Taylorism, 996, and Motivating Employees
August 6, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
No more Foosball. No more Segways in the hallways (thank heaven!). No more ping pong (Wait. Scratch that. You must have ping pong.)
Fortune Magazine reported that Silicon Valley type outfits want to be more like the workplace managed using Frederick Winslow Taylor’s management methods. (Did you know that Mr. Taylor provided the oomph for many blue chip management consulting firms? If you did not, you may be one of the people suggesting that AI will kill off the blue chip outfits. Those puppies will survive.)
“Some Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Asking Employees to Adopt China’s Outlawed 996 Work Model” reports:
Some Silicon Valley startups are embracing China’s outlawed “996” work culture, expecting employees to work 12-hour days, six days a week, in pursuit of hyper-productivity and global AI dominance.
The reason, according to the write up, is:
The rise of the controversial work culture appears to have been born out of the current efficiency squeeze in Silicon Valley. Rounds of mass layoffs and the rise of AI have put pressure and turned up the heat on tech employees who managed to keep their jobs.
My response to this assertion is that it is a convenient explanation. My view is that one can trot out the China smart, US dumb arguments, point to the holes of burning AI cash, and the political idiosyncrasies of California and the US government.
The reason is that these are factors, but Silicon Valley is starting to accept the reality that old-fashioned business methods are semi useful. The idea that employees should converge on a work location to do what is still called “work.”
What’s the cause of this change? Since hooking electrodes to a worker in a persistent employee monitoring environment is a step too far for now, going back to the precepts of Freddy are a reasonable compromise.
But those electric shocks would work quite well, don’t you agree? (Sure, China’s work environment sparked a few suicides, but the efficiency is not significantly affected.)
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
Another Twist: AI Puts Mickey Mouse in a Trap
August 5, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
The in-the-news Wall Street Journal reveals that Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse may have their tails in a modernized, painful artificial intelligence trap. “Is It Still Disney Magic If It’s AI?” asks an obvious question. My knee jerk reaction after reading the article was, “Nope.”
The write up9 reports:
A deepfake Dwayne Johnson is just one part of a broader technological earthquake hitting Hollywood. Studios are scrambling to figure out simultaneously how to use AI in the filmmaking process and how to protect themselves against it. While executives see a future where the technology shaves tens of millions of dollars off a movie’s budget, they are grappling with a present filled with legal uncertainty, fan backlash and a wariness toward embracing tools that some in Silicon Valley view as their next-century replacement.
A deepfake Dwayne is a short step from deepfake of the entire Disney menagerie. Imagine what happens if a bad actor puts Snow White in some compromising situations, posts the video on a torrent, and publicizes the service on a Telegram-type communications system. That could be interesting. Imagine Goofy at the YMCA with synthetic village people.
How does Disney manage? The write up says:
Some Epic [a Disney “partner”] executives have complained about the slow pace of the decision-making at Disney, with signoffs needed from so many different divisions, said people familiar with the situation.
Slow worked before AI felt the whips of the funders who want payoffs. Now speed thrills. Dopey and Sleepy are not likely to make substantive contributions to Disney’s AI efforts. Has the magic been revealed or just appropriated by AI developers?
Here’s another question that might befuddle Immanuel Kant:
Some Disney executives have raised concerns ahead of the project’s launch, anticipated for fall 2026 at the earliest, about who owns fan creations based on Disney characters, said one of the people. For example, if a Fortnite gamer creates a Darth Vader and Spider-Man dance that goes viral on YouTube, who owns that dance?
From my tiny office in rural Kentucky, Disney is behind the eight ball. Like Apple and Telegram, smart software presents a reasonable problem for 23 year old programmers. For those older, AI is disjunctive. Right, Dopey? Prince AI is busy elsewhere.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2025
Yahoo: An Important Historical Milestone
August 5, 2025
Sorry, no smart software involved. A dinobaby’s own emergent thoughts.
I read “What Went Wrong for Yahoo.” At one time, my team and I followed Yahoo. We created The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) in the early 1990s. Some perceived The Point as a variant. I suppose it was, but we sold the property after a few years. The new owners, something called CMGI, folded The Point into Lycos, and — poof — The Point was gone.
