OpenAI: Deals with Apple and Microsoft Squeeze the Google
June 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Do you remember your high school biology class? You may have had a lab partner, preferably a person with dexterity and a steady hand. Dissecting creatures and having recognizable parts was important. Otherwise, how could one identify the components when everything was a glutinous mash up of white, red, pink, gray, and — yes — even green?
That’s how I interpret the OpenAI deals the company has with Apple and Microsoft. What are these two large, cash-rich, revenue hungry companies going to do? The illustration suggest that the two was to corral Googzilla, put the beastie in a stupor, and then take the creature apart.
The little Googzilla is in the lab. Two wizards are going to try to take the creature apart. One of the bio-data operators is holding tweezers to grab the beastie and place it on an adhesive gel pad. The other is balancing the creature to reassure it that it may once again be allowed to roam free in a digital Roatan. The bio-data experts may have another idea. Thanks, MSFT. Did you know you are the character with the tweezers?
Well, maybe the biology lab metaphor is not appropriate. Oh, heck, I am going to stick with the trope. Microsoft has rammed Copilot and its other AI deals in front of Windows users world wide. Now Apple, late to the AI game, went to the AI dance hall and picked the star-crossed OpenAI as a service it would take to the smart software recital.
If you want to get some color about Apple and OpenAI, navigate to “Apple and OpenAI Allegedly Reach Deal to Bring ChatGPT Functionality to iOS 18.”
I want to focus on what happens before the lab partners try to chop up the little Googzilla.
Here are the steps:
- Use tweezers to grab the beastie
- Squeeze the tweezers to prevent the beastie from escaping to the darkness under the lab cabinets
- Gently lift the beastie
- Place the beastie on the adhesive gel.
I will skip the part of process which involves anesthetizing the beastie and beginning the in vivo procedures. Just use your imagination.
Now back to the four steps. My view is that neither Apple nor Microsoft will actively cooperate to make life difficult for the baby Googzilla, which represents a fledgling smart software activity. Here’s my vision.
Apple will do what Apple does, just with OpenAI and ChatGPT. At some point, Apple, which is a kind and gentle outfit, may not chop off Googzilla’s foot. Apple may offer the beastie a reprieve. After all, Apple knows Google will pay big bucks to be the default search engine for Safari. The foot remains attached, but there is some shame attached at being number two. No first prize, just a runner up: How is that for a creature who views itself as the world’s smartest, slickest, most wonderfulest entity? Answer: Bad.
The squeezing will be uncomfortable. But what can the beastie do. The elevation causes the beastie to become lightheaded. Its decision making capability, already suspect, becomes more addled and unpredictable.
Then the adhesive gel. Mobility is impaired. Fear causes the beastie’s heart to pound. The beastie becomes woozy. The beastie is about to wonder if it will survive.
To sum up the situation: The Google is hampered by:
- A competitor in AI which has cut deals that restrict Google to some degree
- The parties to the OpenAI deal are out for revenue which is thicker than blood
- Google has demonstrated a loss of some management capability and that may deteriorate at a more rapid pace.
Today’s world may be governed by techno-feudalists, and we are going to get a glimpse of what happens when a couple of these outfits tag team a green beastie. This will be an interesting situation to monitor.
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2024
The Leak: One Nothing Burger, Please
June 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Everywhere I look I see write ups about the great Google leak. One example is the poohbah publication The Verge and its story “The Biggest Findings in the Google Search Leak.” From the git-go there is information which reveals something many people know about the Google. It does not explain what it does or its intentions. It just does stuff and then fancy dances around what the company is actually doing. How long has this been going on? Since the litigation about Google’s inspiring encounter with the Yahoo, Overture, GoTo pay-to-play advertising model. In one of my monographs about Google I created this illustration to explain how the Google technology works.
Here’s what I wrote in Google: The Calculating Predator (Infonortics, UK, 2007):
Like a skilled magician, a good stage presence and a bit of misdirection focus attention where Google wants it.
