Amazon: So Many Great Ideas
April 1, 2025
AWS puts its customers first. Well, those who pay for the premium support plan, anyway. A thread on Reddit complains, "AWS Blocking Troubleshooting Docs Behind Paid Premium Support Plan." Redditor Certain_Dog1960 writes:
"When did AWS decide that troubleshooting docs/articles require you to have a paid premium support plan….like seriously who thought this was a good idea?"
Good question. The comments and the screenshot of Amazon’s message make clear that the company’s idea of how to support customers is different from actual customers’ thoughts. However, Certain_Dog posted an encouraging update:
"The paywall has been taken down!!! :)"
Apparently customer outrage still makes a difference. Occasionally.
Cynthia Murrell, March 31, 2025
Click Counting: It Is 1992 All Over Again
March 31, 2025
Dinobaby says, “No smart software involved. That’s for “real” journalists and pundits.
I love it when search engine optimization experts, online marketing executives, and drum beaters for online advertising talk about clicks, clickstreams, and click metrics. Ho ho ho.
I think I was involved in creating a Web site called Point (The Top 5% of the Internet). The idea was simple: Curate and present a directory of the most popular sites on the Internet. It was a long shot because the team did not want to do drugs, sex, and a number of other illegal Web site profiles for the directory. The idea was that in 1992 or so, no one had a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval-type of directory. There was Yahoo, but if one poked around, some interesting Web sites would display in their low resolution, terrible bandwidth glory.
To my surprise, the idea worked and the team wisely exited the business when someone a lot smarter than the team showed up with a check. I remember fielding questions about “traffic”. There was the traffic we used to figure out what sites were popular. Then there was traffic we counted when visitors to Point hit the home page and read profiles of sites with our Good Housekeeping-type of seal.
I want to share that from those early days of the Internet the counting of clicks was pretty sketchy. Scripts could rack up clicks in a slow heartbeat. Site operators just lied or cooked up reports that served up a reality in terms of tasty little clicks.
Why are clicks bogus? I am not prepared to explain the dark arts of traffic boosting which today is greatly aided by scripts instantly generated by smart software. Instead I want to highlight this story in TechCrunch: “YouTube Is Changing How YouTube Shorts Views Are Counted.” The article does a good job of explaining how one monopoly is responding to its soaring costs and the slow and steady erosion of its search Nile River of money.
The write up says:
YouTube is changing how it counts views on YouTube Shorts to give creators a deeper understanding of how their short-form content is performing
I don’t know much about YouTube. But I recall watching little YouTubettes which bear a remarkable resemblance to TikTok weaponized data bursts just start playing. Baffled, I would watch a couple of seconds, check that my “autoplay” was set to off, and then kill the browser page. YouTubettes are not for me.
Most reasonable people would want to know several things about their or any YouTubette; for example:
- How many times did a YouTubette begin to play and then was terminated in less that five seconds
- How many times a YouTubette was viewed from start to bitter end
- How many times a YouTubette was replayed in its entirety by a single user
- What device was used
- How many YouTubettes were “shared”
- The percentage of these data points compared against the total clicks of a short nature or the full view?
You get the idea. Google has these data, and the wonderfully wise but stressed firm is now counting “short views” as what I describe as the reality: Knowing exactly how many times a YouTubette was played start to finish.
According to the write up:
With this update, YouTube Shorts will now align its metrics with those of TikTok and Instagram Reels, both of which track the number of times your video starts or replays. YouTube notes that creators will now be able to better understand how their short-form videos are performing across multiple platforms. Creators who are still interested in the original Shorts metric can view it by navigating to “Advanced Mode” within YouTube Analytics. The metric, now called “engaged views,” will continue to allow creators to see how many viewers choose to continue watching their Shorts. YouTube notes that the change won’t impact creators’ earnings or how they become eligible for the YouTube Partner Program, as both of these factors will continue to be based on engaged views rather than the updated metric.
