The Wiz: Google Gears Up for Enterprise Security
July 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Anyone remember this verse from “Ease on Down the Road,” from The Wiz, the hit musical from the 1970s? Here’s the passage:
‘Cause there may be times
When you think you lost your mind
And the steps you’re takin’
Leave you three, four steps behind
But the road you’re walking
Might be long sometimes
You just keep on trukin’
And you’ll just be fine, yeah
Why am I playing catchy tunes in my head on Monday, July 15, 2024? I just read “Google Near $23 Billion Deal for Cybersecurity Startup Wiz.” For years, I have been relating Israeli-developed cyber security technology to law enforcement and intelligence professionals. I try in each lecture to profile a firm, typically based in Tel Aviv or environs and staffed with former military professionals. I try to relate the functionality of the system to the particular case or matter I am discussing in my lecture.
The happy band is easin’ down the road. The Googlers have something new to sell. Does it work? Sure, get down. Boogie. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Has your security created an opportunity for Google marketers?
That stopped in October 2023. A former Israeli intelligence officer told me, “The massacre was Israel’s 9/11. There was an intelligence failure.” I backed away form the Israeli security, cyber crime, and intelware systems. They did not work. If we flash forward to July 15, 2024, the marketing is back. The well-known NSO Group is hawking its technology at high-profile LE and intel conferences. Enhancements to existing systems arrive in the form of email newsletters at the pace of the pre-October 2023 missives.
However, I am maintaining a neutral and skeptical stance. There is the October 2023 event, the subsequent war, and the increasing agitation about tactics, weapons systems in use, and efficacy of digital safeguards.
Google does not share my concerns. That’s why the company is Google, and I am a dinobaby tracking cyber security from my small office in rural Kentucky. Google makes news. I make nothing as a marginalized dinobaby.
The Wiz tells the story of a young girl who wants to get her dog back after a storm carries the creature away. The young girl offs the evil witch and seeks the help of a comedian from Peoria, Illinois, to get back to her real life. The Wiz has a happy ending, and the quoted verse makes the point that the young girl, like the Google, has to keep taking steps even though the Information Highway may be long.
That’s what Google is doing. The company is buying security (which I want to point out is cut from the same cloth as the systems which failed to notice the October 2023 run up). Google has Mandiant. Google offers a free Dark Web scanning service. Now Google has Wiz.
What’s Wiz do? Like other Israeli security companies, it does the sort of thing intended to prevent events like October 2023’s attack. And like other aggressively marketed Israeli cyber technology companies’ capabilities, one has to ask, “Will Wiz work in an emerging and fluid threat environment?” This is an important question because of the failure of the in situ Israeli cyber security systems, disabled watch stations, and general blindness to social media signals about the October 2023 incident.
If one zips through the Wiz’s Web site, one can craft a description of what the firm purports to do; for example:
Wiz is a cloud security firm embodying capabilities associated with the Israeli military technology. The idea is to create a one-stop shop to secure cloud assets. The idea is to identify and mitigate risks. The system incorporates automated functions and graphic outputs. The company asserts that it can secure models used for smart software and enforce security policies automatically.
Does it work? I will leave that up to you and the bad actors who find novel methods to work around big, modern, automated security systems. Did you know that human error and old-fashioned methods like emails with links that deliver stealers work?
Can Google make the Mandiant Wiz combination work magic? Is Googzilla a modern day Wiz able to transport the little girl back to real life?
Google has paid a rumored $20 billion plus to deliver this reality.
I maintain my neutral and skeptical stance. I keep thinking about October 2023, the aftermath of a massive security failure, and the over-the-top presentations by Israeli cyber security vendors. If the stuff worked, why did October 2023 happen? Like most modern cyber security solutions, marketing to the people who desperately want a silver bullet or digital stake to pound through the heart of cyber risk produces sales.
I am not sure that sales, marketing, and assertions about automation work in what is an inherently insecure, fast-changing, and globally vulnerable environment.
