The UK Says, “Okay, Google, Get Out Your Checkbook”
September 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “British Competition Regulator Objects to Google’s Ad Tech Practices.” The UK is expressing some direct discontent with the Google. The country is making clear that it is not thrilled with the “let ‘em do what they want, pardner” approach of US regulatory agencies. Not surprisingly, like the Netherlands, the government officials are putting the pedal to the metal. The write up reports:
In a statement, the Competition and Markets Authority alleged that the U.S. internet search titan “has harmed competition by using its dominance in online display advertising to favor its own ad tech services.”
I suppose to some the assertion that Google favors itself is not exactly a surprise. The write up continues:
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of Google Ads, said that the company disagreed with the CMA’s view and “will respond accordingly.” “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Taylor said in an emailed statement. “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.”
Good enough illustration, MSFT Copilot.
The explanation from a Googler sounds familiar. Will the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority be convinced? My hunch is that the CMA will not be satisfied with Google’s posture on this hard metal chair. (Does that chair have electrodes attached to its frame and arm rests?)
The write up offers this statement:
In the CMA’s decision Friday, the watchdog said that, since 2015, Google has abused its dominant position as the operator of both ad buying tools “Google Ads” and “DV360,” and of a publisher ad server known as “DoubleClick For Publishers,” in order to strengthen the market position of its advertising exchange, AdX.
Oh, not quite a decade.
Why are European entities ramping up their legal actions? My opinions are:
- Google can produce cash. Ka-ching.
- The recent ruling that Google is a monopoly is essentially interpreted as a green light for other nation states to give the Google a go.
- Non-US regulators are fed up with Google’s largely unchecked behavior and have mustered up courage to try and stop a rolling underground car by standing in front of the massive conveyance and pushing with their bare hands to stop the momentum. (Good luck, folks.)
Net net: More Google pushback may be needed once the bold defiers of mass time velocity are pushed aside.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2024
Brin Is Back and Working Every Day at Google: Will He Be Summoned to Appear and Testify?
September 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read some “real” news in the article “Sergey Brin Says He’s Working on AI at Google Pretty Much Every Day.” The write up does not provide specifics of his employment agreement, but the headline say “every day.” Does this mean that those dragging the Google into court will add him to their witness list? I am not an attorney, but I would be interested in finding out about the mechanisms for the alleged monopolistic lock in in the Google advertising system. Oh, well. I am equally intrigued to know if Mr. Brin will wear his roller blades to big meetings as he did with Viacom’s Big Dog.
My question is, “Can Mr. Brin go home again?” As Thomas Wolfe noted in his novel You Can’t Go Home Again”:
Every corner of our home has a story to tell.
I wonder if those dragging Alphabet Google YouTube into court will want to dig into that “story”?
Now what does the “real” news report other than Mr. Brin’s working every day? These items jumped off my screen and into my dinobaby mind:
- AI has tremendous value to humanity. I am not sure what this means when VCs, users, and assorted poohbahs point out that AI is burning cash, not generating it.
- AI is big and fast moving. Okay, but since the Microsoft AI marketing play with OpenAI, the flurry of activity has not translated to rapid fire next big things. In fact, progress on consumer-facing AI services has stalled. Even Google is reluctant to glue pizza to a crust if you know what I mean.
- The algorithms are demanding more “compute.” I think this means power, CPUs, and data. But Google is buying carbon credits, you say. Yeah, those are useful for PR, not for providing what Mr. Brin seems to suggest are needed to do AI.
Several thoughts crossed my mind:
First, most of the algorithms for smart software were presented in patent document form by Banjo, a Softbank company that ran into some headwinds. But the algorithms and numerical recipes were known and explained in Banjo’s patent documents. The missing piece was Google’s “transformer” method, which the company released as open source. Well, so what? The reason that large language models are becoming the same old same old. The Big Dogs of AI are using the same plumbing. Not much is new other than the hyperbole, right?
Second, where does Mr. Brin fit into the Google leadership set up. I am not sure he is in the cast of the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show. What happens when he makes a suggestion? Who “approves” something he puts “wood” behind? Does his presence deliver entropy or chaos? Does he exist on the boundary, working his magic as he did with the Clever technology developed at IBM Almaden?
Third, how quickly will his working “pretty much every day” move him onto witness lists? Perhaps he will be asked to contribute to EU, US House, and US Senate hearings? How will Google work out the lingo of one of the original Googlers and the current “leadership”? The answer is meetings, scripting, and practicing. Aren’t these the things that motivated Mr. Brin to leave the company to pursue other interests. Now he wants
To sum up, just when I thought Google had reached peak dysfunction, I was wrong again.
