Automobile Trivia: The Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford Pinto

March 11, 2025

dino orange_thumb_thumb_thumbAnother post from the dinobaby. Alas, no smart software used for this essay.

I don’t cover the auto industry. However, this article caught my eye: “Cybertruck Goes to Mardi Gras Parade, Gets Bombarded by Trash and Flees in Shame: That’s Gotta Hurt.”

The write up reports:

With a whopping seven recalls in just over a year — and a fire fatality rate exceeding the infamous Ford Pinto— it’s never been a particularly great time to be a Cybertruck owner. But now, thanks to the political meddling of billionaire Tesla owner Elon Musk, it might be worse than ever. That’s what some Cybertruck drivers discovered firsthand at a Lundi Gras parade on Monday — the “Fat Monday” preamble to the famed Mardi Gras — when their hulking electric tanks were endlessly mocked and pelted with trash by revelers.

I did not know that the Tesla vehicle engaged in fire events at a rate greater than the famous Ford Pinto. I know the Pinto well. I bought one for a very low price. I drove it for about a year and sold it for a little more than I paid for it. I think I spent more time looking in my rear view mirrors than looking down the road. The Pinto, if struck from behind, would burn. I think the gas tank was made of some flimsy material. A bump in the back would cause the tank to leak and sometimes the vehicle would burst into flame. A couple of unlucky Pinto drivers suffered burns and some went to the big Ford dealership in the great beyond. I am not sure if the warranty was upheld.

I think this is interesting automotive trivia; for example, “What vehicle has a fire fatality rate exceeding the Ford Pinto?” The answer as I now know is the lovely and graceful Tesla Cybertruck.

The write up (which may be from The Byte or from Futurism) says:

According to a post on X-formerly-Twitter, at least one Cybertruck had its “bulletproof window” shattered by plastic beads before tucking tail and fleeing the parade under police protection. At least three Cybertrucks were reportedly there as part of a coordinated effort by an out-of-state Cybertruck Club to ferry parade marshals down the route. One marshal posted about their experience riding in the EV on Reddit, saying it was “boos and attacks from start to evacuation.”

I got a kick (not a recall or a fire) out of the write up and the plastic bead reference. Not as slick as “bouffon sous kétamine,” but darned good. And, no, I am not going to buy a Cybertruck. One year in Pinto fear was quite enough.

Now a test question: Which is more likely to explode? [a] a Space X rocket, [b] a Pinto, or [c] a Cybertruck?

Stephen E Arnold, March 11, 2025

Has Amazon Hit the Same Big Pothole As Apple?

February 27, 2025

dino orange_thumb_thumbThis blog post is the work of a real-live dinobaby. No smart software involved.

Apple has experienced some growing pains with its Apple Intelligence. Incorrect news and assorted Siri weirdness indicated that designing a rectangle and laptop requires different skills from delivering a high impact, mass market smart software “solution.”

I know Apple is working overtime to come up with the next big thing. Will it be another me-too product? Probably. I liked the M1 chip, but subsequent generations have not done much to change my work flow or my happiness with my laptops and Mac Minis. I am okay with a cheap smart watch. I am okay with an old iPhone. I am okay with providing those who do work for me with a Mac laptop. Apple, however, is not a big player in smart software. In China, the company is embracing Chinese smart software. Hey, Apple wants to sell iPhones. Do what’s necessary is the basic approach to innovation in my opinion.

Has Amazon hit the same pothole as Apple? Surely the Bezos bulldozer can move forward with its powerful innovation machine. I am not so sure. I remember four years ago a project requiring my team to look at Amazon’s Sagemaker. That was an initiative to provide off-the-shelf technology and data sets to Amazon cloud customers who wanted smart software. Have you perceived Sagemaker as the big dog in AI? I don’t.

I read “Looks Like the Next-0Gen Alexa’s Release Is Hitting Another Speed Bump.” The write up suggests that the expensive kitchen timer and weather update device is not getting much smarter quickly. The article reports:

According to a tip from an unnamed Amazon employee, shared by the Washington Post (via Android Authority), the smarter Alexa update won’t be released until March 31. The holdup was apparently due to the upgraded assistant tripping over itself in testing, struggling to nail accurate answers. So, it seems like Amazon is taking extra time to fine-tune Alexa’s brain before letting it loose.

