Robotics Firms Sternly Bid Customers Not to Weaponize their Products
November 11, 2022
For anyone troubled by visions of armed robots roaming the streets, patrolling our workplaces, or invading our homes, rest assured robotics firms are addressing the concern. Can they implement some sort of failsafe? Well, no. ZDNet reports, “Boston Dynamics: We Won’t Weaponize our Robots and Neither Should our Customers.” So there. That lukewarm declaration should dissuade anyone inclined to MacGyver weapons onto an innocent machine, right? Reporter Liam Tung writes:
“Boston Dynamics, the formerly Google-owned firm behind the Spot robot dog and its humanoid equivalents, has published an open letter vowing to counter attempts by buyers to weaponize its products. The company released the pledge, saying it was worried by recent ‘makeshift efforts’ by people to weaponize commercially available robots. Several other robotics firms have signed the commitment.
The firm doesn’t mention which efforts it is worried about, but one example of this trend, as Vice reported in July, is shown in a video on YouTube, where a robot dog is rigged up with a gun and is shooting at targets. ‘Robots should be used to help, not harm. We prohibit weaponization, while supporting the safe, ethical, and effective use of robots in public safety,’ Boston Dynamics said in a blog post. The company’s open letter highlights that consumers’ trust in robots has waned after seeing weapons combined with autonomous and remotely controlled robots. Other companies that have signed the commitment are Agility Robotics, ANYbotics, Clearpath Robotics, Open Robotics, and Unitree Robotics.”
Great! Or it might be if these companies had any way to enforce this mandate stronger than the threat of a voided warranty. Besides the basic threat to humanity, robotics firms seem to have an even greater concern: The public might question the wisdom of unleashing their products on the world. Oh, are there wars underway?
Cynthia Murrell, November 11, 2022
When a Space Station Burns Up: The Facebook Trajectory
November 10, 2022
Mark Zuckerburg was so sure his company’s path to continued relevance lay in the Metaverse that last year he changed its name from Facebook to Meta. But after investing over $10 billion and dragging many workers from social media into virtual reality, the firm is traveling a rocky road. Not only is the Metaverse push expected to lose a significant amount of money, but the Facebook division is now suffering from the lack of attention. The Financial Times reveals, “Zuckerberg’s Metaverse Rush Pauses for ‘Quality Lockdown’ (paywall).” Reporters Hannah Murphy, Patrick McGee, and Christina Criddle write:
“According to memos and conversations with 10 current and former employees, [Zuckerberg’s] 3bn user-strong social media empire is experiencing disruption and challenges as part of the pivot to Meta, and has already been forced to delay future launches and adjust expectations. In a September memo seen by the Financial Times, Vishal Shah, the vice-president of Meta’s metaverse arm, warned that users and creators had complained that Horizon Worlds — its social virtual reality experience and the closest thing it has to a metaverse so far — was low quality and full of bugs. He ordered a ‘quality lockdown’ for the rest of the year, telling staff that they need to improve fundamentals before any aggressive expansion. Staffers working on the product had to ‘reprioritize or slow some things we had planned’, said Shah, adding that he was lowering its user numbers target for the second half of the year. Some employees warned morale was suffering as teams got restructured to accommodate Zuckerberg’s new vision, which many have not yet bought into. ‘There are a lot of people internally who have never put on a [virtual reality] headset,’ said one metaverse employee.”
Shah insists that simply will not do, and demands workers start using the buggy Horizon World at least once a week. They must be so pleased. It cannot help morale that Zuckerberg announced an upcoming hiring freeze and cost cutting measures while demanding workers demonstrate “increased intensity” and a “sense of urgency.” If he is not careful, he may have no need for that hiring freeze after all. As the Insider notes in its related coverage, the company is also dealing with a slowdown in ad revenue, a steep decline in market valuation, and the loss of former COO Sheryl Sandberg’s considerable talents. Furthermore, investors suspect the company is on the wrong track and, as analyst Rich Greenfield notes, “Meta continues to get its clock cleaned by TikTok.” We are curious to see whether the company can correct its course from here.
