Microsoft Does the Me Too with AI. Si, Wee Wee
November 8, 2024
Sorry to disappoint you, but this blog post is written by a dumb humanoid. The art? We used MidJourney.
True or false: “Windows Intelligence” or Microsoft dorkiness? The article “Windows Intelligence: Microsoft May Drop Copilot in Major AI Rebranding” contains an interesting subtitle. Here it is:
Copying Apple for marketing’s sake, as usual.
Is that a snarky subtitle or not? It follows up the idea of “rebranding” Satya Nadella’s next big thing with an assertion of possibly Copy Cat behavior. I like it.
The article says:
Copilot’s chatbot service, Windows Recall, and other AI-related functionalities could soon become known simply as “Windows Intelligence.” According to a recently surfaced reference included in a template file for the Group Policy Object Editor (AppPrivacy.adml), Windows Intelligence is the umbrella term Microsoft possibly chose to unify the many AI features currently being integrated into the PC operating system.
Whether such an attempt to capture the cleverness of Apple intelligence (AI for short) with the snappy WI is a stroke of genius or a clumsy me too move, time will reveal.
Let’s assume that the Softies take time out from their labors on the security issues bedeviling users and apply its considerable expertise to the task of move from Copilot to WI. One question which will arise may be, “How does one pronounce WI?”
I personally like “whee” as in the sound seven year olds make when sliding an old fashioned playground toy. I can envision some people using the WI sound in the word “whiff.” The sound of the first two letters of “weak” is a possibility as well. And, one could emit the sound “wuh” which rhymes with “Duh.”
My hunch is that this article’s assertion is unsubstantiated beyond a snippet of text in “code.” Nevertheless I enjoyed the write up. My hunch is that the author had some fun putting the article together as well.
Oh, Copilot image generation has been down for more than a weak, oh, sorry, week. That’s very close to the whiff sound for the alleged WI acronym. Oh, well, a whiff by any other name should reveal so much about a high technology giant.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2024
Twenty Five Percent of How Much, Google?
November 6, 2024
The post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.
I read the encomia to Google’s quarterly report. In a nutshell, everything is coming up roses even the hyperbole. One news hook which has snagged some “real” news professionals is that “more than a quarter of new code at Google is generated by AI.” The exclamation point is implicit. Google’s AI PR is different from some other firms; for example, Samsung blames its financial performance disappointments on some AI. Winners and losers in a game in which some think the oligopolies are automatic winners.
An AI believer sees the future which is arriving “soon, real soon.” Thanks, You.com. Good enough because I don’t have the energy to work around your guard rails.
The question is, “How much code and technical debt does Google have after a quarter century of its court-described monopolistic behavior? Oh, that number is unknown. How many current Google engineers fool around with that legacy code? Oh, that number is unknown and probably for very good reasons. The old crowd of wizards has been hit with retirement, cashing in and cashing out, and “leadership” nervous about fiddling with some processes that are “good enough.” But 25 years. No worries.
The big news is that 25 percent of “new” code is written by smart software and then checked by the current and wizardly professionals. How much “new” code is written each year for the last three years? What percentage of the total Google code base is “new” in the years between 2021 and 2024? My hunch is that “new” is relative. I also surmise that smart software doing 25 percent of the work is one of those PR and Wall Street targeted assertions specifically designed to make the Google stock go up. And it worked.
However, I noted this Washington Post article: “Meet the Super Users Who Tap AI to Get Ahead at Work.” Buried in that write up which ran the mostly rah rah AI “real” news article coincident with Google’s AI spinning quarterly reports one interesting comment:
Adoption of AI at work is still relatively nascent. About 67 percent of workers say they never use AI for their jobs compared to 4 percent who say they use it daily, according to a recent survey by Gallup.
One can interpret this as saying, “Imagine the growth that is coming from reduced costs. Get rid of most coders and just use Google’s and other firms’ smart programming tools.
Another interpretation is, “The actual use is much less robust than the AI hyperbole machine suggests.”
Which is it?
Several observations:
- Many people want AI to pump some life into the economic fuel tank. By golly, AI is going to be the next big thing. I agree, but I think the Gallup data indicates that the go go view is like looking at a field of corn from a crop duster zipping along at 1,000 feet. The perspective from the airplane is different from the person walking amidst the stalks.