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2024
Google Claims It Fixed Gemini’s “Degenerate” People
September 2, 2024
History revision is a problem. It’s been a problem for…well…since the start of recorded history. The Internet and mass media are infamous for being incorrect about historical facts, but image generating AI, like Google’s Gemini, is even worse. Tech Crunch explains what Google did to correct its inaccurate algorithm: “Google Says It’s Fixed Gemini’s People-Generating Feature.”
Google released Gemini in early 2023, then over a year later paused the chatbot for being too “woke,”“politically incorrect,” and “historically inaccurate.” The worst of Gemini’s offending actions was when it (for example) was asked to depict a Roman legion as ethnically diverse which fit the woke DEI agenda, while when it was asked to make an equally ethnically diverse Zulu warrior army Gemini only returned brown-skinned people. The latter is historically accurate, because Google doesn’t want to offend western ethnic minorities and, of course, Europe (where light skinned pink people originate) was ethnically diverse centuries ago.
Everything was A OK, until someone invoked Godwin’s Law by asking Gemini to generate (degenerate [sic]) an image of Nazis. Gemini returned an ethnically diverse picture with all types of Nazis, not the historically accurate light-skinned Germans-native to Europe.
Google claims it fixed Gemini and it took way longer than planned. The people generative feature is only available to paid Gemini plans. How does Google plan to make its AI people less degenerative? Here’s how:
“According to the company, Imagen 3, the latest image-generating model built into Gemini, contains mitigations to make the people images Gemini produces more “fair.” For example, Imagen 3 was trained on AI-generated captions designed to ‘improve the variety and diversity of concepts associated with images in [its] training data,’ according to a technical paper shared with TechCrunch. And the model’s training data was filtered for “safety,” plus ‘review[ed] … with consideration to fairness issues,’ claims Google…;We’ve significantly reduced the potential for undesirable responses through extensive internal and external red-teaming testing, collaborating with independent experts to ensure ongoing improvement,” the spokesperson continued. ‘Our focus has been on rigorously testing people generation before turning it back on.’”
Google will eventually make it work and the company is smart to limit Gemini’s usage to paid subscriptions. Limiting the user pool means Google can better control the chatbot and (if need be) turn it off. It will work until bad actors learn how to abuse the chatbot again for their own sheets and giggles.
Whitney Grace, September 2, 2024
Yelp Google Legal Matter: A Glimpse of What Is to Come
August 29, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Yelp.com is one of the surviving re-inventions of the Yellow Pages. The online guide includes snapshots of a business, user reviews, and conveniences like classifications of business types. The company has asserted that Google has made the finding services’ life difficult. “Yelp Sues Google in Wake of Landmark Antitrust Ruling on Search” reports:
Yelp has spoken out about what it considers to be Google’s anticompetitive conduct for well over a decade. But the timing of Yelp’s lawsuit, filed just weeks after a Washington federal judge ruled that Google illegally monopolized the search market through exclusive deals, suggests that more companies may be emboldened to take action against the search leader in the coming months.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Yelp, like other efforts to build a business in the shadow of Google’s monolith has pointed out that the online advertising giant has acted in a way that inhibited Yelp’s business. In the years prior to Judge Mehta’s ruling that Google was — hang on now, gentle reader — a monopoly, Yelp’s objections went nowhere. However, since Google learned that Judge Mehta decided against Google’s arguments that it was a mom and pop business too, Yelp is making another run at Googzilla.
The write up points out:
In its complaint, Yelp recounts how Google at first sought to move users off its search page and out onto the web as quickly as possible, giving rise to a thriving ecosystem of sites like Yelp that sought to provide the information consumers were seeking. But when Google saw just how lucrative it could be to help users find which plumber to hire or which pizza to order, it decided to enter the market itself, Yelp alleges.
What’s an example of Google’s behavior toward Yelp and presumably other competitors? The write up says:
In its complaint, Yelp recounts how Google at first sought to move users off its search page and out onto the web as quickly as possible, giving rise to a thriving ecosystem of sites like Yelp that sought to provide the information consumers were seeking. But when Google saw just how lucrative it could be to help users find which plumber to hire or which pizza to order, it decided to enter the market itself, Yelp alleges.
The Google has, it appears, used a relatively simple method of surfing on queries for Yelp content. The technique is “self preferencing”; that is, Google just lists its own results above Yelp hits.