Cynthia Murrell, November 10, 2022
The Google: Indexing and Discriminating Are Expensive. So Get Bigger Already
November 9, 2022
It’s Wednesday, November 9, 2022, only a few days until I hit 78. Guess what? Amidst the news of crypto currency vaporization, hand wringing over the adult decisions forced on high school science club members at Facebook and Twitter, and the weirdness about voting — there’s a quite important item of information. This particular datum is likely to be washed away in the flood of digital data about other developments.
What is this gem?
An individual has discovered that the Google is not indexing some Mastodon servers. You can read the story in a Mastodon post at this link. Don’t worry. The page will resolve without trying to figure out how to make Mastodon stomp around in the way you want it to. The link to you is Snake.club Stephen Brennan.
The item is that Google does not index every Mastodon server. The Google, according to Mr. Brennan:
has decided that since my Mastodon server is visually similar to other Mastodon servers (hint, it’s supposed to be) that it’s an unsafe forgery? Ugh. Now I get to wait for a what will likely be a long manual review cycle, while all the other people using the site see this deceptive, scary banner.
So what?
Mr. Brennan notes:
Seems like El Goog has no problem flagging me in an instant, but can’t cleanup their mistakes quickly.
A few hours later Mr. Brennan reports:
However, the Search Console still insists I have security problems, and the “transparency report” here agrees, though it classifies my threat level as Yellow (it was Red before).
Is the problem resolved? Sort of. Mr. Brennan has concluded:
… maybe I need to start backing up my Google data. I could see their stellar AI/moderation screwing me over, I’ve heard of it before.
Why do I think this single post and thread is important? Four reasons:
- The incident underscores how an individual perceives Google as “the Internet.” Despite the use of a decentralized, distributed system. The mind set of some Mastodon users is that Google is the be-all and end-all. It’s not, of course. But if people forget that there are other quite useful ways of finding information, the desire to please, think, and depend on Google becomes the one true way. Outfits like Mojeek.com don’t have much of a chance of getting traction with those in the Google datasphere.
- Google operates on a close-enough-for-horseshoes or good-enough approach. The objective is to sell ads. This means that big is good. The Good Principle doesn’t do a great job of indexing Twitter posts, but Twitter is bigger than Mastodon in terms of eye balls. Therefore, it is a consequence of good-enough methods to shove small and low-traffic content output into a area surrounded by Google’s police tape. Maybe Google wants Mastodon users behind its police tape? Maybe Google does not care today but will if and when Mastodon gets bigger? Plus some Google advertisers may want to reach those reading search results citing Mastodon? Maybe? If so, Mastodon servers will become important to the Google for revenue, not content.
- Google does not index “the world’s information.” The system indexes some information, ideally information that will attract users. In my opinion, the once naive company allegedly wanted to achieve the world’s information. Mr. Page and I were on a panel about Web search as I recall. My team and I had sold to CMGI some technology which was incorporated into Lycos. That’s why I was on the panel. Mr. Page rolled out the notion of an “index to the world’s information.” I pointed out that indexing rapidly-expanding content and the capturing of content changes to previously indexed content would be increasingly expensive. The costs would be high and quite hard to control without reducing the scope, frequency, and depth of the crawls. But Mr. Page’s big idea excited people. My mundane financial and technical truths were of zero interest to Mr. Page and most in the audience. And today? Google’s management team has to work overtime to try to contain the costs of indexing near-real time flows of digital information. The expense of maintaining and reindexing backfiles is easier to control. Just reduce the scope of sites indexed, the depth of each crawl, the frequency certain sites are reindexed, and decrease how much content old content is displayed. If no one looks at these data, why spend money on it? Google is not Mother Theresa and certainly not the Andrew Carnegie library initiative. Mr. Brennan brushed against an automated method that appears to say, “The small is irrelevant controls because advertisers want to advertise where the eyeballs are.”
- Google exists for two reasons: First, to generate advertising revenue. Why? None of its new ventures have been able to deliver advertising-equivalent revenue. But cash must flow and grow or the Google stumbles. Google is still what a Microsoftie called a “one-trick pony” years ago. The one-trick pony is the star of the Google circus. Performing Mastodons are not in the tent. Second, Google wants very much to dominate cloud computing, off-the-shelf machine learning, and cyber security. This means that the performing Mastodons have to do something that gets the GOOG’s attention.