The “leak” is fodder for search engine optimization professionals who unwittingly make the case for just buying advertising. But the leak delivers one useful insight: Google does not tell what it does in plain English. Some call it prevarication; I call it part of the overall strategy of the firm. The philosophy is one manifestation of the idea that “users” don’t need to know anything. “Users” are there to allow Google to sell advertising, broker advertising, and automate advertising. Period. This is the ethos of the high school science club which knows everything. Obviously.
The cited article revealing the biggest findings offers these insights. Please, sit down. I don’t want to be responsible for causing anyone bodily harm.
First snippet:
Google spokespeople have repeatedly denied that user clicks factor into ranking websites, for example — but the leaked documents make note of several types of clicks users make and indicate they feed into ranking pages in search. Testimony from the antitrust suit by the US Department of Justice previously revealed a ranking factor called Navboost that uses searchers’ clicks to elevate content in search.
Are you still breathing. Yep, Google pays attention to clicks. Yes, that’s one of the pay-to-play requirements: Show data to advertisers and get those SEO people acting as an advertising pre-sales service. When SEO fails, buy ads. Yep, earth shattering.
An actual expert in online search examines the information from the “leak” and realizes the data for what they are: Out of context information from a mysterious source. Thanks MidJourney. Other smart services could not deliver a nothing burger. Yours is good enough.
How about this stunning insight:
Google Search representatives have said that they don’t use anything from Chrome for ranking, but the leaked documents suggest that may not be true.
Why would Google spend money to build a surveillance enabled software system? For fun? No, not for fun. Browsers funnel data back to a command-and-control center. The data are analyzed and nuggets used to generate revenue from advertising. This is a surprise. Microsoft got in trouble for browser bundling, but since the Microsoft legal dust up, regulators have taken a kinder, gentler approach to the Google.
Are there more big findings?
Yes, we now know what a digital nothing burger looks like. We already knew what falsehoods look like. SEO professionals are shocked. What’s that say for the unwitting Google pre-advertising purchase advocates?
Stephen E Arnold, June 5, 2024
Publication Founded by a Googler Cheers for Google AI Search
June 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
To understand the “rah rah” portion of this article, you need to know the backstory behind Search Engine Land, a news site about search and other technology. It was founded by Danny Sullivan, who pushed the SEO bandwagon. He did this because he was angling for a job at Google, he succeeded, and now he’s the point person for SEO.
Another press release touting the popularity of Google search dropped: “Google SEO Says AI Overviews Are Increasing Search Usage.” The author Danny Goodwin remains skeptical about Google’s spiked popularity due to AI and despite the bias of Search Engine Land’s founder.
During the QI 2024 Alphabet earnings call, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said that the search engine’s generative AI has been used for billions of queries and there are plans to develop the feature further. Pichai said positive things about AI, including that it increased user engagement, could answer more complex questions, and how there will be opportunities for monetization.
Goodwin wrote:
“All signs continue to indicate that Google is continuing its slow evolution toward a Search Generative Experience. I’m skeptical about user satisfaction increasing, considering what an unimpressive product AI overviews and SGE continues to be. But I’m not the average Google user – and this was an earnings call, where Pichai has mastered the art of using a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing.”
AI is the next evolution of search and Google is heading the parade, but the technology still has tons of bugs. Who founded the publication? A Googler. Of course there is no interaction between the online ad outfit and an SEO mouthpiece. Un-uh. No way.
Whitney Grace, June 5, 2024
Google Demos Its Reliability
June 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Migrate everything to the cloud, they said. It is perfectly safe, we were told. And yet, “Google Cloud Accidentally Deletes $125 Billion Pension Fund’s Online Account,” reports Cyber Security News. Writer Dhivya reports a mistake in the setup process was to blame for the blunder. If it were not for a third-party backup, UniSuper’s profile might never have been recovered. We learn:
“A major mistake in setup caused Google Cloud and UniSuper to delete the financial service provider’s private cloud account. This event has caused many to worry about the security and dependability of cloud services, especially for big financial companies. The outage started in the blue, and UniSuper’s 620,000 members had no idea what was happening with their retirement funds.”