I am not too surprised. Amazon fiddles with the Kindle and the software for that device does not meet the needs of people who read numerous books. (Don’t you love those Amazon Kindle email addresses and the software that makes it a challenge to figure out which books are on the device, which are for sale, and which are in the Amazon cloud? Wonderful software for someone who does not read, just buys books.) The cloud AI initiative has not come close to the Chinese technological “strike” with the Deepseek system. Now the kitchen timer is delayed just like useful Apple Intelligence.

Let me share my hypotheses about why Amazon and I suppose I can include Apple in this mental human hallucination:

  1. Neither company has a next big thing. Both companies are in a me-too, me-too loop. That’s a common situation in a firm which gets big, has money, and loses its genius for everything except making as much money as possible. Innovation atrophy is my phrase for this characteristic of some companies.
  2. Throwing money at a problem does not create sparks of insight. The novel ideas are smothered under the flow of money that must be spent. This is a middle manager’s problem; specifically, effort is directed to spending the money, not coming up with a big idea that solves a problem and delights those people. Do you know what’s different about a new iPhone? Do you know which Amazon products are actually of good quality? I sure don’t. I ordered an AMD Ryzen CPU. Amazon shipped me red panties. My old iPhone asks me to log in every time I look at Telegram’s messages on the device. Really, panties and persistent log ins?
  3. General strategic drift. I am not sure what business Apple is in? Is it services like selling music? Is it hardware which is mostly indistinguishable from the hardware just replaced? Is Amazon a cloud computing outfit with leaky S3 storage constructs? Is it a seller of Temu-type products? Is it a delivery business unable to keep its delivery partners happy? The purpose of these firms is to acquire money. Period. The original Jobs and Bezos “razzmatazz” is gone.

Will the companies remediate the fundamental innovation issue? Nope. But both will make a lot of money. Beavers do what beavers do. No matter what. But beavers might be able to get Alexa to spin money, games to mostly work, and Twitch to make creators happy, not grumpy.

Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2025

Innovation: It Ebbs, It Flows, It Fizzles

February 26, 2025

Many would argue humanity is nothing if not creative. If not, we would be living the way we were thousands of years ago. But, asks the Financial Times, "Is Innovation Slowing Down? With Matt Clancy." Nah—Look how innovative iPhones and Windows upgrades are.

The post presents the audio of an interview between journalist John Burn-Murdoch and economist Matt Clancy. (The transcript can be found here.) The page introduces the interview:

"Productivity growth in the developed world has been on a downward trend since the 1960s. Meanwhile, gains in life expectancy have also slowed. And yet the number of dollars and researchers dedicated to R&D grows every year. In today’s episode, the FT’s Chief Data Reporter, John Burn-Murdoch, asks whether western culture has lost its previous focus on human progress and become too risk-averse, or whether the problem is simply that the low-hanging fruit of scientific research has already been plucked. He does so in conversation with innovation economist Matt Clancy, who is the author of the New Things Under the Sun blog, and a research fellow at Open Philanthropy, a non-profit foundation based in San Francisco that provides research grants."

The pair begin by recalling a theory of economic historian Joel Mokyr, who believes a growing belief in human progress and experimentation led to the Industrial Revolution. The perspective, believes Clancy, is supported by a 2023 study that examined thousands of political and scientific books from the 1500s–1700s. That research shows a growing interest in progress during that period. Sounds plausible.

But now, we learn, innovation appears to be in decline. Research output per scientist has decreased since 1960, despite increased funding. Productivity growth and technological output are also slowing. Is this because our culture has grown less interested in invention? To hear Clancy tell it, probably not. A more likely suspect is what economist Ben Jones dubbed the Burden of Knowledge. Basically, as humanity makes discoveries that build on each other, each human scientist has more to learn before they can contribute new ideas. This also means more individual specialization and more teamwork. Of course, adding meetings to the mix slows everything down.

The economist has suggestions, like funding models that reward risk-taking. He also believes artificial intelligence will significantly speed things up. Probably—but will it send us careening down the wrong paths? AI will have to get far better at not making mistakes, or making stuff up, before we should trust it at the helm of human progress.

Cynthia Murrell, February 26, 2025

Innovation: Deepseek, Google, OpenAI, and the EU. Legal Eagles Aloft

February 11, 2025

dino orangeWe have smart software, but the dinobaby continues to do what 80 year olds do: Write the old-fashioned human way. We did give up clay tablets for a quill pen. Works okay.