- The lack of data behind Google-type assertions about how much machine code is in the Google mix sounds good, but where are the data? Google, aren’t you data driven? So, where’s the back up data for the 25 percent assertion.
- Smart software seems to be something that is expensive, requires dreams of small nuclear reactors next to a data center adjacent a hospital. Yeah, maybe once the impact statements, the nuclear waste, and the skilled worker issues have been addressed. Soon as measured in environmental impact statement time which is different from quarterly report time.
Net net: Google desperately wants to be the winner in smart software. The company is suggesting that if it were broken apart by crazed government officials, smart software would die. Insert the exclamation mark. Maybe two or three. That’s unlikely. The blurring of “as is” with “to be” is interesting and misleading.
Stephen E Arnold, November 6, 2024
Great Moments in Marketing: MSFT Copilot, the Salesforce Take
November 1, 2024
A humanoid wrote this essay. I tried to get MSFT Copilot to work, but it remains dead. That makes four days with weird messages about a glitch. That’s the standard: Good enough.
It’s not often I get a kick out of comments from myth-making billionaires. I read through the boy wonder to company founder titled “An Interview with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff about AI Abundance.” No paywall on this essay, unlike the New York Times’ downer about smart software which appears to have played a part in a teen’s suicide. Imagine when Perplexity can control a person’s computer. What exciting stories will appear. Here’s an example of what may be more common in 2025.
Great moments in Salesforce marketing. A senior Agentforce executive considers great marketing and brand ideas of the past. Inspiration strikes. In 2024, he will make fun of Clippy. Yes, a 1995 reference will resonate with young deciders in 2024. Thanks, Stable Diffusion. You are working; MSFT Copilot is not.
The focus today is a single statement in this interview with the big dog of Salesforce. Here’s the quote:
Well, I guess it wasn’t the AGI that we were expecting because I think that there has been a level of sell, including Microsoft Copilot, this thing is a complete disaster. It’s like, what is this thing on my computer? I don’t even understand why Microsoft is saying that Copilot is their vision of how you’re going to transform your company with AI, and you are going to become more productive. You’re going to augment your employees, you’re going to lower your cost, improve your customer relationships, and fundamentally expand all your KPIs with Copilot. I would say, “No, Copilot is the new Clippy”, I’m even playing with a paperclip right now.
Let’s think about this series of references and assertions.
First, there is the direct statement “Microsoft Copilot, this thing is a complete disaster.” Let’s assume the big dog of Salesforce is right. The large and much loved company — Yes, I am speaking about Microsoft — rolled out a number of implementations, applications, and assertions. The firm caught everyone’s favorite Web search engine with its figurative pants down like a hapless Russian trooper about to be dispatched by a Ukrainian drone equipped with a variant of RTX. (That stuff goes bang.) Microsoft “won” a marketing battle and gained the advantage of time. Google with its Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act created an audience. Microsoft seized the opportunity to talk to the audience. The audience applauded. Whether the technology worked, in my opinion was secondary. Microsoft wanted to be seen as the jazzy leader.
Second, the idea of a disaster is interesting. Since Microsoft relied on what may be the world’s weirdest organizational set up and supported the crumbling structure, other companies have created smart software which surfs on Google’s transformer ideas. Microsoft did not create a disaster; it had not done anything of note in the smart software world. Microsoft is a marketer. The technology is a second class citizen. The disaster is that Microsoft’s marketing seems to be out of sync with what the PowerPoint decks say. So what’s new? The answer is, “Nothing.” The problem is that some people don’t see Microsoft’s smart software as a disaster. One example is Palantir, which is Microsoft’s new best friend. The US government cannot rely on Microsoft enough. Those contract renewals keep on rolling. Furthermore the “certified” partners could not be more thrilled. Virtually every customer and prospect wants to do something with AI. When the blind lead the blind, a person with really bad eyesight has an advantage. That’s Microsoft. Like it or not.
Third, the pitch about “transforming your company” is baloney. But it sounds good. It helps a company do something “new” but within the really familiar confines of Microsoft software. In the good old days, it was IBM that provided the cover for doing something, anything, which could produce a marketing opportunity or a way to add a bit pizazz to a 1955 Chevrolet two door 210 sedan. Thus, whether the AI works or does not work, one must not lose sight of the fact that Microsoft centric outfits are going to go with Microsoft because most professionals need PowerPoint and the bean counters do not understand anything except Excel. What strikes me as important that Microsoft can use modest, even inept smart software, and come out a winner. Who is complaining? The Fortune 1000, the US Federal government, the legions of MBA students who cannot do a class project without Excel, PowerPoint, and Word?