As it turns out, the funds themselves were just fine. But investors were understandably upset when they could not view updates. Together, the CEOs of Google Cloud and UniSuper dined on crow. Dhivya writes:
“According to the Guardian reports, the CEOs of UniSuper and Google Cloud, Peter Chun and Thomas Kurian, apologized for the failure together in a statement, which is not often done. … ‘UniSuper’s Private Cloud subscription was ultimately terminated due to an unexpected sequence of events that began with an inadvertent misconfiguration during provisioning,’ the two sources stated. ‘Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian has confirmed that the disruption was caused by an unprecedented sequence of events.’ ‘This is a one-time event that has never happened with any of Google Cloud’s clients around the world.’ ‘This really shouldn’t have happened,’ it said.”
At least everyone can agree on that. We are told UniSuper had two different backups, but they were also affected by the snafu. It was the backups kept by “another service provider” that allowed the hundreds of virtual machines, databases, and apps that made up UniSuper’s private cloud environment to be recovered. Eventually. The CEOs emphasized the herculean effort it took both Google Cloud and UniSuper technicians to make it happen. We hope they were well-paid. Naturally, both companies pledge to do keep this mistake from happening again. Great! But what about the next unprecedented, one-time screwup?
Let this be a reminder to us all: back up the data! Frequently and redundantly. One never knows when that practice will save the day.
Cynthia Murrell, June 5, 2024
Does Google Follow Its Own Product Gameplan?
June 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
If I were to answer the question based on Google’s AI summaries, I would say, “Nope.” The latest joke added to the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show is the one about pizza. Here’s the joke if I recall it correctly.
Sundar: Yo, Prabhakar, how do you keep cheese from slipping off a hot pizza?
Prabhakar: I don’t know. Please, tell me, oh gifted one.
Sundar: You have your cook mix it with non-toxic glue, faithful colleague.
Prabhakar: [Laughing loudly]. That’s a good one, luminescent soul.
Did Google muff the bunny with its high-profile smart software feature? To answer the question, I looked to the ever-objective Fast Company online publication. I found a write which appears to provide some helpful information. The article is called “Conduct Stellar User Research Even Faster with This Google Ventures Formula.” Google has game plans for creating MVPs or minimum viable products.
The confident comedians look concerned when someone in the audience throws a large tomato at the well-paid performers. Thanks, MSFT. Working on security or the AI PC today?
Let’s look at what one Google partner reveals as the equivalent of the formula for Coca-Cola or McDonald’s recipe for Big Mac sauce.
Here’s the game winning touchdown razzle dazzle:
- Use a bullseye customer sprint. The idea is to get five “customers” and show them three prototypes. Listen for pros and cons. Then debrief together in a “watch party.”
- Conduct sprints early. The idea is to get this feedback before “a team invests a lot of time, money, or reputational risk into building, launching, and marketing an MVP (that’s a minimum viable product, not necessarily a good or needed product I think).
- Keep research bite size. Avoid heavy duty research overkill is the way I interpret the Google speak. The idea is that massive research projects are not desirable. They are work. Nibble, don’t gobble, I assume.
- Keep the process simple. Keep the prototypes simple. Get those interviews. That’s fun. Plus, there is the “watch party”, remember?
Okay, now let’s think about what Google suggests are outliers or fiddled AI results. Why is Google AI telling people to eat a rock a day?
The “bullseye” baloney is bull output for sure. I am on reasonably firm ground because in Paris the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act showed incorrect outputs from Google’s AI system. Then Google invented about a dozen variations on the theme of a scrambled egg at Google I/O. Now Google is faced with its AI system telling people dogs own hotels. No, some dogs live in hotels. Some dogs deliver outputs in hotels. Dogs do not own hotels unless it is in a crazy virtual reality headset created by Apple or Meta.
The write up uses the word “stellar” to describe this MVP product stuff. The reality is that Googlers are creating work for themselves. Listening to “customers” who know little about AI or anything other than buy ad-get traffic. The “stellar” part of the title is like the “quantum supremacy” horse feather assertion the company crafted.
Smart software can, when trained and managed, can do some useful things. However, the bullseye and quantum supremacy stuff is capable of producing social media memes, concern among some stakeholders, and evidence that Google cannot do anything useful at this time.
