Modern Management Method and Modern Pricing Plan
September 25, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
Despite the sudden drop in quantity and quality in my newsfeed outputs, one of my team spotted a blog post titled “Slack Is Extorting Us with a $195K/Year Bill Increase.” Slack is, I believe, a unit of Salesforce. That firm is in the digital Rolodex business. Over the years, Salesforce has dabbled with software to help sales professionals focus. The effort was part of Salesforce’s attention retention push. Now Salesforce is into collaborative tools for professionals engaged in other organizational functions. The pointy end of the “force” is smart software. The leadership of Salesforce has spoken about the importance of AI and suggested that other firms’ collaboration software is not keeping up with Slack.
A forward-leaning team of deciders reaches agreement about pricing. The alpha dog is thrilled with the idea of a price hike. The beta buddies are less enthusiastic. But it is accounting job to collect on booked but unpaid revenue. The AI system called Venice produced this illustration.
The write up says:
For nearly 11 years, Hack Club – a nonprofit that provides coding education and community to teenagers worldwide – has used Slack as the tool for communication. We weren’t freeloaders. A few years ago, when Slack transitioned us from their free nonprofit plan to a $5,000/year arrangement, we happily paid. It was reasonable, and we valued the service they provided to our community.
The “attention” grabber in this blog post is this paragraph:
However, two days ago, Slack reached out to us and said that if we don’t agree to pay an extra $50k this week and $200k a year, they’ll deactivate our Slack workspace and delete all of our message history.
I think there is a hint of a threat to the Salesforce customer. I am probably incorrect. Salesforce is popular, and it is owned by a high profile outfit embracing attention and AI. Assume that the cited passage reflects how the customer understood the invoice and its 3,000 percent plus increase and the possible threat. My question is, “What type of management process is at work at Salesforce / Slack?”
Here are my thoughts. Please, remember that I am a dinobaby and generally clueless about modern management methods used to establish pricing.
- Salesforce has put pressure on Slack to improve its revenue quickly. The Slack professionals knee jerked and boosted bills to outfits likely to pay up and keep quiet. Thus, the Hack Club received a big bill. Do this enough times and you can demonstrate more revenue, even though it may be unpaid. Let the bean counters work to get the money. I wonder if this is passive resistance from Slack toward Salesforce’s leadership? Oh, of course not.
- Salesforce’s pushes for attention and AI are not pumping the big bucks Salesforce needs to avoid the negative consequences of missing financial projections. Bad things happen when this occurs.
- Salesforce / Slack are operating in a fog of unknowing. The hope for big payoffs from attention and AI are slow to materialize. The spreadsheet fever that justifies massive investments in AI is yielding to some basic financial realities: Customers are buying. Sticking AI into communications is not a home run for Slack users, and it may not be for the lucky bean counters who have to collect on the invoices for booked but unpaid revenue.
The write up states:
Anyway, we’re moving to Mattermost. This experience has taught us that owning your data is incredibly important, and if you’re a small business especially, then I’d advise you move away too.
Salesforce / Slack loses a customer and the costs associated with handling data for what appears to be a lower priority and lower value customer.
Modern management methods are logical and effective. Never has a dinobaby learned so much about today’s corporate tactics than I have from my reading about outfits like Salesforce / and Slack.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2025
Want to Catch the Attention of Bad Actors? Say, Easier Cross Chain Transactions
September 24, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I know from experience that most people don’t know about moving crypto in a way that makes deanonymization difficult. Commercial firms offer deanonymization services. Most of the well-known outfits’ technology delivers. Even some home-grown approaches are useful.
For a number of years, Telegram has been the go-to service for some Fancy Dancing related to obfuscating crypto transactions. However, Telegram has been slow on the trigger when it comes to smart software and to some of the new ideas percolating in the bubbling world of digital currency.
