The Ka-Ching Game: The EU Rings the Big Tech Cash Register Tactic
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The unusually tinted Financial Times published another “they will pay up and change, really” write up. The article is “Meta and Apple Close to Settling EU Cases.” [Note: You have to pay to read the FT’s orange write up.] The main idea is that these U S big technology outfits are cutting deals. The objective is to show that these two firms are interested in making friends with European Commission professionals. The combination of nice talk and multi-million euro payments should do the trick. That’s the hope.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The cute penalty method the EU crafted involved daily financial penalties for assorted alleged business practices. The penalties had an escalator feature. If the U S big tech outfits did not comply or pretend to comply, then the EU could send an invoice for up to five percent of the firm’s gross revenues. Could the E U collect? Well, that’s another issue. If Apple leaves the E U, the elected officials would have to use an Android mobile. If Meta departed, the elected officials would have to listen to their children’s complaints about their ruined social life. I think some grandmothers would be honked if the flow of grandchildren pictures were interrupted. (Who needs this? Take the money, Christina.)
Several observations:
- The EU will take money; the EU will cook up additional rules to make the Wild West outfits come to town but mostly behave
- The U S big tech companies will write a check, issue smarmy statements, and do exactly what they want to do. Decades of regulatory inefficacy creates certain opportunities. Some U S outfits spot those and figure out how to benefit from lack of action or ineptitude
- The efforts to curtail the U S big tech companies have historically been a rinse and repeat exercise. That won’t change.
The problem for the EU with regard to the U S is different from the other challenges it faces. In my opinion, the E U like other countries is:
- Unprepared for the new services in development by U S firms. I address these in a series of lectures I am doing for some government types in Colorado. Attendance at the talks is restricted, so I can’t provide any details about these five new services hurtling toward the online markets in the U S and elsewhere
- Unable to break its cycle of clever laws, U S company behavior, and accept money. More is needed. A good example of how one country addressed a problem online took place in France. That was a positive, decisive action and will interrupt the flow of cash from fines. Perhaps more E U countries should consider this French approach?
- The Big Tech outfits are not constrained by geographic borders. In case you have not caught up with some of the ideas of Silicon Valley, may I suggest you read the enervating and somewhat weird writings of a fellow named René Gerard?
Net net: Yep, a deal. No big surprise. Will it work? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
AI and America: Not a Winner It Seems
October 13, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Los Alamos National Laboratory perceives itself as one of the world’s leading science and research facilities. Jason Pruet is the Director of Los Alamos’s National Security AI Office and he was interviewed in “Q&A With Jason Pruet.” Pruet’s job is to prepare the laboratory for AI integration. He used to view AI as another tool for advancement, but Pruet now believes AI would disrupt the fundamental landscape of science, security, and more.
In the interview, Pruet states that the US government invested more in AI than any time in the past. He compared this investment to the World War II paradigm of science for the public good. Pruet explained that before the war, the US government wasn’t involved with science. After the war, Los Alamos shifted the dynamic and shaped modern America’s dedication to science, engineering, etc.
One of the biggest advances in AI technology is transformer architecture that allows huge progress to scale AI models, especially for mixing different information types. Pruet said that China is treating AI like a general purpose technology (i.e electricity) and they’ve launched a National AI strategy. The recent advances in AI are changing power structures. It’s turning into a new international arms race but that might not be the best metaphor:
“[Pruet:] All that said, I’m increasingly uncomfortable viewing this through the lens of a traditional arms race. Many thoughtful and respected people have emphasized that AI poses enormous risks for humanity. There are credible reports that China’s leadership has come to the same view, and that internally, they are trying to better balance the potential risks rather than recklessly seek advantage. It may be that the only path for managing these risks involves new kinds of international collaborations and agreements.”