But Google will keep on trukin’’ because Microsoft has created a heck of a marketing opportunity for the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2024
Google: Another Unfair Allegation and You Are Probably Sorry
July 10, 2024
Just as some thought Google was finally playing nice with content rightsholders, a group of textbook publishers begs to differ—in court. TorrentFreak reports, “Google ‘Profits from Pirated Textbooks’ Publishers’ Lawsuit Claims.” The claimants accuse Google of not only ignoring textbook pirates in search results, but of actively promoting them to line its own coffers. Writer Andy Maxwell quotes the complaint:
“’Of course, Google’s Shopping Ads for Infringing Works … do not use photos of the pirates’ products; rather, they use unauthorized photos of the Publishers’ own textbooks, many of which display the Marks. Thus, with Infringing Shopping Ads, this “strong sense of the product” that Google is giving is a bait-and-switch,’ the complaint alleges.”
The complaint emphasizes Google actively creates, ranks, and targets ads for pirated products. It also assesses the quality of advertised sites. It is fishy, then, that infringing works often rank before or near ads for the originals.
In case one is still willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt, the complaint lists several reasons the company should know better. There are the sketchy site names like “Cheapbok,” and “Biz Ninjas.” Then there are the unrealistically low prices. A semester’s worth of textbooks should break the bank; that is just part of the college experience. Perhaps even more damning is Google’s own assertion it verifies sellers’ identities. The write-up continues:
“[The publishers] claim that verification means Google has the ability to communicate with sellers via email or verified phone numbers. In cases where Google was advised that a seller was offering pirated content and Google users were still able to place orders after clicking an ad, ‘Google had the ability to stop the direct infringement entirely.’ In the majority of cases where pirate sellers predominantly or exclusively use Google Ads to reach their customer base, terminating their accounts would’ve had a significant impact on future sales.”
No doubt. Publishers have tried to address the issue through Google’s stated process of takedown notices to no avail. In fact, they allege, the company is downright hostile to any that push the issue. We learn:
“When the publishers sent follow-up notices for matters previously reported but not handled to their satisfaction, ‘Google threatened on multiple occasions to stop reviewing all the Publishers’ notices for up to six months,’ the complaint alleges. Google’s response was due to duplicate requests; the company warned that if that happened three or more times on the same request, it would ‘consider that particular request to be manifestly unfounded’ which could lead the company to ‘temporarily stop reviewing your requests for a period of up to 180 days.’”
Ah, corporate logic. Will Google’s pirate booty be worth the legal headaches? The textbook publishers bringing suit include Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Macmillan Holdings, LLC; Elsevier Inc., Elsevier B.V., and McGraw Hill LLC. The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Cynthia Murrell, July 10, 2024
Does Google Have a Monopoly? Does AI Search Make a Difference?
July 9, 2024
I read “2024 Zero-Click Search Study: For Every 1,000 EU Google Searches, Only 374 Clicks Go to the Open Web. In the US, It’s 360.” The write up begins with caveats — many caveats. But I think I am not into the search engine optimization and online advertising mindset. As a dinobaby, I find the pursuit of clicks in a game controlled by one outfit of little interest.
Is it possible that what looks like a nice family vacation place is a digital roach motel? Of course not! Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Let’s answer the two questions the information in the report from the admirably named SparkToro presents. In my take on the article, the charts, the buzzy jargon, the answer to the question, “Does Google Have a Monopoly?” the answer is, “Wow, do they.”
The second question I posed is, “Does AI Search Make a Difference in Google Traffic?’ the answer is, “A snowball’s chance in hell is better.”
The report and analysis takes me to close enough for horse shoes factoids. But that’s okay because the lack of detailed, reliable data is part of the way online operates. No one really knows if the clicks from a mobile device are generated by a nepo baby with money to burn or a bank of 1,000 mobile devices mindlessly clicking on Web destinations. Factoids about online activity are, at best, fuzzy. I think SEO experts should wear T shirts and hats with this slogan, “Heisenberg rocks. I am uncertain.