But Yahoo chugged along. The company became the poster child for the Web 1 era. Web search was not comprehensive, and most of the “search engines” struggled to deal with several thorny issues:
- New sites were flooding the Web One Internet. Indexing was a bottleneck. In the good old days, one did not spin up a virtual machine on a low cost vendor in Romania. Machines and gizmos were expensive, and often there was a delay of six months or more for a Sun Microsystems Sparc. Did I mention expensive? Everyone in search was chasing low cost computer and network access.
- The search-and-retrieval tools were in “to be” mode. If one were familiar with IBM Almaden, a research group was working on a system called Clever. There were interesting techniques in many companies. Some popped up and faded. I am not sure of the dates but there was Lycos, which I mentioned, Excite, and one developed by the person who created Framemaker, among others. (I am insufficiently motivated too chase down my historical files, and I sure don’t want to fool around trying to get historical information from Bing, Google, Yandex, and (heaven help me! Qwant). The ideas were around, but it took time for the digital DNA to create a system that mostly worked. I wish I could remember the system that emerged from Cambridge University, but I cannot.
- Old-fashioned search methods like those used by NASA Recon, SDC Orbit, Dialog, and STAIRS were developed to work on bounded content, precisely structured, indexed or “tagged” in today’s jargon, and coded for mainframes. Figuring out how to use smaller machines was not possible. In my lectures from that era, I pointed out that once something is coded, sort of works, and seems to be making money — changes is not conceivable. Therefore, the systems with something that worked sailed along like aircraft carriers until they rusted and sank.
What’s this got to do with Yahoo?
Yahoo was a directory. Directories are good because the content is bounded. Yahoo did not exercise significant editorial control. The Point, on the other hand, was curated like the commercial databases with which I was associated: ABI/INFORM, Business Dateline (the first online information service which corrected erroneous information after a content object went live), Pharmaceutical News Index, and some others we sold to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts.
Indexing the Web is not bounded. Yahoo tried to come up with a way to index what was a large amount of digital content. Adding to Yahoo’s woes was the need to indexed changed content or the “deltas” as we called them in our attempt at The Point to sound techno-literate.
Because of the cost and revenue problems, decisions at Yahoo — according to the people whom we knew and with whom we spoke — went like this:
- Assemble a group with different expertise
- State the question, “What can we do now to make money?”
- Gather ideas
- Hold a meeting to select one or two
- Act on the “best ideas”
The flaw in this method is that a couple of smart fellows in a Stanford dorm were fooling around with Backrub. It incorporated ideas from their lectures, what they picked up about new ideas from students, and what they read (no ChatGPT then, sorry).
I am not going to explain what Backrub at first did not do (work reliably despite the weird assemblage of computers and gear the students used) and focus on the three ideas that did work for what became Google, a pun on a big number’s name:
- Hook mongrel computers to indexing when those computers were available and use anything that remotely seemed to solve a problem. Is that an old router? Cool, let’s use that. This was a very big idea because fooling around with computer systems could kill those puppies with an errant instruction.
- Find inspiration in the IBM Clever system; that is, determine relevance by looking at links to a source document. This was a variation on Gene Garfield’s approach to citation analysis
- Index new Web pages when the appeared. If the crawler / indexer crashed, skip the page and go to the next url. The dorm boys looked at the sites that killed the crawler and figured out how to accommodate those changes; thus, the crawler / indexer became “smart”. This was a very good idea because commercial content indexing systems forced content to be structured a certain way. However, in the Web 1 days, rules were either non existent, ignored, or created problems that creators of Web pages wrote around.
Yahoo did none of these things.
Now let me point out Yahoo’s biggest mistake, and, believe me, the company is an ideal source of insight about what not to do.
Yahoo acquired GoTo.com. The company and software emerged from IdeaLab, I think. What GoTo.com created was an online version of a pay-to-play method. The idea was a great one and obvious to those better suited to be the love child of Cardinal Richelieu and Cosimo de’ Medici. To keep the timeline straight, Sergey Brin and Larry Page did the deed and birthed Google with the GoTo.com (Overture) model to create Google’s ad foundation. Why did Google need money? The person who wrote a check to the Backrub boys said, “You need to earn money.” The Backrub boys looked around and spotted the GoTo method, now owned by Yahoo. The Backrub boys emulated it.