Net net: I find it interesting to find examples of those younger than I discovering the precise nature of Google. Many of these individuals know only Google. I find that sad and somewhat frightening, perhaps more troubling than Mr. Putin’s nuclear bomb talk. Mr. Putin can be seen and heard. Google controls its datasphere. Like goldfish in a bowl, it is tough to understand the world containing that bowl and its inhabitants.
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2022
An Interesting NSO Related Action
November 9, 2022
In what sounds like the idea for a thriller/drama miniseries, The Times of Israel states that; “Former NSO CEO And Ex-Chancellor of Austria Establish New Cybersecurity Startup.” Sebastian Kurz, former Austrian chancellor, and ex-CEO of NSO Group Shalev Hulio established the new cybersecurity company Dream Security.
Hulio and Kurz formed Dream Security to protect critical infrastructures, such as energy, water, and oil facilities from cyber attacks. Dream Security will begin building a market in Europe. Kurz and Hulio raised $20 million in pre-seed funds from investors led by Dove Frances, who is an Israeli-American venture capitalist founder of the Group 11 investment firm. Other investors include entrepreneurs from the Israeli cybersecurity industry and early NSO Group investor Adi Shalev.
Founder Former Wayout Group CEO Gil Dolev will join Dream Security’s initial team.
Kurz and Hulio are concerned with infrastructures from their past work:
“Kurz told the publication that as Austrian chancellor, he ‘witnessed many attacks on governments as well as on manufacturing plants and energy installations, most of which were not published in the media. This has far-reaching implications for supply chains as well as regular energy supplies and public services such as water and hospitals.’
Hulio told Bloomberg he was leaving ‘the intelligence side, offensive side if you want, and move to the defensive side. We saw that the biggest challenge the cyber world is dealing with is critical infrastructure.’ He said the new company would focus on European markets ‘because I currently think that they have the biggest threats right now because of the geopolitical situation.’”
Both men’s reputations are covered with black marks . Kurz left politics because he was accused of a corruption scandal. At NSO Group, Hulio oversaw the development of the Pegasus spyware. Pegasus has been used by countries with poor human rights records to spy on “rabble rousers.” Apple and Facebook are pursuing lawsuits against NSO Group for breaking into their products and violating the terms of use. The European Union is investigating the use of Pegasus by its critics and the US Commerce Department blacklisted the company, then limited access to US components and technology.
Israel is also tightening restrictions on its cybersecurity companies. The number of countries that can buy Israeli cyber technology went from 100 down to 37.
It appears Dream Security is attempting to skirt Israeli restrictions by building a new company in Europe. The leaders are preaching they want to help people by protecting their infrastructures, but it would not be surprising if their plans were more nefarious.
Whitney Grace, November 9, 2022
Is This Another Squeal from a Twitter Dependent User?
November 8, 2022
“The Ridiculous But Important Twitter Verification Debate, Explained” strikes me as another bleat from the old Twitter faction. The new and musk-scented tweeter has a revolutionary idea. If you are not following the “verification” issue; here’s the cited article’s presentation of the idea:
Musk says paid users would get a verification badge, and their tweets would get priority in replies, mentions, and searches; they’d also get to post longer videos, and they’d see fewer ads (but they’d still see ads). It probably shouldn’t even be called a “verification” badge anymore, either, as identity verification reportedly may not be necessary to get one (the money, it seems, is plenty and enough). And the blue check would no longer be a way to mitigate the spread of disinformation, as it was originally designed to be. Depending on who is willing to give Elon Musk $96 a year and what they have to say, it may well amplify it.
The old verification system, I learned from the write up:
… is not the status symbol people seem to think it is. It’s part of Twitter’s recognition that journalists are some of its most prolific users, that a lot of people use Twitter to keep up on the news those journalists tweet, and that it’s therefore important to all parties if they know whose word they can rely on.
