, more than any dataset ProPublica is aware of. But we couldn’t find all of Google’s publisher partners. What we did find was a system so large, secretive and bafflingly complex that it proved impossible to uncover everyone Google works with and where it’s sending advertisers’ money.
The passage seems to suggest that Google’s engineers went beyond clever and ventured into the murky acreage of intentional obfuscation. It seems as if Google wanted to be able to consume advertising budgets without any entity having the ability to determine [a] if the ad were displayed in a suitable context; that is, did the advertiser’s message match the needs of the user to who the ad was shown. And [b] was the ad appropriate even if it contained words and phrases on Google’s unofficial stop word lists. (If you have not see these, send an email to benkent2020 at yahoo dot com and one of my team will email you some of the more interesting words that guarantee Google’s somewhat lax processes will definitely try to block. If a word is not on a Google stop list, then the messages will probably be displayed. Remember: As Google terminates six percent of its staff, some of those humans presumably will not be able to review ads per item one above. And [c] note the word “bafflingly”. The focus of much Google engineering over the last 15 years has been to build competitive barriers, extent the monopoly function with “partners”, and double talk in order to keep regulators and curious Congressional people away. That’s my take on this passage.
Now for the third passage I will cite:
…we uncovered scores of previously unreported peddlers of pirated content, porn and fake audiences that take advantage of Google’s lax oversight to rake in revenue.
I don’t need to say much more about this statement that look at and think about pirated content (copyright), porn (illegal content in some jurisdictions) and fake audiences (cyber fraud). Does this statement suggest that Google is a criminal enterprise? That’s a good question.
I have some high level observations about this excellent article in ProPublica. I offer these in the hope that ProPublica will explore some of these topics or an enterprising graduate student will consider the statements and do some digging.
- Why is Google unable to manage its staff? This is an important question because the ad behaviors described in the ProPublica article are the result of executive compensation plans and incentives. Are employees rewarded for implementing operations that further “soft” fraud or worse?
- How will Google operate in a more fragmented, more regulated environment? Is one possible behavior a refusal to modify the guiding hand of compensation and incentive programs away from generating more and more money within external constraints? My hunch is that Google will do whatever is necessary to build its revenue.
- What mechanisms exist or will be implemented to keep Google’s automated systems operating in a legal, ethical way?
Net net: Finally, after decades of craziness about how wonderful Googzilla is, more critical research is appearing. Is it too little and too late? In my view, yes.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2022
Google: The Game Plan
December 23, 2022
I read “You Have Reached Your Destination: Google Elegantly Says Goodbye to Waze.” I was thinking that a better title may have suggested that Google has displayed its strategic ways. Not to be.
The article recycles a familiar story. Think Dodgeball. Buy a product. Big opportunities exist with other services that Google wants to “put wood behind.” The future is elsewhere. Hasta la vista “old stuff” for pastures whose harvesting delivers more compensation, influence, and bonus bucks.
Google recycles its hasta la vista language. The article quotes some:
Waze will continue to operate under a separate application and brand. “Google remains deeply committed to Waze’s unique brand, its beloved app and its thriving community of volunteers and users,” the company said in a statement.
Hello, interns and new hires. Work on Waze. Look for something hot like the new moon shot to solve death, for example.
The article suggests what’s behind Google’s buy, ignore, milk, and let die products and services:
Google, instead of seeing Waze as a brand to be nurtured and promoted, treated it as an incubator of ideas that should be exploited. “Every idea we had was quickly adopted by Google Maps,” he wrote. Nor did the company use its vast resources to attract new users to Waze.
Interesting. Same old song.
The reality is that Google struggles, in my opinion, to come to grips with these issues:
- Ad revenue is the goal. Products and services which do not deliver Google scale payoffs are doomed unless the service is a fave of senior management or part of an initiative to kill off Amazon, Microsoft, and others deemed to be non-Googley
- Incentives affect products. When services don’t change or are lousy, the engineers able to make a difference are working on more lucrative opportunities for themselves. How’s that search working for you? What about that Gmail interface? Great, right?
- Google’s senior management is not sure how to reduce costs, amp up revenue, innovate, and avoid getting crushed with administrivia like personnel issues, government regulation, and ageing infrastructure.
Net net: Send Waze down the Orkut path is easy and part of the so-called culture of the GOOG. There’s nothing fancy, subtle, or complex in what Google does as it faces increasing internal and external pressure.
It’s high school science club management methods in action.
Stephen E Arnold, December 23, 2022
Can Google React to a Code Red? Yeah, Sure, Jumping Right on It
December 22, 2022
The New York Times, The Guardian, and even the relentlessly innovative Business Insider have embraced the idea of Code Red. What is a Code Red? If you spent time at a cyber security conference a few years ago, Code Red was a snazzy name for computer worm. Have you spent quality time in a hospital in the US, preferably a smaller town? If so you may recall hearing “Code Red”. The idea was to alert the motivated, enthusiastic, and empathetic professionals that there was a barn burner of a fire raging around oxygen tanks adjacent intensive care, operating theaters, or recovery rooms. The term could also refer to bad weather, a billing opportunity’s arrival (aka patient), or something really bad happening like a grain silo explosion in Canton, Illinois, in which local farmers were blasted, burned, or gassed. (Yep, grain dust does go bang.) Code Red to some US Department of Defense types means — at least to some US Marines that the weather is more bad than the previous day’s weather. However, to some trained at Quantico, the term only suggests that the weather will be worse than it was yesterday.