Yahoo, poor old confused Yahoo, took legal action against the Backrub boys, settled for $1 billion, and became increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, Yahoo’s biggest opportunity was to buy the Backrub boys and their Google search system, but they did not. Then Yahoo allowed their GoTo to inspire Google advertising.
From my point of view, Cardinal Richelieu and Cosimo were quite proud that the two computer science students, some of the dorm crowd, and bits and pieces glued together to create Google search emerged as a very big winner.
Yahoo’s problem is that committee think in a fast changing, high technology context is likely to be laughably wrong. Now Google is Yahoo-like. The cited article nails it:
Buying everything in sight clearly isn’t the best business strategy. But if indiscriminately buying everything in sight would have meant acquiring Google and Facebook, Yahoo might have been better off doing that rather than what it did.
Can Google think like the Backrub boys? I don’t think so. The company is spinning money, but the cash that burnishes Google leadership’s image comes from the Yahoo, GoTo.com, and Overture model. Yahoo had so many properties, the Yahooligans had zero idea how to identify a property with value and drive that idea forward. How many “things” does Google operate now? How many things does Facebook operate now? How many things does Telegram operate now? I think that “too many” may hold a clue to the future of these companies. And Yahooooo? An echo, not the yodel.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2025
Bubble? What Bubble? News Bubble, Financial Bubble, Social Media Bubble?
August 5, 2025
We knew the AI hype was extreme. Now one economist offers a relatable benchmark to describe just how extreme it is. TechSpot reports, “The AI Boom is More Overhyped than the 1990s Dot-Com Bubble, Says Top Economist.” Writer Daniel Sims reveals:
“As tech giants pour more money into AI, some warn that a bubble may be forming. Drawing comparisons to the dot-com crash that wiped out trillions at the turn of the millennium, analysts caution that today’s market has become too reliant on still-unproven AI investments. Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, recently argued that the stock market currently overvalues a handful of tech giants – including Nvidia and Microsoft – even more than it overvalued early internet companies on the eve of the 2000 dot-com crash. The warning suggests history could soon repeat itself, with the buzzword ‘dot-com’ replaced by ‘AI.’”
Paint us unsurprised. We are reminded:
“In the late 1990s, numerous companies attracted venture capital in hopes of profiting from the internet’s growing popularity, and the stock market vastly overvalued the sector before solid revenue could materialize. When returns failed to meet expectations, the bubble burst, wiping out countless startups. Slok says the stock market’s expectations are even more unrealistic today, with 12-month forward price-to-earnings ratios now exceeding the peak of the dot-com bubble.”
See the write-up for more about price-to-earnings ratios and their relationship to bubbles, complete with a handy bar chart. Sims notes the top 10 firms’ ratios far exceed the rest of the index, illustrating their wildly unrealistic expectations. Slok’s observations echo concerns raised by others, including Baidu CEO Robin Li. Last October, Li predicted only one percent of AI firms will survive the bubble’s burst. Will those top 10 firms be among them? On the plus side, Li expects a more realistic and stable market will follow. We are sure the failed 99 percent will take comfort in that.
Cynthia Murrell, August 5, 2025
Yep, Google Is Innovative
August 4, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. Not even smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read the weird orange newspaper story “Google’s AI Fight Is Moving to New Ground.” What? Google has been forced to move to new ground. What’s this “is moving” progressive tense stuff? (You will have to pay to read this article. The good old days of handing out orange newspapers on Sixth Avenue in Midtown are long, long gone.)
The orange newspaper says:
Being presented with ready-made answers means they [Google’s users of its Web search service] are less likely to click on links, of course — according to Pew Research in the US, about half as likely. But that hasn’t stopped solid growth in search advertising revenue.
Perhaps the missing angle is an answer to this question, “Where are advertisers supposed to go? The Saturday Evening Post, the Stephen Colbert Show, or TikTok- and Telegram-type services?”
How about this statement:
Google’s investors can at least draw heart from signs that their company is starting to find its innovative spark. Project Mariner, a prototype it showed off two months ago, closely echoes ChatGPT agent.
Innovation is “me too”? What?