Imagine. Now anyone willing to pay the Elon will receive a check. The “old” Twitter check mark was special. I noted this statement:
There are currently about 425,000 verified accounts, according to @verified. That’s enough for the blue check to no longer be the exclusive special symbol it was once seen as, but it’s also a small percentage of Twitter’s total user base, which Twitter has said is about 240 million monetizable (as in, actual people and not bots) daily active users.
This reminds me of Groucho Marx’ alleged quote about the value of a membership for a snazzy golf club: “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
I think Twitter is an unselective country club, but the check was something really special. But the tweeter thing is a relatively small service compared to Facebook or the Telegram Ukraine groups. I think buying a tweeter check mark is a way to make a small amount of money paid for a black hole sucking down money. That which was perceived to be special is now for sale, just like a Tesla without a wait list.
What about verification? Why not use false personas and scout around for one one those Voyager Labs-type intelware systems. Some permit the use of persona templates so that an identity can be deployed, verified, and used to interact with either humanoids or other software systems. Online verification is tough. Do you need evidence? Check out the lengths online services are going to determine that the entity logging in is actually the “real” registered entry. By the way, some verification methods required on certain ghost sites are like math problems in a Differential Calculus class.
In the era of dinobabies, if one published an article in a magazine, that article represented a writer, probably a hard charging English major, and a published (either loved like Barry Bingham senior or hated like the charming Mr. Hearst). Thus, if a reader were offended, there was, in theory, a throat into which one’s legal eagles could sink their talons. In the largely unregulated digital space, anonymity, false personas, content robots, and mixes of methods are ghosts. Legal eagles want to drop from the sky, seize their prey, and empty either wallets or blood vessels. Big disappointment: Software robots can be operated by an enterprising programmer in Romania. What legal eagle wants to jet to Bucharest and contemplate the patron saint of lawyers – Vlad the Impaler? Very few I surmise.
The anonymity thing is important to those who want to become a star, a thought leader, a dominant force in less than 200 words, and an influencer. Imagine this: A “real” journalist suggesting to a CIA professional that the real journalist could become a spy. That’s a great idea. The type of person who craves fame in Tweeterville wants those with a check to be special. If anyone can buy a check, then the value of the digital fame chaser goes down.
I don’t have a dog in the Fail Whale world. It is fun to identify the noises made by those who want to catch the Elon bird’s song which sounds a great deal like musical motifs from Mozart’s Requiem in D Minor.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2022
What Will the Twitter Dependent Do Now?
November 7, 2022
Here’s a question comparable to Roger Penrose’s, Michio Kaku’s, and Sabine Hossenfelder’s discussion of the multiverse. (One would think that the Institute of Art and Ideas could figure out sound, but that puts high-flying discussions in a context, doesn’t it?)
What will the Twitter dependent do now?
Since I am not Twitter dependent nor Twitter curious (twi-curious, perhaps?), I find the artifacts of Muskism interesting to examine. Let’s take one example; specifically, “Twitter, Cut in Half.” Yikes, castration by email! Not quite like the real thing, but for some, the imagery of chopping off the essence of the tweeter thing is psychologically disturbing.
Consider this statement:
After the layoffs, we asked some of the employees who had been cut what they made of the process. They told us that they had been struck by the cruelty: of ordering people to work around the clock for a week, never speaking to them, then firing them in the middle of the night, no matter what it might mean for an employee’s pregnancy or work visa or basic emotional state. More than anything they were struck by the fact that the world’s richest man, who seems to revel in attention on the platform they had made for him, had not once deigned to speak to them.
Knife cutting a quite vulnerable finger as collateral damage to major carrot chopping. Image by https://www.craiyon.com/
Cruelty. Interesting word. Perhaps it reflects on the author who sees the free amplifier of his thoughts ripped from his warm fingers? The word cut keeps the metaphor consistent: Cutting the cord, cutting the umbilical, and cutting the unmentionables. Ouch! No wonder some babies scream when slicing and cleaving ensue. Ouch ouch.
Then the law:
whether they were laid off or not, several employees we’ve spoken to say they are hiring attorneys. They anticipate difficulties getting their full severance payments, among other issues. Tensions are running high.