Maybe the company will get its act together? When it does, I will check out the next Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act. Maybe some of the jokes will work? Let’s hope they are more effective than the bull’s-eye method. (Sorry. I had to fix up the spelling, Google.)
Stephen E Arnold, June 5, 2024
A Different View of That Google Search Leak
May 30, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
As a dinobaby, I can make observations that a person with two young children and a mortgage are not comfortable making. So buckle your seat belt and grab a couple of Prilosec. I don’t think the leak is a big deal. Let me provide some color.
This cartoon requires that you examine the information in “Authorities: Google Exec Died on Yacht after Upscale Prostitute Injected Him with Heroin.” The incident provides some insight into the ethical compass of one Google officer. Do others share that directionality? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You unwittingly produced a good cartoon. Ho ho ho.
Many comments are zipping around about the thousands of pages of Google secret information are flying around. The “legend” of the leak is that Search API information became available. The “spark” which lit the current Google fire was this post: “An Anonymous Source Shared Thousands of Leaked Google Search API Documents with Me; Everyone in SEO Should See Them.” (FYI: The leaker is an entity using the handle “Erfan Azimi.”)
That write up says:
This documentation doesn’t show things like the weight of particular elements in the search ranking algorithm, nor does it prove which elements are used in the ranking systems. But, it does show incredible details about data Google collects.
If you want more of this SEO stuff, have at it. I think the information is almost useless. Do Googler’s follow procedures? Think about your answer for a company that operates essentially without meaningful controls. Here’s my view which means it is time to gulp those tabs.
First, the entire SEO game helps Google sell online advertising. Once the SEO push fails to return results to the client of the SEO expert, Google allows these experts to push Google ads on their customer. Why? Pay Google money and the advertiser will get traffic. How does this work? Well, money talks, and Google search experts deliver clicks.
Second, the core of Google is now surrounded by wrappers. The thousands of words in the leak record the stuff essentially unmanaged Googlers do to fill time. After 25 years, the old ideas (some of which were derived from the CLEVER method for which Jon Kleinberg deserves credit.) have been like a pretty good organic chicken swathed in hundreds of layers of increasingly crappy plastic wrap. With the appropriate source of illumination, one can discern the chicken beneath the halogenated wrap, but the chicken looks darned awful. Do you want to eat the chicken? Answer: Probably no more than I want to eat a pizza with non-toxic glue in the cheese.
Third, the senior management of the Google is divorced from the old-fashioned idea of typing a couple of words and getting results which are supposed to be germane to the query. When Boolean logic was part of the search game, search was about 60 percent effective. Thus, it seemed logical over the years to provide training wheels and expand the query against which ads could be sold. Now the game is just to sell ads because the query is relaxed, extended, and mostly useless except for a narrow class of search strings. (Use Google dorks and get some useful stuff.)
Okay, what are the implications of these three observations? Grab another Prilosec, please.
First, Google has to make more and more money because its costs are quite difficult to control. With cost control out of reach, the company’s “leadership” must focus on extracting cash from “users.” (Customers is not the right word for those in the Google datasphere.) The CFO is looking for her future elsewhere. The key point is that her future is not at the Google, its black maw hungry for cash, and the costs of keeping the lights on. Burn rate is not a problem just for start ups, folks.
Second, Google’s senior management is not focused on search no matter what the PR says. The company’s senior leader is a consultant, a smooth talking wordsmith, and a neutral personality to the outside world. As a result, the problems of software wrappers and even the incredible missteps with smart software are faint sounds coming from the other side of a sound-proofed room in a crazy college dormitory. Consultants consult. That’s what Google’s management team does. The “officers” have to figure out how to implement. Then those who do the work find themselves in a cloud of confusion. I did a blog essay about one of Google’s odd ball methods for delivering “minimum viable products”. The process has a name, but I have forgotten it, just like those working on Google’s “innovative” products which are difficult for me to name even after the mind-numbing Google I/O. Everything is fuzzy and illuminated by flickering Red Alert and Yellow Alert lights.
