Big Tech and Their Software: The Tent Pole Problem
May 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I remember a Boy Scout camping trip. I was a Wolf Scout at the time, and my “pack” had the task of setting up our tent for the night. The scout master was Mr. Johnson, and he left it us. The weather did not cooperate; the tent pegs pulled out in the wind. The center tent pole broke. We stood in the rain. We knew the badge for camping was gone, just like a dry place to sleep. Failure. Whom could we blame? I suggested, “McKinsey & Co.” I had learned that third-parties were usually fall guys. No one knew what I was talking about.
Okay, ChatGPT, good enough.
I thought about the tent pole failure, the miserable camping experience, and the need to blame McKinsey or at least an entity other than ourselves. The memory surfaced as I read “Laws of Software Evolution.” The write up sets forth some ideas which may not be firm guidelines like those articulated by the World Court, but they are about as enforceable.
Let’s look at the laws explicated in the essay.
The first law is that software is to support a real-world task. As result (a corollary maybe?) is that the software has to evolve. That is the old chestnut ““No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” The problem is change, which consumes money and time. As a result, original software is wrapped, peppered with calls to snappy new modules designed to fix up or extend the original software.
The second law is that when changes are made, the software construct becomes more complex. Complexity is what humans do. A true master makes certain processes simple. Software has artists, poets, and engineers with vision. Simple may not be a key component of the world the programmer wants to create. Thus, increasing complexity creates surprises like unknown dependencies, sluggish performance, and a giant black hole of costs.
The third law is not explicitly called out like Laws One and Two. Here’s my interpretation of the “lurking law,” as I have termed it:
Code can be shaped and built upon.
My reaction to this essay is positive, but the link to evolution eludes me. The one issue I want to raise is that once software is built, deployed, and fiddled with it is like a river pier built by Roman engineers. Moving the pier or fixing it so it will persist is a very, very difficult task. At some point, even the Roman concrete will weather away. The bridge or structure will fall down. Gravity wins. I am okay with software devolution.
The future, therefore, will be stuffed with software breakdowns. The essay makes a logical statement:
… we should embrace the malleability of code and avoid redesign processes at all costs!
Sorry. Won’t happen. Woulda, shoulda, and coulda cannot do the job.
Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2024
AI Versus People? That Is Easy. AI
April 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I don’t like to include management information in Beyond Search. I have noticed more stories related to management decisions related to information technology. Here’s an example of my breaking my own editorial policies. Navigate to “SF Exec Defends Brutal Tech Trend: Lay Off Workers to Free Up Cash for AI.” I noted this passage:
Executives want fatter pockets for investing in artificial intelligence.
Okay, Mr. Efficiency and mobile phone betting addict, you have reached a logical decision. Why are there no pictures of friends, family, and achievements in your window office? Oh, that’s MSFT Copilot’s work. What’s that say?
I think this means that “people resources” can be dumped in order to free up cash to place bets on smart software. The write up explains the management decision making this way:
Dropbox’s layoff was largely aimed at freeing up cash to hire more engineers who are skilled in AI.
How expensive is AI for the big technology companies? The write up provides this factoid which comes from the masterful management bastion:
Google AI leader Demis Hassabis said the company would likely spend more than $100 billion developing AI.
Smart software is the next big thing. Big outfits like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft believe it. Venture firms appear to be into AI. Software development outfits are beavering away with smart technology to make their already stellar “good enough” products even better.
Money buys innovation until it doesn’t. The reason is that the time from roll out to saturation can be difficult to predict. Look how long it has taken the smart phones to become marketing exercises, not technology demonstrations. How significant is saturation? Look at the machinations at Apple or CPUs that are increasingly difficult to differentiate for a person who wants to use a laptop for business.
There are benefits. These include:
- Those getting fired can say, “AI RIF’ed me.”
- Investments in AI can perk up investors.
- Jargon-savvy consultants can land new clients.
- Leadership teams can rise about termination because these wise professionals are the deciders.
A few downsides can be identified despite the immaturity of the sector:
- Outputs can be incorrect leading to what might be called poor decisions. (Sorry, Ms. Smith, your child died because the smart dosage system malfunctioned.)
- A large, no-man’s land is opening between the fast moving start ups who surf on cloud AI services and the behemoths providing access to expensive infrastructure. Who wants to operate in no-man’s land?