For the “real news” professionals, the idea is that Code Red means emergency. Examples appear in a number of articles like this one: “Google’s Management Has Reportedly Issued a Code Red amid the Rising Popularity of the ChatGPT AI.” The idea is that Google’s estimated 90 percent share of the US and Western European online search market is now in jeopardy. You judge.
Here’s a passage from the write up:
Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, participated in several meetings around Google’s AI strategy and has directed numerous groups in the company to refocus their efforts on addressing the threat that ChatGPT poses on its search engine business…In particular, teams in Google’s research, Trust and Safety division among other departments have been directed to switch gears to assist in the development and launch of new AI prototypes and products, the Times reported. Some employees have even been tasked to build AI products that generate art and graphics similar to OpenAI’s DALL-E used by millions of people…
Okay, meetings in the midst of holiday season. Perilously close to New Year’s festivities. Google Meet sessions with dogs barking or significant others saying, “Will you get off that call? Right now!”
The idea is that Google is going to face a challenge, maybe an existential threat! Google has to react immediately. Another grain silo will explode. That boom? Yeah, the emergency room oxygen tanks exploded. No one knows how many were injured or even killed. Horrible. More staff shortages! The sky is falling because our billing stream is blocked. Double Code Red!
Smash cut.
This image represents Google, courtesy of the free but legally ambiguous Craiyon.com:
Really original artwork courtesy of https://www.craiyon.com/
Yes, a fish bowl, not a frog. The fish takes the world’s data. I have heard that some pet fish watch television when an influencer is streaming to the big flat panel in the spacious 300 square foot apartment in Florham Park, New Jersey. This metaphorical fish is master of its universe; however, the leaking Russian ISS space capsule is not on its radar or the flaws of companies with “seeing stones” are not on its radar.
If we were to slowly heat the water in this fish’s bowl, our fish may discover too late that fleeing, transforming, or getting on a flight to Argentina are low percentage options. (Kiddies, please, do not test this theory and torture a fish unless you are a PhD student eager to work on live animal testing in a lab near Palo Alto.)
The key point is that until death has its paws on our fish, frantic action does not take place. Nothing stops the grim reaper from having a boiled fish appetizer.
May I share some of my unpopular, historically ignored observations about the Google? Oh, you say, “No.” Tough luck. Here I go:
- The Google of today understands its environment within its fish bowl. Like the fish, comprehension of the wider world is if not impossible or distorted due to the nature of the boundary between the watery world and the bigger outside world. Changing a world view ain’t gonna happen? Why? Business process momentum, perceptual acuity, and Googley thinking keep the systems doing what they do: Selling ads.
- Google engineers truly believe that their technology is THE BEST THING EVER. Keep in mind that invention can come via acquisition, unauthorized borrowing, or a late night Backrub discussion in a Stanford dorm. Today’s Google has substituted reasonably useful search of textual Web content for hard cash derived from monetizing user clicks. Executive compensation translates to “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
- Google is chugging along, uncertain that the bright light some Googlers have noticed is a stream from Nadine Breaty or a fire in the room housing the fish bowl. From the fish’s perspective, there are no big problems in the fish bowl. Pay attention but carry on. Signals carry noise, so dig out the meaningful signal. Verify. Plan. Test. (Ooops. The fish is now dead. Bad. So sudden. It was a nice fish before it went Madison Avenue, of course.)
The chatter about ChatGPT is interesting to me. The technology is interesting, and its performance is getting useful tweaks. Use cases are emerging. Worriers are letting their worry gene influence their thinking. Entrepreneurs are entrepreneuring because getting rich quick on open source software may be a better idea than applying to be a carpetland dweller at the Twitter thing. Smart software will put lawyers, journalists, and — gasp! — blue chip consultants out of work.
But what’s this suggest about Google?
Keep in mind that I dubbed Google Googzilla in 2003. Big, ferocious, an icon of rapaciousness. True then and truer now. But big reptiles share a common characteristic with gold fish. Trapped in one ecosystem, the creatures don’t know what’s happening until it is too late. Then freneticism marks the onset of death. What’s a frightened, crazed Googzilla like?
We’re not there yet. I think of Google’s Code Red as the first stage of Google’s way of dying. I told you: Unpopular. Nothing new.
The Five Stages of Grief makes clear that Google is just now working through the denial stage. Next up is anger. Then deal making. Depression sweeps through the company. And finally — finally! — staff accept that the run of behavior without consequences has drawn to a close. Elisabeth Kubler Ross and David Kessler left out the final stage is the stuff of popular songs like memories. Tip: Newly minted OSINT experts, move beyond Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 22, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