Several observations:
- Yelp has acted quickly, using the information in Judge Mehta’s decision as a surfboard
- Other companies will monitor this Yelp Google matter. If Yelp prevails, other companies which perceive themselves as victims of Google’s business tactics may head to court as well
- Google finds itself in a number of similar legal dust ups which add operating friction to the online advertising vendor’s business processes.
Google, like Gulliver, may be pinned down, tied up, and neutralized the way Gulliver was in Lilliput. That was satirical fiction; Yelp is operating in actual life.
Stephen E Arnold, August 29, 2024
Google Microtransaction Enabler: Chrome Beefs Up Its Monetization Options
August 29, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
For its next trick, Google appears to be channeling rival Amazon. We learn from TechRadar that “Google Is Developing a New Web Monetization Feature for Chrome that Could Really Change the Way We Pay for Things Online.” Will this development distract anyone from the recent monopoly ruling?
Writer Kristina Terech explains how Web Monetization will work for commercial websites:
“In a new support document published on the Google Chrome Platform Status site, Google explains that Web Monetization is a new technology that will enable website owners ‘to receive micro payments from users as they interact with their content.’ Google states its intention is noble, writing that Web Monetization is designed to be a new option for webmasters and publishers to generate revenue in a direct manner that’s not reliant on ads or subscriptions. Google explains that with Web Monetization, users would pay for content while they consume it. It’s also added a new HTML link element for websites to add to their URL address to indicate to the Chrome browser that the website supports Web Monetization. If this is set correctly in the website’s URL, for websites that facilitate users setting up digital wallets on it, when a person visits that website, a new monetization session would be created (for that person) on the site. I’m immediately skeptical about monetizing people’s attention even further than it already is, but Google reassures us that visitors will have control over the whole process, like the choice of sites they want to reward in this way and how much money they want to spend.”
But like so many online “choices,” how many users will pay enough attention to make them? I share Terech’s distaste for attention monetization, but that ship has sailed. The danger here (or advantage, for merchants): Many users will increase their spending by barely noticeable amounts that add up to a hefty chunk in the end. On the other hand, the feature could reduce costly processing charges by eliminating per-payment fees for merchants. Whether end users see those savings, though, depends on whether vendors choose to pass them along.
Cynthia Murrell, August 29, 2024
Eric Schmidt, Truth Teller at Stanford University, Bastion of Ethical Behavior
August 26, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I spotted some of the quotes in assorted online posts about Eric Schmidt’s talk / interview at Stanford University. I wanted to share a transcript of the remarks. You can find the ASCII transcript on GitHub at this link. For those interested in how Silicon Valley concepts influence one’s view of appropriate behavior, this talk is a gem. Is it at the level of the Confessions of St. Augustine? Well, the content is darned close in my opinion. Students of Google’s decision making past and present may find some guideposts. Aspiring “leadership” type people may well find tips and tricks.
Stephen E Arnold, August 26, 2024
Google Leadership Versus Valued Googlers
August 23, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-2.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The summer in rural Kentucky lingers on. About 2,300 miles away from the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show’s nerve center, the Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind entity is also “cyclonic heating from chaotic employee motion.” What’s this mean? Unsteady waters? Heat stroke? Confusion? Hallucinations? My goodness.
The Google leadership faces another round of employee pushback. I read “Workers at Google DeepMind Push Company to Drop Military Contracts.”
How could the Google smart software fail to predict this pattern? My view is that smart software has some limitations when it comes to managing AI wizards. Furthermore, Google senior managers have not been able to extract full knowledge value from the tools at their disposal to deal with complexity. Time Magazine reports:
Nearly 200 workers inside Google DeepMind, the company’s AI division, signed a letter calling on the tech giant to drop its contracts with military organizations earlier this year, according to a copy of the document reviewed by TIME and five people with knowledge of the matter. The letter circulated amid growing concerns inside the AI lab that its technology is being sold to militaries engaged in warfare, in what the workers say is a violation of Google’s own AI rules.
Why are AI Googlers grousing about military work? My personal view is that the recent hagiography of Palantir’s Alex Karp and the tie up between Microsoft and Palantir for Impact Level 5 services means that the US government is gearing up to spend some big bucks for warfighting technology. Google wants — really needs — this revenue. Penalties for its frisky behavior as what Judge Mehta describes and “monopolistic” could put a hit in the git along of Google ad revenue. Therefore, Google’s smart software can meet the hunger militaries have for intelligent software to perform a wide variety of functions. As the Russian special operation makes clear, “meat based” warfare is somewhat inefficient. Ukrainian garage-built drones with some AI bolted on perform better than a wave of 18 year olds with rifles and a handful of bullets. The example which sticks in my mind is a Ukrainian drone spotting a Russian soldier in the field partially obscured by bushes. The individual is attending to nature’s call.l The drone spots the “shape” and explodes near the Russian infantry man.