- The lack of controls on smart software guarantee that bad actors will have ample tools with which to innovate.
- Knock-on effects are difficult to predict.
Net net: AI may be diffusing more quickly and in ways some experts chose to ignore… until they are RIF’ed.
Stephen E Arnold, April 25, 2024
Kicking Cans Down the Street Is Not Violence. Is It a Type of Fraud Perhaps?
April 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Ah, spring, when young men’s fancies turn to thoughts of violence. Forget the Iran Israel dust up. Forget the Russia special operation. Think about this Bloomberg headline:
Tech’s Cash Crunch Sees Creditors Turn ‘Violent’ With One Another
Thanks, ChatGPT. Good enough.
Will this be drones? Perhaps a missile or two? No. I think it will be marketing hoo hah. Even though news releases may not inflict mortal injury, although someone probably has died from bad publicity, the rhetorical tone seems — how should we phrase it — over the top maybe?
The write up says:
Software and services companies are in the spotlight after issuing almost $30 billion of debt that’s classed as distressed, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, the most in any industry apart from real estate.
How do wizards of finance react to this “risk”? Answer:
“These two phenomena, coupled with the covenant-lite nature of leveraged loans today, have been the primary drivers of the creditor-on-creditor violence we’re seeing,” he [Jason Mudrick, founder of distressed credit investor Mudrick Capital] said.
Shades of the Sydney slashings or vehicle fires in Paris.
Here’s an example:
One increasingly popular maneuver these days, known as non-pro rata uptiering, sees companies cut a deal with a small group of creditors who provide new money to the borrower, pushing others further back in the line to be repaid. In return, they often partake in a bond exchange in which they receive a better swap price than other creditors.
Does this sound like “Let’s kick the can down the road.” Not articulated is the idea, “Let’s see what happens. If we fail, our management team is free to bail out.”
Nifty, right?
Financial engineering is a no harm, no foul game for some. Those who lose money? Yeah, too bad.
Stephen E Arnold, April 25, 2024
Paranoia or Is it Parano-AI? Yes
April 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I get a kick out of the information about the future impact of smart software. If those writing about the downstream consequences of artificial intelligence were on the beam, those folks would be camping out in one of those salubrious Las Vegas casinos. They are not. Thus, the prognostications provide more insight into the authors’ fears in my opinion.
OpenAI produced this good enough image of a Top Dog reading reports about AI’s taking jobs from senior executives. Quite a messy desk, which is an indicator of an inferior executive mindset.
Here’s an example: “Even the Boss Is Worried! Hundreds of Chief Executives Fear AI Could Steal Their Jobs Too.” The write up is based on a study conducted by Censuswide for AND Digital. Here we go, fear lovers:
- A “jobs apocalypse”: “AI experts have predicted a 50-50 chance machines could take over all our jobs within a century.”
- Scared yet? “Nearly half – 43 per cent – of bosses polled admitted they too were worried AI could take steal their job.”
- Ignorance is bliss: “44 per cent of global CEOs did not think their staff were ready to handle AI.”
- Die now? “A survey of over 2,700 AI researchers in January meanwhile suggested AI could well be ‘better and cheaper’ than humans in every profession by 2116.”
My view is that the diffusion of certain types of smart software will occur over time. If the technology proves it can cuts costs and be good enough, then it will be applied where the benefits are easy to identify and monitor. When something goes off the rails, the smart software will suffer a set back. Changes will be made, and the “Let’s try again” approach will kick in. Can motivated individuals adapt? Sure. The top folks will adjust and continue to perform. The laggards will get an “Also Participated” ribbon and collect money by busking, cleaning houses, or painting houses. The good old Darwinian principles don’t change. A digital panther can kill you just as dead as a real panther.
Exciting? Not for a surviving dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2024
AI RIFing Financial Analysts (Juniors Only for Now). And Tomorrow?
April 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Bill Gates Worries AI Will Take His Job, Says, ‘Bill, Go Play Pickleball, I’ve Got Malaria Eradication’.” Mr. Gates is apparently about becoming farmer. He is busy buying land. He took time out from his billionaire work today to point out that AI will nuke lots of jobs. What type of jobs will be most at risk? Amazon seems to be focused on using robots and smart software to clear out expensive, unreliable humans.