Then Pruet had this to say about the state of the US’s AI development:
“Like we’re behind. The ability to use machines for general-purpose reasoning represents a seminal advance with enormous consequences. This will accelerate progress in science and technology and expand the frontiers of knowledge. It could also pose disruptions to national security paradigms, educational systems, energy, and other foundational aspects of our society. As with other powerful general-purpose technologies, making this transition will depend on creating the right ecosystem. To do that, we will need new kinds of partnerships with industry and universities.”
The sentiment seems to be focused on going faster and farther than any other country in the AI game. With the circular deals OpenAI has been crafting, AI seems to be more about financial innovation than technical innovation.
Whitney Grace, October 13, 2025
Weaponization of LLMs Is a Thing. Will Users Care? Nope
October 10, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
A European country’s intelligence agency learned about my research into automatic indexing. We did a series of lectures to a group of officers. Our research method, the results, and some examples preceded a hands on activity. Everyone was polite. I delivered versions of the lecture to some public audiences. At one event, I did a live demo with a couple of people in the audience. Each followed a procedure, and I showed the speed with which the method turned up in the Google index. These presentations took place in the early 2000s. I assumed that the behavior we discovered would be disseminated and then it would diffuse. It was obvious that:
- Weaponized content would be “noted” by daemons looking for new and changed information
- The systems were sensitive to what I called “pulses” of data. We showed how widely used algorithms react to sequences of content
- The systems would alter what they would output based on these “augmented content objects.”
In short, online systems could be manipulated or weaponized with specific actions. Most of these actions could be orchestrated and tuned to have maximum impact. One example in my talks was taking a particular word string and making it turn up in queries where one would not expect that behavior. Our research showed that a few as four weaponized content objects orchestrated in a specific time interval would do the trick. Yep, four. How many weaponized write ups can my local installation of LLMs produce in 15 minutes? Answer: Hundreds. How long does it take to push those content objects into information streams used for “training.” Seconds.
Fish live in an environment. Do fish know about the outside world? Thanks, Midjourney. Not a ringer but close enough in horseshoes.
I was surprised when I read “A Small Number of Samples Can Poison LLMs of Any Size.” You can read the paper and work through the prose. The basic idea is that selecting or shaping training data or new inputs to recalibrate training data can alter what the target system does. I quite like the phrase “weaponize information.” Not only does the method work, it can be automated.
What’s this mean?
The intentional selection of information or the use of a sample of information from a domain can generate biases in what the smart software knows, thinks, decides, and outputs. Dr. Timnit Gebru and her parrot colleagues were nibbling around the Google cafeteria. Their research caused the Google to put up a barrier to this line of thinking. My hunch is that she and her fellow travelers found that content that is representative will reflect the biases of the authors. This means that careful selection of content for training or updating training sets can be steered. That’s what the Anthropic write up make clear.
Several observations are warranted:
- Whoever selects training data or the information used to update and recalibrate training data can control what is displayed, recommended, or included in outputs like recommendations
- Users of online systems and smart software are like fish in a fish bowl. The LLM and smart software crowd are the people who fill the bowl and feed the fish. Fish have a tough time understanding what’s outside their bowl. I don’t like the word “bubble” because these pop. An information fish bowl is tough to escape and break.
- As smart software companies converge into essentially an oligopoly using the types of systems I described in the early 2000s with some added sizzle from the Transformer thinking, a new type of information industrial complex is being assembled on a very large scale. There’s a reason why Sam AI-Man can maintain his enthusiasm for ChatGPT. He sees the potential of seemingly innocuous functions like apps within ChatGPT.
There are some interesting knock on effects from this intentional or inadvertent weaponization of online systems. One is that the escalating violent incidents are an output of these online systems. Inject some René Girard-type content into training data sets. Watch what those systems output. “Real” journalists are explaining how they use smart software for background research. Student uses online systems without checking to see if the outputs line up with what other experts say. What about investment firms allowing smart software to make certain financial decisions.
Weaponize what the fish live in and consume. The fish are controlled and shaped by weaponized information. How long has this quirk of online been known? A couple of decades, maybe more. Why hasn’t “anything” been done to address this problem? Fish just ask, “What problem?”