Okay, responding to the competition from one other monopolistic enterprise. I get it. Okay, Google will allegedly provided something for a creator of a YouTubette to view for insight. And the change won’t impact what Googzilla pays a creator. Do creators really know how Google calculates payments? Google knows. With the majority of the billions of YouTube videos (short and long) getting a couple of clicks, the “popularity” scheme boils down to what we did in 1992. We used whatever data was available, did a few push ups, and pumped out a report.
Could Google follow the same road map? Of course not. In 1992, we had no idea what we were doing. But this is 2025 and Google knows exactly what it is doing.
Advertisers will see click data that do not reflect what creators want to see and what viewers of YouTubettes and probably other YouTube content really want to know: How many people watched the video from start to finish?
Google wants to sell ads at perhaps the most difficult point in its 20 year plus history. That autoplay inflates clicks. “Hey, the video played. We count it,” can you conceptualize the statement? I can.
Let’s not call this new method “weaponization.” That’s too strong. Let’s describe this as “shaping” or “inflating” clicks.
Remember. I am a dinobaby and usually wrong. No high technology company would disadvantage a creator or an advertiser. Therefore, this change is no big deal. Will it help Google deal with its current challenges? You can now ask Google AI questions answered by its most sophisticated smart software for free.
Is that an indication that something is not good enough to cause people to pay money? Of course not. Google says “engaged views” are still important. Absolutely. Google is just being helpful.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2025
OpenAI and Alleged Environmental Costs: No Problem
March 28, 2025
We know ChatGPT uses an obscene amount of energy and water. But it can be difficult to envision exactly how much. Digg offers some helpful infographics in, "Do You Know How Much Energy ChatGPT Actually Uses?" Writer Darcy Jimenez tells us:
"Since it was first released in 2022, ChatGPT has gained a reputation for being particularly bad for the environment — for example, the GPT-4 model uses as many as 0.14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) generating something as simple as a 100-word email. It can be tricky to fully appreciate the environmental impact of using ChatGPT, though, so the researchers at Business Energy UK made some visualizations to help. Using findings from a 2023 research paper, they calculated the AI chatbot’s estimated water and electricity usage per day, week, month and year, assuming its 200 million weekly users feed it five prompts per day."
See the post for those enlightening graphics. Here are just a few of the astounding statistics:
"Electricity: each day, ChatGPT uses 19.99 million kWh. That’s enough power to charge 4 million phones, or run the Empire State Building for 270 days. … ChatGPT uses a whopping 7.23 billion kWh per year, which is more electricity than the world’s 112 lowest-consumption countries consume over the same period. It’s also enough to power every home in Wyoming for two and a half years."
And:
"Water: The 19.58 million gallons ChatGPT drinks every day could fill a bath for each of Colorado Springs’s 488,664 residents. That amount is also equivalent to everyone in Belgium flushing their toilet at the same time. … In the space of a year, the chatbot uses 7.14 billion gallons of water. That’s enough to fill up the Central Park Reservoir seven times, or power Las Vegas’s Fountains of Bellagio shows for almost 600 years."
Wow. See the write-up for more mind-boggling comparisons. Dolphin lovers and snail darter fans may want to check out the write up.
Cynthia Murrell, March 28, 2025
Insecure Managers Watch: Whistle While You Shirk
March 27, 2025
It’s never been easier to spy…er…watch employees while they work. Systems track employees and their work. Employees are monitored with software that’s akin to spyware except it wears a white hat (sort of) instead of a black one. Computer World says that employers are spying…er…monitoring their employees more than ever: “Electronic Employee Monitoring Reaches An All-Time High.”
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reported that 80% of companies are tracking remote and hybrid workers. Everything from keystrokes to tone in communications is being recorded. This is often happening without the knowledge of the employees. Meanwhile Gartner believes that spying…er…watching employees is up 30% from 2024, making it 71%.
One reason employees are being monitored more is that return-to-office mandates aren’t working. Employers aren’t enforcing them because employees value flexibility to work where they’re most productive. There’s also a changing workplace trend that employees value supportive management. If the support isn’t there, they’re not afraid to share their discontent online.