But the interesting profession facing what might be called an interesting future are financial analysts. “AI Is Coming for Wall Street: Banks Are Reportedly Weighing Cutting Analyst Hiring by Two-Thirds” asserts:
Incoming classes of junior investment-banking analysts could up being cut as much as two-thirds, some of the people suggested, while those brought on board could fetch lower salaries, on account of their work being assisted by artificial intelligence.
Okay, it is other people’s money, so no big deal if the smart software hallucinates as long as there is churn and percentage scrapes. But what happens when the “senior” analysts leave or get fired? Will smart software replace them, or it the idea that junior analyst who are “smart” will move up and add value “smart” software cannot?
Thanks, OpenAI. This is a good depiction of the “best of the best” at a major Wall Street financial institution after learning their future was elsewhere.
The article points out:
The consulting firm Accenture has an even more extreme outlook for industry disruption, forecasting that AI could end up replacing or supplementing nearly 75% of all working hours in the banking sector.
Let’s look at the financial sector’s focus on analysts. What other industrial sectors use analysts? Here are several my team and I track:
- Intelligence (business and military)
- Law enforcement
- Law
- Medical subrogation
- Consulting firms (niche, general, and technical)
- Publishing.
If the great trimming at McKinsey and the big New York banks deliver profits, how quickly will AI-anchored software and systems diffuse across organizations?
The answer to the question is, “Fast.”
Stephen E Arnold, April 19, 2024
Google Gem: Arresting People Management
April 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have worked for some well-managed outfits: Halliburton, Booz Allen, Ziff Communications, and others in the 55 year career. The idea that employees at Halliburton Nuclear (my assignment) would occupy the offices of a senior officer like Eugene Saltarelli was inconceivable. (Mr. Saltarelli sported a facial scar. When asked about the disfigurement, he would stare at the interlocutor and ask, “What scar?” Do you want to “take over” his office?) Another of my superiors at a firm in New York had a special method of shaping employee behavior. This professional did nothing to suppress rumors that two of his wives drowned during “storms” after falling off his sail boat. Did I entertain taking over his many-windowed office in Manhattan? Answer: Are you sure you internalized the anecdote?
Another Google management gem glitters in the public spot light.
But at the Google life seems to be different, maybe a little more frisky absent psychological behavior controls. I read “Nine Google Workers Get Arrested After Sit-In Protest over $1.2B Cloud Deal with Israel.” The main idea seems to be that someone at Google sold cloud services to the Israeli government. Employees apparently viewed the contract as bad, wrong, stupid, or some combination of attributes. The fix involved a 1960s-style sit in. After a period of time elapsed, someone at Google called the police. The employee-protesters were arrested.
I recall hearing years ago that Google faced a similar push back about a contract with the US government. To be honest, Google has generated so many human resource moments, I have a tough time recalling each. A few are Mt. Everests of excellence; for example, the termination of Dr. Timnit Gebru. This Googler had the nerve to question the bias of Google’s smart software. She departed. I assume she enjoyed the images of biased signers of documents related to America’s independence and multi-ethnic soldiers in the World War II German army. Bias? Google thinks not I guess.
The protest occurs as the Google tries to cope with increased market pressure and the tough-to-control costs of smart software. The quick fix is to nuke or RIF employees. “Google Lays Off Workers As Part of Pretty Large-Scale Restructuring” reports by citing Business Insider:
Ruth Porat, Google’s chief financial officer, sent an email to employees announcing that the company would create “growth hubs” in India, Mexico and Ireland. The unspecified number of layoffs will affect teams in the company’s finance department, including its treasury, business services and revenue cash operations units
That looks like off-shoring to me. The idea was a cookie cutter solution spun up by blue chip consulting companies 20, maybe 30 years ago. On paper, the math is more enticing than a new Land Rover and about as reliable. A state-side worker costs X fully loaded with G&A, benefits, etc. An off-shore worker costs X minus Y. If the delta means cost savings, go for it. What’s not to like?
According to a source cited in the New York Post:
“As we’ve said, we’re responsibly investing in our company’s biggest priorities and the significant opportunities ahead… To best position us for these opportunities, throughout the second half of 2023 and into 2024, a number of our teams made changes to become more efficient and work better, remove layers and align their resources to their biggest product priorities.
Yep, align. That senior management team has a way with words.
Will those who are in fear of their jobs join in the increasingly routine Google employee protests? Will disgruntled staff sandbag products and code? Will those who are terminated write tell-alls about their experiences at an outfit operating under Code Red for more than a year?