Third, Google has been trying to diversify its revenue stream for decades. After much time and effort, online advertising is darned close to 70 percent of the firm’s revenue. The numerous venture capital initiatives, the usually crazy skunk works often named X or a term from a weird union of a humanoid and a piece of hardware have delivered what? The Glasshole? The life-sized board game? The Transformic Inc.s’ data structure? Dr. Guha’s semantic technology? Yeah, failures because the revenue contributed is negligible. The idea of innovation at Google from the Backrub in the dorm has been derivative, imitative, and in the case of online advertising methods something for which Google paid some big bucks to Yahoo before the Google initial public offering. Google is not imitative; it is similar to a high school science club with an art teacher in charge. Google is clever and was quick moving. The company was fearless and was among the first to use academic ideas in its commercial search and advertising business until it did not. We are in the did not phase. Think about that when you put on a Google T shirt.
Finally, the company lacks the practical expertise to keep its 155,000 (estimated to be dropping at a cadence) full-time equivalents on the reservation. Where did the leaked but largely irrelevant documents originate? Not Mr. Fishkin: He was the lucky recipient of information from Mr. Ezimi. Where did he get the documents? I am waiting for an answer, Mr. Ezimi. Answer carefully because possession of such documents might be something of interest to some government authorities. The leak is just one example of a company which cannot coordinate information in a peer-reviewed journal paper. Remember the stochastic parrot? If not, run a query and look at what Google outputs from its smart software. And the protests? Yeah, thanks for screwing up traffic and my ability to grab a quick coffee at Philz when the Googlers are milling around with signs. Common sense seems in short supply.
So what?
For those who want search traffic, buy advertising. Plan to spend a minimum of $20,000 per month to get some action. If you cannot afford it, you need to put your thinking cap in a USB C socket and get some marketing ideas. Web search is not going to deliver those eyeballs. My local body shop owner asked me, “What can I do to get more visibility for my Google Local listing?” I said, “Pay a friend to post about your business in Nextdoor.com, get some customers to post about your dent removal prowess on Facebook, and pay some high school kid to spend some time making before and after pictures for Instagram. Pay the teen to make a TikTok video of a happy customer.” Note that I did not mention Google. It doesn’t deliver for local outfits.
Now you can kick back and enumerate the reasons why my view of Google is wrong, crazy, or out of touch. Feel free to criticize. I am a dinobaby; I consulted for a certain big time search engine; I consulted for venture firms investing in search; and I worked on some Fancy Dan systems. But my experience does not matter. I am a dinobaby, and I don’t care how other people find information. I pay several people to find information for me. I then review what those young wizards produce. Most of them don’t agree with me on some issues. That’s why I pay them. But this dinobaby’s views of Google are not designed to make them or you happy.
Net net: The image of Google to keep in mind is encapsulated in this article: Yacht Killing: Escort to Be Arraigned in Google Exec’s Heroin Death. Yep, Googlers are sporty. High school mentalities make mistakes, serious mistakes.
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2024
AI Overviews: A He Said, She Said Argument
May 29, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Google has begun the process of setting up an AI Overview object in search results. The idea is that Google provides an “answer.” But the machine-generated response is a platform for selling sentences, “meaning,” and probably words. Most people who have been exposed to the Overview object point out some of the object’s flaws. Those “mistakes” are not the point. Before I offer some ideas about the advertising upside of an AI Overview, I want to highlight both sides of this “he said, she said” dust up. Those criticizing the Google’s enhancement to search results miss the point of generating a new way to monetize information. Those who are taking umbrage at the criticism miss the point of people complaining about how lousy the AI Overviews are perceived to be.
The criticism of Google is encapsulated in “Why Google Is (Probably) Stuck Giving Out AI Answers That May or May Not Be Right.” A “real” journalist explains:
What happens if people keep finding Bad Answers on Google and Google can’t whac-a-mole them fast enough? And, crucially, what if regular people, people who don’t spend time reading or talking about tech news, start to hear about Google’s Bad And Potentially Dangerous Answers? Because that would be a really, really big problem. Google does a lot of different things, but the reason it’s worth more than $2 trillion is still its two core products: search, and the ads that it generates alongside search results. And if people — normal people — lose confidence in Google as a search/answer machine … Well, that would be a real problem.