Employees are worried about the spying…er…monitoring:
“The constant oversight is stressing workers. In a survey of 1,500 US-based employers and 1,500 workers by ExpressVPN, 24% said they take fewer breaks to avoid looking idle, while 32% feel pressured to work faster. In response, 16% fake productivity with unnecessary apps, 15% schedule emails, and 12% use tools to evade detection. Nearly half (49%) would consider leaving if surveillance increased, with 24% willing to accept a pay cut to avoid it. ‘Surveillance may seem like a solution for improving efficiency, but it’s clearly eroding trust and morale in the workplace,’ said Lauren Hendry Parsons, ExpressVPN’s Digital Privacy Advocate. ‘As companies adopt increasingly invasive tools, they risk losing the loyalty and well-being of their workforce.’”
When employees are watched it lowers their productivity. Many of them also want a disclosure about being monitored and how their information is being used.
Maybe the modern workplace works better as a prison?
Whitney Grace, March 27, 2025
FOGINT: Dubai Makes a Crypto Move
March 26, 2025
Cryptocurrencies are on deck to replace fiat currencies. The Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) recently recognized a cryptocurrencies says Gadgets 360: “USDC, EURC Stablecoins Secure ‘Token Recognition’ In Dubai.” The two new tokens recognized in Dubai are the stablecoins USDC and EURC from Circle.
The DFSA approved the use of these stablecoins within the Dubai International Financial Centre’s (DIFC) economic activities. EURC and USDC are the first crypto stablecoins to receive official recognition from the DFSA. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies backed by traditional assets such as gold and regular hard currencies.
The DFSA issued a crypto token framework in 2022 so businesses working with cryptocurrencies would have safe guidelines. Only DFSA-recognized cryptocurrencies are allowed to be used within the DIFC. This is to ensure companies are protected from scams.
This is an important move for stablecoins:
Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Global Policy and Operations at Circle called the development a ‘milestone’ moment for the stablecoin sector. ‘This milestone aligns with our mission to make digital dollars and euros more accessible, interoperable, and useful for businesses, developers, and financial institutions worldwide,’ Dante said. ‘As the first stablecoins to receive this designation, USDC and EURC continue to set the global standard for transparency, compliance, and utility.’”
Circle is the second largest provider of stablecoins in the world after Tether. The company reported the USDC profit reached $18 trillion since launching in 2018. Dubai, Telegram, and crypto: Interesting ingredients.
Whitney Grace, March 18, 2025
YouTube: Another Big Cost Black Hole?
March 25, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
I read “Google Is in Trouble… But This Could Change Everything – and No, It’s Not AI.” The write up makes the case that YouTube is Google’s big financial opportunity. I agree with most of the points in the write up. The article says:
Google doesn’t clearly explain how much of the $40.3 billion comes from the YouTube platform, but based on their description and choice of phrasing like “primarily include,” it’s safe to assume YouTube generates significantly more revenue than just the $36.1 billion reported. This would mean YouTube, not Google Cloud, is actually Google’s second-biggest business.
Yep, financial fancy dancing is part of the game. Google is using its financial reports as marketing to existing stakeholders and investors who want a part of the still-hot, still-dominant Googzilla. The idea is that the Google is stomping on the competition in the hottest sectors: The cloud, smart software, advertising, and quantum computing.
A big time company’s chief financial officer enters his office after lunch and sees a flood of red ink engulfing his work space. Thanks, OpenAI, good enough.
Let’s flip the argument from Google has its next big revenue oil gusher to the cost of that oil field infrastructure.
An article appeared in mid-February 2025. I was surprised that the information in that write up did not generate more buzz in the world of Google watchers. “YouTube by the Numbers: Uncovering YouTube’s Ghost Town of Billions of Unwatched, Ignored Videos” contains some allegedly accurate information. Let’s assume that these data, like most information about online, is close enough for horseshoes or purely notional. I am not going to summarize the methodology. Academics come up with interesting ways to obtain information about closely guarded big company products and services.