And here’s another statement I circled:
But the lock on advertising that Google has long enjoyed thanks to search is starting to loosen, leaving it to fight on a new battlefield against AI apps — and not just those from OpenAI.
Many outfits are struggling. One example is General Motors. Another is traditional print publications in the US. With strong revenue growth on intellectual gold mines like YouTube, the “lock” is wobbly. Give me a break.
Management by MBA with blue chip consulting experience maximize revenue the old fashioned way: Automation, tougher deals, and fierce protection of walled garden revenue streams.
There is a reason a number of countries are engaged in legal dust ups with Google. How did that work out in the UK for Foundem.com?
Stephen E Arnold, August 4, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: Is There Any Doubt?
August 1, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I have been identifying some of the “China smart, US dumb” information that I see. I noticed a write up from The Register titled “China Proves That Open Models Are More Effective Than All the GPUs in the World.” My Google-style Red Alert buzzer buzzed and the bubble gum machine lights flashed.
There is was. The “all.” A categorical affirmative. China is doing something that is more than “all the GPUs in the world.” Not only that “open models are more effective” too. I have to hit the off button.
The point of the write up for me is that OpenAI is a loser. I noted this statement:
OpenAI was supposed to make good on its name and release its first open-weights model since GPT-2 this week. Unfortunately, what could have been the US’s first half-decent open model of the year has been held up by a safety review…
But it is not just OpenAI muffing the bunny. The write up points out:
the best open model America has managed so far this year is Meta’s Llama 4, which enjoyed a less than stellar reception and was marred with controversy. Just this week, it was reported that Meta had apparently taken its two-trillion-parameter Behemoth out behind the barn after it failed to live up to expectations.
Do you want to say, “Losers”? Go ahead.
But what outfit is pushing out innovative smart software as open source? Okay, you can shout, “China. The Middle Kingdom. The rightful rulers of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia.
That’s the “right” answer if you accept the “all” type of reasoning in the write up.
China has tallied a number of open source wins; specifically, Deepseek, Qwen, M1, Ernie, and the big winner Kimi.
Do you still have doubts about China’s AI prowess? Something is definitely wrong with you, pilgrim.
Several observations:
- The write up is a very good example of the China smart, US dumb messaging which has made its way from the South China Morning Post to YouTube and now to the Register. One has to say, “Good work to the Chinese strategists.”
- The push for open source is interesting. I am not 100 percent convinced that making these models available is intended to benefit non-Middle Kingdom people. I think that the push, like the shift to crypto currency in non traditional finance, is part of an effort to undermine what might be called “America’s hegemony.”
- The obviousness of overt criticism of OpenAI and Meta (Facebook) illustrates a growing confidence in China that Western European information channels can be exploited.
Does this matter? I think it does. Open source software has some issues. These include its use as a vector for malware. Developers often abandon projects, leaving users high and dry with some reaching for their wallet to buy commercial solutions. Open source projects for smart software may have baked in biases and functions that are not easily spotted. Many people are aware of NSO Group’s ability to penetrate communications on a device by device basis. What happens if the phone home ability is baked into some open source software.
Remember that “all.” The logical fallacy illustrates that some additional thinking may be necessary when it comes to embedding and using software from some countries with very big ambitions. What is China proving? Could it be China smart, US dumb?
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2025
Microsoft and Job Loss Categories: AI Replaces Humans for Sure
July 31, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read “Working with AI: Measuring the Occupational Implications of Generative AI.” This is quite a sporty academic-type write up. The people cranking out this 41 page Sociology 305 term paper work at Microsoft (for now).
The main point of the 41-page research summary is:
Lots of people will lose their jobs to AI.
Now this might be a surprise to many people, but I think the consensus among bean counters is that humans cost too much and require too much valuable senior manager time to manage correctly. Load up the AI, train the software, and create some workflows. Good enough and the cost savings are obvious even to those who failed their CPA examination.
The paper is chock full of jargon, explanations of the methodology which makes the project so darned important, and a wonky approach to presenting the findings.
Remember:
Lots of people will lose their jobs to AI.
The highlight of the paper in my opinion is the “list” of occupations likely to find that AI displaces humans at a healthy pace. The list is on page 12 of the report. I snapped an image of this chart “Top 40 Occupations with Highest AI Applicability Score.” The jargon means:
Lots of people will lose their jobs to AI.