The idea is that the AI Overview makes Google Web search less useful than it was before AI. Whether the idea is accurate or not makes no difference to the “he said, she said” argument. The “real” news is that Google is doing something that many people may perceive as a negative. The consequence is that Google’s shiny carapace will be scratched and dented. A more colorful approach to this side of the “bad Google” argument appears in Android Authority. “Shut It Down: Google’s AI Search Results Are Beyond Terrible” states:
The new Google AI Overview feature is offering responses to queries that range from bizarre and funny to very dangerous.
Ooof. Bizarre and dangerous. Yep, that’s the new Google AI Overview.
The Red Alert Google is not taking the criticism well. Instead of Googzilla retreating into a dark, digital cave, the beastie is coming out fighting. Imagine. Google is responding to pundit criticism. Fifteen years ago, no one would have paid any attention to a podcaster writer and a mobile device news service. Times have indeed changed.
“Google Scrambles to Manually Remove Weird AI Answers in Search” provides an allegedly accurate report about how Googzilla is responding to criticism. In spite of the split infinitive, the headline makes clear that the AI-infused online advertising machine is using humans (!) to fix up wonky AI Overviews. The write up pontificates:
Google continues to say that its AI Overview product largely outputs “high quality information” to users. “Many of the examples we’ve seen have been uncommon queries, and we’ve also seen examples that were doctored or that we couldn’t reproduce,” Google spokesperson Meghann Farnsworth said in an email to The Verge. Farnsworth also confirmed that the company is “taking swift action” to remove AI Overviews on certain queries “where appropriate under our content policies, and using these examples to develop broader improvements to our systems, some of which have already started to roll out.”
Google seems to acknowledge that action is required. But the Google is not convinced that it has stepped on a baby duckling or two with its AI Overview innovation.
AI Overviews represent a potential revenue flow into Alphabet. The money, not the excellence of the outputs, is what matters in today’s Google. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Back online and working on security today?
Okay, “he said, she said.” What’s the bigger picture? I worked on a project which required setting up an ad service which sold words in a text passage. I am not permitted to name the client or the outfit with the idea. On a Web page, some text would appear with an identified like an underline or bold face. When the reader of the Web page clicked (often inadvertently) on the word, that user would be whisked to another Web site or a pop up ad. The idea is that instead of an Oingo (Applied Semantics)-type of related concept expansion, the advertiser was buying a word. Brilliant.
The AI Overview, based on my team’s look at what the Google has been crafting, sets up a similar opportunity. Here’s a selection from our discussion at lunch on Friday, May 24, 2024 at a restaurant which featured a bridge club luncheon. Wow, was it noisy? Here’s what emerged from our frequently disrupted conversation:
- The AI Overview is a content object. It sits for now at the top of the search results page unless the “user” knows to add the string udm=14 to a query
- Advertising can be “sold” to the advertiser[s] who want[s] to put a message on the “topic” or “main concept” of the search
- Advertising can be sold to the organizations wanting to be linked to a sentence or a segment of a sentence in the AI Overview
- Advertising can be sold to the organizations wanting to be linked to a specific word in the AI Overview
- Advertising can be sold to the organizations wanting to be linked to a specific concept in the AI Overview.
Whether the AI Overview is good, bad, or indifferent will make zero difference in practice to the Google advertising “machine,” its officers, and its soon-to-be replaced by smart software staff makes no, zero, zip difference. AI has given Google the opportunity to monetize a new content object. That content object and its advertising is additive. People who want “traditional” Google online advertising can still by it. Furthermore, as one of my team pointed out, the presence of the new content object “space” on a search results page opens up additional opportunities to monetize certain content types. One example is buying a link to a related video which appears as an icon below, along side, or within the content object space. The monetization opportunities seem to have some potential.
Net net: Googzilla may be ageing. To poobahs and self-appointed experts, Google may be lost in space, trembling in fear, and growing deaf due to the blaring of the Red Alert klaxons. Whatever. But the AI Overview may have some upside even if it is filled with wonky outputs.