I urge you to read and study the SparkToro analysis. (I love that name. An electric bull!)
The article points out that Google gets a lot of clicks. Here’s a passage which knits together several facts from the study:
Google gets 1/3 of the clicks. Imagine a burger joint selling 33 percent of the burgers worldwide. Could they get more? Yep. How much more:
Equally concerning, especially for those worried about Google’s monopoly power to self-preference their own properties in the results, is that almost 30% of all clicks go to platforms Google owns. YouTube, Google Images, Google Maps, Google Flights, Google Hotels, the Google App Store, and dozens more means that Google gets even more monetization and sector-dominating power from their search engine. Most interesting to web publishers, entrepreneurs, creators, and (hopefully) regulators is the final number: for every 1,000 searches on Google in the United States, 360 clicks make it to a non-Google-owned, non-Google-ad-paying property. Nearly 2/3rds of all searches stay inside the Google ecosystem after making a query.
The write up also presents information which suggests that the European Union’s regulations don’t make much difference in the click flow. Sorry, EU. You need another approach, perhaps?
In the US, users of Google have a tough time escaping what might be colorfully named the “digital roach motel.”
Search behavior in both regions is quite similar with the exception of paid ads (EU mobile searchers are almost 50% more likely to click a Google paid search ad) and clicks to Google properties (where US searchers are considerably more likely to find themselves back in Google’s ecosystem after a query).
The write up presented by SparkToro (Is it like the energizer bunny?) answers a question many investors and venture firms with stakes in smart software are asking: “Is Google losing search traffic? The answer is, “Nope. Not a chance.”
According to Datos’ panel, Google’s in no risk of losing market share, total searches, or searches per searcher. On all of these metrics they are, in fact, stronger than ever. In both the US and EU, searches per searcher are rising and, in the Spring of 2024, were at historic highs. That data doesn’t fit well with the narrative that Google’s cost themselves credibility or that Internet users are giving up on Google and seeking out alternatives. … Google continues to send less and less of its ever-growing search pie to the open web…. After a decline in 2022 and early 2023, Google’s back to referring a historically high amount of its search clicks to its own properties.
AI search has not been the game changer for which some hoped.
Net net: I find it interesting that data about what appears to be a monopoly is so darned sketchy after more than two decades of operation. For Web search start ups, it may be time to rethink some of those assertions in those PowerPoint decks.
Stephen E Arnold, July 9, 2024
The AI Revealed: Look Inside That Kimono and Behind It. Eeew!
July 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Guardian article “AI scientist Ray Kurzweil: ‘We Are Going to Expand Intelligence a Millionfold by 2045’” is quite interesting for what it does not do: Flip the projection output by a Googler hired by Larry Page himself in 2012.
Putting toothpaste back in a tube is easier than dealing with the uneven consequences of new technology. What if rosy descriptions of the future are just marketing and making darned sure the top one percent remain in the top one percent? Thanks Chat GPT4o. Good enough illustration.
First, a bit of math. Humans have been doing big tech for centuries. And where are we? We are post-Covid. We have homelessness. We have numerous armed conflicts. We have income inequality in the US and a few other countries I have visited. We have a handful of big tech companies in the AI game which want to be God to use Mark Zuckerberg’s quaint observation. We have processed food. We have TikTok. We have systems which delight and entertain each day because of bad actors’ malware, wild and crazy education, and hybrid work with the fascinating phenomenon of coffee badging; that is, going to the office, getting a coffee, and then heading to the gym.
Second, the distance in earth years between 2024 and 2045 is 21 years. In the humanoid world, a 20 year old today will be 41 when the prediction arrives. Is that a long time? Not for me. I am 80, and I hope I am out of here by then.
Third, let’s look at the assertions in the write up.
One of the notable statements in my opinion is this one:
I’m really the only person that predicted the tremendous AI interest that we’re seeing today. In 1999 people thought that would take a century or more. I said 30 years and look what we have.
I like the quality of modesty and humblebrag. Googlers excel at both.