The flocking of the legal eagles will cut off the bright white light of twitterdom. The shadows flicker awaiting the legal LEDs to shine and light the path to justice in free and easy short messages to one’s followers. Yes, the law versus the Elon.
So what’s left of the Fail Whale’s short messaging system and its functions designed to make “real” information available on a wide range of subjects? The write up reports:
It was grim. It was also, in any number of ways, pointless: there had been no reason to do any of this, to do it this way, to trample so carelessly over the lives and livelihoods of so many people.
Was it pointless? I am hopeful that Twitter goes away. The alternatives could spit out a comparable outfit. Time will reveal if those who must tweet will find another easy, cheap way to promote specific ideas, build a rock star like following, and provide a stage for performers who do more than tell jokes and chirp.
Several observations:
- A scramble for other ways to find, build, and keep a loyal following is underway. Will it be the China-linked TikTok? Will it be the gamer-centric Discord? Will it be a ghost web service following the Telegram model?
- Fear is perched on the shoulder of the Twitter dependent celebrity. What worked for Kim has worked for less well known “stars.” Those stars may wonder how the Elon volcano could ruin more of their digital constructs.
- Fame chasers find that the information highway now offers smaller, less well traveled digital paths? Forget the two roads in the datasphere. The choices are difficult, time consuming to master, and may lead to dead ends or crashes on the information highway’s collector lanes.
Net net: Change is afoot. Just watch out for smart automobiles with some Elon inside.
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2022
Teens Prefer Apple
November 7, 2022
The 44th semi-annual Taking Stock with Teens survey from Piper Sandler asked US teenagers about their earnings, spending patterns, and brand preferences. Here is a handy infographic of the results. Marketers will find helpful guidance in this report.
Some of the findings are interesting, even for those not looking to make a buck off young people. See the post for trends in clothing, cosmetics, and food. In technology-related preferences, we found some completely unsurprising. For example:
- “TikTok improved as the favorite social platform (38% share) by 400 bps vs. last Spring, and SNAP was No. 2 at 30% (-100 bps vs. Spring 2022) while Instagram was No. 3 at 20% (-200 bps vs. Spring 2022)
- Teens spend 32% of daily video consumption on Netflix (flat vs. LY) and 29% on YouTube (-200 bps vs. LY)”
We find one revelation particularly significant. It looks like Apple is on track to monopolize the cohort:
- “87% of teens own an iPhone; 88% expect an iPhone to be their next phone; 31% of teens own an Apple Watch”
What will advertisers pay to reach this group? Answer: Lots. We anticipate a growing number of teen-focused campaigns across the Appleverse. When Apple squeezed Facebook’s ad methods, where did that delicious money flow go? Do regulators know?
Cynthia Murrell, November 7 , 2022
Will the Musker Keep Amplification in Mind?
November 4, 2022
In its ongoing examination of misinformation online, the New York Times tells us about the Integrity Institute‘s quest to measure just how much social media contributes to the problem in, “How Social Media Amplifies Misinformation More than Information.” Reporter Steven Lee Meyers writes:
“It is well known that social media amplifies misinformation and other harmful content. The Integrity Institute, an advocacy group, is now trying to measure exactly how much — and on Thursday [October 13] it began publishing results that it plans to update each week through the midterm elections on Nov. 8. The institute’s initial report, posted online, found that a ‘well-crafted lie’ will get more engagements than typical, truthful content and that some features of social media sites and their algorithms contribute to the spread of misinformation.”
In is ongoing investigation, the researchers compare the circulation of posts flagged as false by the International Fact-Checking Network to that of other posts from the same accounts. We learn:
“Twitter, the analysis showed, has what the institute called the great misinformation amplification factor, in large part because of its feature allowing people to share, or ‘retweet,’ posts easily. It was followed by TikTok, the Chinese-owned video site, which uses machine-learning models to predict engagement and make recommendations to users. … Facebook, according to the sample that the institute has studied so
far, had the most instances of misinformation but amplified such claims to a lesser degree, in part because sharing posts requires more steps. But some of its newer features are more prone to amplify misinformation, the institute found.”