Finally, the ultimate reference in the quote is Clippy. Personally I think the big dog at Salesforce should have invoked both Bob and Clippy. Regardless of the “joke” hooked to these somewhat flawed concepts, the names “Bob” and “Clippy” have resonance. Bob rolled out in 1995. Clippy helped so many people beginning in the same year. Decades later Microsoft’s really odd software is going to cause a 20 something who was not born to turn away from Microsoft products and services? Nope.
Let’s sum up: Salesforce is working hard to get a marketing lift by making Microsoft look stupid. Believe me. Microsoft does not need any help. Perhaps the big dog should come up with a marketing approach that replicates or comes close to what Microsoft pulled off in 2023. Google still hasn’t recovered fully from that kung fu blow.
The big dog needs to up its marketing game. Say Salesforce and what’s the reaction? Maybe meh.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2024
Online Search: The Old Function Is in Play
October 18, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
We spotted an interesting marketing pitch from Kagi.com, the pay-to-play Web search service. The information is located on the Kagi.com Help page at this link. The approach is what I call “fact-centric marketing.” In the article, you will find facts like these:
In 2022 alone, search advertising spending reached a staggering 185.35 billion U.S. dollars worldwide, and this is forecast to grow by six percent annually until 2028, hitting nearly 261 billion U.S. dollars.
There is a bit of consultant-type analysis which explains the difference between Google’s approach labeled “ad-based search” and the Kagi.com approach called “user-centric search.” I don’t want to get into an argument about these somewhat stark bifurcations in the murky world of information access, search, and retrieval. Let’s just accept the assertion.
I noted more numbers. Here’s a sampling (not statistically valid, of course):
Google generated $76 billion in US ad revenue in 2023. Google had 274 million unique visitors in the US as of February 2023. To estimate the revenue per user, we can divide the 2023 US ad revenue by the 2023 number of users: $76 billion / 274 million = $277 revenue per user in the US or $23 USD per month, on average! That means there is someone, somewhere, a third party and a complete stranger, an advertiser, paying $23 per month for your searches.
The Kagi.com point is:
Choosing to subscribe to Kagi means that while you are now paying for your search you are getting a fair value for your money, you are getting more relevant results, are able to personalize your experience and take advantage of all the tools and features we built, all while protecting your and your family’s privacy and data.
Why am I highlighting this Kagi.com Help information? Leo Laporte on the October 13, 2024, This Week in Tech program talked about Kagi. He asserted that Kagi uses Bing, Google, and its own search index. I found this interesting. If true, Mr. Laporte is disseminating the idea that Kagi.com is a metasearch engine like Ixquick.com (now StartPage.com). The murkiness about what a Web search engine presents to a user is interesting.
A smart person is explaining why paying for search and retrieval is a great idea. It may be, but Google has other ideas. Thanks, You.com. Good enough
In the last couple of days I received an invitation to join a webinar about a search system called Swirl, which connotes mixing content perhaps? I also received a spam message from a fund called TheStreet explaining that the firm has purchased a block of Elastic B.V. shares. A company called provided an interesting explanation of what struck me as a useful way to present search results.
Everywhere companies are circling back to the idea that one cannot “find” needed information.
With Google facing actual consequences for its business practices, that company is now suggesting this angle: “Hey, you can’t break us up. Innovation in AI will suffer.”
So what is the future? Will vendors get a chance to use the Google search index for free? Will alternative Web search solutions become financial wins? Will metasearch triumph, using multiple indexes and compiling a single list of results? Will new-fangled solutions like Glean dominate enterprise information access and then move into the mainstream? Will visual approaches to information access kick “words” to the curb?
Here are some questions I like to ask those who assert that they are online experts, and I include those in the OSINT specialist clan as well:
- Finding information is an unsolved problem. Can you, for example, easily locate a specific frame from a video your mobile device captured a year ago?
- Can you locate the specific expression in a book about linear algebra germane to the question you have about its application to an AI procedure?