Stephen E Arnold, October x, 2025
I spotted
AI Has a Secret: Humans Do the Work
October 10, 2025
A key component of artificial intelligence output is not artificial at all. The Guardian reveals “How Thousands of ‘Overworked, Underpaid’ Humans Train Google’s AI to Seem Smart.” From accuracy to content moderation, Google Gemini and other AI models rely on a host of humans employed by third-party contractors. Humans whose jobs get harder and harder as they are pressured to churn through the work faster and faster. Gee, what could go wrong?
Reporter Varsha Bansal relates:
“Each new model release comes with the promise of higher accuracy, which means that for each version, these AI raters are working hard to check if the model responses are safe for the user. Thousands of humans lend their intelligence to teach chatbots the right responses across domains as varied as medicine, architecture and astrophysics, correcting mistakes and steering away from harmful outputs.”
Very important work—which is why companies treat these folks as valued assets. Just kidding. We learn:
“Despite their significant contributions to these AI models, which would perhaps hallucinate if not for these quality control editors, these workers feel hidden. ‘AI isn’t magic; it’s a pyramid scheme of human labor,’ said Adio Dinika, a researcher at the Distributed AI Research Institute based in Bremen, Germany. ‘These raters are the middle rung: invisible, essential and expendable.’”
And, increasingly, rushed. The write-up continues:
“[One rater’s] timer of 30 minutes for each task shrank to 15 – which meant reading, fact-checking and rating approximately 500 words per response, sometimes more. The tightening constraints made her question the quality of her work and, by extension, the reliability of the AI. In May 2023, a contract worker for Appen submitted a letter to the US Congress that the pace imposed on him and others would make Google Bard, Gemini’s predecessor, a ‘faulty’ and ‘dangerous’ product.”
And that is how we get AI advice like using glue on pizza or adding rocks to one’s diet. After those actual suggestions went out, Google focused on quality over quantity. Briefly. But, according to workers, it was not long before they were again told to emphasize speed over accuracy. For example, last December, Google announced raters could no longer skip prompts on topics they knew little about. Think workers with no medical expertise reviewing health advice. Not great. Furthermore, guardrails around harmful content were perforated with new loopholes. Bansal quotes Rachael Sawyer, a rater employed by Gemini contractor GlobalLogic:
“It used to be that the model could not say racial slurs whatsoever. In February, that changed, and now, as long as the user uses a racial slur, the model can repeat it, but it can’t generate it. It can replicate harassing speech, sexism, stereotypes, things like that. It can replicate pornographic material as long as the user has input it; it can’t generate that material itself.”
Lovely. It is policies like this that leave many workers very uncomfortable with the software they are helping to produce. In fact, most say they avoid using LLMs and actively discourage friends and family from doing so.
On top of the disillusionment, pressure to perform full tilt, and low pay, raters also face job insecurity. We learn GlobalLogic has been rolling out layoffs since the beginning of the year. The article concludes with this quote from Sawyer:
‘I just want people to know that AI is being sold as this tech magic – that’s why there’s a little sparkle symbol next to an AI response,’ said Sawyer. ‘But it’s not. It’s built on the backs of overworked, underpaid human beings.’
We wish we could say we are surprised.
Cynthia Murrell, October 10, 2025
Google Bricks Up Its Walled Garden
October 8, 2025
Google is adding bricks to its garden wall, insisting Android-app developers must pay up or stay out. Neowin declares, “Google’s Shocking Developer Decree Struggles to Justify the Urgent Threat to F-Droid.” The new edict requires anyone developing an app for Android to register with Google, whether or not they sell through its Play Store. Registration requires paying a fee, uploading personal IDs, and agreeing to Google’s fine print.
