Google Gets into Insurance
March 3, 2021
Worrying about the relevance of search results? You probably should. The online ad giant is facing some big problems. And what do giant corporations do when their core business faces competitive, legal, employee, management, and customer pressure?
Give up.
Here’s the answer: Sell insurance.
“Google Rolls Out First of Its Kind Cyber Insurance Program for Cloud Customers” reports:
Google LLC has teamed up with two major insurers to develop a cyber security insurance offering that will provide Google Cloud customers who sign up with coverage against cyber attacks.
Ask an actuary. Is insurance a good business? Listen to the answer… carefully.
The article notes:
The Risk Manager tool is available to Google Cloud customers by request. As for the cyber insurance coverage against data breaches, it will initially be offered to organizations in the U.S.
There are several implications of this deal. But it is early days, and one cannot purchase insurance to cover a ride in a Waymo infused vehicle directly from the GOOG yet.
The thoughts which ran through my mind after reading the news story were:
- Is Google cashing in on SolarWinds’ paranoia?
- Does selling insurance for cloud services suggest that cloud services are a big fat bad actor target which cannot be adequately protected?
- Will Google insure homes, yachts, and health?
- Has Google run out of ideas for generating revenue from its home brew and me too technology?
I have no answers, just hunches.
The Google has looked backwards to bottomry contracts shaped in Babylon. When did this insight dawn? Round about 4,000 before common era (that’s AD in thumbtyper speak).
Will Google innovate with stone flaking methods and sell non fungible tokens for these artifacts?
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2021
Google: The Curse of Search
March 2, 2021
Remember when Eric Schmidt objected to information about his illustrious career being made available? I sure do. As I recall, the journalist used Google search to locate interesting information. MarketWatch quoted the brilliant Mr. Schmidt as saying:
If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
Nifty idea.
Forbes, the capitalist tool I believe, published “Google Issues Quality Warning For Millions Of Google Photos Users.” That write up pivots on using information retrieval to illustrate that Google overlooked its own “right to be forgotten” capability.
The capitalist tool states:
At its 2015 launch, Google Photos creator Anil Sabharwal promised that High Quality uploads offered “near-identical visual quality” when compared to your original photos. But now Google wants us to see a seemingly huge difference in quality between the two settings and to be willing to pay extra for it. It seems “Original Quality” is now suddenly something for which we should all be willing to pay extra.
So what?
Google, which is struggling to control its costs, wants to generate money. One way is to take away a free photo service and get “users” to pay for storage. And store what, you ask.
Google is saying that its 2015 high quality image format is no good. Time to use “original quality”; that is, larger file sizes and more storage requirements.
The only hitch in the git along is that in 2015 Google emitted hoo-hah about its brilliant image method. Now the Google is rewriting history.
The problem: Google’s search engine with some coaxing makes it easy to spot inconsistencies in the marketing spin. Nothing to hide. Words of wisdom.
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2021
Judge in Google Trial Not Googley
March 1, 2021
I read an inadvertently amusing story called “Judge in Google Case Disturbed That Incognito Users Are Tracked.” Google is engaged in one of its many legal battles. This case concerns Brown v. Google, 20-cv-03664, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). The presiding judge is U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. The write up reports:
In this case, Google is accused of relying on pieces of its code within websites that use its analytics and advertising services to scrape users’ supposedly private browsing history and send copies of it to Google’s servers.Google makes it seem like private browsing mode gives users more control of their data, Amanda Bonn, a lawyer representing users, told Koh. In reality, “Google is saying there’s basically very little you can do to prevent us from collecting your data, and that’s what you should assume we’re doing,” Bonn said.
Just as “unlimited” means “you have to be kidding”, the word “incognito” does not mean hidden. Judge Koh apparently was not aware of the GOOG’s native language. Google’s lawyer alleged suggested that Google “expressly discloses” its practices.
I laughed so hard that my eyes watered. No, I was not emulating happy crying.
The judge did not find Google’s argument as funny as I did. The write up reports:
The judge demanded an explanation “about what exactly Google does,” while voicing concern that visitors to the court’s website are unwittingly disclosing information to the company.“I want a declaration from Google on what information they’re collecting on users to the court’s website, and what that’s used for.
My hunch is that Google’s legal eagle Stephen Broome may be swept clean. The door is now open in Judge Koh’s courtroom for more amusing Google speak and the resultant misunderstandings.
“Expressly disclosing.” That is a good one. Where’s Jack Benny when we need him to work the phrase into a skit with Phil Harris?
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2021
Gebru-Gibberish: A Promise, Consultants, and Surgical Management Action
March 1, 2021
I read “Google Reportedly Promises Change to Research Team after High Profile Firings.” The article explains that after female artificial intelligence researchers found their futures elsewhere, Google (the mom and pop neighborhood online ad agency) will:
will change its research review procedures this year.
