Will Google Charge for AI Features? Of Course
July 2, 2024
Will AI spur Google to branch out from its ad-revenue business model? Possibly, Dataconomy concludes in, “AI Is Draining Google’s Money and We May Be Charged for It.” Writer Eray Eliaç?k cites reporting from the Financial Times when stating:
“Google, the search engine used by billions, is considering charging for special features made possible by artificial intelligence (AI). This would be different from its usual practice of offering most of its services for free. Here’s what this could mean: Google might offer some cool AI-driven tools, like a smarter assistant or personalized search options, but only to those who pay for them. The regular Google search would stay free, but these extra features would come with a price tag, such as Gemini, SGE, and Image generation with AI and more.”
Would Google really make more charging for AI than on serving up ads alongside it? Perhaps it will do both?
Eliaç?k reminds us AI is still far from perfect. There are several reasons he does not address:
- Google faces a challenge to maintain its ad monopolies as investigations into its advertising business which has been running without interference for more than two decades
- AI is likely to be a sector with a big dog and a couple of mid sized dogs, and a bunch of French bulldogs (over valued and stubborn). Google wants to be the winner because it invented the transformer and now has to deal with the consequences of that decision. Some of the pretenders are likely to be really big dogs and capable of tearing off Googzilla’s tail
- Cost control is easy to talk about in MBA class and financial columns. In real online life, cost control is a thorny problem. No matter how much the bean counters squeeze, the costs of new gear, innovation, and fixing stuff when it flames out over the weekend blasts many IT budgets into orbit. Yep, even Google’s wizards face this problem.
Net net: Google will have little choice but find a way to monetize clicks, eye balls, customer service, cloud access, storage, and any thing that can be slapped with a price tag. Take that to MBA class.
Cynthia Murrell, July 2, 2024
The Check Is in the Mail and I Will Love You in the Morning. I Promise.
July 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Have you heard these phrases in a business context?
- “I’ll get back to you on that”
- “We should catch up sometime”
- “I’ll see what I can do”
- “I’m swamped right now”
- “Let me check my schedule and get back to you”
- “Sounds great, I’ll keep that in mind”
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough despite the mobile presented as a corded landline connected to a bank note. I understand and I will love you in the morning. No, really.
I read “It’s Safe to Update Your Windows 11 PC Again, Microsoft Reassures Millions after Dropping Software over Bug.” [If the linked article disappears, I would not be surprised.] The write up says:
Due to the severity of the glitch, Microsoft decided to ditch the roll-out of KB5039302 entirely last week. Since then, the Redmond-based company has spent time investigating the cause of the bug and determined that it only impacts those who use virtual machine tools, like CloudPC, DevBox, and Azure Virtual Desktop. Some reports suggest it affects VMware, but this hasn’t been confirmed by Microsoft.
Now the glitch has been remediated. Yes, “I’ll get back to you on that.” Okay, I am back:
…on the first sign that your Windows PC has started — usually a manufacturer’s logo on a blank screen — hold down the power button for 10 seconds to turn-off the device, press and hold the power button to turn on your PC again, and then when Windows restarts for a second time hold down the power button for 10 seconds to turn off your device again. Power-cycling twice back-to-back should means that you’re launched into Automatic Repair mode on the third reboot. Then select Advanced options to enter winRE. Microsoft has in-depth instructions on how to best handle this damaging bug on its forum.
No problem, grandma.
I read this reassurance the simple steps needed to get the old Windows 11 gizmo working again. Then I noted this article in my newsfeed this morning (July 1, 2024): “Microsoft Notifies More Customers Their Emails Were Accessed by Russian Hackers.” This write up reports as actual factual this Microsoft announcement:
Microsoft has told more customers that their emails were compromised during a late 2023 cyberattack carried out by the Russian hacking group Midnight Blizzard.
Yep, Russians… again. The write up explains:
The attack began in late November 2023. Despite the lengthy period the attackers were present in the system, Microsoft initially insisted that that only a “very small percentage” of corporate accounts were compromised. However, the attackers managed to steal emails and attached documents during the incident.
I can hear in the back of my mind this statement: “I’ll see what I can do.” Okay, thanks.