A former consultant faces an interpersonal Waterloo. How did that work out for Napoleon? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Are you guys working on the IPv6 issue? Busy weekend ahead?
Those who study warfare probably have their own ah-ha moment.
The Time Magazine write up adds:
Those principles state the company [Google/DeepMind] will not pursue applications of AI that are likely to cause “overall harm,” contribute to weapons or other technologies whose “principal purpose or implementation” is to cause injury, or build technologies “whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”) The letter says its signatories are concerned with “ensuring that Google’s AI Principles are upheld,” and adds: “We believe [DeepMind’s] leadership shares our concerns.”
I love it when wizards “believe” something.
Will the Sundar & Prabhakar brain trust do believing or banking revenue from government agencies eager to gain access to advantage artificial intelligence services and systems? My view is that the “believers” underestimate the uncertainty arising from potential sanctions, fines, or corporate deconstruction the decision of Judge Mehta presents.
The article adds this bit of color about the Sundar & Prabhakar response time to Googlers’ concern about warfighting applications:
The [objecting employees’] letter calls on DeepMind’s leaders to investigate allegations that militaries and weapons manufacturers are Google Cloud users; terminate access to DeepMind technology for military users; and set up a new governance body responsible for preventing DeepMind technology from being used by military clients in the future. Three months on from the letter’s circulation, Google has done none of those things, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. “We have received no meaningful response from leadership,” one said, “and we are growing increasingly frustrated.”
“No meaningful response” suggests that the Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind rhetoric is not satisfactory.
The write up concludes with this paragraph:
At a DeepMind town hall event in June, executives were asked to respond to the letter, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. DeepMind’s chief operating officer Lila Ibrahim answered the question. She told employees that DeepMind would not design or deploy any AI applications for weaponry or mass surveillance, and that Google Cloud customers were legally bound by the company’s terms of service and acceptable use policy, according to a set of notes taken during the meeting that were reviewed by TIME. Ibrahim added that she was proud of Google’s track record of advancing safe and responsible AI, and that it was the reason she chose to join, and stay at, the company.
With Microsoft and Palantir, among others, poised to capture some end-of-fiscal-year money from certain US government budgets, the comedy act’s headquarters’ planners want a piece of the action. How will the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act handle the situation? Why procrastinate? Perhaps the comedy act hopes the issue will just go away. The complaining employees have short attention spans, rely on TikTok-type services for information, and can be terminated like other Googlers who grouse, picket, boycott the Foosball table, or quiet quit while working on a personal start up.
The approach worked reasonably well before Judge Mehta labeled Google a monopoly operation. It worked when ad dollars flowed like latte at Philz Coffee. But today is different, and the unsettled personnel are not a joke and add to the uncertainty some have about the Google we know and love.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2024
Threat. What Threat? Google Does Not Behave Improperly. No No No.
August 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Amazing write up from a true poohbah publication: “Google Threatened Tech Influencers Unless They Preferred the Pixel.” Even more amazing is the Googley response: “We missed the mark?”
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Let’s think about this.
The poohbah publication reports:
A Pixel 9 review agreement required influencers to showcase the Pixel over competitors or have their relationship terminated. Google now says the language ‘missed the mark.’
What?
I thought Google was working overtime to build relationships and develop trust. I thought Google was characterized unfairly as a monopolist. I thought Google had some of that good old “Do no evil” DNA.
These misconceptions demonstrate how out of touch a dinobaby like me can be.
The write up points out:
The Verge has independently confirmed screenshots of the clause in this year’s Team Pixel agreement for the new Pixel phones, which various influencers began posting on X and Threads last night. The agreement tells participants they’re “expected to feature the Google Pixel device in place of any competitor mobile devices.” It also notes that “if it appears other brands are being preferred over the Pixel, we will need to cease the relationship between the brand and the creator.” The link to the form appears to have since been shut down.
Does that sound like a threat? As a dinobaby and non-influencer, I think the Google is just trying to prevent miscreants like those people posting information about Russia’s special operation from misinterpreting the Pixel gadgets. Look. Google was caught off guard and flipped into Code Red or whatever. Now the Gemini smart software is making virtually everyone’s life online better.
