Money and Open Source: Unpleasant Taste?
October 23, 2024
Open-source veteran and blogger Armin Ronacher ponders “The Inevitability of Mixing Open Source and Money.” It is lovely when developers work on open-source projects for free out of the goodness of their hearts. However, the truth is these folks can only afford to spend so much time working for free. (A major reason open source documentation is a mess, by the way.)
For his part, Ronacher helped launch Sentry’s Open Source Pledge. That initiative asks companies to pledge funding to open source projects they actively use. It is particularly focused on small projects, like xz, that have a tougher time attracting funds than the big names. He acknowledges the perils of mixing open source and money, as described by Word Press’s David Heinemeier Hansson. But he insists the blend is already baked in. He considers:
“At face value, this suggests that Open Source and money shouldn’t mix, and that the absence of monetary rewards fosters a unique creative process. There’s certainly truth to this, but in reality, Open Source and money often mix quickly. If you look under the cover of many successful Open Source projects you will find companies with their own commercial interests supporting them (eg: Linux via contributors), companies outright leading projects they are also commercializing (eg: MariaDB, redis) or companies funding Open Source projects primarily for marketing / up-sell purposes (uv, next.js, pydantic, …). Even when money doesn’t directly fund an Open Source project, others may still profit from it, yet often those are not the original creators. These dynamics create stresses and moral dilemmas.”
For example, the conflict between Hansson and WP Engine. The tension can also personal stress. Ronacher shares doubts that have plagued him: to monetize or not to monetize? Would a certain project have taken off had he poured his own money into it? He has watched colleagues wrestle with similar questions that affected their health and careers. See his post for more on those issues. The write-up concludes:
“I firmly believe that the current state of Open Source and money is inadequate, and we should strive for a better one. Will the Pledge help? I hope for some projects, but WordPress has shown that we need to drive forward that conversation of money and Open Source regardless of the size of the project.”
Clearly, further discussion is warranted. New ideas from open-source enthusiasts are also needed. Can a balance be found?
Cynthia Murrell, October 23, 2024
AI: The Key to Academic Fame and Fortune
October 17, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Why would professors use smart software to “help” them with their scholarly papers? The question may have been answered in the Phys.org article “Analysis of Approximately 75 Million Publications Finds Those Employing AI Are More Likely to Be a ‘Hit Paper’” reports:
A new Northwestern University study analyzing 74.6 million publications, 7.1 million patents and 4.2 million university course syllabi finds papers that employ AI exhibit a “citation impact premium.” However, the benefits of AI do not extend equitably to women and minority researchers, and, as AI plays more important roles in accelerating science, it may exacerbate existing disparities in science, with implications for building a diverse, equitable and inclusive research workforce.
Years ago some universities had an “honor code”? I think the University of Virginia was one of those dinosaurs. Today professors are using smart software to help them crank out academic hits.
The write up continues by quoting a couple of the study’s authors (presumably without using smart software) as saying:
“These advances raise the possibility that, as AI continues to improve in accuracy, robustness and reach, it may bring even more meaningful benefits to science, propelling scientific progress across a wide range of research areas while significantly augmenting researchers’ innovation capabilities…”
What are the payoffs for the professors who probably take a dim view of their own children using AI to make life easier, faster, and smoother? Let’s look at a handful my team and I discussed:
- More money in the form of pay raises
- Better shot at grants for research
- Fame at conferences
- Groupies. I know it is hard to imagine but it happens. A lot.
- Awards
- Better committee assignments
- Consulting work.
When one considers the benefits from babes to bucks, the chit chat about doing better research is of little interest to professors who see virtue in smart software.
The president of Stanford cheated. The head of the Harvard Ethics department appears to have done it. The professors in the study sample did it. The conclusion: Smart software use is normative behavior.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2024
Happy AI News: Job Losses? Nope, Not a Thing
September 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read “AI May Not Steal Many Jobs after All. It May Just Make Workers More Efficient.” Immediately two points jumped out at me. The AP (the publisher of the “real” news story is hedging with the weasel word “may” and the hedgy phrase “after all.” Why is this important? The “real” news industry is interested in smart software to reduce costs and generate more “real” news more quickly. The days with “real” reporters disappearing for hours to confirm with a source are often associated with fiddling around. The costs of doing anything without a gusher of money pumping 24×7 are daunting. The word “efficient” sits in the headline as a digital harridan stakeholder. Who wants that?
The manager of a global news operation reports that under his watch, he has achieved peak efficiency. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Will this work for production software development? Good enough is the new benchmark, right?