Another statement I circled is:
The Singularity, which is a metaphor borrowed from physics, will occur when we merge our brain with the cloud. We’re going to be a combination of our natural intelligence and our cybernetic intelligence and it’s all going to be rolled into one.
I like the idea that the energy consumption required to deliver this merging will be cheap and plentiful. Googlers do not worry about a power failure, the collapse of a dam due to the ministrations of the US Army Corps of Engineers and time, or dealing with the environmental consequences of producing and moving energy from Point A to Point B. If Google doesn’t worry, I don’t.
Here’s a quote from the article allegedly made by Mr. Singularity aka Ray Kurzweil:
I’ve been involved with trying to find the best way to move forward and I helped to develop the Asilomar AI Principles [a 2017 non-legally binding set of guidelines for responsible AI development]. We do have to be aware of the potential here and monitor what AI is doing.
I wonder if the Asilomar AI Principles are embedded in Google’s system recommending that one way to limit cheese on a pizza from sliding from the pizza to an undesirable location embraces these principles? Is the dispute between the “go fast” AI crowd and the “go slow” group not aware of the Asilomar AI Principles. If they are, perhaps the Principles are balderdash? Just asking, of course.
Okay, I think these points are sufficient for going back to my statements about processed food, wars, big companies in the AI game wanting to be “god” et al.
The trajectory of technology in the computer age has been a mixed bag of benefits and liabilities. In the next 21 years, will this report card with some As, some Bs, lots of Cs, some Ds, and the inevitable Fs be different? My view is that the winners with human expertise and the know how to make money will benefit. I think that the other humanoids may be in for a world of hurt. That’s the homelessness stuff, the being dumb when it comes to doing things like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and consuming chemicals or other “stuff” that parks the brain will persist.
The future of hooking the human to the cloud is perfect for some. Others may not have the resources to connect, a bit like farmers in North Dakota with no affordable or reliable Internet access. (Maybe Starlink-type services will rescue those with cash?)
Several observations are warranted:
- Technological “progress” has been and will continue to be a mixed bag. Sorry, Mr. Singularity. The top one percent surf on change. The other 99 percent are not slam dunk winners.
- The infrastructure issue is simply ignored, which is convenient. I mean if a person grew up with house servants, it is difficult to imagine not having people do what you tell them to do. (Could people without access find delight in becoming house servants to the one percent who thrive in 2045?)
- The extreme contention created by the deconstruction of shared values, norms, and conventions for social behavior is something that cannot be reconstructed with a cloud and human mind meld. Once toothpaste is out of the tube, one has a mess. One does not put the paste back in the tube. One blasts it away with a zap of Goo Gone. I wonder if that’s another omitted consequence of this super duper intelligence behavior: Get rid of those who don’t get with the program?
Net net: Googlers are a bit predictable when they predict the future. Oh, where’s the reference to online advertising?
Stephen E Arnold, July 9, 2024
Googzilla, Man Up, Please
July 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a couple of “real” news stories about Google and its green earth / save the whales policies in the age of smart software. The first write up is okay and not to exciting for a critical thinker wearing dinoskin. “The Morning After: Google’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climbed Nearly 50 Percent in Five Years Due to AI” states what seems to be a PR-massaged write up. Consider this passage:
According to the report, Google said it expects its total greenhouse gas emissions to rise “before dropping toward our absolute emissions reduction target,” without explaining what would cause this drop.
Yep, no explanation. A PR win.
The BBC published “AI Drives 48% Increase in Google Emissions.” That write up states:
Google says about two thirds of its energy is derived from carbon-free sources.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Neither these two articles nor the others I scanned focused on one key fact about Google’s saying green and driving snail darters to their fate. Google’s leadership team did not plan its energy strategy. In fact, my hunch is that no one paid any attention to how much energy Google’s AI activities were sucking down. Once the company shifted into Code Red or whatever consulting term craziness it used to label its frenetic response to the Microsoft OpenAI tie up, absolutely zero attention was directed toward the few big eyed tunas which might be taking their last dip.