I have been thinking about the allegations that the Deepseek crowd ripped off US smart software companies. Someone with whom I am not familiar expressed the point of view that the allegation will be probed. With open source goodness whizzing around, I am not sure how would make a distinction between one allegedly open source system and another allegedly open source system will work. I am confident the lawyers will figure innovation out because clever mathematical tricks and software optimization are that group of professionals’ core competency.

image

The basement sale approach to smart software: Professional, organized, and rewarding. Thanks OpenAI. (No, I did not generate this image with the Deepseek tools. I wouldn’t do that to you, Sam AI-Man.)

And thinking of innovation this morning, I found the write up in the Times of India titled “Google Not Happy With This $4.5 Billion Fine, Here’s What the Company Said.” [Editor’s note: The url is a wonky one indeed. If the link does not resolve, please, don’t write me and complain. Copy the article headline and use Bing or Google to locate a valid source. Failing that, just navigate to the Times of India and hunt for the source document there.] Innovation is the focus of the article, and the annoyance — even indignation bubbling beneath the surface of the Google stance — may foreshadow a legal dust up between OpenAI and Deepseek.

So what’s happening?

The Times of India reports with some delicacy:

Google is set to appeal a record €4.3 billion ($4.5 billion) antitrust fine imposed by the European Union seven years ago, a report claimed. Alphabet-owned company has argued that the penalty unfairly punished the company for its innovation in the Android mobile operating system. The appeal, heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, comes two years after a lower tribunal upheld the European Commission’s decision, which found Google guilty of using Android to restrict competition. However, the company claimed that its actions benefited consumers and fostered innovation in the mobile market. This new appeal comes after the lower court reduced the fine to 4.1 billion euros ($4.27 billion).

Yes, Google’s business systems and methods foster innovation in the mobile market. The issue is that Google has been viewed an anti competitive by some legal eagles in the US government as behaving in a way that is anti competitive. I recall the chatter about US high technology companies snuffing innovation. Has Google done that with its approach to Android?

The write up reports:

In this case, the Commission failed to discharge its burden and its responsibility and, relying on multiple errors of law, punished Google for its superior merits, attractiveness and innovation.” Lamadrid justified Google’s agreements that require phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search, the Chrome browser, and the Google Play app store on their Android devices, while also restricting them from adopting rival Android systems. Meanwhile, EU antitrust regulators argued that these conditions restricted competition.

Innovation seems to go hand in hand with pre-installing certain Google applications. The fact that Google allegedly restricts phone companies from “adopting rival Android systems” is a boost to innovation. Is this Google argument food for thought if Google and its Gemini unit decided to sue OpenAI for its smart software innovation.

One thing is clear. Google sees itself as fostering innovation, and it should not be punished for creating opportunities, employment, and benefits for those in the European Union. On the other hand, the Deepseek innovation is possibly improper because it delivered an innovation US high technology outfits did not deliver.

Adding some Chinese five-flavor spice to the recipe is the fact that the Deepseek innovation seems to be a fungible insight about US smart software embracing Google influenced open source methods. The thought that “innovation” will be determined in legal proceedings is interesting.

Is innovation crafted to preserve a dominant market share unfair? Is innovation which undermines US smart software companies improper? The perception of Google as an innovator, from my vantage, has dwindled. On the other hand, my perception of the Deepseek approach strikes me as unique. I have pointed out that the Deepseek innovation seems to deliver reasonably good results with a lower cost method. This is the Shein-Temu approach to competition. It works. Just ask Amazon.

Maybe the US will slap a huge find on Deepseek because the company innovated? The EU has decided to ring its cash register because Google allegedly inhibited innovation.

For technologists, the process of innovation is fraught with legal peril. Who benefits? I would suggest that the lawyers are at the head of the line for the upsides of this “innovation” issue.

Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2025

What Does One Do When Innovation Falters? Do the Me-Too Bop

February 10, 2025

Hopping Dino_thumbAnother dinobaby commentary. No smart software required.

I found the TechRadar story “In Surprise Move Microsoft Announces Deepseek R1 Is Coming to CoPilot+ PCs – Here’s How to Get It” an excellent example of bit tech innovation. The article states:

Microsoft has announced that, following the arrival of Deepseek R1 on Azure AI Foundry, you’ll soon be able to run an NPU-optimized version of Deepseek’s AI on your Copilot+ PC. This feature will roll out first to Qualcomm Snapdragon X machines, followed by Intel Core Ultra 200V laptops, and AMD AI chipsets.