This somewhat interesting revelation about an event chugging along unfixed since late 2023 has annoyed some other people, not your favorite dinobaby. The article concluded with this passage:
In April [2023], a highly critical report [pdf] by the US Cyber Safety Review Board slammed the company’s response to a separate 2023 incident where Chinese hackers accessed emails of high-profile US government officials. The report criticized Microsoft’s “cascade of security failures” and a culture that downplayed security investments in favor of new products. “Microsoft had not sufficiently prioritized rearchitecting its legacy infrastructure to address the current threat landscape,” the report said. The urgency of the situation prompted US federal agencies to take action in April [2023]. An emergency directive was issued by the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), mandating government agencies to analyze emails, reset compromised credentials, and tighten security measures for Microsoft cloud accounts, fearing potential access to sensitive communications by Midnight Blizzard hackers. CISA even said the Microsoft hack posed a “grave and unacceptable risk” to government agencies.
“Sounds great, I’ll keep that in mind.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2024
OpenAI: Do You Know What Open Means? Does Anyone?
July 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The backstory for OpenAI was the concept of “open.” Well, the meaning of “open” has undergone some modification. There was a Musk up, a board coup, an Apple announcement that was vaporous, and now we arrive at the word “open” as in “OpenAI.”
Open source AI is like a barn that burned down. Hopefully the companies losing their software’s value have insurance. Once the barn is gone, those valuable animals may be gone. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. How’s that Windows update going this week?
“OpenAI Taking Steps to Block China’s Access to Its AI Tools” reports with the same authority Bloomberg used with its “your motherboard is phoning home” crusade a few years ago [Note: If the link doesn’t render, search Bloomberg for the original story]:
OpenAI is taking additional steps to curb China’s access to artificial intelligence software, enforcing an existing policy to block users in nations outside of the territory it supports. The Microsoft Corp.-backed startup sent memos to developers in China about plans to begin blocking their access to its tools and software from July, according to screenshots posted on social media that outlets including the Securities Times reported on Tuesday. In China, local players including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd.-backed Zhipu AI posted notices encouraging developers to switch to their own products.
Let’s assume the information in the cited article is on the money. Yes, I know this is risky today, but do you know an 80-year-old who is not into thrills and spills?
According to Claude 3.5 Sonnet (which my team is testing), “open” means:
Not closed or fastened
Accessible or available
Willing to consider or receive
Exposed or vulnerable
The Bloomberg article includes this passage:
OpenAI supports access to its services in dozens of countries. Those accessing its products in countries not included on the list, such as China, may have their accounts blocked or suspended, according to the company’s guidelines. It’s unclear what prompted the move by OpenAI. In May, Sam Altman’s startup revealed it had cut off at least five covert influence operations in past months, saying they were using its products to manipulate public opinion.
I found this “real” news interesting:
From Baidu Inc. to startups like Zhipu, Chinese firms are trying to develop AI models that can match ChatGPT and other US industry pioneers. Beijing is openly encouraging local firms to innovate in AI, a technology it considers crucial to shoring up China’s economic and military standing.
It seems to me that “open” means closed.
Another angle surfaces in the Nature Magazine’s article “Not All Open Source AI Models Are Actually Open: Here’s a Ranking.” OpenAI is not alone in doing some linguistic shaping with the word “open.” The Nature article states:
Technology giants such as Meta and Microsoft are describing their artificial intelligence (AI) models as ‘open source’ while failing to disclose important information about the underlying technology, say researchers who analysed a host of popular chatbot models. The definition of open source when it comes to AI models is not yet agreed, but advocates say that ’full’ openness boosts science, and is crucial for efforts to make AI accountable.
Now this sure sounds to me as if the European Union is defining “open” as different from the “open” of OpenAI.
Let’s step back.
Years ago I wrote a monograph about open source search. At that time IDC was undergoing what might charitably be called “turmoil.” Chapters of my monograph were published by IDC on Amazon. I recycled the material for consulting engagements, but I learned three useful things in the research for that analysis of open source search systems:
- Those making open source search systems available at free and open source software wanted the software [a] to prove their programming abilities, [b] to be a foil for a financial play best embodied in the Elastic go-public and sell services “play”; [c] be a low-cost, no-barrier runway to locking in users; that is, a big company funds the open source software and has a way to make money every which way from the “free” bait.