The write up says:
the research estimates a staggering 14.8 billion total videos on YouTube as of mid-2024. Unsurprisingly, most of these videos are barely noticed. The median YouTube upload has just 41 views, with 4% garnering no views at all. Over 74% have no comments and 89% have no likes.
Here are a couple of other factoids about YouTube as reported in the Techspot article:
The production values are also remarkably modest. Only 14% of videos feature a professional set or background. Just 38% show signs of editing. More than half have shaky camerawork, and audio quality varies widely in 85% of videos. In fact, 40% are simply music tracks with no voice-over.
And another point I found interesting:
Moreover, the typical YouTube video is just 64 seconds long, and over a third are shorter than 33 seconds.
The most revealing statement in the research data appears in this passage:
… a senior researcher [said] that this narrative overlooks a crucial reality: YouTube is not just an entertainment hub – it has become a form of digital infrastructure. Case in point: just 0.21% of the sampled videos included any kind of sponsorship or advertising. Only 4% had common calls to action such as liking, commenting, and subscribing. The vast majority weren’t polished content plays but rather personal expressions – perhaps not so different from the old camcorder days.
Assuming the data are reasonably good Google has built plumbing whose cost will rival that of the firm’s investments in search and its cloud.
From my point of view, cost control is going to become as important as moving as quickly as possible to the old-school broadcast television approach to content. Hit shows on YouTube will do what is necessary to attract an audience. The audience will be what advertisers want.
Just as Google search has degraded to a popular “experience,” not a resource for individuals who want to review and extract high value information, YouTube will head the same direction. The question is, “Will YouTube’s pursuit of advertisers mean that the infrastructure required to permit free video uploads and storage be sustainable?
Imagine being responsible for capital investments at the Google. The Cloud infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. The AI infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. The quantum computing and other technology-centric infrastructures must be upgraded an enhanced. The adtech infrastructure must be upgraded and enhanced. I am leaving out some of the Google’s other infrastructure intensive activities.
The main idea is that the financial person is going to have a large job paying for hardware, software, maintenance, and telecommunications. This is a different cost from technical debt. These are on-going and constantly growing costs. Toss in unexpected outages, and what does the bean counter do. One option is to quit and another is to do the Zen thing to avoid have a stroke when reviewing the cost projections.
My take is that a hit in search revenue is likely to add to the firm’s financial challenges. The path to becoming the modern version of William Paley’s radio empire may be in Google’s future. The idea that everything is in the cloud is being revisited by companies due to cost and security concerns. Does Google host some sketchy services on its Cloud?
YouTube may be the hidden revenue gem at Google. I think it might become the infrastructure cost leader among Google’s stellar product line up. Big companies like Google don’t just disappear. Instead the black holes of cost suck them closer to a big event: Costs rise more quickly than revenue.
At this time, Google has three cost black holes. One hopes none is the one that makes Googzilla join the ranks of the street people of online dwell.
Net net: Google will have to give people what they will watch. The lowest common denominator will emerge. The costs flood the CFO’s office. Just ask Gemini what to do.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2025
Dog Whistle Only Law Firm Partners Can Hear: More Profits, Bigger Bonuses!
March 21, 2025
Dinobaby, here. No smart software involved unlike some outfits. I did use Sam AI-Man’s art system to produce the illustration in the blog post.
Truth be told, we don’t do news. The write ups in my “placeholder” blog are my way to keep track of interesting items. Some of these I never include in my lectures. Some find their way into my monographs. The FOGINT stuff: Notes for my forthcoming monograph about Telegram, the Messenger mini app, and that lovable marketing outfit, the Open Network Foundation. If you want to know more, write benkent2020 at yahoo dot com. Some slacker will respond whilst scrolling Telegram Groups and Channels for interesting items.
Thanks, Sam AI-Man.
But this write up is an exception. This is a post about an article in the capitalist tool. (I have always like the ring of the slogan. I must admit when I worked in the Big Apple, I got a kick out of Malcolm Forbes revving his Harley at the genteel biker bar. But the slogan and the sound of the Hog? Unforgettable.)