Several observations:
- PR speak and green talk are like many assurances emitted by the Google. Talk is not action.
- The management processes at Google are disconnected from what happens when the wonky Code Red light flashes and the siren howls at midnight. Shouldn’t management be connected when the Tapanuli Orangutang could soon be facing the Big Ape in the sky?
- The AI energy consumption is not a result of AI. The energy consumption is a result of Googlers who do what’s necessary to respond to smart software. Step on the gas. Yeah, go fast. Endanger the Amur leopard.
Net net: Hey, Google, stand up and say, “My leadership team is responsible for the energy we consume.” Don’t blame your up-in-flames “green” initiative on software you invented. How about less PR and more focus on engineering more efficient data center and cloud operations? I know PR talk is easier, but buckle up, butter cup.
Stephen E Arnold, July 8, 2024
Will Google Charge for AI Features? Of Course
July 2, 2024
Will AI spur Google to branch out from its ad-revenue business model? Possibly, Dataconomy concludes in, “AI Is Draining Google’s Money and We May Be Charged for It.” Writer Eray Eliaç?k cites reporting from the Financial Times when stating:
“Google, the search engine used by billions, is considering charging for special features made possible by artificial intelligence (AI). This would be different from its usual practice of offering most of its services for free. Here’s what this could mean: Google might offer some cool AI-driven tools, like a smarter assistant or personalized search options, but only to those who pay for them. The regular Google search would stay free, but these extra features would come with a price tag, such as Gemini, SGE, and Image generation with AI and more.”
Would Google really make more charging for AI than on serving up ads alongside it? Perhaps it will do both?
Eliaç?k reminds us AI is still far from perfect. There are several reasons he does not address:
- Google faces a challenge to maintain its ad monopolies as investigations into its advertising business which has been running without interference for more than two decades
- AI is likely to be a sector with a big dog and a couple of mid sized dogs, and a bunch of French bulldogs (over valued and stubborn). Google wants to be the winner because it invented the transformer and now has to deal with the consequences of that decision. Some of the pretenders are likely to be really big dogs and capable of tearing off Googzilla’s tail
- Cost control is easy to talk about in MBA class and financial columns. In real online life, cost control is a thorny problem. No matter how much the bean counters squeeze, the costs of new gear, innovation, and fixing stuff when it flames out over the weekend blasts many IT budgets into orbit. Yep, even Google’s wizards face this problem.
Net net: Google will have little choice but find a way to monetize clicks, eye balls, customer service, cloud access, storage, and any thing that can be slapped with a price tag. Take that to MBA class.
Cynthia Murrell, July 2, 2024
Short Cuts? Nah, Just Business as Usual in the Big Apple Publishing World
June 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
One of my team alerted me to this Fortune Magazine story: “Telegram Has Become the Go-To App for Heroin, Guns, and Everything Illegal. Can Crypto Save It?” The author appears to be Niamh Rowe. I do not know this “real” journalist. The Fortune Magazine write up is interesting for several reasons. I want to share these because if I am correct in my hypotheses, the problems of big publishing extend beyond artificial intelligence.
First, I prepared a lecture about Telegram specifically for several law enforcement conferences this year. One of our research findings was that a Clear Web site, accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and a browser, could buy stolen bank cards. But these ready-to-use bank cards were just bait. The real play was the use of an encrypted messaging service to facilitate a switch to a malware once the customer paid via crypto for a bundle of stolen credit and debit cards. The mechanism was not the Dark Web. The Dark Web is showing its age, despite the wild tales which appear in the online news services and semi-crazy videos on YouTube-type services. The new go-to vehicle is an encrypted messaging service. The information in the lecture was not intended to be disseminated outside of the law enforcement community.
A big time “real” journalist explains his process to an old person who lives in the Golden Rest Old Age Home. The old-timer thinks the approach is just peachy-keen. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough like most modern work.