Here’s the chart. (Yes, I know you cannot read it. Just navigate to the original document and read the list. I am not retyping 40 job categories. Also, I am not going to explain the MSFT “mean action score.” You can look at that capstone to academic wizardry yourself.)
What are the top 10 jobs likely to result in big time job losses? Microsoft says they are:
- People who translate from one language to another
- Historians which I think means “history teachers” and writers of non-fiction books about the past
- Passenger attendants (think robots who bring you a for-fee vanilla cookie and an over-priced Coke with “real cane sugar”)
- People who sell services (yikes, that’s every consulting firm in the world. MBAs, be afraid)
- Writers (this category appears a number of times in the list of 40, but the “mean action score” knows best)
- Customer support people (companies want customers to never call. AI is the way to achieve this goal)
- CNC tool programmers (really? Someone has to write the code for the nifty Chip Foose wheel once I think. After that, who needs the programmer?)
- Telephone operators (there are still telephone operators. Maybe the “mean action score” system means receptionists at the urology doctors’ office?)
- Ticket agents (No big surprise)
- Broadcast announcers (no more Don Wilsons or Ken Carpenters. Sad.)
The 30 are equally eclectic and repetitive. I think you get the idea. Service jobs and work that is repetitive — Dinosaurs waiting to die.
Microsoft knows how to brighten the day for recent college graduates, people under 35, and those who are unemployed.
Oh, well, there is the Copilot system to speed information access about job hunting and how to keep a positive attitude. Thanks, Microsoft.
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 2025
Guess Who Coded the Official Messaging App of Russia
July 30, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
The Bloomberg story title “Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin’s Handpicked Super App” caused me to poke around in the information my team and I have collected about “super apps,” encrypted messaging services, and ways the Kremlin wants to get access to any communication by Russian citizens and those living in the country and across the Russian Federation. The Bloomberg story is interesting, but I want to add some color to what seems to be a recent development.
If you answered the question “Guess who coded the official messaging app of Russia?” by saying, “Pavel and Nikolai Durov,” you are mostly correct. The official messaging act is a revamped version of VKontakte, the the Facebook knock off coded by Pavel and Nikolai Durov. By 2011, Kremlin authorities figured out that access to the content on a real time social media service like VK was a great way to stamp out dissent.
The Durovs did not immediately roll over, but by 2013, Pavel Durov folded. He took some cash, left Nikolai at home with mom, and set off to find a place for hospitable to his views of freedom, privacy, security, and living a life not involving a Siberian prison. Pavel Durov, however, has a way of attracting attention from government officials outside of Russia at this time. He is awaiting trial in France for a number of alleged online crimes, including CSAM. (CSAM is in the news in the US recently as well.)
Ongoing discussions with VK and an “integrator” have been underway for years. The Kremlin contracted with Sber and today’s VK to create a mandatory digital service for Russian citizens and anyone in the country buying a mobile phone in Russia. The idea is that with a mandatory messaging app, the Kremlin could access the data that Pavel Durov refused to produce.
The official roll out of the “new”, government-controlled VK service began in June 2025. On September 1, 2025, the new VK app must be pre-installed on any smartphone or tablet sold in the country. Early reports suggested that about one million users had jumped on the “new” messaging app MAX. Max is the post-Durov version of VKontakte without the Pavel Durov obstinacy and yapping about privacy.
The Russian online service https://PCNews.ru published “Ministry of Digital: Reports That the MAX Messenger Will Be Mandatory for Signing Electronic Documents Are Not True.” The write up reports that the “official” messaging service “MAX” will not be required for Russian is not true.
Earlier this week (July 28, 2025):
… the [Russian] government of the Kemerovo region is officially switching to using the Russian MAX messenger for all work communications. Before this, the national messenger began to be implemented in St. Petersburg, as we have already reported, Novosibirsk and Tatarstan. Depending on the region, the platform is used both in government structures and in the field of education. In Russia they want to ensure free and secure transfer of user data from WhatsApp and Telegram instant messengers to the Russian MAX platform. From September 1, 2025, the Max messenger will have to be pre-installed on all smartphones and tablets sold in Russia. In late June 2025, the developers announced that over one million users had registered with Max.