The measure will have a large impact on alternative app stores like F-Droid. That open-source publisher, with its focus on privacy, is particularly concerned about the requirements. In fact, it would rather shutter its project than force developers to register with Google. That would mean thousands of verified apps will vanish from the Web, never to be downloaded or updated again. F-Droid suspects Google’s motives are far from pure. Writer Paul Hill tells us:
“F-Droid has questioned whether forced registration will really solve anything because lots of malware apps have been found in the Google Play Store over the years, demonstrating that corporate gatekeeping doesn’t mean users are protected. F-Droid also points out that Google already defends users against malicious third-party apps with the Play Protect services which scan and disable malware apps, regardless of their origin. While not true for all alternative app stores, F-Droid already has strong security because the apps it includes are all open source that anyone can audit, the build logs are public, and builds are reproducible. When you submit an app to F-Droid, the maintainers help set up your repository properly so that when you publish an update to your code, F-Droid’s servers manually build the executable, this prevents the addition of any malware not in the source code.”
Sounds at least as secure as the Play Store to us. So what is really going on? The write-up states:
“The F-Droid project has said that it doesn’t believe that the developer registration is motivated by security. Instead, it thinks that Google is trying to consolidate power by tightening control over a formerly open ecosystem. It said that by tying application identifiers to personal ID checks and fees, it creates a choke point that restricts competition and limits user freedom.”
F-Droid is responding with a call for regulators to scrutinize this and other Googley moves for monopolistic tendencies. It also wants safeguards for app stores that wish to protect developers’ privacy. Who will win this struggle between independent app stores and the tech giant?
Cynthia Murrell, October 8, 2025
Slopity Slopity Slop: Nice Work AI Leaders
October 8, 2025
Remember that article about academic and scientific publishers using AI to churn out pseudoscience and crap papers? Or how about that story relating to authors’ works being stolen to train AI algorithms? Did I mention they were stealing art too?
Techdirt literally has the dirt on AI creating more slop: “AI Slop Startup To Flood The Internet With Thousands Of AI Slop Podcasts, Calls Critics Of AI Slop ‘Luddites’.” AI is a helpful tool. It’s great to assist with mundane things of life or improve workflows. Automation, however, has become the newest sensation. Big Tech bigwigs and other corporate giants are using it to line their purses, while making lives worse for others.
Note this outstanding example of a startup that appears to be interested in slop:
“Case in point: a new startup named Inception Point AI is preparing to flood the internet with a thousands upon thousands of LLM-generated podcasts hosted by fake experts and influencers. The podcasts cost the startup a dollar or so to make, so even if just a few dozen folks subscribe they hope to break even…”
They’ll make the episodes for less than a dollar. Podcasting is already a saturated market, but Point AI plans to flush it with garbage. They don’t care about the ethics. It’s going to be the Temu of podcasts. It would be great if people would flock to true human-made stuff, but they probably won’t.
Another reason we’re in a knowledge swamp with crocodiles.
Whitney Grace, October 9, 2025
The Future: Autonomous Machines
October 7, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Does mass customization ring a bell? I cannot remember whether it was Joe Pine or Al Toffler who popularized the idea. The concept has become a trendlet. Like many high-technology trends, a new term is required to help communication the sizzle of “new.”
An organization is now an “autonomous machine.” The concept is spelled out in “This Is Why Your Company Is Transforming into an Autonomous Machine.” The write up asserts:
Industries are undergoing a profound transformation as products, factories, and companies adopt the autonomous machine design model, treating each element as an integrated system that can sense, understand, decide, and act (SUDA business operating system) independently or in coordination with other platforms.
I assume SUDA rhymes with OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), but who knows?
The inspiration for the autonomous machine may be Elon Musk, who allegedly said: “I’m really thinking of the factory like a product.” Gnomic stuff.
The write up adds:
The Tesla is a cyber-physical system that improves over time through software updates, learns from millions of other vehicles, and can predict maintenance needs before problems occur.
I think this is an interesting idea. There is a logical progression at work; specifically:
- An autonomous “factory”
- Autonomous “companies” but I think one could just think about organizations and not be limited to commercial enterprises
- Agentic enterprises.