Second, in my talk I used idiosyncratic lingo for one reason. The coinages and phrases allow my team to locate documents and the individuals who rip off my work without permission.
I have had experience with having my research pirated. I won’t name a major Big Apple consulting firm which used my profiles of search vendors as part of the firm’s training materials. Believe it or not, a senior consultant at this ethics-free firm told me that my work was used to train their new “experts.” Was I surprised? Nope. New York. Consultants. What did I expect? Integrity was not a word I used to describe this Big Apple publishing outfitthen, and it sure isn’t today. The Fortune Magazine article uses my lingo, specifically “superapp” and includes comments which struck my researcher as a coincidental channeling of my observations about an end-to-end encrypted service’s crypto play. Yep, coincidence. No problem. Big time publishing. Eighty-year-old person from Kentucky. Who cares? Obviously not the “real” news professional who is in telepathic communication with me and my study team. Oh, well, mind reading must exist, right?
Third, my team and I are working hard on a monograph about E2EE specifically for law enforcement. If my energy holds out, I will make the report available free to any member of a law enforcement cyber investigative team in the US as well as investigators at agencies in which I have some contacts; for example, the UK’s National Crime Agency, Europol, and Interpol.
I thought (silly me) that I was ahead of the curve as I was with some of my other research reports; for example, in the the year 1995 my publisher released Internet 2000: The Path to the Total Network, then in 2004, my publisher issued The Google Legacy, and in 2006 a different outfit sold out of my Enterprise Search Report. Will I be ahead of the curve with my E2EE monograph? Probably not. Telepathy I guess.
But my plan is to finish the monograph and get it in the hands of cyber investigators. I will continue to be on watch for documents which recycle my words, phrases, and content. I am not a person who writes for a living. I write to share my research team’s findings with the men and women who work hard to make it safe to live and work in the US and other countries allied with America. I do not chase clicks like those who must beg for dollars, appeal to advertisers, and provide links to Patreon-type services.
I have never been interested in having a “fortune” and I learned after working with a very entitled, horse-farm-owning Fortune Magazine writer that I had zero in common with him, his beliefs, and, by logical reasoning, the culture of Fortune Magazine.
My hunch is that absolutely no one will remember where the information in the cited write up with my lingo originated. My son, who owns the DC-based GovWizely.com consulting firm, opined, “I think the story was written by AI.” Maybe I should use that AI and save myself money, time, and effort?
To be frank, I laughed at the spin on the Fortune Magazine story’s interpretation of superapp. Not only does the write up misrepresent what crypto means to Telegram, the superapp assertion is not documented with fungible evidence about how the mechanics of Telegram-anchored crime can work.
Net net: I am 80. I sort of care. But come on, young wizards. Up your game. At least, get stuff right, please.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2024
Ah, Google, Great App Screening
June 19, 2024
Doesn’t google review apps before putting them in their online store? If so, apparently not very well. Mashable warns, “In Case You Missed It: Bank Info-Stealing Malware Found in 90+ Android Apps with 5.5M Installs.” Some of these apps capture this sensitive data with the help of an advanced trojan called Anasta. Reporter Cecily Mauran writes:
“As of Thursday [May 30], Google has banned the apps identified in the report, according to BleepingComputer. Anatsa, also known as ‘TeaBot,’ and other malware in the report, are dropper apps that masquerade as PDF and QR code readers, photography, and health and fitness apps. As the outlet reported, the findings demonstrate the ‘high risk of malicious dropper apps slipping through the cracks in Google’s review process.’ Although Anatsa only accounts for around two percent of the most popular malware, it does a lot of damage. It’s known for targeting over 650 financial institutions — and two of its PDF and QR code readers had both amassed over 70,000 downloads at the time the report was published. Once installed as a seemingly legitimate app, Anatsa uses advanced techniques to avoid detection and gain access to banking information. The two apps mentioned in the report were called ‘PDF Reader and File Manager’ by Tsarka Watchfaces and ‘QR Reader and File Manager’ by risovanul. So, they definitely have an innocuous look to unsuspecting Android users.”