What is causing me to stop my actual work to craft a blog post at 7 am on March 21, 2025? This article in Forbes Magazine. You know, the capitalist tool. Like a vice grip for Peruvian prison guards I think.
“Risk Or Revolution: Will AI Replace Lawyers?” sort of misses the main point of smart software and law firms. I will address the objective of big time law firms in a moment, but I want to look at what Hessie Jones, the strategist or stratagiste maybe, has to say:
Over the past few years, a growing number of legal professionals have embraced AI tools to boost efficiency and reduce costs. According to recent figures, nearly 73% of legal experts now plan to incorporate AI into their daily operations. 65% of law firms agree that "effective use of generative AI will separate the successful and unsuccessful law firms in the next five years."
Talk about leading the witness. “Who is your attorney?” The person in leg cuffs and an old fashioned straight jacket says, “Mr. Gradient Descent, your honor.”
The judge, a savvy fellow who has avoid social media criticism says, “Approach the bench.”
Silence.
The write up says:
Afolabi [a probate lawyer, a graduate of Osgoode Law School, York University in Canada] who holds a master’s from the London School of Economics, describes the evolution of legal processes over the past five years, highlighting the shift from paper-based systems to automated ones. He explains that the initial client interaction, where they tell a story and paint a picture remains crucial. However, the method of capturing and analyzing this information has changed significantly. "Five years ago, that would have been done via paper. You’re taking notes," Afolabi states, "now, there’s automation for that." He emphasizes that while the core process of asking questions remains, it’s now "the machine asking the questions." Automation extends to the initial risk analysis, where the system can contextualize the kind of issues and how to best proceed. Afolabi stresses that this automation doesn’t replace the lawyer entirely: "There’s still a lawyer there with the clients, of course."
Okay, the human lawyer, not the Musk envisioned Grok 3 android robot, will approach the bench. Well, someday.
Now the article’s author delivers the payoff:
While concerns about AI’s limitations persist, the consensus is clear: AI-driven services like Capita can make legal services more affordable and accessible without replacing human oversight.
After finishing this content marketing write up, I had several observations:
- The capitalist tool does not point out the entire purpose of the original Forbes, knock out Fortune Magazine and deliver information that will make a reader money.
- The article ignores the reality that smart software fiddling with word probabilities makes errors. Whether it was made up cases like Michael Cohen’s brush with AI or telling me that a Telegram-linked did not host a conference in Dubai, those mistakes might add some friction to smart speeding down the information highway.
- Lawyers will use AI to cut costs and speed billing cycles. In my opinion, lawyers don’t go to jail. Their clients do.
Let’s imagine the hog-riding Malcolm at his desk pondering great thoughts like this:
“It’s so much easier to suggest solutions when you don’t know too much about the problem.”
The problem for law firms will be solved by smart software; that is, reducing costs. Keep in mind, lawyers don’t go to jail that often. The AI hype train has already pulled into the legal profession. Will the result be better lawyering? I am not sure because once a judge or jury makes a decision the survey pool is split 50 50.
But those bonuses? Now that’s what AI can deliver. (Imagine the sound of a dog whistle with an AI logo, please.)
PS. If you are an observer of blue chip consulting firms. The same payoff logic applies. Both species have evolved to hear the more-money frequency.
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2025
The Gentle Slide Down the Software Quality Framework
March 21, 2025
Yep, another dinobaby original.
I listened to a podcast called “The WAN Show,” featuring a couple of technology buffs who sell T shirts, mugs, and screwdrivers. What was notable about the program which is available on Apple podcasts was the opening story. In a nutshell, the two fellows made clear some problems with Apple’s hardware. The key statement made by one of the fellows was, “I will pay my way to Cupertino and help you Apple engineers to fix the problems. I will do it for free.” A number of people younger than I believe that an individual can overcome a bureaucracy.
Someone is excited about taking the long slide down in software quality. Thanks, OpenAI, definitely good enough.
I forget about the comment and the pitch to buy a backpack until I read “Apple’s Software Quality Crisis: When Premium Hardware Meets Subpar Software.” The write up hit upon some of the WAN grousing and introduced a number of ideas about Apple’s management focus.
Here’s a comment from the write up I circled:
The performance issues don’t stop at sluggish response times. During these use cases, my iPad overheated, making it uncomfortable to hold or even rest the palm on, raising concerns about potential long-term hardware damage. What made this particularly frustrating is that these aren’t third-party applications pushing the hardware to its limits. These are Apple’s own applications that should be theoretically optimized for their hardware. After demonstrating the issues in person to Apple Store staff (that were courteous and professional), the support representative that was handling my case suggested a hardware replacement. However, after further discussion, we both concluded this was likely a software problem rather than a hardware defect.
To a dinobaby like me, I interpreted the passage as saying, “The problem can’t be fixed. Suck it up, buttercup.”
I then discovered more than 1,000 comments to the “Apple’s Software Quality Crisis” article. I scanned them and then turned to one of the ever reliable smart software systems to which I have access and asked, “What are the main themes of the 1,000 comments.
Here’s what the smart software output, and, please, keep in mind, that smart software hallucinates, goes bonkers, and if a product of Google, really has trouble with cheese-related prompts. The found points output are:
- Persistent Bugs: Users report long-standing issues, such as date-handling errors in Contacts that have remained unresolved for years. ?
- Declining User Experience: There’s a sentiment that recent design changes, like the macOS Settings app, have led to a less intuitive user experience. ?
- Inconsistent Quality Across Platforms: Some users feel that Apple’s software quality has become comparable to other platforms, lacking the distinctiveness it once had.
- Ineffective Bug Reporting: Concerns are raised about Apple’s bug reporting system, with users feeling their feedback doesn’t lead to timely fixes.
Okay, we have a sample based on one podcast, one blog essay, and a number of randos who have commented on the “Apple’s Software Quality Crisis” article. Let me offer several observations:
- Apple, like Amazon, Facebook (Metazuck or whatever), Google, and Microsoft cannot deliver software that does much more than achieve the status of “good enough.” Perhaps size and the limitations of humans contribute to this wide spread situation?
- The problem is not fixable because new software comes out and adds to the woes of the previous software. Therefore, the volume of problems go up and there is neither money nor time to pay down the technical debt. In my experience, this means that a slow descent on a quite fungible gradient occurs. The gravity of technical debt creates the issues the individuals complaining identify.
- The current economic and regulatory environment does not punish these organizations for their products and services. The companies’ managers chug along, chase their bonuses, and ignore the gentle drift to quite serious problems between the organizations and their customers.
So what? Sorry, I have no solutions. Many of the “fixes” require deep familiarity with origin software. Most fixes are wrappers because rewrites take too long or the information required to fix one thing and not break two others is not available.
Welcome, to the degrading status quo.
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2025
An Econ Paper Designed to Make Most People Complacent about AI
March 19, 2025
Yep, another dinobaby original.
I zipped through — and I mean zipped — a 60 page working paper called “Artificial Intelligence and the Labor Market.” I have to be upfront. I detested economics, and I still do. I used to take notes when Econ Talk was actually discussing economics. My notes were points that struck me as wildly unjustifiable. That podcast has changed. My view of economics has not. At 80 years of age, do you believe that I will adopt a different analytical stance? Wow, I hope not. You may have to take care of your parents some day and learn that certain types of discourse do not compute.
This paper has multiple authors. In my experience, the more authors, the more complicated the language. Here’s an example:
“Labor demand decreases in the average exposure of workers’ tasks to AI technologies; second, holding the average exposure constant, labor demand increases in the dispersion of task exposures to AI, as workers shift effort to tasks that are not displaced by AI.” ?
The idea is that the impact of smart software will not affect workers equally. As AI gets better at jobs humans do, humans will learn more and get a better job or integrate AI into their work. In some jobs, the humans are going to be out of luck. The good news is that these people can take other jobs or maybe start their own business.
The problem with the document I reviewed is that there are several fundamental “facts of life” that make the paper look a bit wobbly.
First, the minute it is cheaper for smart software to do a job that a human does, the human gets terminated. Software does not require touchy feely interactions, vacations, pay raises, and health care. Software can work as long as the plumbing is working. Humans sleep which is not productive from an employer’s point of view.
Second, government policies won’t work. Why? Government bureaucracies are reactive. By the time, a policy arrives, the trend or the smart software revolution has been off to the races. One cannot put spilled radioactive waste back into its containment vessel quickly, easily, or cheaply. How’s that Fukushima remediation going?
Third, the reskilling idea is baloney. Most people are not skilled in reskilling themselves. Life long learning is not a core capability of most people. Sure, in theory anyone can learn. The problem is that most people are happy planning a vacation, doom scrolling, or watch TikTok-type videos. Figuring out how to make use of smart software capabilities is not as popular as watching the Super Bowl.
Net net: The AI services are getting better. That means that most people will be faced with a re-employment challenge. I don’t think LinkedIn posts will do the job.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2025
AI and Jobs: Tell These Folks AI Will Not Impact Their Work
March 12, 2025
The work of a real, live dinobaby. Sorry, no smart software involved. Whuff, whuff. That’s the sound of my swishing dino tail. Whuff.
I have a friend who does some translation work. She’s chugging along because of her reputation for excellent work. However, one of the people who worked with me on a project requiring Russian language skills has not worked out. The young person lacks the reputation and the contacts with a base of clients. The older person can be as busy as she wants to be.
What’s the future of translating from one language to another for money? For the established person, smart software appears to have had zero impact. The younger person seems to be finding that smart software is getting the translation work.
I will offer my take in a moment. First, let’s look at “Turkey’s Translators Are Training the AI Tools That Will Replace Them.”
I noted this statement in the cited article:
Turkey’s sophisticated translators are moonlighting as trainers of artificial intelligence models, even as their profession shrinks with the rise of machine translations. As the models improve, these training jobs, too, may disappear.
What’s interesting is that the skilled translators are providing information to AI models. These models are definitely going to replace the humans. The trajectory is easy to project. Machines will work faster and cheaper. The humans will abandon the discipline. Then prices will go up. Those requiring translations will find themselves spending more and having few options. Eventually the old hands will wither. Excellent translations which capture nuance will become a type of endangered species. The snow leopard of knowledge work is with us.
I noted this statement in the article:
Book publishing, too, is transforming. Turkish publisher Dedalus announced in 2023 that it had machine-translated nine books. In 2022, Agora Books, helmed by translator Osman Ak?nhay, released a Turkish edition of Jean-Dominique Brierre’s Milan Kundera, une vie d’écrivain, a biography of the Czech-French novelist Milan Kundera. Ak?nhay, who does not know French, used Google Translate to help him in the translation, to much criticism from the industry.
What’s this mean?
- Jobs will be lost and the professionals with specialist skills are going to be the buggy whip makers in a world of automobiles
- The downstream impact of smart software is going to kill off companies. The Chegg legal matter illustrates how a monopoly can mindlessly erode a company. This is like a speeding semi-truck smashing love bugs on a Florida highway. The bugs don’t know what hit them, and the semi-truck is unaware and the driver is uncaring. Dead bugs? So what? See “Chegg Sues Google for Hurting Traffic with AI As It Considers Strategic Alternatives.”
- Data from different sources suggesting that AI will just create jobs is either misleading, public relations, or dead wrong. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data are spawning articles like “AI and Its Impact on Software Development Jobs.”
Net net: What’s emerging is one of those classic failure scenarios. Nothing big seems to go wrong. Then a collapse occurs. That’s what’s beginning to appear. Just little changes. Heed the signals? Of course not. I can hear someone saying, “That won’t happen to me.” Of course not but cheaper and faster are good enough at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