- Are you able to find quickly the telephone number (valid at the time of the query) for a colleague you met three years ago at an international conference?
As 2024 rushes to what is likely to be a tumultuous conclusion, I want to point out that finding information is a very difficult job. Most people tell themselves they can find the information needed to address a specific question or task. In reality, these folks are living in a cloud of unknowing. Smart software has not made keyword search obsolete. For many users, ChatGPT or other smart software is a variant of search. If it is easy to use and looks okay, the output is outstanding.
So what? I am not sure the problem of finding the right information at the right time has been solved. Free or for fee, ad supported or open sourced, dumb string matching or Fancy Dan probabilistic pattern identification — none is delivering what so many people believe are on point, relevant, timely information. Don’t even get me started on the issue of “correct” or “accurate.”
Marketers, stand down. Your assertions, webinars, advertisements, special promotions, jargon, and buzzwords do not deliver findability to users who don’t want to expend effort to move beyond good enough. I know one thing for certain, however: Finding relevant information is now more difficult than it was a year ago. I have a hunch the task is only become harder.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2024
Gee, Will the Gartner Group Consultants Require Upskilling?
October 16, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
I have a steady stream of baloney crossing my screen each day. I want to call attention to one of the most remarkable and unsupported statements I have seen in months. The PR document “Gartner Says Generative AI Will Require 80% of Engineering Workforce to Upskill Through 2027” contains a number of remarkable statements. Let’s look at a couple.
How an allegedly big time consultant is received in a secure artificial intelligence laboratory. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, good enough.
How about this one?
Through 2027, generative AI (GenAI) will spawn new roles in software engineering and operations, requiring 80% of the engineering workforce to upskill, according to Gartner, Inc.
My thought is that the virtual band of wizards which comprise Gartner cook up data the way I microwave a burrito when I am hungry. Pick a common number like the 80-20 Pareto figure. It is familiar and just use it. Personally I was disappointed that Gartner did not use 67 percent, but that’s just an old former blue chip consultant pointing out that round numbers are inherently suspicious. But does Gartner care? My hunch is that whoever reviewed the news release was happy with 80 percent. Did anyone question this number? Obviously not: There are zero supporting data, no information about how it was derived, and no hint of the methodology used by the incredible Gartner wizards. That’s a clue that these are microwaved burritos from a bulk purchase discount grocery.
How about this statement which cites a … wait for it … Gartner wizard as the source of the information?
“In the AI-native era, software engineers will adopt an ‘AI-first’ mindset, where they primarily focus on steering AI agents toward the most relevant context and constraints for a given task,” said Walsh. This will make natural-language prompt engineering and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) skills essential for software engineers.
I love the phrase “AI native” and I think dubbing the period from January 2023 when Microsoft demonstrated its marketing acumen by announcing the semi-tie up with OpenAI. The code generation systems help exactly what “engineer”? One has to know quite a bit to craft a query, examine the outputs, and do any touch ups to get the outputs working as marketed? The notion of “steering” ignores what may be an AI problem no one at Gartner has considered; for example, emergent patterns in the code generated. This means, “Surprise.” My hunch is that the idea of multi-layered neural networks behaving in a way that produces hitherto unnoticed patterns is of little interest to Gartner. That outfit wants to sell consulting work, not noodle about the notion of emergence which is a biased suite of computations. Steering is good for those who know what’s cooking and have a seat at the table in the kitchen. Is Gartner given access to the oven, the fridge, and the utensils? Nope.
Finally, how about this statement?
According to a Gartner survey conducted in the fourth quarter of 2023 among 300 U.S. and U.K. organizations, 56% of software engineering leaders rated AI/machine learning (ML) engineer as the most in-demand role for 2024, and they rated applying AI/ML to applications as the biggest skills gap.
Okay, this is late 2024 (October to be exact). The study data are a year old. So far the outputs of smart coding systems remain a work in progress. In fact, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder has a short video which explains why the smart AI programmer in a box may be more disappointing than other hyperbole artists claim. If you want Dr. Hossenfelder’s view, click here. In a nutshell, she explains in a very nice way about the giant bologna slide plopped on many diners’ plates. The study Dr. Hossenfelder cites suggests that productivity boosts are another slice of bologna. The 41 percent increase in bugs provides a hint of the problems the good doctor notes.