The article reports Anasta and other malware was found in these categories: file managers, editors, translators, photography, productivity, and personalization apps. It is possible Google caught all the Anasta-carrying apps, but one should be careful just in case.
Cynthia Murrell, June 19, 2024
Googzilla: Pointing the Finger of Blame Makes Sense I Guess
June 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Here you are: The Thunder Lizard of Search Advertising. Pesky outfits like Microsoft have been quicker than Billy the Kid shooting drunken farmers when it comes to marketing smart software. But the real problem in Deadwood is a bunch of do-gooders turned into revolutionaries undermining the granite foundation of the Google. I have this information from an unimpeachable source: An alleged Google professional talking on a podcast. The news release titled “Google Engineer Says Sam Altman-Led OpenAI Set Back AI Research Progress By 5-10 Years: LLMs Have Sucked The Oxygen Out Of The Room” explains that the actions of OpenAI is causing the Thunder Lizard to wobble.
One of the team sets himself apart by blaming OpenAI and his colleagues, not himself. Will the sleek, entitled professionals pay attention to this criticism or just hear “OpenAI”? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough art.
Consider this statement in the cited news release:
He [an employee of the Thunder Lizard] stated that OpenAI has “single-handedly changed the game” and set back progress towards AGI by a significant number of years. Chollet pointed out that a few years ago, all state-of-the-art results were openly shared and published, but this is no longer the case. He attributed this change to OpenAI’s influence, accusing them of causing a “complete closing down of frontier research publishing.”
I find this interesting. One company, its deal with Microsoft, and that firm’s management meltdown produced a “complete closing down of frontier research publishing.” What about the Dr. Timnit Gebru incident about the “stochastic parrot”?
The write up included this gem from the Googley acolyte of the Thunder Lizard of Search Advertising:
He went on to criticize OpenAI for triggering hype around Large Language Models or LLMs, which he believes have diverted resources and attention away from other potential areas of AGI research.
However, DeepMind — apparently the nerve center of the one best way to generate news releases about computational biology — has been generating PR. That does not count because its is real world smart software I assume.
But there are metrics to back up the claim that OpenAI is the Great Destroyer. The write up says:
Chollet’s [the Googler, remember?] criticism comes after he and Mike Knoop, [a non-Googler] the co-founder of Zapier, announced the $1 million ARC-AGI Prize. The competition, which Chollet created in 2019, measures AGI’s ability to acquire new skills and solve novel, open-ended problems efficiently. Despite 300 teams attempting ARC-AGI last year, the state-of-the-art (SOTA) score has only increased from 20% at inception to 34% today, while humans score between 85-100%, noted Knoop. [emphasis added, editor]
Let’s assume that the effort and money poured into smart software in the last 12 months boosted one key metric by 14 percent. Doesn’t’ that leave LLMs and smart software in general far, far behind the average humanoid?
But here’s the killer point?
… training ChatGPT on more data will not result in human-level intelligence.
Let’s reflect on the information in the news release.
- If the data are accurate, LLM-based smart software has reached a dead end. I am not sure the law suits will stop, but perhaps some of the hyperbole will subside?
- If these insights into the weaknesses of LLMs, why has Google continued to roll out services based on a dead-end model, suffer assorted problems, and then demonstrated its management prowess by pulling back certain services?
- Who is running the Google smart software business? Is it the computationalists combining components of proteins or is the group generating blatantly wonky images? A better question is, “Is anyone in charge of non-advertising activities at Google?”
My hunch is that this individual is representing a percentage of a fractionalized segment of Google employees. I do not think a senior manager is willing to say, “Yes, I am responsible.” The most illuminating facet of the article is the clear cultural preference at Google: Just blame OpenAI. Failing that, blame the users, blame the interns, blame another team, but do not blame oneself. Am I close to the pin?
Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2024
Google and Microsoft: The Twinning Is Evident
June 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Google and Microsoft have some interesting similarities. Both companies wish they could emulate one another’s most successful products. Microsoft wants search and advertising revenue. Google wants a chokehold on the corporate market for software and services. The senior executives have similar high school academic training. Both companies have oodles of legal processes with more on the horizo9n. Both companies are terminating with extreme prejudice employees. Both companies seem to have some trust issues. You get the idea.
Some neural malfunctions occur when one get too big and enjoys the finer things in life like not working on management tasks with diligence. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough
Google and Microsoft are essentially morphing into mirrors of one another. Is that a positive? From an MBA / bean counter point of view, absolutely. There are some disadvantages, but they are minor ones; for example, interesting quasi-monopoly pricing options, sucking the air from the room for certain types of start ups, and having the power of a couple of nation-states. What could go wrong? (Just check out everyday life. Clues are abundant.)
How about management methods which do not work very well. I want to cite two examples.
Google is scaling back its AI search plans after the summary feature told people to eat glue. How do I, recently dubbed scary grandpa cyber by an officer at the TechnoSecurity & Digital Forensics Conference in Wilmington, North Carolina, last week? The answer is that I read “Google Is Scaling Back Its AI Search Plans after the Summary Feature Told People to Eat Glue.” This is a good example of the minimum viable product not be minimal enough and certainly not viable. The write up says:
Reid [a Google wizard] wrote that the company already had systems in place to not show AI-generated news or health-related results. She said harmful results that encouraged people to smoke while pregnant or leave their dogs in cars were “faked screenshots.” The list of changes is the latest example of the Big Tech giant launching an AI product and circling back with restrictions after things get messy.
What a remarkable tactic. Blame the “users” and reducing the exposure of the online ad giant’s technological prowess. I think these two tactics illustrate the growing gulf between “leadership” and the poorly managed lower level geniuses who toil at Googzilla’s side.
I noted a weird parallel with Microsoft illustrating a similar disconnect between the Microsoft’s carpetland dwellers and those working in the weird disconnected buildings on the Campus. This disaster of a minimum viable product or MVP was rolled out with much fanfare at one of Microsoft’s many, hard-to-differentiate conferences. The idea was one I heard about decades ago. The individual with whom I associate the idea once worked at Bellcore (one of the spin offs of Bell Labs after Judge Green created the telecommunications wonderland we enjoy today. The idea is a surveillance dream come true — at least for law enforcement and intelligence professionals. MSFT software captures images of a users screen, converts the bitmap to text, and helpfully makes it searchable. The brilliant Softie allegedly suggested in “When Asked about Windows Recall Privacy Concerns, Microsoft Researcher Gives Non-Answer
Microsoft’s Recall feature is being universally slammed for the privacy implications that come from screenshotting everything you do on a computer. However, at least one person seems to think the concerns are overblown. Unsurprisingly, it’s Microsoft Research’s chief scientist, who didn’t really give an answer when asked about Recall’s negative points.
Then what did a senior super manager do? Answer: Back track like crazy. Here’s the passage:
Even before making Recall available to customers, we have heard a clear signal that we can make it easier for people to choose to enable Recall on their Copilot+ PC and improve privacy and security safeguards. With that in mind we are announcing updates that will go into effect before Recall (preview) ships to customers on June 18.
The decision could have been made by a member of the Google leadership team. Heck, may the two companies’ senior leadership are on a mystical brain wave and think the same thoughts. Which is the evil twin? I will leave that to you to ponder.
Several observations are warranted:
- For large, world-affecting companies, senior managers are simply out of touch with [a] their product development teams and [b] their “users.”
- The outfits may be Wall Street darlings, but are their other considerations to weigh?The companies have been sufficiently large their communication neurons are no longer reliable. The messages they emit are double speak at best and PR speak at their worst.
- The management controls are not working. One can delegate when one knows those in other parts of the organization make good decisions. What’s evident is that a lack of control, commitment to on point research, and good judgment illustrate a breakdown of the nervous system of these companies.
Net net: What’s ahead? More of the same dysfunction perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, June 14, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