Stephen E Arnold, May 29, 2024
Bullying Google Is a Thing
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Imagine the smartest kid in the fifth grade. The classmates are not jealous, but they are keenly aware of the brightest star having an aloof, almost distracted attitude. Combine that with a credit in a TV commercial when the budding wizard was hired to promote an advanced mathematics course developed by the child’s mother and father. The blessed big brain finds itself the object of ridicule. The PhD parents, the proud teacher, and the child’s tutor who works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cannot understand why the future Master of the Universe is being bullied. Remarkable, is it not?
Herewith is an illustration of a fearsome creature, generated in gloomy colors, by the MidJourney bot, roaring its superiority. However, those observing the Big Boy are convulsed with laughter. Why laugh at an ageing money machine with big teeth?
I read “Google’s AI Search Feature Suggested Using Glue to Keep Cheese Sticking to a Pizza.” Yep fourth grade bullying may be part of the poking and prodding of a quite hapless but wealthy, successful Googzilla. Here’s an example of the situation in which the Google, which I affectionately call “Googzilla,” finds itself:
Google’s new search feature, AI Overviews, seems to be going awry. The tool, which gives AI-generated summaries of search results, appeared to instruct a user to put glue on pizza when they searched "cheese not sticking to pizza."
In another write up, Business Insider asserted:
But in searches shared on X, users have gotten contradictory instructions on boiling taro and even been encouraged to run with scissors after the AI appeared to take a joke search seriously. When we asked whether a dog had ever played in the NHL, Google answered that one had, apparently confused by a charity event for rescue pups.
My reaction to this digital bullying is mixed. On one hand, Google has demonstrated that its Code Red operating mode is cranking out half-cooked pizza. Sure, the pizza may have some non-poisonous glue, but Google is innovating. A big event provided a platform for the online advertising outfit to proclaim, “We are the leaders in smart software.” On the other hand, those observing Google’s outputs find the beastie a follower; for example, OpenAI announced ChatGPT4o the day before Google’s “reveal.” Then Microsoft presented slightly more coherent applications using AI, including the privacy special service which records everything a person does on a reinvented Windows on Arm device.
Several observations are warranted:
- Googzilla finds itself back in grade school with classmates of lesser ability, wealth, and heritage making fun of the entity. Wow, remember the shame? Remember the fun one had poking fun at an outsider? Humans are wonderful, are they not?
- “Users” or regular people who rely on Google seem to have a pent up anger with the direction in which Googzilla has been going. Since the company does not listen to its “users,” calling attention to Googzilla’s missteps is an easy way to say, “Hey, Big Fella, you are making us unhappy.” Will Google pay attention to these unexpected signals?
- Google, the corporate entity, seems to be struggling with Management 101 tasks; for example, staff or people resources. The CFO is heading to the exit. Competition, while flawed in some ways, continues to nibble at Google’s advertising perpetual motion machine. Google innovation focuses on gamesmanship and trying to buy digital marketing revenue.
Net net: I anticipate more coverage of Google’s strategy and tactical missteps. The bullying will continue and probably grow unless the company puts on its big boy pants and neutralizes the school yard behavior its critics and cynics deliver.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
The Death of the Media: Remember Clay Tablets?
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Did the home in which you grew from a wee one to a hyperspeed teen have a plaster cast which said, “Home sweet home” or “Welcome” hanging on the wall. My mother had those craft sale treasures everywhere. I have none. The point is that the clay tablets from ancient times were not killed, put out of business, or bankrupted because someone wrote on papyrus, sheep skin, or bits of wood. Eliminating a communications medium is difficult. Don’t believe me? Go to an art fair and let me know if you were unable to spot something made of clay with writing or a picture on it.
I mention these older methods of disseminating a message because I read “Publishers Horrified at New Google AI Feature That Could Kill What’s Left of Journalism.” Really?
The write up states:
… preliminary studies on Google’s use of AI in its search engine has the potential to reduce website traffic by 25 percent, The Associated Press reports. That could be billions in revenue lost, according to an interview with Marc McCollum, chief innovation officer for content creator consultancy Raptive, who was interviewed by the AP.