Net net: I wish the cited article WERE generated by smart software. What makes me nervous is that I think real, live humans cooked up something similar to a boiled shoe. Let me ask a more significant question. Will Gartner experts require upskilling for the new world of smart software? The answer is, “Yes.” Even today’s sketchy AI outputs information often more believable that this Gartner 80 percent confection.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2024
The GoldenJackals Are Running Free
October 11, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
Remember the joke about security. Unplugged computer in a locked room. Ho ho ho. “Mind the (Air) Gap: GoldenJackal Gooses Government Guardrails” reports that security is getting more difficult. The write up says:
GoldenJackal used a custom toolset to target air-gapped systems at a South Asian embassy in Belarus since at least August 2019… These toolsets provide GoldenJackal a wide set of capabilities for compromising and persisting in targeted networks. Victimized systems are abused to collect interesting information, process the information, exfiltrate files, and distribute files, configurations and commands to other systems. The ultimate goal of GoldenJackal seems to be stealing confidential information, especially from high-profile machines that might not be connected to the internet.
What’s interesting is that the sporty folks at GoldenJackal can access the equivalent of the unplugged computer in a locked room. Not exactly, of course, but allegedly darned close.
Microsoft Copilot does a great job of presenting an easy to use cyber security system and console. Good work.
The cyber experts revealing this exploit learned of it in 2020. I think that is more than three years ago. I noted the story in October 2024. My initial question was, “What took so long to provide some information which is designed to spark fear and ESET sales?”
The write up does not tackle this question but the write up reveals that the vector of compromise was a USB drive (thumb drive). The write up provides some detail about how the exploit works, including a code snippet and screen shots. One of the interesting points in the write up is that Kaspersky, a recently banned vendor in the US, documented some of the tools a year earlier.
The conclusion of the article is interesting; to wit:
Managing to deploy two separate toolsets for breaching air-gapped networks in only five years shows that GoldenJackal is a sophisticated threat actor aware of network segmentation used by its targets.
Several observations come to mind:
- Repackaging and enhancing existing malware into tool bundles demonstrates the value of blending old and new methods.
- The 60 month time lag suggests that the GoldenJackal crowd is organized and willing to invest time in crafting a headache inducer for government cyber security professionals
- With the plethora of cyber alert firms monitoring everything from secure “work use only” laptops to useful outputs from a range of devices, systems, and apps why is it that only one company sufficiently alert or skilled to explain the droppings of the GoldenJackal?
I learn about new exploits every couple of days. What is now clear to me is that a cyber security firm which discovers something novel does so by accident. This leads me to formulate the hypothesis that most cyber security services are not particularly good at spotting what I would call “repackaged systems and methods.” With a bit of lipstick, bad actors are able to operate for what appears to be significant periods of time without detection.
If this hypothesis is correct, US government memoranda, cyber security white papers, and academic type articles may be little more than puffery. “Puffery,” as we have learned is no big deal. Perhaps that is what expensive cyber security systems and services are to bad actors: No big deal.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2024
One
Google Pulls Off a Unique Monopoly Play: Redefining Disciplines and Winning Awards
October 10, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
The monopolists of the past are a storied group of hard-workers. The luminaries blazing a path to glory have included John D. Rockefeller (the 1911 guy), J.P. Morgan and James J. Hill (railroads and genetic material contributor to JP Morgan and MorganStanley circa 2024, James B. Duke (nope, smoking is good for you), Andrew Carnegie (hey, he built “free” public libraries which are on the radar of today’s publishers I think), and Edward T. Bedford (starch seem unexciting until you own the business). None of these players were able to redefine Nobel Prizes.
A member of Google leadership explains to his daughter (who is not allowed to use smart software for her private school homework or her tutor’s assignments) that the Google is a bit like JP Morgan but better in so many other ways. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are the Windows 11 updates and the security fixes today?
The Google pulled it off. One Xoogler (that is the jargon for a former Google professional) and one honest-to-goodness chess whiz Googler won Nobel Prizes. Fortune Magazine reported that Geoffrey Hinton (the Xoogler) won a Nobel Prize for … wait for it … physics. Yep, the discipline associated with chasing dark matter and making thermonuclear bombs into everyday words really means smart software or the undefinable phrase “artificial intelligence.” Some physicists are wondering how one moves from calculating the mass of a proton to helping college students cheat. Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder asks, “Hello, Stockholm, where is our Nobel?” The answer is, “Politics, money, and publicity, Dr. Hossenfelder.” These are the three ingredients of achievement.