This means that not everything the Kremlin requires will reside on the super app MAX. From a government security vantage point, the decision is a good one. The Kremlin, like other governments, has information it tries hard to keep secret. The approach works until something like Microsoft SharePoint is installed or an outstanding person like Edward Snowden hauls off some sensitive information.
The Russians appear to be quite enthusiastic about the new government responsive super app. Here’s some data to illustrate the level of the survey sample’s enthusiasm.
“The Attitude of Russians Towards the National Messenger Has Become Known” reports:
- 55% of respondents admitted that they would like their data to be stored on Russian servers
- 85% communicate with loved ones using messaging apps
- 49% watch the news
- 47% of respondents use instant messengers for work or study
- 38% of respondents supported the idea of creating a Russian national messenger
- 26% answered that they rather support it
- 19% of respondents admitted that they were indifferent to this topic.
Other findings included:
- 36% of Russians named independence from the departure of foreign services among the advantages of creating a domestic messenger
- 33% appreciate popularization of Russian developments
- 32% see a positive from increasing data security
- 53% of respondents liked the idea when in one service you can not only communicate, but also use government services and order goods.
Will Russians be able to circumvent the mandatory use of MAX? Almost anything set up to cage online users can be circumvented. The Great Firewall of China after years of chatter does not seem to impede the actions of some people living in China from accessing certain online services. At this time, I can see some bright young people poking around online for tips and tricks related to modern proxy services, commodity virtual private networks, and possibly some fancy dancing with specialized hardware.
What about Telegram Messenger, allegedly the most popular encrypted messaging super app in Russia, the Russian Federation, and a chunk of Southeast Asia? My perception is that certain online habits, particularly if they facilitate adult content, contraband transactions, and money laundering are likely to persist. I don’t think it will take long for the “new” MAX super app to be viewed as inappropriate for certain types of online behavior. How long? Maybe five seconds?
Stephen E Arnold, July 30, 2025
Microsoft: Knee Jerk Management Enigma
July 29, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. Not even smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read “In New Memo, Microsoft CEO Addresses Enigma of Layoffs Amid Record Profits and AI Investments.” The write up says in a very NPR-like soft voice:
“This is the enigma of success in an industry that has no franchise value,” he wrote. “Progress isn’t linear. It’s dynamic, sometimes dissonant, and always demanding. But it’s also a new opportunity for us to shape, lead through, and have greater impact than ever before.” The memo represents Nadella’s most direct attempt yet to reconcile the fundamental contradictions facing Microsoft and many other tech companies as they adjust to the AI economy. Microsoft, in particular, has been grappling with employee discontent and internal questions about its culture following multiple rounds of layoffs.
Discontent. Maybe the summer of discontent. No, it’s a reshaping or re-invention of a play by William Shakespeare (allegedly) which borrows from Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde with a bit more emphasis on pettiness and corruption to add spice to Boccaccio’s antecedent. Willie’s Troilus and Cressida makes the “love affair” more ironic.
Ah, the Microsoft drama. Let’s recap: [a] Troilus and Cressida’s Two Kids: Satya and Sam, [b] Security woes of SharePoint (who knew? eh, everyone]; [c] buying green credits or how much manure does a gondola rail card hold? [d] Copilot (are the fuel switches on? Nope); and [e] layoffs.
What’s the description of these issues? An enigma. This is a word popping up frequently it seems. An enigma is, according to Venice, a smart software system:
The word “enigma” derives from the Greek “ainigma” (meaning “riddle” or “dark saying”), which itself stems from the verb “aigin” (“to speak darkly” or “to speak in riddles”). It entered Latin as “aenigma”, then evolved into Old French as “énigme” before being adopted into English in the 16th century. The term originally referred to a cryptic or allegorical statement requiring interpretation, later broadening to describe any mysterious, puzzling, or inexplicable person or thing. A notable modern example is the Enigma machine, a cipher device used in World War II, named for its perceived impenetrability. The shift from “riddle” to “mystery” reflects its linguistic journey through metaphorical extension.
Okay, let’s work through this definition.
- Troilus and Cressida or Satya and Sam. We have a tortured relationship. A bit of a war among the AI leaders, and a bit of the collapse of moral certainty. The play seems to be going nowhere. Okay, that fits.