Okay, 10 months.
The write up points out that the action is
an apparent bid to restore employee confidence in the wake of two high-profile firings of prominent women from the [AI ethics] division.
Yep, words. I found this passage redolent of Gebru-gibberish; that is, wordage which explains how smart software ethics became a bit of a problem for the estimable Google outfit:
By the end of the second quarter, the approvals process for research papers will be more smooth and consistent, division Chief Operating Officer Maggie Johnson reportedly told employees in the meeting. Research teams will have access to a questionnaire that allows them to assess their projects for risk and navigate review, and Johnson predicted that a majority of papers would not require additional vetting by Google. Johnson also said the division is bringing in a third-party firm to help it conduct a racial-equity impact assessment, Reuters reports, and she expects the assessment’s recommendations “to be pretty hard.”
Okay. A questionnaire. A third party firm. Pretty hard.
What’s this mean?
The Ars Technica write up does not translate. However, from my vantage point in rural Kentucky, I understand the Gebru-gibberish to mean:
- Talk about ethical smart software and the GOOG reacts in a manner informed by high school science club principles
- Female AI experts are perceived as soft targets but that may be a misunderstanding in the synapses of the Google
- The employee issues at Google are overshadowing other Google challenges; for example, the steady rise of Amazon product search, the legal storm clouds, and struggles with the relevance of ads displayed in response to user queries or viewed YouTube videos.
Do I expect more Gebru-gibberish?
Will Microsoft continue to insist that its SAML is the most wonderful business process in the whole wide world?
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2021
Google: Personal Data Unrelated to AI Ethics?
February 26, 2021
I read “Google Finally Reveals the Terrifying Amount of Data Gmail Collects on iPhone.” I thought, “Terrifying? From the Google?” I know that the company has some management challenges, particularly in its ethics unit, but startle, petrify, awe?
The write up asserts:
Google’s labels indicate that its apps will collect plenty of user data for several purposes. This includes third-party advertising, analytics, product personalization, app functionality, and — the most annoying one — other purposes. These categories also contain an “other data types” section that suggests the apps can collect even more information than they’re ready to disclose.
Several questions:
- Will Google’s definition of ethics allow some interesting cross correlation of user data?
- How does iPhone data collection components compare to Android device data collection components? More data? Less data?
- How will Google’s estimable, industry leading, super duper artificial intelligence make use of these data to deliver advertising?
Worth monitoring the Google, its data collection, and its use of those data.
Stephen E Arnold, February 26, 2021
Gebru-Gibberish Gives Google Gastroenteritis
February 24, 2021
At the outset, I want to address Google’s Gebru-gibberish
Definition: Gebru-gibberish refers to official statements from Alphabet Google about the personnel issues related to the departure of two female experts in artificial intelligence working on the ethics of smart software. Gebru-gibberish is similar to statements made by those in fear of their survival.
Gastroenteritis: Watch the ads on Fox News or CNN for video explanations: Adult diapers, incontinence, etc.
Psychological impact: Fear, paranoia, flight reaction, irrational aggressiveness. Feelings of embarrassment, failure, serious injury, and lots of time in the WC.
The details of the viral problem causing discomfort among the world’s most elite online advertising organization relates to the management of Dr. Timnit Gebru. To add to the need to keep certain facilities nearby, the estimable Alphabet Google outfit apparently dismissed Dr. Margaret Mitchell. The output from the world’s most sophisticated ad sales company was Gebru-gibberish. Now those words have characterized the shallowness of the Alphabet Google thing’s approach to smart software.
In order to appreciate the problem, take a look at “Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learning.” Here’s the author listing and affiliation for the people who contributed to the paper available without cost on ArXiv.org:
The image is hard to read. Let me point out that the authors include more than 30 Googlers (who may become Xooglers in between dashes to the WC).
The paper is referenced in a chatty Medium write up called “Is Google’s AI Research about to Implode?” The essay raises an interesting possibility. The write up contains an interesting point, one that suggests that Google’s smart software may have some limitations:
Underspecification presents significant challenges for the credibility of modern machine learning.
Why the apparently illogical behavior with regard to Drs. Gebru and Mitchell?
My view is that the Gebru-gibberish released from Googzilla is directly correlated with the accuracy of the information presented in the “underspecification” paper. Sure, the method works in some cases, just as the 1998 Autonomy black box worked in some cases. However, to keep the accuracy high, significant time and effort must be invested. Otherwise, smart software evidences the charming characteristic of “drift”; that is, what was relevant before new content was processed is perceived as irrelevant or just incorrect in subsequent interactions.
What does this mean?