A good example of what’s ahead for traders, investors, and bad actors is described in “Simplifying Cross-Chain Transactions Using Intents.” Like most crypto thought, confusing lingo is a requirement. In this article, the word “intent” refers to having crypto currency in one form like USDC and getting 100 SOL or some other crypto. The idea is that one can have fiat currency in British pounds, walk up to a money exchange in Berlin, and convert the pounds to euros. One pays a service charge. Now in crypto land, the crypto has to move across a blockchain. Then to get the digital exchange to do the conversion, one pays a gas fee; that is, a transaction charge. Moving USDC across multiple chains is a hassle and the fees pile up.
The article “Simplifying Cross Chain Transaction Using Intents” explains a brave new world. No more clunky Telegram smart contracts and bots. Now the transaction just happens. How difficult will the deanonymization process become? Speed makes life difficult. Moving across chains makes life difficult. It appears that “intents” will be a capability of considerable interest to entities interested in making crypto transactions difficult to deanonymize.
The write up says:
In technical terms,
intentsare signed messages that express a user’s desired outcome without specifying execution details. Instead of crafting complex transaction sequences yourself, you broadcast your intent to a network ofsolvers(sophisticated actors) who then compete to fulfill your request.
The write up explains the benefit for the average crypto trader:
when you broadcast an intent, multiple solvers analyze it and submit competing quotes. They might route through different DEXs, use off-chain liquidity, or even batch your intent with others for better pricing. The best solution wins.
Now, think of solvers as your personal trading assistants who understand every connected protocol, every liquidity source, and every optimization trick in DeFi. They make money by providing better execution than you could achieve yourself and saves you a a lot of time.
Does this sound like a use case for smart software? It is, but the approach is less complicated than what one must implement using other approaches. Here’s a schematic of what happens in the intent pipeline:
The secret sauce for the approach is what is called a “1Click API.” The API handles the plumbing for the crypto bridging or crypto conversion from currency A to currency B.
If you are interested in how this system works, the cited article provides a list of nine links. Each provides additional detail. To be up front, some of the write ups are more useful than others. But three things are clear:
- Deobfuscation is likely to become more time consuming and costly
- The system described could be implemented within the Telegram blockchain system as well as other crypto conversion operations.
- The described approach can be further abstracted into an app with more overt smart software enablements.
My thought is that money launderers are likely to be among the first to explore this approach.
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2025
A Googler Explains How AI Helps Creators and Advertisers in the Googley Maze
September 24, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
Most of Techmeme’s stories are paywalled. But one slipped through. (I wonder why?) Anyhow, the article in question is “An Interview with YouTube Neal Mohan about Building a Stage for Creators.” The interview is a long one. I want to focus on a couple of statements and offer a handful of observations.
The first comment by the Googler Mohan is this one:
Moving away from the old model of the cliché Madison Avenue type model of, “You go out to lunch and you negotiate a deal and it’s bespoke in this particular fashion because you were friends with the head of ad sales at that particular publisher”. So doing away with that model, and really frankly, democratizing the way advertising worked, which in our thesis, back to this kind of strategy book, would result in higher ROI for publishers, but also better ROI for advertisers.
The statement makes clear that disrupting advertising was the key to what is now the Google Double Click model. Instead of Madison Avenue, today there is the Google model. I think of it as a maze. Once one “gets into” the Google Double Click model, there is no obvious exit.
The art was generated by Venice.ai. No human needed. Sorry freelance artists on Fiverr.com. This is the future. It will come to YouTube as well.
Here’s the second I noted:
everything that we build is in service of people that are creative people, and I use the term “creator” writ large. YouTubers, artists, musicians, sports leagues, media, Hollywood, etc., and from that vantage point, it is really exceedingly clear that these AI capabilities are just that, they’re capabilities, they’re tools. But the thing that actually draws us to YouTube, what we want to watch are the original storytellers, the creators themselves.