I think the Google is trying to be “honest.” The term, like the word “ethical”, can house many means. Consequently non-Googley phones, thoughts, ideas, and hallucinations are not permitted. Otherwise what? The write up explains:
Those terms certainly caused confusion online, with some assuming such terms apply to all product reviewers. However, that isn’t the case. Google’s official Pixel review program for publications like The Verge requires no such stipulations. (And, to be clear, The Verge would never accept such terms, in accordance with our ethics policy.)
The poohbah publication has ethics. That’s super.
Here’s the “last words” in the article about this issue that missed the mark:
Influencer is a broad term that encompasses all sorts of creators. Many influencers adhere to strict ethical standards, but many do not. The problem is there are no guidelines to follow and limited disclosure to help consumers if what they’re reading or watching was paid for in some way. The FTC is taking some steps to curtail fake and misleading reviews online, but as it stands right now, it can be hard for the average person to spot a genuine review from marketing. The Team Pixel program didn’t create this mess, but it is a sobering reflection of the murky state of online reviews.
Why would big outfits appear to threaten people? There are no consequences. And most people don’t care. Threats are enervating. There’s probably a course at Stanford University on the subject.
Net net: This is new behavior? Nope. It is characteristic of a largely unregulated outfit with lots of money which, at the present time, feels threatened. Why not do what’s necessary to remain wonderful, loved, and trusted. Or else!
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2024
Telegram Rolled Over for Russia. Has Google YouTube Become a Circus Animal Too?
August 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Most of the people with whom I interact do not know that Telegram apparently took steps to filter content which the Kremlin deemed unsuitable for Russian citizens. Information reaching me in late April 2024 asserted that Ukrainian government units were no longer able to use Telegram Messenger functions to disseminate information to Telegram users in Russia about Mr. Putin’s “special operation.” Telegram has made a big deal about its commitment to free speech, and it has taken a very, very light touch to censoring content and transactions on its basic and “secret” messaging service. Then, at the end of April 2024, Mr. Pavel Durov flipped, apparently in response to either a request or threat from someone in Russia. The change in direction for a messaging app with 900 million users is a peanut compared to Meta WhatsApp five million or so. But when free speech becomes obeisance I take note.
I have been tracking Russian YouTubers because I have found that some of the videos provide useful insights into the impact of the “special operation” on prices, the attitudes of young people, and imagery about the condition of housing, information day-to-day banking matters, and the demeanor of people in the background of some YouTube, TikTok, Rutube, and Kick videos.
I want to mention that Alphabet Google YouTube a couple of years ago took action to suspend Russian state channels from earning advertising revenue from the Google “we pay you” platform. Facebook and the “old” Twitter did this as well. I have heard that Google and YouTube leadership understood that Ukraine wanted those “propaganda channels” blocked. The online advertising giant complied. About 9,000 channels were demonetized or made difficult to find (to be fair, finding certain information on YouTube is not an easy task.) Now Russia has convinced Google to respond to its wishes.
So what? To most people, this is not important. Just block the “bad” content. Get on with life.
I watched a video called “Demonetized! Update and the Future.” The presenter is a former business manager who turned to YouTube to document his view of Russian political, business, and social events. The gentleman — allegedly named “Konstantin” — worked in the US. He returned to Russia and then moved to Uzbekistan. His YouTube channel is (was) titled Inside Russia.
The video “Demonetized! Update and the Future” caught my attention. Please, note, that the video may be unavailable when you read this blog post. “Demonetization” is Google speak for cutting of advertising revenue itself and to the creator.
Several other Russian vloggers producing English language content about Russia, the Land of Putin on the Fritz, have expressed concern about their vlogging since Russia slowed down YouTube bandwidth making some content unwatchable. Others have taken steps to avoid problems; for example, creators Svetlana, Niki, and Nfkrz have left Russia. Others are keeping a low profile.
This raises questions about the management approach in a large and mostly unregulated American high-technology company. According to Inside Russia’s owner Konstantin, YouTube offered no explanation for the demonetization of the channel. Konstantin asserts that YouTube is not providing information to him about its unilateral action. My hunch is that he does not want to come out and say, “The Kremlin pressured an American company to cut off my information about the impact of the ‘special operation’ on Russia.”
Several observations:
- I have heard but not verified that Apple has cooperated with the Kremlin’s wish for certain content to be blocked so that it does not quickly reach Russian citizens. It is unclear what has caused the US companies to knuckle under. My initial thought was, “Money.” These outfits want to obtain revenues from Russia and its federation, hoping to avoid a permanent ban when the “special operation” ends. The inducements (and I am speculating) might also have a kinetic component. That occurs when a person falls out of a third story window and then impacts the ground. Yes, falling out of windows can happen.