Small, narrow domains work okay. Larger content domains work less okay.
Heron Systems, using a variation of the Google DeepMind approach, was able to “kill” a human in a simulated dog flight. However, the domain was small and there were some “rules.” Perfect for smart software. The human top gun was dead fast. Larger domains like dealing with swarms of thousands of militarized and hardened unmanned aerial vehicles and a simultaneous series of targeted cyber attacks using sleeper software favored by some nation states means that smart software will be ineffective.
What will Google do?
As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, the high school science club management method employed by Backrub has become the standard operating procedure at today’s Alphabet Google.
Thus, the question, “Is Google’s AI research about to implode?” is a good one. The answer is, “No.” Google has money; it has staff who tow the line; and it has its charade of an honest, fair, and smart online advertising system.
Let me suggest a slight change to the question; to wit: “Is Google at a tipping point?” The answer to this question is, “Yes.”
Gibru-gibberish is similar to the information and other outputs of Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and flamed out in a memorable way.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2021
Google: Adding Friction?
February 23, 2021
I read “Waze’s Ex-CEO Says App Could Have Grown Faster without Google.” Opinions are plentiful. However, reading about the idea of Google as an inhibitor is interesting. The write up reports:
Waze has struggled to grow within Alphabet Inc’s Google, the navigation app’s former top executive said, renewing concerns over whether it was stifled by the search giant’s $1 billion acquisition in 2013.
A counterpoint is that 140 million drivers use Waze each month. When Google paid about $1 billion for the traffic service in 2009, Waze attracted 10 million drivers.
The write up states:
But Waze usage is flat in some countries as Google Maps gets significant promotion, and Waze has lost money as it focuses on a little-used carpooling app and pursues an advertising business that barely registers within the Google empire…
Several observations about the points in the article:
- With litigation and other push back against Google and other large technology firms, it seems as if Google is in a defensive posture
- Wall Street is happy with Google’s performance, but that enjoyment may not be shared with that of some users and employees
- Google management methods may be generating revenue but secondary effects like the Waze case may become data points worth monitoring.
Google map related services are difficult for me to use. Some functions are baffling; others invite use of other services. Yep, friction as in slowing Waze’s growth maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2021
Alphabet Google: High School Science Club Management Breakthrough
February 20, 2021
The Google appears to support the concepts, decision making capabilities, and the savoir faire of my high school science club. I entered high school in 1958, and I was asked to join the Science Club. Like cool. Fat, thick glasses, and the sporty clothes my parents bought me at Robert Hall completed by look. And I fit right in. Arrogant, proud to explain that I missed the third and fourth grades because my tutor in Campinas died of snake bite. I did the passive resistance thing, and I refused to complete the 1950s version of distance learning via the Calvert Course, and socially unaware – yes, I fit right in. The Science Club of Woodruff High School! People sort of like me: Mid western in spirit, arrogant, and clueless. Were we immature? Does Mr. Putin have oligarchs as friends?
With my enthusiastic support, the Woodruff High School Science Club intercepted the principal’s morning announcements. We replaced mimeograph stencils with those we enhanced. We slipped calcium carbide into chemistry experiments involving sulfuric acid. When we we taken before the high school assistant principal Bull Durham, he would intone, “Grow up.”
We learned there were no consequences. We concluded that without the Science Club, it was hasta la vista to the math team, the quick recall team, the debate team, the trophies from the annual Science Fair, and the pride in the silly people who racked up top scores on standardized tests administered to everyone in the school.
The Science Club learned a life lesson. Apologize. Look at your shoes. Evidence meekness and humility. Forget asking for permission.
I thought about how the Science Club decided. That’s an overstatement. An idea caught our attention and we acted. I stepped into the nostalgia Jacuzzi when I read “Google Fires Another AI Ethics Leader.” A déjà vu moment. The Timnit Gibru incident flickers in the thumbtypers’ news feeds. Now a new name: Margaret Mitchell, the co-lead of Google’s Ethical AI team. Allegedly she was fired if the information in the “real” news story is accurate. The extra peachy keen Daily Mail alleged that the RIF was a result of Ms. Mitchell’s use of a script “to search for evidence of discrimination against fired black colleague.” Not exactly as nifty as my 1958 high school use of calcium carbide, but close enough for horseshoes.
Even the cast of characters in this humanoid unfriending is the same: Uber Googler Jeff Dean, who Sawzall and BigTable problems logically. The script is a recycling of a 1930’s radio drama. The management process unchanged: Conclude and act. Wham and bam.
The subject of ethics is slippery. Todd Pheifer, a doctor of education wrote Business Ethics: The Search for an Elusive Idea and required a couple of hundred pages to deal with a single branch of the definition of the concept. The book is a mere $900 on Amazon, but today (Saturday, February 20, 2021, it is not available.) Were the buyers Googlers?