The idea, in my interpretation, is that Google’s smart software is there to enable humans to be creative. AI is just a tool like an ice pick. Sure, the ice pick can be driven into someone’s heart, but that’s an extreme example of misuse of a simple tool. Our approach is to keep that ice pick for the artist who is going to create an ice sculpture.
Please, read the rest of this Googley interview to get a sense of the other concepts Google’s ad system and its AI are delivering to advertisers and “creators.”
Here’s my view:
- Google wants to get creators into the YouTube maze. Google wants advertisers to use the now 30 year old Google Double Click ad system. Everyone just enter the labyrinth.
- The rats will learn that the maze is the equivalent of a fish in an aquarium. What else will the fish know? Not too much. The aquarium is life. It is reality.
- Google has a captive, self-sustaining ecosystem. Creators create; advertisers advertise because people or systems want the content.
Now let me ask a question, “How does this closed ecosystem make more money?” The answer, according to Googler Mohan, a former consultant like others in Google leadership, is to become more efficient. How does one become more efficient? The answer is to replace expensive, popular creators with cheaper AI driven content produced by Google’s AI system.
Therefore, the words say one thin: Creator humans are essential. However, the trajectory of Google’s behavior is that Google wants to maximize its revenues. Just the threat or fear of using AI to knock off a hot new human engineered “content object” will allow the Google to reduce what it pays to a human until Google’s AI can eliminate those pesky, protesting, complaining humans. The advertisers want eyeballs. That’s what Google will deliver. Where will the advertisers go? Craigslist, Nextdoor, X.com?
Net net: Money is more important to Google than human creators. I know I am a dinobaby and probably incorrect. That’s how I see the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2025
Titanic AI Goes Round and Round: Are You Dizzy Yet?
September 23, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Nvidia to Invest Up to $100 Billion in OpenAI, Linking Two Artificial Intelligence Titans.” The headline makes an important point. The words “big” and “huge” are not sufficiently monumental. Now we have “titans." As you may know, a “titan” is a person of great power. I will leave out the Greek mythology. I do want to point out that “titans” were the kiddies produced by Uranus and Gaea. Titans were big dogs until Zeus and a few other Olympian gods forced them to live in what is now Newark, New Jersey.
An AI-generated diagram of a simple circular deal. Regulators and and IRS professionals enjoy challenges. What are those people doing to make the process work? Thanks, MidJourney.com. Good enough.
The write up from the outfit that it is into trust explains how two “titans” are now intertwined. No, I won’t bring up the issue of incestuous behavior. Let’s stick to the “real” news story:
Nvidia will invest up to $100 billion in OpenAI and supply it with data center chips… Nvidia will start investing in OpenAI for non-voting shares once the deal is finalized, then OpenAI can use the cash to buy Nvidia’s chips.
I am not a finance, tax, or money wizard. On the surface, it seems to me that I loan a person some money and then that person gives me the money back in exchange for products and services. I may have this wrong, but I thought a similar arrangement landed one of the once-famous enterprise search companies in a world of hurt and a member of the firm’s leadership in prison.
Reuters includes this statement:
Analysts said the deal was positive for Nvidia but also voiced concerns about whether some of Nvidia’s investment dollars might be coming back to it in the form of chip purchases. "On the one hand this helps OpenAI deliver on what are some very aspirational goals for compute infrastructure, and helps Nvidia ensure that that stuff gets built. On the other hand the ‘circular’ concerns have been raised in the past, and this will fuel them further," said Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon.
“Circular” — That’s an interesting word. Some of the financial transaction my team and I examined during our Telegram (the messaging outfit) research used similar methods. One of the organizations apparently aware of “circular” transactions was Huione Guarantee. No big deal, but the company has been in legal hot water for some of its circular functions. Will OpenAI and Nvidia experience similar problems? I don’t know, but the circular thing means that money goes round and round. In circular transactions, at each touch point magical number things can occur. Money deals are rarely hallucinatory like AI outputs and semiconductor marketing.