Yep, me too, me too. The write up explains the ways in which one can use Deepseek, and I will leave taking that step to you. (On the other hand, navigate to Hugging Face and download it, or you could zip over to You.com and give it a try.)

The larger issue is not the speed with which Microsoft embraced the me too approach to innovation. For me, the decision illustrates the paucity of technical progress in one of the big technology giants. You know, Microsoft, the originator of Bob and the favorite software company of bad actors who advertise their malware on Telegram.

Several observations:

  1. It doesn’t matter how the Chinese start up nurtured by a venture capital firm got Deepseek to work. The Chinese outfit did it. Bang. The export controls and the myth of trillions of dollars to scale up disappeared. Poof.
  2. No US outfit — with or without US government support — was in the hockey rink when the Chinese team showed up and blasted a goal in the first few minutes of a global game. Buzz. 1 to zip. The question is, “Why not?” and “What’s happened since Microsoft triggered the crazy Code Red or whatever at the Google?” Answer: Burning money quickly.
  3. More pointedly, are the “innovations” in AI touted by Product Hunt and podcasters innovations? What if these are little more than wrappers with some snappy names? Answer: A reminder that technical training and some tactical kung fu can deliver a heck of a punch.

Net net: Deepseek was a tactical foray or probe. The data are in. Microsoft will install Chinese software in its global software empire. That’s interesting, and it underscores the problem of me to. Innovation takes more than raising prices and hiring a PR firm.

Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2025

Microsoft and Bob Think for Bing

February 4, 2025

Bing is not Google, but Microsoft wants its search engine to dominate queries. Microsoft Bing has a small percentage of Internet searches and in a bid to gain more traction it has copied Google’s user interface (UI). Windows Latest spills the tea over the UI copying: “Microsoft Bing Is Trying To Spoof Google UI When People Search Google.com."

Google’s UI is very distinctive with its minimalist approach. The only item on the Google UI is the query box and menus along the top and bottom of the page. Microsoft Edge is Google’s Web browser and it is programed to use Bing. In a sneaky (and genius) move, when Edge users type Google into the Bing search box they are taken to UI that is strangely Google-esque. Microsoft is trying this new UI to lower the Bing bounce rate, users who leave.

Is it an effective tactic?

“But you might wonder how effective this idea would be. Well, if you’re a tech-savvy person, you’ll probably realize what’s going on, then scroll and open Google from the link. However, this move could keep people on Bing if they just want to use a search engine. Google is the number one search engine, and there’s a large number of users who are just looking for a search engine, but they think the search engine is Google. In their mind, the two are the same. That’s because Google has become a synonym for search engines, just like Chrome is for browsers. A lot of users don’t really care what search engine they’re using, so Microsoft’s new practice, which might appear stupid to some of you, is likely very effective.”

For unobservant users and/or those who don’t care, it will work. Microsoft is also tugging on heartstrings with another tactic:

“On top of it, there’s also an interesting message underneath the Google-like search box that says “every search brings you closer to a free donation. Choose from over 2 million nonprofits. This might also convince some people to keep using Bing.”

What a generous and genius tactic! We’re not sure this is the interface everyone sees, but we love the me too approach from monopolies and alleged monopolies.

Whitney Grace, February 4, 2025

AI Innovation: Writing Checks Is the Google Solution

January 30, 2025

dino orangeA blog post from an authentic dinobaby. He’s old; he’s in the sticks; and he is deeply skeptical.

Wow. First, Jeff Dean gets the lateral arabesque. Then the Google shifts its smart software to the “I am a star” outfit Deep Mind in the UK. Now, the cuddly Google has, according to Analytics India, pulled a fast one on the wizards laboring at spelling advertising another surprise. “Google Invests $1 Bn in Anthropic” reports:

This new investment is separate from the company’s earlier reported funding round of nearly $2 billion earlier this month, led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, to bump the company’s valuation to about $60 billion. In 2023, Google had invested $300 million in Anthropic, acquiring a 10% stake in the company. In November last, Amazon led Anthropic’s $4 billion fundraising effort, raising its overall funding to $8 billion for the company.