- Open source software is a product testing and proof-of-concept for developers who are without a job or who are working in a programming course in a university. I witnessed this approach when I lectured in Tallinn, Estonia, in the 2000s. The “maybe this will stick” approach yields some benefits, primarily to the big outfits who co-opt an open source project and support it. When the original developer gives up or gets a job, the big outfit has its hands on the controls. Please, see [c] in item 1 above.
- Open source was a baby buzzword when I was working on my open source search research project. Now “open source” is a full-scale, AI-jargonized road map to making money.
The current mix up in the meaning of “open” is a direct result of people wearing suits realizing that software has knowledge value. Giving value away for nothing is not smart. Hence, the US government wants to stop its nemesis from having access to open source software, specifically AI. Big companies do not want proprietary knowledge to escape unless someone pays for the beast. Individual developers want to get some fungible reward for creating “free” software. Begging for dollars, offering a disabled version of software or crippleware, or charging for engineering “support” are popular ways to move from free to ka-ching. Big companies have another angle: Lock in. Some outfits are inept like IBM’s fancy dancing with Red Hat. Other companies are more clever; for instance, Microsoft and its partners and AI investments which allow “open” to become closed thank you very much.
Like many eddies in the flow of the technology river, change is continuous. When someone says, “Open”, keep in mind that thing may be closed and have a price tag or handcuffs.
Net net: The AI secrets have flown the coop. It has taken about 50 years to reach peak AI. The new angles revealed in the last year are not heart stoppers. That smoking ruin over there. That’s the locked barn that burned down. Animals are gone or “transformed.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2024
Is There a Problem with AI Detection Software?
July 1, 2024
Of course not.
But colleges and universities are struggling to contain AI-enabled cheating. Sadly, it seems the easiest solution is tragically flawed. Times Higher Education considers, “Is it Time to Turn Off AI Detectors?” The post shares a portion of the new book, “Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning” by José Antonio Bowen and C. Edward Watson. The excerpt begins by looking at the problem:
“The University of Pennsylvania’s annual disciplinary report found a seven-fold (!) increase in cases of ‘unfair advantage over fellow students’, which included ‘using ChatGPT or Chegg’. But Quizlet reported that 73 per cent of students (of 1,000 students, aged 14 to 22 in June 2023) said that AI helped them ‘better understand material’. Watch almost any Grammarly ad (ubiquitous on TikTok) and ask first, if you think clicking on ‘get citation‘ or ‘paraphrase‘ is cheating. Second, do you think students might be confused?”
Probably. Some universities are not exactly clear on what is cheating and what is permitted usage of AI tools. At the same time, a recent study found 51 percent of students will keep using them even if they are banned. The boost to their GPAs is just too tempting. Schools’ urge to fight fire with fire is understandable, but detection tools are far from perfect. We learn:
“AI detectors are already having to revise claims. Turnitin initially claimed a 1 per cent false-positive rate but revised that to 4 per cent later in 2023. That was enough for many institutions, including Vanderbilt, Michigan State and others, to turn off Turnitin’s AI detection software, but not everyone followed their lead. Detectors vary considerably in their accuracy and rate of false positives. One study looked at 14 different detectors and found that five of the 14 were only 50 per cent accurate or worse, but four of them (CheckforAI, Winston AI, GPT-2 Output and Turnitin) missed only one of the 18 AI-written samples. Detectors are not all equal, but the best are better than faculty at identifying AI writing.”
But is that ability is worth the false positives? One percent may seem small, but to those students it can mean an end to their careers before they even begin. For institutions that do not want to risk false accusations, the authors suggest several alternatives that seem to make a difference. They advise instructors to discuss the importance of academic integrity at the beginning of the course and again as the semester progresses. Demonstrating how well detection tools work can also have an impact. Literally quizzing students on the school’s AI policies, definitions, and consequences can minimize accidental offenses. Schools could also afford students some wiggle room: allow them to withdraw submissions and take the zero if they have second thoughts. Finally, the authors suggest schools normalize asking for help. If students get stuck, they should feel they can turn to a human instead of AI.
Cynthia Murrell, July 1, 2024
Short Cuts? Nah, Just Business as Usual in the Big Apple Publishing World
June 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
One of my team alerted me to this Fortune Magazine story: “Telegram Has Become the Go-To App for Heroin, Guns, and Everything Illegal. Can Crypto Save It?” The author appears to be Niamh Rowe. I do not know this “real” journalist. The Fortune Magazine write up is interesting for several reasons. I want to share these because if I am correct in my hypotheses, the problems of big publishing extend beyond artificial intelligence.