What’s this mean to companies eager to compete in smart software and Fancy Dan chips? In my opinion, I hear my inner voice saying, “You may be behind a great big circular curve. Better luck next time.”
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2025
Google Tactic: Blame Others for an Issue
September 23, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
The shift from irrelevant, SEO-corrupted results to the hallucinating world of Google smart software is allegedly affecting traffic to some sites. Google is on top of the situation. Its tireless wizards and even more tireless smart software is keeping track of ads. Oh, sorry, I mean Web site traffic. With AI making everything better for users, the complaints about declining referral traffic are annoying.
Google has an answer. “YouTube Addresses Lower View Counts Which Seem to Be Caused by Ad Blockers” reports:
Since mid-August, many YouTubers have noticed their view counts are considerably lower than they were before, in some cases with very drastic drops. The reason for the drop, though, has been shrouded in mystery for many creators.
Then adds:
The most likely explanation seems to be that YouTube is not counting views properly for users with an ad blocker enabled, another step in the platform’s continued war on ad blockers.
Yeah, maybe.
My view is that Google is steering traffic across its platform to extract as much revenue as possible. The model is the one used by olive oil producers. The good stuff is golden. The processes to squeeze the juice produces results that are unsatisfactory to some. The broken recommendations system, the smart summaries in search, and the other quantumly supreme innovations have fouled the gears in the Google advertising machine. That means Google has to up the amount of money it can obtain by squeezing harder.
How does one fix something that is the equivalent of an electric generator that once whizzed at Niagara Falls? That’s easy: One wraps it in something better, faster, and cheaper. Oh, I forgot easier to do. Googlers are busy people. Easy is efficient if it is cheap or produces additional revenue. The better outcome is to do both: Lower costs and boost revenue.
Google is going to have the same experience reinventing itself that IBM and Intel are experiencing. You may think I am just a bonkers dinobaby. Yeah, maybe. But, maybe not.
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2025
AI and the Media: AI Is the Answer for Some Outfits
September 22, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
I spotted a news item about Russia’s government Ministry of Defense. The estimable defensive outfit now has an AI-generated news program. Here’s the paywalled source link. I haven’t seen it yet, but the statistics for viewership and the Telegram comments will be interesting to observe. Gee, do you think that bright Russian developers have found a way to steer the output to represent the political views of the Russian government? Did you say, “No.” Congratulations, you may qualify for a visa to homestead in Norilsk. Check it out on Google Maps.
Back in Germany, Axel Springer SE is definitely into AI as well. Coincidentally, Axel Springer will use AI for news. I noted Business Insider will allow its real and allegedly human journalists to use AI to write “drafts” of news stories. Here’s the paywalled source link. Hey, Axel, aren’t your developers able to pipe the AI output into slamma jamma banana and produce via AI complete TikTok-type news videos? Russia’s Ministry of Defense has this angle figured out. YouTube may be in the MoD’s plans. One has to fund that “defensive” special operation in Ukraine somehow.
Several observations:
- Steering or weaponing large language models is a feature of the systems. Can one trust AI generated news? Can one trust any AI output from a large organization? You may. I don’t.
- The economics of producing Walter Cronkite type news make “real” news expensive. Therefore, say hello to AI written news and AI delivered news. GenX and GenY will love this approach to information in my opinion.
- How will government regulators respond to AI news? In Russia, government controlled AI news will get a green light. Elsewhere, the shift may be slightly more contentious.
Net net: AI is great.
Stephen E Arnold, September 22, 2025
Google Emits a Tiny Signal: Is It Stress or Just a Brilliant Management Move?
September 22, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
Google is chock full of technical and management wizards. Anything the firm does is a peak action. With the Google doing so many forward leaning things each day, it is possible for certain staggering insightful moments to be lost in the blitz of scintillating breakthroughs.