- Security woes. Yep, the cipher device in World War II. Its security or lack of it contributed to a number of unpleasant outcomes for a certain nation state associated with beer and Rome’s failure to subjugate some folks.
- Manure. This seems to be a metaphorical extension. Paying “green” or money for excrement is a remarkable image. Enough said.
- Fuel switches and the subsequent crash, explosion, and death of some hapless PowerPoint users. This lines up with “puzzling.” How did those Word paragraphs just flip around? I didn’t do it. Does anyone know why? Of course not.
- Layoffs. Ah, an allegorical statement. Find your future elsewhere. There is a demand for life coaches, LinkedIn profile consultants, and lawn service workers.
Microsoft is indeed speaking darkly. The billions burned in the AI push have clouded the atmosphere in Softie Land. When the smoke clears, what will remain? My thought is that the items a to e mentioned above are going to leave some obvious environmental alterations. Yep, dark saying because knee jerk reactions are good enough.
Stephen E Arnold, July 29, 2025
Silicon Valley: The New Home of Unsportsmanlike Conduct
July 26, 2025
Sorry, no smart software involved. A dinobaby’s own emergent thoughts.
I read the Axios run down of Mark Zuckerberg’s hiring blitz. “Mark Zuckerberg Details Meta’s Superintelligence Plans” reports:
The company [Mark Zuckerberg’s very own Meta] is spending billions of dollars to hire key employees as it looks to jumpstart its effort and compete with Google, OpenAI and others.
Meta (formerly the estimable juicy brand Facebook) had some smart software people. (Does anyone remember Jerome Pesenti?) Then there was Llama, and like the guanaco, tamed and used to carry tourists to Peruvian sights, has been seen as a photo opp for parents wanting to document their kids’ visit to Cusco.
Is Mr. Zuckerberg creating a mini Bell Labs in order to take the lead in smart software?The Axios write up contains some names of people who may have some connection to the Middle Kingdom. The idea is to get smart people, put them in a two-story building in Silicon Valley, turn up the A/C, and inject snacks.
I interpret the hiring and the allegedly massive pay packets to a simpler, more direct idea: Move fast, break things.
What are the things Mr. Zuckerberg is breaking?
First, I worked in Silicon Valley (aka Plastic Fantastic) for a number of years. I lived in Berkely and loved that commute to San Mateo, Foster City, and environs. Poaching employees was done in a more relaxed way. A chat at a conference, a small gathering after a softball game at the public fields not far from Stanford (yes, the school which had a president who made up information), or at some event like a talk at the Computer Museum or whatever it was called. That’s history. Mr. Zuckerberg shows up (virtually or in a T shirt), offers an alleged $100 million and hires a big name. No muss. No fuss. No social conventions. Just money. Cash. (I almost wish I was 25 and working in Mountain View. Sigh.)
Second, Mr. Zuckerberg is targeting the sensitive private parts of big leadership people. No dancing. Just targeted castration of key talent. Ouch. The Axios write up provides the names of some of these individuals. What interesting is that these people come from the knowledge parts hidden from the journalistic spotlight. Those suffering life changing removals without anesthesia include Google, OpenAI, and similar firms. In the good old days, Silicon Valley firms competed less of that Manhattan, lower east side vibe. No more.
Third, Mr. Zuckerberg is not announcing anything at conferences or with friendly emails. He is just taking action. Let the people at Apple, Safe Superintelligence, and similar outfits read the news in a resignation email. Mr. Zuckerberg knows that those NDAs and employment contracts can be used to wipe away tears when the loss of a valuable person is discovered.
What’s up?
Obviously Mr. Zuckerberg is not happy that his outfit is perceived as a loser in the AI game. Will this Bell Labs’ West approach work? Probably not. It will deliver one thing, however. Mr. Zuckerberg is sending a message that he will spend money to cripple, hobble, and derail AI innovation at firms beating his former LLM to death.
Move fast and break things has come to the folks who used the approach to take out swaths of established businesses. Now the technique is being used on companies next door. Welcome to the ungentrified neighborhood. Oh, expect more fist fights at those once friendly, co-ed softball games.
Stephen E Arnold, July 26, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