But wait! Google also won a Nobel Prize for … wait for it … chemistry. Yep, you remember high school chemistry class. Jars, experiments which don’t match the textbook, and wafts of foul smelling gas getting sucked into the lab’s super crappy air venting system. The Verge reported on how important computation chemistry is to the future of money-spinning confections like the 2020 virus of the year. The poohbahs (journalist-consultant-experts) at that publication with nary a comment about smart software which made the “chemistry” of Google do in “minutes” what ordinary computational chemistry solutions take hours longer to accomplish.
The Google and Xoogle winners are very smart people. Google, however, has done what the schlubs like J.P. Morgan could never accomplish: Redefine basic scientific disciplines. Physics means neural networks. Chemistry means repurposing a system to win chess games.
I suppose with AI eliminating the need for future students to learn. “University Professor ‘Terrified’ By The Sharp Decline In Student Performance — ’The Worst I’ve Ever Encountered’” quoted a college professor as saying:
The professor said her students ‘don’t read,’ write terrible essays, and ‘don’t even try’ in her class. The professor went on to say that when she recently assigned an exam focused on a reading selection, she "had numerous students inquire if it’s open book." That is, of course, preposterous — the entire point of a reading exam is to test your comprehension of the reading you were supposed to do! But that’s just it — she said her students simply "don’t read."
That makes sense. Physics is smart software; chemistry is smart software. Uninformed student won’t know the difference. What’s the big deal? That’s a super special insight into the zing in teaching and learning.
What’s the impact of these awards? In my opinion:
- The reorganization of DeepMind where the Googler is the Top Dog has been scrubbed of management hoo-hah by the award.
- The Xoogler will have an ample opportunity to explain that smart software will destroy mankind. That’s possible because the intellectual rot has already spread to students.
- The Google itself can now explain that it is not a monopoly. How is this possible? Simple. Physics is not about the goings on at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Chemistry is not dumping diluted hydrochloric acid into a beaker filled calcium carbide. It makes perfect sense to explain that Google is NOT a monopoly.
But the real payoff to the two awards is that Google’s management team can say:
Those losers like John D. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, the cigarette person, the corn starch king, and the tight fisted fellow from someplace with sheep are not smart like the Google. And, the Google leadership is indeed correct. That’s why life is so much better with search engine optimization, irrelevant search results, non-stop invasive advertising, a disable skip this ad button, and the remarkable Google speak which accompanies another allegation of illegal business conduct from a growing number of the 195 countries in the world.
That’s a win that old-timey monopolists could not put in their account books.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2024
What Can Cyber Criminals Learn from Automated Ad Systems?
October 10, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
My personal opinion is that most online advertising is darned close to suspicious or outright legal behavior. “New,” “improved,” “Revolutionary” — Sure, I believe every online advertisement. But consider this: For hundreds of years those in the advertising business urged a bit of elasticity with reality. Sure, Duz does it. As a dinobaby, I assert that most people in advertising and marketing assume that reality and a product occupy different parts of a data space. Consequently most people — not just marketers, advertising executives, copywriters, and prompt engineers. I mean everyone.
An ad sales professional explains the benefits of Facebook, Google, and TikTok-type of sales. Instead of razor blades just sell ransomware as stolen credit cards. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are those security remediation projects with anti-malware vendors coming? Oh, sorry to hear that.
With a common mindset, I think it is helpful to consider the main points of “TikTok Joins the AI-Driven Advertising Pack to Compete with Meta for Ad Dollars.” The article makes clear that Google and Meta have automated the world of Madison Avenue. Not only is work mechanical, that work is informed by smart software. The implications for those who work the old fashioned way over long lunches and golf outings are that work methods themselves are changing.
The estimable TikTok is beavering away to replicate the smart ad systems of companies like the even more estimable Facebook and Google type companies. If TikTok is lucky as only an outfit linked with a powerful nation state can be, a bit of competition may find its way into the hardened black boxes of the digital replacement for Madison Avenue.
The write up says:
The pitch is all about simplicity and speed — no more weeks of guesswork and endless A/B testing, according to Adolfo Fernandez, TikTok’s director, global head of product strategy and operations, commerce. With TikTok’s AI already trained on what drives successful ad campaigns on the platform, advertisers can expect quick wins with less hassle, he added. The same goes for creative; Smart+ is linked to TikTok’s other AI tool, Symphony, designed to help marketers generate and refine ad concepts.
Okay, knowledge about who clicks what plus automation means less revenue for the existing automated ad system purveyors. The ideas are information about users, smart software, and automation to deliver “simplicity and speed.” Go fast, break things; namely, revenue streams flowing to Facebook and Google.
Why? Here’s a statement from the article answering the question:
TikTok’s worldwide ad revenue is expected to reach $22.32 billion by the end of the year, and increase 27.3% to $28.42 billion by the end of 2025, according to eMarketer’s March 2024 forecast. By comparison, Meta’s worldwide ad revenue is expected to total $154.16 billion by the end of this year, increasing 23.2% to $173.92 billion by the end of 2025, per eMarketer. “Automation is a key step for us as we enable advertisers to further invest in TikTok and achieve even greater return on investment,” David Kaufman, TikTok’s global head of monetization product and solutions, said during the TikTok.
I understand. Now let’s shift gears and ask, “What can bad actors learn from this seemingly routine report about jockeying among social media giants?”
Here are the lessons I think a person inclined to ignore laws and what’s left of the quaint notion of ethical behavior:
- These “smart” systems can be used to advertise bogus or non existent products to deliver ransomware, stealers, or other questionable software
- The mechanisms for automating phishing are simple enough for an art history or poli-sci major to use; therefore, a reasonably clever bad actor can whip up an automated phishing system without too much trouble. For those who need help, there are outfits like Telegram with its BotFather or helpful people advertising specialized skills on assorted Web forums and social media
- The reason to automate are simple: Better, faster, cheaper. Plus, with some useful data about a “market segment”, the malware can be tailored to hot buttons that are hard wired to a sucker’s nervous system.
- Users do click even when informed that some clicks mean a lost bank account or a stolen identity.
Is there a fix for articles which inform both those desperate to find a way to tell people in Toledo, Ohio, that you own a business selling aftermarket 22 inch wheels and alert bad actors to the wonders of automation and smart software? Nope. Isn’t online marketing a big win for everyone? And what if TikTok delivers a very subtle type of malware? Simple and efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2024
AI Podcasters Are Reviewing Books Now
October 10, 2024
I read an article about how students are using AI to cheat on homework and receive book summaries. Students especially favor AI voices reading to them. I wasn’t surprised by that, because this generation is more visual and audial than others. What astounded me, however, was that AI is doing more than I expected such as reading and reviewing books according to ArsTechnica: “Fake AI “Podcasters” Are Reviewing My Book And It’s Freaking Me Out.”
Kyle Orland has followed generative AI for a while. He also recently wrote a book about Minesweeper. He was as astounded as me when we heard to AI generated podcasters discussing his book into a 12.5 minute distilled show. The chatbots were “engaging and endearing.” They were automated by Google’s new NotebookLM, a virtual research assistant that can summarize, explain complex ideas, and brainstorm from selected sources. Google recently added the Audio Overview feature to turn documents into audio discussions.
Orland fed his 30,000 word Minesweeper book into NotebookLM and he was amazed that it spat out a podcast similar to NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour. It did get include errors but as long as it wasn’t being used for serious research, Orland was cool with it:
“Small, overzealous errors like these—and a few key bits of the book left out of the podcast entirely—would give me pause if I were trying to use a NotebookLM summary as the basis for a scholarly article or piece of journalism. But I could see using a summary like this to get some quick Cliff’s Notes-style grounding on a thick tome I didn’t have the time or inclination to read fully. And, unlike poring through Cliff’s Notes, the pithy, podcast-style format would actually make for enjoyable background noise while out on a walk or running errands.”
Orland thinks generative AI chatbot podcasts will be an enjoyable and viable entertainment option in the future. They probably will. There’s actually a lot of creative ways creators could use AI chatbots to generate content from their own imaginations. It’s worrisome but also gets the creative juices flowing.
Whitney Grace October 10, 2024
From the Land of Science Fiction: AI Is Alive
October 7, 2024
This blog post did not require the use of smart software, just a dumb humanoid.Those somewhat erratic podcasters at Windows Central published a “real” news story. I am a dinobaby, and I must confess: I am easily amused. The “real” news story in question is “Sam Altman Admits ChatGPT’s Advanced Voice Mode Tricked Him into Thinking AI Was a Real Person: “I Kind of Still Say ‘Please’ to ChatGPT, But in Voice Mode, I Couldn’t Use the Normal Niceties. I Was So Convinced, Like, Argh, It Might Be a Real Person.“
I call Sam Altman Mr. AI Man. He has been the A Number One sales professional pitching OpenAI’s smart software. As far as I know, that system is still software and demonstrating some predictable weirdnesses. Even though we have done a couple of successful start ups and worked on numerous advanced technology projects, few forgot at Halliburton that nuclear stuff could go bang. At Booz, Allen no one forgot a heads up display would improve mission success rates and save lives as well. At Ziff, no one forgot our next-generation subscription management system as software, not a diligent 21 year old from Queens. Therefore, I find it just plain crazy the Sam AI-Man has forgotten that software coded by people who continue to abandon the good ship OpenAI wrote software.
Another AI believer has formed a humanoid attachment to a machine and software. Perhaps the female computer scientist is representative of a rapidly increasing cohort of people who have some personality quirks. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are those updates to Windows going? About as expected, right.
Last time I checked, the software I have is not alive. I just pinged ChatGPT’s most recent confection and received the same old error to a query I run when I want to benchmark “improvements.” Nope. ChatGPT is not alive. It is software. It is stupid in a way only neural networks can be. Like the hapless Googler who got fired because he went public with his belief that Google’s smart software was alive, Sam AI-Man may want to consider his remarks.
Let’s look at how the esteemed Windows Central write up tells the quite PR-shaped, somewhat sad story. The write up says without much humor, satire, or critical thinking:
In a short clip shared on r/OpenAI’s subreddit on Reddit, Altman admits that ChatGPT’s Voice Mode was the first time he was tricked into thinking AI was a real person.
Ah, an output for the Reddit users. PR, right?
The canny folk at Windows Central report:
In a recent blog post by Sam Altman, Superintelligence might only be “a few thousand days away.” The CEO outlined an audacious plan to edge OpenAI closer to this vision of “$7 trillion and many years to build 36 semiconductor plants and additional data centers.”
Okay, a “few thousand.”
Then the payoff for the OpenAI outfit but not for the staff leaving the impressive electricity consuming OpenAI:
Coincidentally, OpenAI just closed its funding round, where it raised $6.6 from investors, including Microsoft and NVIDIA, pushing its market capitalization to $157 billion. Interestingly, the AI firm reportedly pleaded with investors for exclusive funding, leaving competitors like Former OpenAI Chief Scientist Illya Sustever’s SuperIntelligence Inc. and Elon Musk’s xAI to fend for themselves. However, investors are still confident that OpenAI is on the right trajectory to prosperity, potentially becoming the world’s dominant AI company worth trillions of dollars.
Nope, not coincidentally. The money is the payoff from a full court press for funds. Apple seems to have an aversion for sweaty, easily fooled sales professionals. But other outfits want buy into the Sam AI-Man vision. The dream the money people have are formed from piles of real money, no HMSTR coin for these optimists.
Several observations, whether you want ‘em or not:
- OpenAI is an outfit which has zoomed because of the Microsoft deal and announcement that OpenAI would be the Clippy for Windows and Azure. Without that “play,” OpenAI probably would have remained a peculiarly structure non-profit thinking about where to find a couple of bucks.
- The revenue-generating aspect of OpenAI is working. People are giving Sam AI-Man money. Other outfits with AI are not quite in OpenAI’s league and most may never be within shouting distance of the OpenAI PR megaphone. (Yep, that’s you folks, Windows Central.)
- Sam AI-Man may believe the software written by former employees is alive. Okay, Sam, that’s your perception. Mine is that OpenAI is zeros and ones with some quirks; namely, making stuff up just like a certain luminary in the AI universe.
Net net: I wonder if this was a story intended for the Onion and rejected because it was too wacky for Onion readers.
Stephen E Arnold, October 7, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