Tom’s Hardware spotted one sparkling decider diamond. “Google Terminates 200 AI Contractors — Ramp-Down Blamed, But Workers Claim Questions Over Pay and Job Insecurity Are the Real Reason Behind Layoffs” says:
Some believe they were let go because of complaints over working conditions and compensation.
Goes Google have a cancel culture?
The write up notes:
For the first half of 2025, AI growth was everywhere, and all the major companies were spending big to try to get ahead. Meta was offering individuals hundreds of millions to join its ranks … But while announcements of enormous industry deals continue, there’s also a lot of talk of contraction, particularly when it comes to lower-level positions like data annotation and AI response rating.
The individuals who are now free to find their future elsewhere have some ideas about why they were deleted from Google and promoted to Xooglers (former Google employees). The write up reports:
… many of them [the terminated with extreme Googliness] believe that it is their complaints over compensation that lead to them being laid off…. [Some] workers “attempted to unionize” earlier in the year to no avail. According to the report, “they [the future finders] allege that the company has retaliated against them.” … For its part, Google said in a statement that GlobalLogic is responsible for the working conditions of its employees.
See the brilliance of the management move. Google blames another outfit. Google reduces costs. Google makes it clear that grousing is not an path to the Google leadership enclave. Google AI is unscathed.
Google is A Number One in management in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 22, 2025
AI Poker: China Has Three Aces. Google, Your Play
September 19, 2025
No smart software involved. Just a dinobaby’s work.
TV poker seems to be a thing on free or low cost US television streams. A group of people squint, sigh, and fiddle as each tries to win the big pile of cash. Another poker game is underway in the “next big thing” of smart software or AI.
Google released the Nano Banana image generator. Social media hummed. Okay, that looks like a winning hand. But another player dropped some coin on the table, squinted at the Google, and smirked just a tiny bit.
“ByteDance Unveils New AI Image Model to Rival DeepMind’s Nano Banana” explains the poker play this way:
TikTok-owner ByteDance has launched its latest image generation artificial intelligence tool Seedream 4.0, which it said surpasses Google DeepMind’s viral “Nano Banana” AI image editor across several key indicators.
Now the cute jargon may make the poker hand friendly, there is menace behind the terminology. The write up states:
ByteDance claims that Seedream 4.0 beat Gemini 2.5 Flash Image for image generation and editing on its internal evaluation benchmark MagicBench, with stronger performance in prompt adherence, alignment and aesthetics.
Okay, prompt adherence, alignment (what the heck is that?), and aesthetics. That’s three aces right.
Who has the cost advantage? The write up says:
On Fal.ai, a global generative media hosting platform, Seedream 4.0 costs US$0.03 per generated image, while Gemini 2.5 Flash Image is priced at US$0.039.
I thought in poker one raised the stakes. Well, in AI poker one lowers the price in order to raise the stakes. These players are betting the money burned in the AI furnace will be “won” as the game progresses. Will AI poker turn up on the US free TV services? Probably. Burning cash makes for wonderful viewing, especially for those who are writing the checks.
What’s China’s view of this type of gambling? The write up says:
The state has signaled its support for AI-generated content by recognizing their copyright in late 2023, but has also recently introduced mandatory labelling of such content.
The game is not over. (Am I the only person who thinks that the name “nana banana” would have been better than “nano banana”?)
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2025
Desperate Much? Buying Cyber Security Software Regularly
September 16, 2025
Bad actors have access to AI, and it is enabling them to increase both speed and volume at an alarming rate. Are cybersecurity teams able to cope? Maybe—if they can implement the latest software quickly enough. VentureBeat reports, “Software Commands 40% of Cybersecurity Budgets ad Gen AI Attacks Execute in Milliseconds.” Citing IBM’s recent Cost of a Data Breach Report, writer Louis Columbus reports 40% of cybersecurity spending now goes to software. Compare that to just 15.8% spent on hardware, 15% on outsourcing, and 29% on personnel. Even so, AI-assisted hacks now attack in milliseconds while the Mean Time to Identify (MTTI) is 181 days. That is quite the disparity. Columbus observes:
“Three converging threats are flipping cybersecurity on its head: what once protected organizations is now working against them. Generative AI (gen AI) is enabling attackers to craft 10,000 personalized phishing emails per minute using scraped LinkedIn profiles and corporate communications. NIST’s 2030 quantum deadline threatens retroactive decryption of $425 billion in currently protected data. Deepfake fraud that surged 3,000% in 2024 now bypasses biometric authentication in 97% of attempts, forcing security leaders to reimagine defensive architectures fundamentally.”