The idea is that “real” journalism depends on Google for revenue. If the revenue from Google’s assorted ad programs tossing pennies to Web sites goes away, so will the “real” journalism on these sites.
If my dinobaby memory is working, the AP (Associated Press) was supported by newspapers. Then the AP was supported by Google. What’s next? I don’t know, but the clay tablet fellows appear to have persisted. The producers of the tablets probably shifted to tableware. Those who wrote on the tablets learned to deal with ink and sheepskin.
Chilling in the room thinking thoughts of doom. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.
AI seems to be capable of creating stories like those in Smartnews or one of the AI-powered spam outfits. The information is recycled. But it is good enough. Some students today seem incapable of tearing themselves from their mobile devices to read words. The go-to method for getting information is a TikTok-type service. People who write words may be fighting to make the shift to new media.
One thing is reasonably clear: Journalists and media-mavens are concerned that a person will take an answered produced by a Google-like service. The entering a query approach to information is a “hot medium thing.” Today kicking back and letting video do the work seems to be a winner.
Google, however, has in my opinion been fiddling with search since it “innovated” in its implementation of the GoTo.com/Overture.com approach to “pay to play” search. If you want traffic, buy ads. The more one spends, the more traffic one’s site gets. That’s simple. There are some variations, but the same Google model will be in effect with or without Google little summaries. The lingo may change, but where there are clicks. When there are clicks, advertisers will pay to be there.
Google can, of course, kill its giant Googzilla mom laying golden eggs. That will take some time. Googzilla is big. My theory is that enterprising people with something to say will find a way to get paid for their content outputs regardless of their form. True, there is the cost of paying, but that’s the same hit the clay table took thousands of years ago. But those cast plaster and porcelain art objects are probably on sale at an art fair this weekend.
Observations:
- The fear is palpable. Why not direct it to a positive end? Griping about Google which has had 25 years to do what it wanted to do means Google won’t change too much. Do something to generate money. Complaining is unlikely to produce a result.
- The likelihood Google shaft a large number of outfits and individuals is nearly 99 percent. Thus, moving in a spritely manner may be a good idea. Google is not a sprinter as its reaction to Microsoft’s Davos marketing blitz made clear.
- New things do appear. I am not sure what the next big thing will be. But one must pay attention.
Net net: The sky may be falling. The question is, “How fast?” Another is, “Can you get out of the way?”
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
Google Takes Stand — Against Questionable Content. Will AI Get It Right?
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The Internet is the ultimate distribution system for illicit material, especially pornography. A simple Google search yields access to billions of lewd material for free and behind paywalls. Pornography already has people in a tizzy but the advent of deepfake porn material is making things worse. Google is upset about deepfakes and decided to take a moral stand Extreme Tech says: “Google Bans Ads For Platforms That Generate Deepfake Pornography.”
Beginning May 30, Google won’t allow platforms that create deepfake porn, explain how to make it, or promote/compare services to place ads through the Google Ads system. Google already has an Inappropriate Content Policy in place. It prohibits the promotion of hate groups, self-harm, violence, conspiracy theories, and sharing explicit images to garner attention. The policy also bans advertising sex work and sexual abuse.
Violating the content policy results in a ban from Google Ads. Google is preparing for future problems as AI becomes better:
“The addition of deepfake pornography to the Inappropriate Content Policy is undoubtedly the result of increasingly accessible and adept generative AI. In 2022, Google banned deepfake training on Colab, its mostly free public computing resource. Even six years ago, Pornhub and Reddit had to go out of their way to ban AI-generated pornography, which often depicts real people (especially celebrities) engaging in sexual acts they didn’t perform or didn’t consent to recording. Whether we’d like to or not, most of us know just how much better AI has gotten at creating fake faces since then. If deepfake pornography looked a bit janky back in 2018, it’s bound to look a heck of a lot more realistic now.”
If it weren’t for the moral center of humanity, Google’s minions would allow lead material and other illicit content on Google Ads. Porn sells. It always has.
Whitney Grace, May 24, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