Ethics is in the title of the Axios article “Google Fires Another AI Ethics Leader,” and ethics figures in many of the downstream retellings of this action. Are these instant AI ethicist zappings removals the Alphabet Google equivalent of the Luxe Half-Acre Mosquito Trap with Stand? Hum buzz zap!
In my high school science club, we often deferred to Don and Bernard or the Jackson Brothers. These high school wizards had published an article about moon phases in a peer-reviewed journal when Don was a freshman and Bernard was a sophomore. (I have a great anecdote about Don’s experience in astrophysics class at the University of Illinois. Ask me nicely, and I will recount it.)
The bright lads would mumble some idea about showing the administration how stupid it was, and we were off to the races. As I recall, we rarely considered the impact of our decisions. What about ethics, wisdom, social and political awareness? Who are you kidding? Snort, snort, snort. Life lesson: No consequences for those who revere good test takers.
As it turned out, most of us matured somewhat. Most got graduate degrees. Most of us avoided super life catastrophes. Bull Durham is long dead, but I would wager he would remember our brilliance if he were around today to reminisce about the Science Club in 1958.
I am grateful for the Googley, ethical AI related personnel actions actions. Ah, memories.
Several questions with answers in italic:
- How will Alphabet Google’s effort to recruit individuals who are not like the original Google “science club” in the wake of the Backrub burnout? Answer: Paying ever higher salaries, larger bonuses, maybe an office at home.
- Which “real” news outfit will label the ethical terminations as a failure of high school science club management methods? Answer: None.
- What does ethics means? Answer: Learn about phenomenological existentialism and then revisit this question.
I miss those Science Club meetings on Tuesday afternoon from 3 30 to 4 30 pm Central time even today. But “real” news stories about Google’s ethical actions related to artificial intelligence are like a whiff of Dollar General air freshener.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2021
Facebook Decision Sparks Colorful Language
February 19, 2021
I noted this headline:
Facebook Gives Middle finger to Australia as Google Strikes Multi-Million Dollar Deals over News
Very colorful. Google decided to write checks, not do the crazy pull out a country play bandied about. Facebook, on the other hand, seems content to kiss the kangaroos good bye. Not shrimp on the barbie when Mr. Zuck entertains, I assume.
The write up with the middle finger headline includes this quote from a Googler:
In response to Australia’s proposed new Media Bargaining law, Facebook will restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content,” wrote William Easton, managing director of Facebook Australia & New Zealand in a blog post. “The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content.
What happened to Melanie Silva the Managing Director,, Google Australia and New Zealand. She assumed her job in November 2020 or October 2018 depending on which source one examines. She was — at least to me — the hard line Googler.
But the article with the middle finger headline focuses on William Easton. He has VP attached to his title. What’s interesting is that he was at Facebook before becoming a Googler.
What I find interesting is that both Ms. Silva and Mr. Easton are finance types.
Remember the good old days of Google when senior executives were engineers?
Who at Google is calculating the cost of paying for news to publishers worldwide? How many ad sales will it take to offset the cost of news? The Google News page has lacked ads for many years. Perhaps that will change? If not, Google will have to trim more costs and find a way to hold down costs.
The Google is entering a new phase and high school science club management tactics won’t work. Writing checks does it seems.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2021
Google in France: Are Wine and Cheese Included in the Deal?
February 19, 2021
Google News aggregates news content from various media outlets, but it does not pay the outlets for the content. Some content on Google News requires subscriptions to specific outlets, but overall the information is free. Media outlets are upset that Google does not pay them for their content, although Google could argue that they are driving traffic to their Web site and offer free exposure. Traffic and exposure are not enough for French publishers, says the Seattle PI in, “Google, French Publishers Sign Copyright News Payment Deal.”
Google France negotiated with the Alliance de la Presse d’Information Generale for months to agree upon a framework where Google would pay licensing fees to French publishers. Google needed this deal after France was the first country to adopt the European Union’s new copyright rules.
The new rules were made, because of money and lack of quality news:
“Under the framework agreement, payments will be based on criteria such as the amount published daily and monthly internet traffic. Google did not spell out how much money would be paid to the group’s members. News companies had pushed for the EU copyright reform amid worries that quality journalism is declining as ad revenue gets siphoned off by the digital giants.”
It makes sense, especially when big tech companies created the technology that enables misinformation bad actors to spread conspiracy theories. The technology itself is not bad, but can cause harm. Google is benefiting from journalists’ hard work, but also dumbing down the medium as well as stealing its’ power. Journalists, like other professionals, should be paid for their work, especially if they focus on telling quality stories.
Whitney Grace, February 19, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