The future appears to be like this:
The path to becoming an autonomous enterprise, using a hybrid workforce of humans and digital labor powered by AI agents, will require constant experimentation and learning. Go fast, but don’t hurry. A balanced approach, using your organization’s brains and hearts, will be key to success. Once you start, you will never go back. Adopt a beginner’s mindset and build. Companies that are built like autonomous machines no longer have to decide between high performance and stability. Thanks to AI integration, business leaders are no longer forced to compromise. AI agents and physical AI can help business leaders design companies like a stealth aircraft. The technology is ready, and the design principles are proven in products and production. The fittest companies are autonomous companies.
I am glad I am a dinobaby, a really old dinobaby. Mass customization alright. Oligopolies producing what they want for humans who are supposed to have a job to buy the products and services. Yeah.
Stephen E Arnold, October 7, 2025
Hey, No Gain without Pain. Very Googley
October 6, 2025
AI firms are forging ahead with their projects despite predictions, sometimes by their own leaders, that artificial intelligence could destroy humanity. Some citizens have had enough. The Telegraph reports, “Anti-AI Doom Prophets Launch Hunger Strike Outside Google.” The article points to hunger strikes at both Google DeepMind’s London headquarters and a separate protest in San Francisco. Writer Matthew Field observes:
“Tech leaders, including Sir Demis of DeepMind, have repeatedly stated that in the near future powerful AI tools could pose potential risks to mankind if misused or in the wrong hands. There are even fears in some circles that a self-improving, runaway superintelligence could choose to eliminate humanity of its own accord. Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, AI leaders have actively encouraged these fears. The DeepMind boss and Sam Altman, the founder of ChatGPT developer OpenAI, both signed a statement in 2023 warning that rogue AI could pose a ‘risk of extinction’. Yet they have simultaneously moved to invest hundreds of billions in new AI models, adding trillions of dollars to the value of their companies and prompting fears of a seismic tech bubble.”
Does this mean these tech leaders are actively courting death and destruction? Some believe so, including San Francisco hunger-striker Guido Reichstadter. He asserts simply, “In reality, they’re trying to kill you and your family.” He and his counterparts in London, Michaël Trazzi and Denys Sheremet, believe previous protests have not gone far enough. They are willing to endure hunger to bring attention to the issue.
But will AI really wipe us out? Experts are skeptical. However, there is no doubt that AI systems perpetuate some real harms. Like opaque biases, job losses, turbocharged cybercrime, mass surveillance, deepfakes, and damage to our critical thinking skills, to name a few. Perhaps those are the real issues that should inspire protests against AI firms.
Cynthia Murrell, October 6, 2025
Big Tech Group Think: Two Examples
October 3, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Do the US tech giants do group think? Let’s look at two recent examples of the behavior and then consider a few observations.
First, navigate to “EU Rejects Apple Demand to Scrap Landmark Tech Rules.” The thrust of the write up is that Apple is not happy with the European digital competition law. Why? The EU is not keen on Apple’s business practices. Sure, people in the EU use Apple products and services, but the data hoovering makes some of those devoted Apple lovers nervous. Apple’s position is that the EU is annoying.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The write up says:
“Apple has simply contested every little bit of the DMA since its entry into application,” retorted EU digital affairs spokesman Thomas Regnier, who said the commission was “not surprised” by the tech giant’s move.
Apple wants to protect its revenue, its business models, and its scope of operation. Governments are annoying and should not interfere with a US company of Apple’s stature is my interpretation of the legal spat.
Second, take a look at the Verge story “Google Just Asked the Supreme Court to Save It from the Epic Ruling.” The idea is that the online store restricts what a software developer can do. Forget that the Google Play Store provides access to some sporty apps. A bit of spice is the difficulty one has posting reviews of certain Play Store apps. And refunds for apps that don’t work? Yeah, no problemo.