I thought Google was quantumly supreme. I thought Google reinvented protein stuff. I thought Google could do podcasts and fix up a person’s Gmail. I obviously was wildly off the mark. Perhaps Google’s “leadership” has taken time from writing scripts for the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Tour and had an epiphany. Did the sketch go like this:

Prabhakar: Did you see the slide deck for my last talk about artificial intelligence?

Sundar: Yes, I thought it was so so. Your final slide was a hoot. Did you think it up?

Prabhakar: No, I think little. I asked Anthropic Claude for a snappy joke. It worked.

Sundar: Did Jeff Dean help? Did Dennis Hassabis contribute?

Prabhakar: No, just Claude Sonnet. He likes me, Sundar.

Sundar: The secret of life is honesty, fair dealing, and Code Yellow!

Prabhakar: I think Google intelligence may be a contradiction in terms. May I requisition another billion for Anthropic?

Sundar: Yes, we need to care about posterity. Otherwise, our posterity will be defined by a YouTube ad.

Prabhakar: We don’t want to take it in the posterity, do we?

Sundar: Well….

Anthropic allegedly will release a “virtual collaborator.” Google wants that, right Jeff and Dennis? Are there anti-trust concerns? Are there potential conflicts of interest? Are there fears about revenues?

Of course not.

Will someone turn off those darned flashing red and yellow lights! Innovation is tough with the sirens, the lights, the quantumly supremeness of Googleness.

Stephen E Arnold, January 30, 2025

AI Will Doom You to Poverty Unless You Do AI to Make Money

January 23, 2025

dino orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb Prepared by a still-alive dinobaby.

I enjoy reading snippets of the AI doomsayers. Some spent too much time worrying about the power of Joe Stalin’s approach to governing. Others just watched the Terminator series instead of playing touch football. A few “invented” AI by cobbling together incremental improvements in statistical procedures lashed to ever-more-capable computing infrastructures. A couple of these folks know that Nostradamus became a brand and want to emulate that predictive master.

I read “Godfather of AI Explains How Scary AI Will Increase the Wealth Gap and Make Society Worse.” That is a snappy title. Whoever wrote it crafted the idea of an explainer to fear. Plus, the click bait explains that homelessness is for you too. Finally, it presents a trope popular among the elder care set. (Remember, please, that I am a dinobaby myself.) Prod a group of senior citizens to a dinner and you will hear, “Everything is broken.” Also, “I am glad I am old.” Then there is the ever popular, “Those tattoos! The check out clerks cannot make change! I  don’t understand commercials!” I like to ask, “How many wars are going on now? Quick.”

two robots

Two robots plan a day trip to see the street people in Key West. Thanks, You.com. I asked for a cartoon; I get a photorealistic image. I asked for a coffee shop; I get weird carnival setting. Good enough. (That’s why I am not too worried.)

Is society worse than it ever was? Probably not. I have had an opportunity to visit a number of countries, go to college, work with intelligent (for the most part) people, and read books whilst sitting on the executive mailing tube. Human behavior has been consistent for a long time. Indigenous people did not go to Wegman’s or Whole Paycheck. Some herded animals toward a cliff. Other harvested the food and raw materials from the dead bison at the bottom of the cliff. There were no unskilled change makers at this food delivery location.

The write up says:

One of the major voices expressing these concerns is the ‘Godfather of AI’ himself Geoffrey Hinton, who is viewed as a leading figure in the deep learning community and has played a major role in the development of artificial neural networks. Hinton previously worked for Google on their deep learning AI research team ‘Google Brain’ before resigning in 2023 over what he expresses as the ‘risks’ of artificial intelligence technology.

My hunch is that like me the “worked at” Google was for a good reason — Money. Having departed from the land of volleyball and weird empty office buildings, Geoffrey Hinton is in the doom business. His vision is that there will be more poverty. There’s some poverty in Soweto and the other townships in South Africa. The slums of Rio are no Palm Springs. Rural China is interesting as well. Doesn’t everyone want to run a business from the area in front of a wooden structure adjacent an empty highway to nowhere? Sounds like there is some poverty around, doesn’t it?

The write up reports:

“We’re talking about having a huge increase in productivity. So there’s going to be more goods and services for everybody, so everybody ought to be better off, but actually it’s going to be the other way around. “It’s because we live in a capitalist society, and so what’s going to happen is this huge increase in productivity is going to make much more money for the big companies and the rich, and it’s going to increase the gap between the rich and the people who lose their jobs.”