Understandable. But all this scrambling for solutions may now be part of the problem. Some teams, we are told, manage 75 or more security tools. No wonder they capture so much of the budget. Simplification, however, is proving elusive. We learn:
“Security Service Edge (SSE) platforms that promised streamlined convergence now add to the complexity they intended to solve. Meanwhile, standalone risk-rating products flood security operations centers with alerts that lack actionable context, leading analysts to spend 67% of their time on false positives, according to IDC’s Security Operations Study. The operational math doesn’t work. Analysts require 90 seconds to evaluate each alert, but they receive 11,000 alerts daily. Each additional security tool deployed reduces visibility by 12% and increases attacker dwell time by 23 days, as reported in Mandiant’s 2024 M-Trends Report. Complexity itself has become the enterprise’s greatest cybersecurity vulnerability.”
See the writeup for more on efforts to improve cybersecurity’s speed and accuracy and the factors that thwart them. Do we have a crisis yet? Of course not. Marketing tells us cyber security just works. Sort of.
Cynthia Murrell, September 16, 2025
Shame, Stress, and Longer Hours: AI’s Gifts to the Corporate Worker
September 15, 2025
Office workers from the executive suites to entry-level positions have a new reason to feel bad about themselves. Fortune reports, “ ‘AI Shame’ Is Running Rampant in the Corporate Sector—and C-Suite Leaders Are Most Worried About Getting Caught, Survey Says.” Writer Nick Lichtenberg cites a survey of over 1,000 workers by SAP subsidiary WalkMe. We learn almost half (48.8%) of the respondents said they hide their use of AI at work to avoid judgement. The number was higher at 53.4% for those at the top—even though they use AI most often. But what about the generation that has entered the job force amid AI hype? We learn:
“Gen Z approaches AI with both enthusiasm and anxiousness. A striking 62.6% have completed work using AI but pretended it was all their own effort—the highest rate among any generation. More than half (55.4%) have feigned understanding of AI in meetings. … But only 6.8% report receiving extensive, time-consuming AI training, and 13.5% received none at all. This is the lowest of any age group.”
In fact, the study found, only 3.7% of entry-level workers received substantial AI training, compared to 17.1% of C-suite executives. The write-up continues:
“Despite this, an overwhelming 89.2% [of Gen Z workers] use AI at work—and just as many (89.2%) use tools that weren’t provided or sanctioned by their employer. Only 7.5% reported receiving extensive training with AI tools.”
So younger employees use AI more but receive less training. And, apparently, are receiving little guidance on how and whether to use these tools in their work. What could go wrong?
From executives to fresh hires and those in between, the survey suggests everyone is feeling the impact of AI in the workplace. Lichtenberg writes:
“AI is changing work, and the survey suggests not always for the better. Most employees (80%) say AI has improved their productivity, but 59% confess to spending more time wrestling with AI tools than if they’d just done the work themselves. Gen Z again leads the struggle, with 65.3% saying AI slows them down (the highest amount of any group), and 68% feeling pressure to produce more work because of it.”
In addition, more than half the respondents said AI training initiatives amounted to a second, stressful job. But doesn’t all that hard work pay off? Um, no. At least, not according to this report from MIT that found 95% of AI pilot programs at large companies fail. So why are we doing this again? Ask the investor class.
Cynthia Murrell, September 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