Facebook‘s video content spread lies faster than the rest of the platform, we learn, because its features lean more heavily on recommendation algorithms. Instagram showed the lowest amplification rate, while the team did not yet have enough data on YouTube to draw a conclusion. It will be interesting to see how these amplifications do or do not change as the midterms approach. The Integrity Institute shares its findings here.
Cynthia Murrell, November 4, 2022
Meet TOBOR: The CFO Which Never Stops Calculating Your Value
November 3, 2022
Robot coworkers make us uncomfortable, apparently. Who knew? ScienceDaily reports, “Robots in Workplace Contribute to Burnout, Job Insecurity.” The good news, we are told, is that simple self-affirmation exercises can help humans get past such fears. The write-up cites research from the American Psychological Association, stating:
“Working with industrial robots was linked to greater reports of burnout and workplace incivility in an experiment with 118 engineers employed by an Indian auto manufacturing company. An online experiment with 400 participants found that self-affirmation exercises, where people are encouraged to think positively about themselves and their uniquely human characteristics, may help lessen workplace robot fears. Participants wrote about characteristics or values that were important to them, such as friends and family, a sense of humor or athletics. ‘Most people are overestimating the capabilities of robots and underestimating their own capabilities,’ [lead researcher Kai Chi] Yam said.”
Yam suspects ominous media coverage about robots replacing workers is at least partially to blame for the concern. Yeah, that tracks. The write-up continues:
“Fears about job insecurity from robots are common. The researchers analyzed data about the prevalence of robots in 185 U.S. metropolitan areas along with the overall use of popular job recruiting sites in those areas (LinkedIn, Indeed, etc.). Areas with the most prevalent rates of robots also had the highest rates of job recruiting site searches, even though unemployment rates weren’t higher in those areas.”
Researchers suggest this difference may be because workers in those areas are afraid of being replaced by robots at any moment, though they allow other factors could be at play. So just remember—if you become anxious a robot is after your job, just remind yourself what a capable little human you are. Technology is our friend, even if it makes us a bit nervous.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2022
OpenAI and The Evolution of Academic Cheating
November 2, 2022
Once considered too dangerous for public release, OpenAI’s text generator first ventured forth as a private beta. Now a version called Playground is available to everyone and is even free for the first three months (or the first 1,200,00 characters, whichever comes first). Leave it to the free market to breeze past considerations of misuse. We learn from Vice Motherboard that one key concern has materialized: “Students Are Using AI to Write Their Papers, Because Of Course They Are.” It did not take students long to realize this cheat slips right past plagiarism detecting software—because it is not technically plagiarism. Reporter Claire Woodcock writes:
“George Veletsianos, Canada Research Chair in Innovative Learning & Technology and associate professor at Royal Roads University says this is because the text generated by systems like OpenAI API are technically original outputs that are generated within a black box algorithm. ‘[The text] is not copied from somewhere else, it’s produced by a machine, so plagiarism checking software is not going to be able to detect it and it’s not able to pick it up because the text wasn’t copied from anywhere else,’ Veletsianos told Motherboard. ‘Without knowing how all these other plagiarism checking tools quite work and how they might be developed in the future, I don’t think that AI text can be detectable in that way.’ It’s unclear whether the companies behind the AI tools have the ability to detect or prevent students from using them to do their homework. OpenAI did not comment in time for publication.”
It was inevitable, really. One writing instructor quoted in the story recognizes today’s students can easily accumulate more knowledge than ever before. However, he laments losing the valuable process of gaining that knowledge through exploration if writing assignments become moot. The tutor has a point, but there is likely no turning back now. Perhaps there is a silver lining: academic institutions may finally be forced to teach like they exist in the 21st century. Students are already there. One cited only as innovate_rye states:
“I still do my homework on things I need to learn to pass, I just use AI to handle the things I don’t want to do or find meaningless. If AI is able to do my homework right now, what will the future look like? These questions excite me.”
That is one way to look at it. Perhaps the spirit of exploration is not dead, but rather evolving. Colleges and universities must find a way to keep up or risk becoming irrelevant.
A failure means than students will learn that cheating is the norm. Such progress.
Cynthia Murrell, November 2, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