Several observations:
- Microsoft’s quite effective push of its AI products and services continues. In certain key markets like New York City and the US government, Google is on the defensive. Hint: Microsoft has the advantage, and the Google is struggling to catch up.
- Google’s management of its personnel seems to create the wrong type of news. Example: Staff arrests. Is that part of Peter Drucker’s management advice.
- The Google leadership team appears to lack the ability to do their job in a way that operates in a quiet, effective, positive, and measured way.
Net net: The online ad money machine keeps running. But if the investigations into Google’s business practices get traction, Google will have additional challenges to face. The Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy team should make a TikTok-type, how-to video about human resource management. I would prefer a short video about the origin story for the online advertising method which allowed Google to become a fascinating outfit.
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2024
AI Will Take Jobs for Sure: Money Talks, Humans Walk
April 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Report Shows Managers Eager to Replace or Devalue Workers with AI Tools
Bosses have had it with the worker-favorable labor market that emerged from the pandemic. Fortunately, there is a new option that is happy to be exploited. We learn from TechSpot that a recent “Survey Reveals Almost Half of All Managers Aim to Replace Workers with AI, Could Use It to Lower Wages.” The report is by beautiful.ai, which did its best to spin the results as a trend toward collaboration, not pink slips. Nevertheless, the numbers seem to back up worker concerns. Writer Rog Thubron summarizes:
“A report by Beautiful.ai, which makes AI-powered presentation software, surveyed over 3,000 managers about AI tools in the workplace, how they’re being implemented, and what impact they believe these technologies will have. The headline takeaway is that 41% of managers said they are hoping that they can replace employees with cheaper AI tools in 2024. … The rest of the survey’s results are just as depressing for worried workers: 48% of managers said their businesses would benefit financially if they could replace a large number of employees with AI tools; 40% said they believe multiple employees could be replaced by AI tools and the team would operate well without them; 45% said they view AI as an opportunity to lower salaries of employees because less human-powered work is needed; and 12% said they are using AI in hopes to downsize and save money on worker salaries. It’s no surprise that 62% of managers said that their employees fear that AI tools will eventually cost them their jobs. Furthermore, 66% of managers said their employees fear that AI tools will make them less valuable at work in 2024.”
Managers themselves are not immune to the threat: Half of them said they worry their pay will decrease, and 64% believe AI tools do their jobs better than experienced humans do. At least they are realistic. Beautiful.ai stresses another statistic: 60% of respondents who are already using AI tools see them as augmenting, not threatening, jobs. The firm also emphasizes the number of managers who hope to replace employees with AI decreased “significantly” since last year’s survey. Progress?
Cynthia Murrell, April 12, 2024
Perplexed at Perplexity? It Is Just the Need for Money. Relax.
April 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
“Gen-AI Search Engine Perplexity Has a Plan to Sell Ads” makes it clear that the dynamic world of wildly over-hyped smart software is somewhat fluid. Pivoting from “No, never” to “Yes, absolutely” might catch some by surprise. But this dinobaby is ready for AI’s morphability. Artificial intelligence means something to the person using the term. There may be zero correlation between the meaning of AI in the mind of any other people. Absent the Vulcan mind meld, people have to adapt. Morphability is important.
The dinobaby analyst is totally confused. First, say one thing. Then, do the opposite. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough. How’s that AI reorganization going?
I am thinking about AI because Perplexity told Adweek that despite obtaining $73 million in Series B funding, the company will start selling ads. This is no big deal for Google which slips unmarked ads into its short video streams. But Perplexity was not supposed to sell ads. Yeah, well, that’s no longer an operative concept.
The write up says:
Perplexity also links sources in the response while suggesting related questions users might want to ask. These related questions, which account for 40% of Perplexity’s queries, are where the company will start introducing native ads, by letting brands influence these questions,
Sounds rock solid, but I think that the ads will have a bit of morphability; that is, when big bucks are at stake, those ads are going to go many places. With an alleged 10 million monthly active users, some advertisers will want those ads shoved down the throat of anything that looks like a human or bot with buying power.
Advertisers care about “brand safety.” But those selling ads care about selling ads. That’s why exciting ads turn up in quite interesting places.
I have a slight distrust for pivoters. But that’s just an old dinobaby, an easily confused dinobaby at that.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2024
Yeah, Stability at Stability AI: Will Flame Outs Light Up the Bubble?
April 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Inside the $1 Billion Love Affair between Stability AI’s Complicated Founder and Tech Investors Coatue and Lightspeed—And How It Turned Bitter within Months.” Interesting but, from my point of view, not surprising. High school science club members, particularly when preserving some of their teeny bopper ethos into alleged adulthood can be interesting people. And at work, exciting may be a suitable word. The write up’s main idea is that the wizard “left home in his pajamas.” Well, that’s a good summary of where Stability AI is.
The high school science club finds itself at odds with a mere school principal. The science club student knows that if the principal were capable, he would not be a mere principal. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Were your senior managers in a high school science club?
The write up points out that Stability was the progenitor of Stable Diffusion, the art generator. I noticed the psycho-babbly terms stability and stable. Did you? Did the investors? Did the employees? Answer: Hey, there’s money to be made.
I noted this statement in the article:
The collaborative relationship between the investors and the promising startup gradually morphed into something more akin to that of a parent and an unruly child as the extent of internal turmoil and lack of clear direction at Stability became apparent, and even increased as Stability used its funding to expand its ranks.
Yep, high school management methods: “Don’t tell me what to do. I am smarter than you, Mr. Assistant Principal. You need me on the Quick Recall team, so go away,” echo in my mind in an Ezoic AI voice.
The write up continued the tale of mismanagement and adolescent angst, quoting the founder of Stability AI:
“Nobody tells you how hard it is to be a CEO and there are better CEOs than me to scale a business,” Mostaque said. “I am not sure anyone else would have been able to build and grow the research team to build the best and most widely used models out there and I’m very proud of the team there. I look forward to moving onto the next problem to handle and hopefully move the needle.”
I interpreted this as, “I did not know that calcium carbide in the lab sink drain could explode when in contact with water and then ignited, Mr. Principal.”
And, finally, let me point out this statement:
Though Stability AI’s models can still generate images of space unicorns and Lego burgers, music, and videos, the company’s chances of long-term success are nothing like they once appeared. “It’s definitely not gonna make me rich,” the investor says.
Several observations:
- Stability may presage the future for other high-flying and low-performing AI outfits. Why? Because teen management skills are problematic in a so-so economic environment
- AI is everywhere and its value is now derived by having something that solves a problem people will pay to have ameliorated. Shiny stuff fresh from the lab won’t make stakeholders happy
- Discipline, particularly in high school science club members, may not be what a dinobaby like me would call rigorous. Sloppiness produces a mess and lost opportunities.
Net net: Ask about a potential employer’s high school science club memories.
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2024
Publishers and Libraries: Tensions Escalate
April 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
We doubt this is what Ben Franklin had in mind. With more and more readers turning to digital editions, ABC News reports, “Libraries Struggle to Afford the Demand for E-Books, Seek New State Laws in Fight with Publishers.” With physical books, the process of building a library collection is simple: a volume is purchased (or donated) then loaned out repeatedly until it is lost or disintegrates. But publishers have made the process for ebooks much more complicated. And costly. Journalist Susan Haigh writes:
“The digital titles often come with a price tag that’s far higher than what consumers pay. While one hardcover copy of [Robin] Cook’s latest novel costs the library $18, it costs $55 to lease a digital copy — a price that can’t be haggled with publishers. And for that, the e-book expires after a limited time, usually after one or two years, or after 26 checkouts, whichever comes first. While e-books purchased by consumers can last into perpetuity, libraries need to renew their leased e-material. The modestly funded West Haven Library has spent more than $12,000 over the last three years to lease just 276 additional digital titles beyond what patrons can access through a consortium of public libraries. Eighty-four of those books are no longer available. If that same amount had been spent on paper books, it would have covered about 800 titles. … Publishers, however, argue the arrangement is fair considering e-book licenses for libraries allow numerous patrons to ‘borrow’ them and the per-reader cost is much less expensive than the per-reader rate.”
Well,yes, that is how public libraries work. Or it used to be. Will publishers come for hard copies next? Librarians across the US are pushing for legislation to counter these trends, and bills have been proposed in several states. Any that get passed, though, will have to make it through Big Publishing’s legal challenges. See the write-up for some lawmakers’ strategies to do so. Will libraries, and the taxpayers that fund them, prevail over these corporations? Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, April 4, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