The fix is to get rid of capitalism. The alternative? Kumbaya or a better version of those fun dudes Marx. Lenin, and Mao. I stayed in the “last” fancy hotel the USSR built in Tallinn, Estonia. News flash: The hotels near LaGuardia are quite a bit more luxurious.

The godfather then evokes the robot that wanted to kill a rebel. You remember this character. He said, “I’ll be back.” Of course, you will. Hollywood does not do originals.

The write up says:

Hinton’s worries don’t just stop at the wealth imbalance caused by AI too, as he details his worries about where AI will stop following investment from big companies in an interview with CBC News: “There’s all the normal things that everybody knows about, but there’s another threat that’s rather different from those, which is if we produce things that are more intelligent than us, how do we know we can keep control?” This is a conundrum that has circulated the development of robots and AI for years and years, but it’s seeming to be an increasingly relevant proposition that we might have to tackle sooner rather than later.

Yep, doom. The fix is to become an AI wizard, work at a Google-type outfit, cash out, and predict doom. It is a solid career plan. Trust me.

Stephen E Arnold, January 23, 2025

AI Doom: Really Smart Software Is Coming So Start Being Afraid, People

January 20, 2025

dino orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb Prepared by a still-alive dinobaby.

The essay “Prophecies of the Flood” gathers several comments about software that thinks and decides without any humans fiddling around. The “flood” metaphor evokes the streams of money about which money people fantasize. The word “flood” evokes the Hebrew Biblical idea’s presentation of a divinely initiated cataclysm intended to cleanse the Earth of widespread wickedness. Plus, one cannot overlook the image of small towns in North Carolina inundated in mud and debris from a very bad storm.

Screenshot 2025-01-12 055443

When the AI flood strikes as a form of divine retribution, will the modern arc be filled with humans? Nope. The survivors will be those smart agents infused with even smarter software. Tough luck, humanoids. Thanks, OpenAI, I knew you could deliver art that is good enough.

To sum up: A flood is bad news, people.

The essay states:

the researchers and engineers inside AI labs appear genuinely convinced they’re witnessing the emergence of something unprecedented. Their certainty alone wouldn’t matter – except that increasingly public benchmarks and demonstrations are beginning to hint at why they might believe we’re approaching a fundamental shift in AI capabilities. The water, as it were, seems to be rising faster than expected.

The signs of darkness, according to the essay, include:

  • Rising water in the generally predictable technology stream in the park populated with ducks
  • Agents that “do” something for the human user or another smart software system. To humans with MBAs, art history degrees, and programming skills honed at a boot camp, the smart software is magical. Merlin wears a gray T shirt, sneakers, and faded denims
  • Nifty art output in the form of images and — gasp! — videos.

The essay concludes:

The flood of intelligence that may be coming isn’t inherently good or bad – but how we prepare for it, how we adapt to it, and most importantly, how we choose to use it, will determine whether it becomes a force for progress or disruption. The time to start having these conversations isn’t after the water starts rising – it’s now.

Let’s assume that I buy this analysis and agree with the notion “prepare now.” How realistic is it that the United Nations, a couple of super powers, or a motivated individual can have an impact? Gentle reader, doom sells. Examples include The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, The Shifts and Shocks: What We’ve Learned – and Have Still to Learn – from the Financial Crisis, and Too Big to Fail: How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System from Crisis – and Themselves, and others, many others.

Have these dissections of problems had a material effect on regulators, elected officials, or the people in the bank down the street from your residence? Answer: Nope.

Several observations:

  1. Technology doom works because innovations have positive and negative impacts. To make technology exciting, no one is exactly sure what the knock on effects will be. Therefore, doom is coming along with the good parts
  2. Taking a contrary point of view creates opportunities to engage with those who want to hear something different. Insecurity is a powerful sales tool.
  3. Sending messages about future impacts pulls clicks. Clicks are important.

Net net: The AI revolution is a trope. Never mind that after decades of researchers’ work, a revolution has arrived. Lionel Messi allegedly said, “It took me 17 years to become an overnight success.” (Mr. Messi is a highly regarded professional soccer player.)