The story itself strikes me as a bit of content marketing which says, “Hey, everyone can use AI to become more efficient.” The subtext is, “Hey, don’t worry. No software robot or agentic thingy will reduce staff. Probably.
The AP is a litigious outfit even though I worked at a newspaper which “participated” in the business process of the entity. Here’s one sentence from the “real” news write up:
Instead, the technology might turn out to be more like breakthroughs of the past — the steam engine, electricity, the internet: That is, eliminate some jobs while creating others. And probably making workers more productive in general, to the eventual benefit of themselves, their employers and the economy.
Yep, just like the steam engine and the Internet.
When technologies emerge, most go away or become componentized or dematerialized. When one of those hot technologies fail to produce revenues, quite predictable outcomes result. Executives get fired. VC firms do fancy dancing. IRS professionals squint at tax returns.
So far AI has been a “big guys win sort of because they have bundles of cash” and “little outfits lose control of their costs”. Here’s my take:
- Human-generated news is expensive and if smart software can do a good enough job, that software will be deployed. The test will be real time. If the software fails, the company may sell itself, pivot, or run a garage sale.
- When “good enough” is the benchmark, staff will be replaced with smart software. Some of the whiz kids in AI like the buzzword “agentic.” Okay, agentic systems will replace humans with good enough smart software. That will happen. Excellence is not the goal. Money saving is.
- Over time, the ideas of the current transformer-based AI systems will be enriched by other numerical procedures and maybe— just maybe — some novel methods will provide “smart software” with more capabilities. Right now, most smart software just finds a path through already-known information. No output is new, just close to what the system’s math concludes is on point. Right now, the next generation of smart software seems to be in the future. How far? It’s anyone’s guess.
My hunch is that Amazon Audible will suggest that humans will not lose their jobs. However, the company is allegedly going to replace human voices with “audibles” generated by smart software. (For more about this displacement of humans, check out the Bloomberg story.)
Net net: The “real” news story prepares the field for planting writing software in an organization. It says, “Customer will benefit and produce more jobs.” Great assertions. I think AI will be disruptive and in unpredictable ways. Why not come out and say, “If the agentic software is good enough, we will fire people”? Answer: Being upfront is not something those who are not dinobabies do.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2024
Smart Software: More Novel and Exciting Than a Mere Human
September 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Idea people: What a quaint notion. Why pay for expensive blue-chip consultants or wonder youth from fancy universities? Just use smart software to generate new, novel, unique ideas. Does that sound over the top? Not according to “AIs Generate More Novel and Exciting Research Ideas Than Human Experts.” Wow, I forgot exciting. AI outputs can be exciting to the few humans left to examine the outputs.
The write up says:
Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have excited researchers about the potential to revolutionize scientific discovery, with models like ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude showing an ability to autonomously generate and validate new research ideas. This, of course, was one of the many things most people assumed AIs could never take over from humans; the ability to generate new knowledge and make new scientific discoveries, as opposed to stitching together existing knowledge from their training data.
Aside from having no job and embracing couch surfing or returning to one’s parental domicile, what are the implications of this bold statement? It means that smart software is better, faster, and cheaper at producing novel and “exciting” research ideas. There is even a chart to prove that the study’s findings are allegedly reproducible. The graph has whisker lines too. I am a believer… sort of.
The magic of a Bonferroni correction which allegedly copes with data from multiple dependent or independent statistical tests are performed in one meta-calculation. Does it work? Sure, a fancy average is usually close enough for horseshoes I have heard.
Just keep in mind that human judgments are tossed into the results. That adds some of that delightful subjective spice. The proof of the “novelty” creation process, according to the write up comes from Google. The article says:
…we can’t understate AI’s potential to radically accelerate progress in certain areas – as evidenced by Deepmind’s GNoME system, which knocked off about 800 years’ worth of materials discovery in a matter of months, and spat out recipes for about 380,000 new inorganic crystals that could have revolutionary potential in all sorts of areas. This is the fastest-developing technology humanity has ever seen; it’s reasonable to expect that many of its flaws will be patched up and painted over within the next few years. Many AI researchers believe we’re approaching general superintelligence – the point at which generalist AIs will overtake expert knowledge in more or less all fields.
Flaws? Hallucinations? Hey, not to worry. These will be resolved as the AI sector moves with the arrow of technology. Too bad if some humanoids are pierced by the arrow and die on the shoulder of the uncaring Information Superhighway. What about those who say AI will not take jobs? Have those people talked with an accountants responsible for cost control?
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024
Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:
Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.
Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.
An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.
What does the decision suggest?
- Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
- Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
- The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.
There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.
With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.
I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
Online Gambling Has a Downside, Says Captain Obvious
September 13, 2024
People love gambling, especially when they’re betting on the results of sports. Online has made sports betting very easy and fun. Unfortunately some people who bet on sports are addicted to the activity. Business Insider reveals the underbelly of online gambling and paints a familiar picture of addiction: “It’s Official: Legalized Sports Betting Is Destroying Young Men’s Financial Futures.” The University of California, Los Angeles shared a working paper about the negative effects of legalized sports gambling:
“…takes a look at what’s happened to consumer financial health in the 38 states that have greenlighted sports betting since the Supreme Court in 2018 struck down a federal law prohibiting it. The findings are, well, rough. The researchers found that the average credit score in states that legalized any form of sports gambling decreased by 0.3% after about four years and that the negative impact was stronger where online sports gambling is allowed, with credit scores dipping in those areas by 1%. They also found an 8% increase in debt-collection amounts and a 28% increase in bankruptcies where online sports betting was given the go-ahead. By their estimation, that translates to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies each year in the states that have legalized sports betting. The number of people who fell dangerously behind on their car loans went up, too. Oddly enough, credit-card delinquencies fell, but the researchers believe that’s because banks wind up lowering credit limits to try to compensate for the rise in risky consumer behavior.”
The researchers discovered that legalized gambling leads to more gambling addictions. They also found if a person lives near a casino or is from a poor region, they’ll more prone to gambling. This isn’t anything new! The paper restates information people have known for centuries about gambling and other addictions: hurts finances, leads to destroyed relationships, job loss, increased in illegal activities, etc.
A good idea is to teach people to restraint. The sports betting Web sites can program limits and even assist their users to manage their money without going bankrupt. It’s better for people to be taught restraint so they can roll the dice one more time.
Whitney Grace, September 13, 2024
More Push Back Against US Wild West Tech
September 12, 2024
I spotted another example of a European nation state expressing some concern with American high-technology companies. There is not wind blown corral on Leidsestraat. No Sergio Leone music creeps out the observers. What dominates the scene is a judicial judgment firing a US$35 million fine at Clearview AI. The company has a database of faces, and the information is licensed to law enforcement agencies. What’s interesting is that Clearview does not do business in the Netherlands; nevertheless, the European Union’s data protection act, according to Dutch authorities, has been violated. Ergo: Pay up.
“The Dutch Are Having None of Clearview AI Harvesting Your Photos” reports:
“Following investigation, the DPA confirmed that photos of Dutch citizens are included in the database. It also found that Clearview is accountable for two GDPR breaches. The first is the collection and use of photos….The second is the lack of transparency. According to the DPA, the startup doesn’t offer sufficient information to individuals whose photos are used, nor does it provide access to which data the company has about them.”
Clearview is apparently unhappy with the judgment.
Several observations:
First, the decision is part of what might be called US technology pushback. The Wild West approach to user privacy has to get out of Dodge.
Second, Clearview may be on the receiving end of more fines. The charges may appear to be inappropriate because Clearview does not operate in the Netherlands. Other countries may decide to go after the company too.
Third, the Dutch action may be the first of actions against US high-technology companies.
Net net: If the US won’t curtail the Wild West activities of its technology-centric companies, the Dutch will.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2024
Google and Search: A Fix or a Pipe Dream?
September 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Dawn of a New Era in Search: Balancing Innovation, Competition, and Public Good.”
Don’t get me wrong. I think multiple search systems are a good thing. The problem is that search (both enterprise and Web) are difficult problems, and these problems are expensive to solve. After working more than 50 years in electronic information, I have seen search systems come and go. I have watched systems morph from search into weird products that hide the search plumbing beneath fancy words like business intelligence and OSINT tools, among others. In 2006 or 2007, one of my financial clients published some of our research. The bank received an email from an “expert” (formerly and Verity) that his firm had better technology than Google. In that conversation, that “expert” said, “I can duplicate Google search for $300 million.” The person who said these incredibly uninformed words is now head of search at Google. Ed Zitron has characterized the individual as the person who killed Google search. Well, that fellow and Google search are still around. This suggests that baloney and high school reunions provide a career path for some people. But search is not understood particularly well at Google at this time. It is, therefore, that awareness of the problems of search is still unknown to judges, search engine marketing experts, developers of metasearch systems which recycle Bing results, and most of the poohbahs writing about search in blogs like Beyond Search.
The poor search kids see the rich guy with lots of money. The kids want it. The situation is not fair to those with little or nothing. Will the rich guy share the money? Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. Good enough. Aren’t you one of the poor Web search vendors?
After five decades of arm wrestling with finding on point information for myself, my clients, and for the search-related start ups with whom I have worked, I have an awareness of how much complexity the word “search” obfuscates. There is a general perception that Google indexes the Web. It doesn’t. No one indexes the Web. What’s indexed are publicly exposed Web pages which a crawler can access. If the response is slow (like many government and underfunded personal / commercial sites), spiders time out. The pages are not indexed. The crawlers have to deal in a successful way with the changes on how Web pages are presented. Upon encountering something for which the crawler is not configured, the Web page is skipped. Certain Web sites are dynamic. The crawler has to cope with these. Then there are Web pages which are not composed of text. The problems are compounded by the vagaries of intermediaries’ actions; for example, what’s being blocked or filtered today? The answer is the crawler skips them.
Without revealing information I am not permitted to share, I want to point out that crawlers have a list which contains bluebirds, canaries, and dead ducks. The bluebirds are indexed by crawlers on an aggressive schedule, maybe multiple times every hour. The canaries are the index-on-a-normal-cycle, maybe once every day or two. The dead ducks are crawled when time permits. Some US government Web sites may not be updated in six or nine months. The crawler visits the site once every six months or even less frequently. Then there are forbidden sites which the crawler won’t touch. These are on the open Web but urls are passed around via private messages. In terms of a Web search, these sites don’t exist.
How much does this cost? The answer is, “At scale, a lot. Indexing a small number of sites is really cheap.” The problem is that in order to pull lots of clicks, one has to have the money to scale or a niche no one else is occupying. Those are hard to find, and when one does, it makes sense to slap a subscription fee on them; for example, POISINDEX.
Why am I running though what strikes me as basic information about searching the Web? “Dawn of a New Era in Search: Balancing Innovation, Competition, and Public Good” is interesting and does a good job of expressing a specific view of Web search and Google’s content and information assets. I want to highlight the section of the write up titled “The Essential Facilities Doctrine.” The idea is that Google’s search index should be made available to everyone. The idea is interesting, and it might work after legal processes in the US were exhausted. The gating factor will be money and the political climate.
From a competitor’s point of view, the index blended with new ideas about how to answer a user’s query would level the playing field. From Google’s point of view it would loss of intellectual property.
Several observations:
- The hunger to punish Big Tech seems to demand being satisfied. Something will come from the judicial decision that Google is a monopoly. It took a couple of decades to arrive at what was obvious to some after the Yahoo ad technology settlement prior to the IPO, but most people didn’t and still don’t get “it.” So something will happen. What is not yet known.
- Wide access to the complete Google index could threaten the national security of the US. Please, think about this statement. I can’t provide any color, but it is a consideration among some professionals.
- An appeal could neutralize some of the “harms,” yet allow the indexing business to continue. Specific provisions might be applied to the decision of Judge Mehta. A modified landscape for search could be created, but online services tend to coalesce into efficient structures. Like the break up of AT&T, the seven Baby Bells and Bell Labs have become AT&T and Verizon. This could happen if “ads” were severed from Web search. But after a period of time, the break up is fighting one of the Arnold Laws of Online: A single monopoly is more efficient and emergent.
To sum up, the time for action came and like a train in Switzerland, left on time. Undoing Google is going to be more difficult than fiddling with Standard Oil or the railroad magnates.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2024
Uber Leadership May Have to Spend Money to Protect Drivers. Wow.
September 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Senior managers — now called “leadership” — care about their employees. I added a wonderful example about corporate employee well being and co-worker sensitivity when I read “Wells Fargo Employee Found Dead in Her Cubicle 4 Days After She Clocked in for Work.” One of my team asked me, “Will leadership at that firm check her hours of work so she is not overpaid for the day she died?” I replied, “You will make a wonderful corporate leader one day.” Another analyst asked, “Didn’t the cleaning crew notice?” I replied, “Not when they come once every two weeks.”
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough given your filters.
A similar approach to employee care popped up this morning. My newsreader displayed this headline: “Ninth Circuit Rules Uber Had Duty to Protect Washington Driver Murdered by Passengers.” The write up reported:
The estate of Uber driver Cherno Ceesay sued the rideshare company for negligence and wrongful death in 2021, arguing that Uber knew drivers were at risk of violent assault from passengers but neglected to install any basic safety measures, such as barriers between the front and back seats of Uber vehicles or dash cameras. They also claimed Uber failed to employ basic identity-verification technology to screen out the two customers who murdered Ceesay — Olivia Breanna-Lennon Bebic and Devin Kekoa Wade — even though they opened the Uber account using a fake name and unverified form of payment just minutes before calling for the ride.
Hold it right there. The reason behind the alleged “failure” may be the cost of barriers, dash cams, and identity verification technology. Uber is a Big Dog high technology company. Its software manages rides, maps, payments, and the outstanding Uber app. If you want to know where your driver is, text the professional. Want to know the percentage of requests matched to drivers from a specific geographic point, forget that, gentle reader. Request a ride and wait for a confirmation. Oh, what if a pick up is cancelled after a confirmation? Fire up Lyft, right?
The cost of providing “basic” safety for riders is what helps make old fashioned taxi rides slightly more “safe.” At one time, Uber was cheaper than a weirdly painted taxi with a snappy phone number like 666 6666 or 777 7777 painted on the side. Now that taxis have been stressed by Uber, the Uber rides have become more expensive. Thanks to surge pricing, Uber in some areas is more expensive than taxis and some black car services if one can find one.
Uber wants cash and profits. “Basic” safety may add the friction of additional costs for staff, software licenses, and tangibles like plastic barriers and dash cams. The write up explains by quoting the legalese of the court decision; to wit:
“Uber alone controlled the verification methods of drivers and riders, what information to make available to each respective party, and consistently represented to drivers that it took their safety into consideration Ceesay relied entirely on Uber to match him with riders, and he was not given any meaningful information about the rider other than their location,” the majority wrote.
Now what? I am no legal eagle. I think Uber “leadership” will have meetings. Appropriate consultants will be retained to provide action plan options. Then staff (possibly AI assisted) will figure out how to reduce the probability of a murder in or near an Uber contractor’s vehicle.
My hunch is that the process will take time. In the meantime, I wonder if the Uber app autofills the “tip” section and then intelligently closes out that specific ride? I am confident that universities offering business classes will incorporate one or both of these examples in a class about corporate “leadership” principles. Tip: The money matters. Period.
Stephen E Arnold, September 5, 2024
Accountants: The Leaders Like Philco
September 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
AI or smart software has roiled the normal routine of office gossip. We have shifted from “What is it?” to “Who will be affected next?” The integration of AI into work processes, however, is not a new thing. Most people don’t know or don’t recall that when a consultant could do a query from a clunky device like the Texas Instrument Silent 700, AI was already affecting jobs. Whose? Just ask a special librarian who worked when an intermediary was not needed to retrieve information from an online database.
A nervous smart robot running state-of-the-art tax software is sufficiently intelligent to be concerned about the meeting with an IRS audit team. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s that security push coming along? Oh, too bad.
I read “Why America’s Most Boring Job Is on the Brink of Extinction.” I think the story was crafted by a person who received either a D or an F in Accounting 100. The lingo links accountants with being really dull people and the nuking of an entire species. No meteor is needed; just smart software, the silent killer. By the way, my two accountants are quite sporty. I rarely fall asleep when they explain life from their point of view. I listen, and I urge you to be attentive as well. Smart software can do some excellent things, but not everything related to tax, financial planning, and keeping inside the white lines of the quite fluid governmental rules and regulations.
Nevertheless, the write up cited above states:
Experts say the industry is nearing extinction because the 150-hour college credit rule, the intense entry exam and long work hours for minimal pay are unappealing to the younger generation.
The “real” news article includes some snappy quotes too. Here’s one I circled: “’The pay is crappy, the hours are long, and the work is drudgery, and the drudgery is especially so in their early years.’”
I am not an accountant, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of this statement. My father was an accountant, and he was into detail work and was able to raise a family. None of us ended up in jail or in the hospital after a gang fight. (I was and still am a sissy. Imagine that: An 80 year old dinobaby sissy with the DNA of an accountant. I am definitely exciting.)
With fewer people entering the field of accounting, the write up makes a remarkable statement:
… Accountants are becoming overworked and it is leading to mistakes in their work. More than 700 companies cited insufficient staff in accounting and other departments as a reason for potential errors in their quarterly earnings statements…
Does that mean smart software will become the accountants of the future? Some accountants may hope that smart software cannot do accounting. Others will see smart software as an opportunity to improve specific aspects of accounting processes. The problem, however, is not the accountants. The problem will AI is the companies or entrepreneurs who over promise and under deliver.
Will smart software replace the insight and timeline knowledge of an experienced numbers wrangler like my father or the two accountants upon whom I rely?
Unlikely. It is the smart software vendors and their marketers who are most vulnerable to the assertions about Philco, the leader.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