- I surmise that the vloggers who are “demonetized” are probably on a list. These individuals and their families are likely to have a tough time getting a Russian government job, a visa, or a passport. The list may have the address for the individual who is generating unacceptable-to-the-Kremlin content. (There is a Google Map for Uzbekistan’s suburb where Konstantin may be living.)
- It is possible that YouTube is doing nothing other than letting its “algorithm” make decisions. Demonetizing Russian YouTubers is nothing more than an unintended consequence of no material significance.
- Does YouTube deserve some attention because its mostly anything-goes approach to content seems to be malleable? For example, I can find information about how to steal a commercial software program owned by a German company via the YouTube search box. Why is this crime not filtered? Is a fellow talking about the “special operation” subject to a different set of rules?
Screen shot of suggested terms for the prompt “Magix Vegas Pro 21 crack” taken on August 16, 2024, at 224 pm US Eastern.
I have seen some interesting corporate actions in my 80 years. But the idea that a country, not particularly friendly to the U.S. at this time, can cause an American company to take what appears to be an specific step designed to curtail information flow is remarkable. Perhaps when Alphabet executives explain to Congress the filtering of certain American news related to events linked to the current presidential campaign more information will be made available?
If Konstantin’s allegations about demonetization are accurate, what’s next on Alphabet, Google, and YouTube’s to-do list for information snuffing or information cleansing?
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2024
AI Research: A New and Slippery Cost Center for the Google
August 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
A week or so ago, I read “Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizers.” The write up made crystal clear that Google’s DeepMind can cook up a test, throw bodies at it, and generate a bit of “gray” literature. The objective, in my opinion, was three-fold. [1] The paper makes clear that DeepMind is thinking about its smart software’s weaknesses and wants to figure out what to do about them. And [2] DeepMind wants to keep up the flow of PR – Marketing which says, “We are really the Big Dogs in this stuff. Good luck catching up with the DeepMind deep researchers.” Note: The third item appears after the numbers.
I think the paper reveals a third and unintended consequence. This issue is made more tangible by an entity named 152334H and captured in “Calculating the Cost of a Google DeepMind Paper.” (Oh, 152334 is a deep blue black color if anyone cares.)
That write up presents calculations supporting this assertion:
How to burn US$10,000,000 on an arXiv preprint
The write up included this table presenting the costs to replicate what the xx Googlers and DeepMinders did to produce the ArXiv gray paper:
Notice, please, that the estimate is nearly $13 million. Anyone want to verify the Google results? What am I hearing? Crickets.
The gray paper’s 11 authors had to run the draft by review leadership and a lawyer or two. Once okayed, the document was converted to the arXiv format, and we the findings to improve our understanding of how much work goes into the achievements of the quantumly supreme Google.
Thijs number of $12 million and change brings me to item [3]. The paper illustrates why Google has a tough time controlling its costs. The paper is not “marketing,” because it is R&D. Some of the expense can be shuffled around. But in my book, the research is overhead, but it is not counted like the costs of cubicles for administrative assistants. It is science; it is a cost of doing business. Suck it up, you buttercups, in accounting.
The write up illustrates why Google needs as much money as it can possibly grab. These costs which are not really nice, tidy costs have to be covered. With more than 150,000 people working on projects, the costs of “gray” papers is a trigger for more costs. The compute time has to be paid for. Hello, cloud customers. The “thinking time” has to be paid for because coming up with great research is open ended and may take weeks, months, or years. One could not rush Einstein. One cannot rush Google wizards in the AI realm either.
The point of this blog post is to create a bit of sympathy for the professionals in Google’s accounting department. Those folks have a tough job figuring out how to cut costs. One cannot prevent 11 people from burning through computer time. The costs just hockey stick. Consequently the quantumly supreme professionals involved in Google cost control look for simpler, more comprehensible ways to generate sufficient cash to cover what are essentially “surprise” costs. These tools include magic wand behavior over payments to creators, smart commission tables to compensate advertising partners, and demands for more efficiency from Googlers who are not thinking big thoughts about big AI topics.
Net net: Have some awareness of how tough it is to be quantumly supreme. One has to keep the PR and Marketing messaging on track. One has to notch breakthroughs, insights, and innovations. What about that glue on the pizza thing? Answer: What?
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