Will the ill-defined technology kill humans? Answer: Who knows. Will humans using ill-defined technology like smart software kill humans? Answer: Absolutely. Can “anyone” or “anything” take an action to prevent AI technology from rippling through society.  Answer: Nope.

Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2025

Apple and Some Withering Fruit: Is the Orchard on Fire?

January 14, 2025

Hopping DinoA dinobaby-crafted post. I confess. I used smart software to create the heart wrenching scene of a farmer facing a tough 2025.

Apple is a technology giant, a star in the universe of bytes. At the starter’s gun for 2025, Apple may have some work to do. For example, I read “Apple’s China Troubles Mount as Foreign Phone Sales Sink for 4th Month.” (For now, this is a trust outfit story, but a few months down the road the information may originate from the “real” news powerhouse Gannet. Imagine that.) The “trusted” outfit Reuters stated:

Apple, the dominant foreign smartphone maker in China, faces a slowing economy and competition from domestic rivals, such as Huawei…. Apple briefly fell out of China’s top five smartphone vendors in the second quarter of 2024 before recovering in the third quarter. The U.S. company’s smartphone sales in China still slipped 0.3% during the third quarter from a year earlier, while Huawei’s sales rose 42%, according to research firm IDC.

I think this means that Apple is losing share in what may have been a very juicy market. Can it get this fertile revenue field producing in-demand Fuji Apples to market? With a new US administration coming down the information highway, it is possible that the iPhone’s pop up fruit stand could be blown off the side of the main road.

image

An apple farmer grasps the problem fruit blight poses. Thanks, You.com you produced okay fruit blight when ChatGPT told me that an orchard with fruit blight was against is guidelines. Helpful, right?

Another issue Apple faces in a different orchard regards privacy. “Apple to Pay $95 Million to Settle Siri Privacy Lawsuit” reports:

Apple agreed to pay $95 million in cash to settle a proposed class action lawsuit claiming that its voice-activated Siri assistant violated users’ privacy…. Mobile device owners complained that Apple routinely recorded their private conversations after they activated Siri unintentionally, and disclosed these conversations to third parties such as advertisers.

Yeah, what about those privacy protections? What about those endless “Log in to your Facetime” when our devices don’t use Facetime. Hey, that is just Apple being so darned concerned about privacy. Will Apple pay or will it appeal? I won’t trouble you with my answer. Legal eagles love these fertile fields.

I don’t want to overlook the Apple AI. Yahoo recycled a story from Digital Intelligence called “The Good and Bad of Apple Intelligence after Using It on My iPhone for Months.” The Yahoo version of the story said:

I was excited to check out more Apple Intelligence features when I got the iOS 18.2 update on my iPhone 16 Pro. But aside from what I’ve already mentioned, the rest isn’t as exciting. I already hate AI art in general, so I wasn’t too thrilled about Image Playground. However, since it’s a new feature, I had to try it at least once. I tried to get Apple Intelligence to generate an AI image of me, in various scenarios, to perhaps share on social media. But every result I got did not look good to me, and I felt it had no actual resemblance to my image. It kept giving me odd-looking teeth in my smiles, hair that looked nothing like what I had, and other imperfections. I wasn’t expecting a perfect picture, but I was hoping I would get something that would be decent enough to share online — dozens of tries, and I wasn’t happy with any of them. I suppose my appearance doesn’t work with Apple’s AI art style? Whatever the reason is, my experience with it hasn’t been positive.

Yep, bad teeth. Perhaps the person has eaten too many apples?

Looking at these three allegedly accurate news stories what do I hypothesize about Apple in 2025:

  1. Apple will become increasingly desperate to generate revenue. Let’s face it the multi-thousand dollar Vision Pro headset and virtual Apple TV may fill the Chinese iPhone sales hole.
  2. Apple simply does what it wants to do with regard to privacy. From automatic iPhone reboots to smarmy talk about accidentally sucking down user data, the company cannot be trusted in 2025 in my opinion.
  3. Apple’s innovation is stalled. One of my colleagues told me Apple rolled out two dozen “new” products in 2025. I must confess that I cannot name one of them. The fruitarian seemed to be able to get my attention with “one more thing.” Today’s Apple  has some discoloration.

Net net: The orchard needs a more skilled agrarian, fertilizer, and some luck with the business climate. Failing that, another bad crop may be ahead.

Stephen E Arnold, January 14, 2025

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta