Junkee Asks a Good Question. Pause, Please.
March 3, 2023
I had never before heard of the Web site junkee.com. I spotted a link with the title “Why Are People Talking About The Millennial Pause?” and wanted to know the answer to the question.
The article addresses the topic of millennials growing up or maturing. In the article’s lingo, this idea was stated this way about millennial behavior:
Specifically, mannerisms displayed by millennials on TikTok that Gen Z TikTokers make fun of. These tics include random zoom-ins to emphasize talking points, a way of talking termed the “BuzzFeed accent,” using random filters, using phrases popularized on Twitter and Instagram like “doggo” and “I can’t even” and “adulting” and the latest crime… the millennial pause.
I think the reasoning is that one should not or no longer displays “tics.” I am not sure what a “random zoom-in” is, but it sounds dreadful. The Buzzfeed accent is a mystery to me. And, “adulting”? I love this word because many of those younger than I act as if there were high school students at a chaotic science club meeting when the teacher supervisory stepped out of the room. The millennial pause is similar to my using a fax machine. The pause indicates an oldie habit design to deal with ancient video technology. [Pause] Sigh.
The write up added:
University of Sydney Associate Professor of Online and Convergent Media Discipline, Fiona Martin, says, “some millennials who use social media for comms work will follow cultural trends, and those that don’t won’t. Mocking them for being dated is a social differentiation tactic”.
I like being mocked. I try to be mockable. I engage in mocking certain actions of large Sillycon Valley outfits. I am into mocking.
I know I am out of step. The article offered:
As an example of how different ethnic groups within the same generation use social media, Martin pointed to the research in Bronwyn Carlson and Ryan Frazer’s book, Indigenous Digital Life. “Many Indigenous Australians are aware of being surveilled online, and so tend to circulate positive inspiring content in response,” she explains.
Yep, that’s me. inspiring content.
Who knew a pause conveyed so much. [Pause] Sigh.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2023
A Xoogler Explains Why Big Data Is Going Nowhere Fast
March 3, 2023
The essay “Big Data Is Dead.” One of my essays from the Stone Age of Online used the title “Search Is Dead” so I am familiar with the trope. In a few words, one can surprise. Dead. Final. Absolute, well, maybe. On the other hand, the subject either Big Data or Search are part of the woodwork in the mini-camper of life.
I found this statement interesting:
Modern cloud data platforms all separate storage and compute, which means that customers are not tied to a single form factor. This, more than scale out, is likely the single most important change in data architectures in the last 20 years.
The cloud is the future. I recall seeing price analyses of some companies’ cloud activities; for example, “The Cloud vs. On-Premise Cost: Which One is Cheaper?” In my experience, cloud computing was pitched as better, faster, and cheaper. Toss in the idea that one can get rid of pesky full time systems personnel, and the cloud is a win.
What the cloud means is exactly what the quoted sentence says, “customers are not tied to a single form factor.” Does this mean that the Big Data rah rah combined with the sales pitch for moving to the cloud will set the stage for more hybrid sets up a return to on premises computing. Storage could become a combination of on premises and cloud base solutions. The driver, in my opinion, will be cost. And one thing the essay about Big Data does not dwell on is the importance of cost in the present economic environment.
The arguments for small data or subsets of Big Data is accurate. My reading of the essay is that some data will become a problem: Privacy, security, legal, political, whatever. The essay is an explanation for what “synthetic data.” Google and others want to make statistically-valid, fake data the gold standard for certain types of processes. In the data are a liability section of the essay, I noted:
Data can suffer from the same type of problem; that is, people forget the precise meaning of specialized fields, or data problems from the past may have faded from memory.
I wonder if this is a murky recasting of Google’s indifference to “old” data and to date and time stamping. The here and now not then and past are under the surface of the essay. I am surprised the notion of “forward forward” analysis did not warrant a mention. Outfits like Google want to do look ahead prediction in order to deal with inputs newer than what is in the previous set of values.
You may read the essay and come away with a different interpretation. For me, this is the type of analysis characteristic of a Googler, not a Xoogler. If I am correct, why doesn’t the essay hit the big ideas about cost and synthetic data directly?
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2023
OpenAI: Googzilla Gets Its Tail Set on Fire
March 2, 2023
Remember those. High school locker rooms. The crack of a wet towel. A howl. And then a squeal like the crappy brakes on the DC metro. Ah, memories. What happens if one tries to set Googzilla’s tail on fire? I think we are going to find out.
The image of a small entity (OpenAI) holding a blazing flame to the rear end of a large dinosaur (maybe Google’s Tyrannosaurus Rex before extinction). Ouch. Let’s see how Googzilla dances to the new smash hit “Code Red or Dead.” The refrain is, “Dance, dinosaur, dance.” Art was created by Scribble Diffusion. I assume registered with whatever government agency is responsible for intellectual property.
“OpenAI Opens ChatGPT Floodgates with Dirt-Cheap API” reports:
After a limited trial OpenAI has unleashed its ChatGPT and Whisper models on developers, who can now integrate chatbot interaction and speech-to-text conversion into their own applications through API calls.…
I think the OpenAI smart software is like the cake my mother baked when I was 10 years old. I think the phrase “half baked” captures the culinary marvel she produced. We were living in Brazil at the time, and I know that my mother and the Brazilian street vendors had trouble communicating when it came to ingredients. Oh, well. I survived.
I think Googzilla will survive. The company is in Code Red mode because of Microsoft’s slick marketing move. The Sundar and Prabhakar Comedy Show has not regained top billing on the search marketing vaudeville circuit. Now the OpenAI crowd is whipping up a frenzy of innovation among the true believers in the money making potential of ChatGPT.
“Ouch,” says Googzilla. “What’s that funny smell? Yikes. My tail is on fire. Code Redder. Code Redder.”
The article contains information that OpenAI cannot make money on discount API access to a service which is not without costs. Note this statement, please:
Max Woolf, a data scientist, in an online post, observes that that the API pricing is extraordinarily low. “I have no idea how OpenAI can make money on this,” he said. “This has to be a loss-leader to lock out competitors before they even get off the ground.”
Who cares? The point is marketing, not making money. Remember. I ate the half baked cake, loved it and burned the experience into my memory. Yep, Code Redder. Dance, dinosaur, dance.
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2023
Another Xoogler, Another Repetitive, Sad, Dispiriting Story
March 2, 2023
I will keep this brief. I read “The Maze Is in the Mouse.” The essay is Xoogler’s lament. The main point is that Google has four issues. The write up identifies these from a first person point of view:
The way I see it, Google has four core cultural problems. They are all the natural consequences of having a money-printing machine called “Ads” that has kept growing relentlessly every year, hiding all other sins. (1) no mission, (2) no urgency, (3) delusions of exceptionalism, (4) mismanagement.
I agree that “ads” are a big part of the Google challenge. I am not sure about the “mouse” or the “maze.”
Googzilla emerged from an incredible sequence of actions. Taken as a group, Google became the poster child for what smart Silicon Valley brainiacs could accomplish. From the git-go, Google emerged from the Backrub service. Useful research like the CLEVER method was kicking around at some conferences as a breakthrough for determining relevance. The competition was busy trying to become “portals” because the Web indexing thing was expensive and presented what seemed to be an infinite series of programming hoops. Google had zero ways to make money. As I recall, the mom and dad of Googzilla tried to sell the company to those who would listen; for example, the super brainiacs at Yahoo. Then the aha moment. GoTo.com had caused a stir in the Web indexing community by selling traffic. GoTo.com became Overture.com. Yahoo.com (run by super brainiacs, remember) bought Overture. But Yahoo did have the will, the machinery, or the guts to go big. Yahoo went home. Google went big.
What makes Google the interesting outfit it is are these points in my opinion:
- The company was seemingly not above receiving inspiration from the GoTo.com, Overture.com, and ultimately Yahoo.com “pay to play” model. Some people don’t know that Google was built on appropriated innovation and paid money and shares to make Yahoo’s legal eagles fly away. For me, Google embodied intellectual “flexibility” and an ethical compass sensitive to expediency. I may be wrong, but the Google does not strike me as being infused with higher spirits of truth, justice, and the American way Superman does. Google’s innovation boils down to borrowing. That’s okay. I borrow, but I try to footnote, not wait until the legal eagles gnaw at my liver.
- Google management, in my experience, were clueless about the broader context of their blend of search and advertising. I don’t think it was a failure of brainiac thinking. The brainiacs did not have context into which to fit their actions. Larry Page argued with me in 1999 about the value of truncation. He said, “No truncation needed at Google.” Baloney. Google truncates. Google informed a US government agency that Google would not conform to the specifications of the Statement of Work for a major US government search project. A failure to meet the criteria of the Statement of Work made Google ineligible to win that project. What did Google do? Google explained to the government team that the Statement of Work did not apply to Google technology. Well, Statements of Works and procurement works one way. Google did not like that way, so Google complained. Zero context. What Google should have done is address each requirement in a positive manner and turn in the bid. Nope, operating independent of procurement rules, Google just wanted to make up the rules. Period. That’s the way it is now and that’s the way Google has operated for nearly 25 years.
- Google is not mismanaged from Google’s point of view. Google is just right by definition. The management problems were inherent and obvious from the beginning. Let me give one example: Vendors struggled with the Google accounting system 20 or more years ago. Google blamed the Oracle database. Why? The senior management did not know what they did not know and they lacked the mental characteristic of understanding that fact. By assuming Googlers were brainiacs and the dorky Google intelligence test, Googlers could solve any problem. Wrong. Google has and continues to make decisions like a high school science club planning an experiment. Nice group, just not athletes, cheerleaders, class officers, or non nerd advisors. What do you get? You get crazy decisions like dumping Dr. Timnit Gebru and creating the Stochastic Parrot conference as well as Microsoft making Bing and Clippy on steroids look like a big deal.
Net net: Ads are important. But Google is Google because of its original and fundamental mental approach to problems: We know better. One thing is sure in my mind: Google does not know itself any better now than it did when it emerged from the Backrub “borrowed” computers and grousing about using too much Stanford bandwidth. Advertising is a symptom of a deeper malady, a mental issue in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold,March 2, 2023
Subscription Thinking: More Risky Than 20-Somethings Think
March 2, 2023
I am delighted I don’t have to sit in meetings with GenX, GenY, and GenZ MBAs any longer. Now I talk to other dinobabies. Why am I not comfortable with the younger bright as a button humanoids? Here’s one reason: “Volkswagen Briefly Refused to Track Car with Abducted Child Inside until It Received Payment.”
I can visualize the group figuring out to generate revenue instead of working to explain and remediate the fuel emission scam allegedly perpetrated by Volkswagen. The reasoning probably ran along the lines, “Hey let’s charge people for monitoring a VW.” Another adds: “Wow, easy money and we avoid the blow back BMW got when it wanted money for heated seats.”
Did the VW young wizards consider downsides of the problem? Did the super bright money spinning ask, “What contingencies are needed for a legitimate law enforcement request?” My hunch is that someone mentioned these and other issues, but the team was thinking about organic pizza for lunch or why the coffee pods were plain old regular coffee.
The cited article states:
The Sheriff’s Office of Lake County, Illinois, has reported on Facebook about a car theft and child abduction incident that took place last week. Notably, it said that a Volkswagen Atlas with tracking technology built in was stolen from a woman and when the police tried asking VW to track the vehicle, it refused until it received payment.
The company floundered and then assisted. The child was unharmed.
Good work VW. Now about software in your electric vehicles and the emission engineering issue? What do I hear?
The sweet notes of Simon & Garfunkel “Sound of Silence”? So relaxing and stress free: Just like the chatter of those who were trying to rescue the child.
No, I never worry about how the snow plow driver gets to work, thank you. I worry about incomplete thinking and specious methods of getting money from a customer.
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2023
Adulting Desperation at TikTok? More of a PR Play for Sure
March 1, 2023
TikTok is allegedly harvesting data from its users and allegedly making that data accessible to government-associated research teams in China. The story “TikTok to Set One-Hour Daily Screen Time Limit by Default for Users under 18” makes clear that TikTok is in concession mode. The write up says:
TikTok announced Wednesday that every user under 18 will soon have their accounts default to a one-hour daily screen time limit, in one of the most aggressive moves yet by a social media company to prevent teens from endlessly scrolling….
Now here’s the part I liked:
Teenage TikTok users will be able to turn off this new default setting… [emphasis added]
The TikTok PR play misses the point. Despite the yip yap about Oracle as an intermediary, the core issue is suspicion that TikTok is sucking down data. Some of the information can be cross correlated with psychological profiles. How useful would it be to know that a TikTok behavior suggests a person who may be susceptible to outside pressure, threats, or bribes. No big deal? Well, it is a big deal because some young people enlist in the US military and others take jobs at government entities. How about those youthful contractors swarming around Executive Branch agencies’ computer systems, Congressional offices, and some interesting facilities involved with maps and geospatial work?
I have talked about TikTok risks for years. Now we get a limit on usage?
Hey, that’s progress like making a square wheel out of stone.
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2023
The Future of Open Source: Appropriation and Indifference
March 1, 2023
Big companies love open source software. There are zero or minimal license fees and other people fix the bugs. Not surprisingly the individuals who create open source software face some challenges.
The essay “Open Source Is Broken: The Sad Story of Denis Pushkarev (Core-js)” explains how one developer got the shaft. What’s the fix? Here’s part of the conclusion to the essay:
We often hear that open-source is great, good, ethical compared to close-source and all the typical woo-woo. But in the real world, this isn’t enough. You don’t live and pay bills by doing good things: you need to have some business skills. This doesn’t make you a bad person: if you don’t have enough motivation to work on your open-source project, it simply won’t last. You need to promote yourself and your open-source project.
I read this as saying, “More, better marketing.”
Why not suggest non-profit consortia able to fund certain projects? Why not suggest commercial enterprises embrace a kinder, gentler approach to code appropriation? Why not suggest a healthier balance between profit seeking and ethical behavior?
I know.
No one cares. Makes one proud to incorporate open source software into a commercial environment and charge people to use the work of an individual or team who wanted to do “good,” doesn’t it. Blindspot? I think it depends on whom one asks.
Stephen E Arnold,March 1, 2023
Google: Share Googlers As You Did in Kindergarten. No Spats over Cookies!
March 1, 2023
The 2023 manifestation of the Google is fascinating. There was the Code Red. There’s the Supreme Court and the European Union. There’s the anti-Microsoft Bing thing.
And now we have the kindergarten mantra, “Share, kiddies.” Sorry, I meant, “Share, Googlers.”
I read “Google Cloud Staff Asked to Share Desks in Real Estate Efficiency Drive.” The article reports as absolute real journalism:
Google has reportedly asked employees to begin sharing desks at several sites across the US as part of a “real estate efficiency” drive. Employees at Google’s cloud division will be asked to pair up with colleagues and alternate in-office shift patterns as part of the move…
How will this work in Kirkland and Seattle, Washington, Manhattan, San Francisco, and maybe TC3 or MP1? The write up explains:
“Most Googlers will now share a desk with one other Googler,” the documents state. “Through the matching process, they will agree on a basic desk setup and establish norms with their desk partner and teams to ensure a positive experience in the new shared environment.”
Have you been in a Google, DeepMind, Alphabet, or YouTube meeting? Ah, well, if the answer is “yes,” you will know that reaching agreement is an interesting process. If the answer is “no,” you can replicate the experience by visiting a meeting of the local high school’s science club. Close enough I would suggest.
I remember when:
- Tony Bennett performed in the Google cafeteria
- Odwalla (a killer health drink) filled fridges
- A car wash service was available in the parking lot on Shoreline Drive
Yes, I remember.
In 2023, the Google is showing its age (maybe maturity) after the solving death and Loon balloon era.
Reducing costs is a cookie cutter solution to management running out of ideas for generating new revenue. How many McKinsey or Booz, Allen consultants did it require to produce the idea of sharing a sleeping bag? A better question is, “How much did Google pay outside consultants to frame the problem and offer several solutions?
Googzilla is not dead. The beastie is taking steps to make sure it survives after the Microsoft marketing wild fire scorched the tail of the feared online advertising, relevance killed creature.
And Odwalla? Just have a New Coke? Oh, sorry. That’s gone too.
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2023
Google: Good at Quantum and Maybe Better at Discarding Intra-Company Messages
February 28, 2023
Google has already declared quantum supremacy. The supremos have outsupremed themselves, if this story in the UK Independent is accurate:
Okay, supremacy but error problems. Supremacy but a significant shift. Then the word “plague.”
The write up states in what strikes me a Google PR recyclish way:
Google researchers say they have found a way of building the technology so that it corrects those errors. The company says it is a breakthrough on a par with its announcement three years ago that it had reached “quantum supremacy”, and represents a milestone on the way to the functional use of quantum computers.
The write up continues:
Dr Julian Kelly, director of quantum hardware at Google Quantum AI, said: “The engineering constraints (of building a quantum computer) certainly are feasible. “It’s a big challenge – it’s something that we have to work on, but by no means that blocks us from, for example, making a large-scale machine.”
What seems to be a similar challenge appears in “DOJ Seeks Court Sanctions against Google over Intentional Destruction of Chat Logs.” This write up is less of a rah rah for the quantum complexity crowd and more for a simpler problem: Retaining employee communications amidst the legal issues through which the Google is wading. The write up says:
Google should face court sanctions over “intentional and repeated destruction” of company chat logs that the US government expected to use in its antitrust case targeting Google’s search business, the Justice Department said Thursday [February 23, 2023]. Despite Google’s promises to preserve internal communications relevant to the suit, for years the company maintained a policy of deleting certain employee chats automatically after 24 hours, DOJ said in a filing in District of Columbia federal court. The practice has harmed the US government’s case against the tech giant, DOJ alleged.
That seems clear, certainly clearer than the assertions about 49 physical qubits and 17 physical qubits being equal to the quantum supremacy assertion several years ago.
How can one company be adept at manipulating qubits and mal-adept at saving chat messages? Wait! Wait!
Maybe Google is equally adept: Manipulating qubits and manipulating digital information.
Strike the quantum fluff and focus on the manipulating of information. Is that a breakthrough?
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2023
Does a LLamA Bite? No, But It Can Be Snarky
February 28, 2023
Everyone in Harrod’s Creek knows the name Yann LeCun. The general view is that when it comes to smart software, this wizard wrote or helped write the book. I spotted a tweet thread “LLaMA Is a New *Open-Source*, High-Performance Large Language Model from Meta AI – FAIR.” The link to the Facebook research paper “LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models” explains the innovation for smart software enthusiasts. In a nutshell, the Zuck approach is bigger, faster, and trained without using data not available to everyone. Also, it does not require Googzilla scale hardware for some applications.
That’s the first tip off that the technical paper has a snarky sparkle. Exactly what data have been used to train Google and other large language models. The implicit idea is that the legal eagles flock to sue for copyright violating actions, the Zuckers are alleged flying in clean air.
Here are a few other snarkifications I spotted:
- Use small models trained on more data. The idea is that others train big Googzilla sized models trained on data, some of which is not public available
- The Zuck approach an “efficient implementation of the causal multi-head attention operator.” The idea is that the Zuck method is more efficient; therefore, better
- In testing performance, the results are all over the place. The reason? The method for determining performance is not very good. Okay, still Meta is better. The implication is that one should trust Facebook. Okay. That’s scientific.
- And cheaper? Sure. There will be fewer legal fees to deal with pesky legal challenges about fair use.
What’s my take? Another open source tool will lead to applications built on top of the Zuckbook’s approach.
Now the developers and users will have to decide if the LLamA can bite? Does Facebook have its wizardly head in the Azure clouds? Will the Sages of Amazon take note?
Tough questions. At first glance, llamas have other means of defending themselves. Teeth may not be needed. Yes, that’s snarky.
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