The write up says:
… [Google] finally elevated its Epic v. Google case, the one that might fracture its control over the entire Android app ecosystem, to the Supreme Court level. Google has now confirmed it will appeal its case to the Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile, it’s asking the Court to press pause one more time on the permanent injunction that would start taking away its control.
It is observation time:
- The two technology giants are not happy with legal processes designed to enforce rules, regulations, and laws. The fix is to take the approach of a five year old, “I won’t clean up my room.”
- The group think appears to operate on the premise that US outfits of a certain magnitude should not be hassled like Gulliver by Lilliputians wearing robes, blue suits, and maybe a powdered wig or hair extenders
- The approach of the two companies strikes me, a definite non lawyer, as identical.
Therefore, the mental processes of these two companies appear to be aligned. Is this part of the mythic Silicon Valley “way”? Is it a consequence of spending time on Highway 101 or the Foothills Expressway thinking big thoughts? Is the approach the petulance that goes with superior entities encountering those who cannot get with the program?
My view: After decades of doing whatever, some outfits believe that type of freedom is the path to enlightenment, control, and money. Reinforced behaviors lead to what sure looks like group think to me.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2025
Hiring Problems: Yes But AI Is Not the Reason
October 2, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “AI Is Not Killing Jobs, Finds New US Study.” I love it when the “real” news professionals explain how hiring trends are unfolding. I am not sure how many recent computer science graduates, commercial artists, and online marketing executives are receiving this cheerful news.
The magic carpet of great jobs is flaming out. Will this professional land a new position or will the individual crash? Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The write up states: “Research shows little evidence the cutting edge technology such as chatbots is putting people out of work.”
I noted this statement in the source article from the Financial Times:
Research from economists at the Yale University Budget Lab and the Brookings Institution think-tank indicates that, since OpenAI launched its popular chatbot in November 2022, generative AI has not had a more dramatic effect on employment than earlier technological breakthroughs. The research, based on an analysis of official data on the labor market and figures from the tech industry on usage and exposure to AI, also finds little evidence that the tools are putting people out of work.
That closes the doors on any pushback.
But some people are still getting terminated. Some are finding that jobs are not available. (Hey, those lucky computer science graduates are an anomaly. Try explaining that to the parents who paid for tuition, books, and a crash summer code academy session.)
“Companies Are Lying about AI Layoffs” provides a slightly different take on the jobs and hiring situation. This bit of research points out that there are terminations. The write up explains:
American employees are being replaced by cheaper H-1B visa workers.
If the assertions in this write up are accurate, AI is providing “cover” for what is dumping expensive workers and replacing them with lower cost workers. Cheap is good. Money savings… also good. Efficiency … the core process driving profit maximization. If you don’t grasp the imperative of this simply line of reasoning, ask an unemployed or recently terminated MBA from a blue chip consulting firm. You can locate these individuals in coffee shops in cities like New York and Chicago because the morose look, the high end laptop, and carefully aligned napkin, cup, and ink pen are little billboards saying, “Big time consultant.”
The “Companies Are Lying” article includes this quote:
“You can go on Blind, Fishbowl, any work related subreddit, etc. and hear the same story over and over and over – ‘My company replaced half my department with H1Bs or simply moved it to an offshore center in India, and then on the next earnings call announced that they had replaced all those jobs with AI’.”
Several observations:
- Like the Covid thing, AI and smart software provide logical ways to tell expensive employees hasta la vista
- Those who have lost their jobs can become contractors and figure out how to market their skills. That’s fun for engineers
- The individuals can “hunt” for jobs, prowl LinkedIn, and deal with the wild and crazy schemes fraudsters present to those desperate for work
- The unemployed can become entrepreneurs, life coaches, or Shopify store operators
- Mastering AI won’t be a magic carpet ride for some people.
Net net: The employment picture is those photographs of my great grandparents. There’s something there, but the substance seems to be fading.
Stephen E Arnold, October 2, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