First, I prepared a lecture about Telegram specifically for several law enforcement conferences this year. One of our research findings was that a Clear Web site, accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and a browser, could buy stolen bank cards. But these ready-to-use bank cards were just bait. The real play was the use of an encrypted messaging service to facilitate a switch to a malware once the customer paid via crypto for a bundle of stolen credit and debit cards. The mechanism was not the Dark Web. The Dark Web is showing its age, despite the wild tales which appear in the online news services and semi-crazy videos on YouTube-type services. The new go-to vehicle is an encrypted messaging service. The information in the lecture was not intended to be disseminated outside of the law enforcement community.
A big time “real” journalist explains his process to an old person who lives in the Golden Rest Old Age Home. The old-timer thinks the approach is just peachy-keen. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough like most modern work.
Second, in my talk I used idiosyncratic lingo for one reason. The coinages and phrases allow my team to locate documents and the individuals who rip off my work without permission.
I have had experience with having my research pirated. I won’t name a major Big Apple consulting firm which used my profiles of search vendors as part of the firm’s training materials. Believe it or not, a senior consultant at this ethics-free firm told me that my work was used to train their new “experts.” Was I surprised? Nope. New York. Consultants. What did I expect? Integrity was not a word I used to describe this Big Apple publishing outfitthen, and it sure isn’t today. The Fortune Magazine article uses my lingo, specifically “superapp” and includes comments which struck my researcher as a coincidental channeling of my observations about an end-to-end encrypted service’s crypto play. Yep, coincidence. No problem. Big time publishing. Eighty-year-old person from Kentucky. Who cares? Obviously not the “real” news professional who is in telepathic communication with me and my study team. Oh, well, mind reading must exist, right?
Third, my team and I are working hard on a monograph about E2EE specifically for law enforcement. If my energy holds out, I will make the report available free to any member of a law enforcement cyber investigative team in the US as well as investigators at agencies in which I have some contacts; for example, the UK’s National Crime Agency, Europol, and Interpol.
I thought (silly me) that I was ahead of the curve as I was with some of my other research reports; for example, in the the year 1995 my publisher released Internet 2000: The Path to the Total Network, then in 2004, my publisher issued The Google Legacy, and in 2006 a different outfit sold out of my Enterprise Search Report. Will I be ahead of the curve with my E2EE monograph? Probably not. Telepathy I guess.
But my plan is to finish the monograph and get it in the hands of cyber investigators. I will continue to be on watch for documents which recycle my words, phrases, and content. I am not a person who writes for a living. I write to share my research team’s findings with the men and women who work hard to make it safe to live and work in the US and other countries allied with America. I do not chase clicks like those who must beg for dollars, appeal to advertisers, and provide links to Patreon-type services.
I have never been interested in having a “fortune” and I learned after working with a very entitled, horse-farm-owning Fortune Magazine writer that I had zero in common with him, his beliefs, and, by logical reasoning, the culture of Fortune Magazine.
My hunch is that absolutely no one will remember where the information in the cited write up with my lingo originated. My son, who owns the DC-based GovWizely.com consulting firm, opined, “I think the story was written by AI.” Maybe I should use that AI and save myself money, time, and effort?
To be frank, I laughed at the spin on the Fortune Magazine story’s interpretation of superapp. Not only does the write up misrepresent what crypto means to Telegram, the superapp assertion is not documented with fungible evidence about how the mechanics of Telegram-anchored crime can work.
Net net: I am 80. I sort of care. But come on, young wizards. Up your game. At least, get stuff right, please.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2024
Some Tension in the Datasphere about Artificial Intelligence
June 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I generally try to avoid profanity in this blog. I am mindful of Google’s stopwords. I know there are filters running to protect those younger than I from frisky and inappropriate language. Therefore, I will cite the two articles and then convert the profanity to a suitably sanitized form.
The first write up is “I Will F…ing Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again”. Sorry, like many other high-technology professionals I prevaricated and dissembled. I have edited the F word to be less superficially offensive. (One simply cannot trust high-technology types, can you? I am not Thomson Reuters obviously.) The premise of this write up is that smart software is over-hyped. Here’s a passage I found interesting:
Unless you are one of a tiny handful of businesses who know exactly what they’re going to use AI for, you do not need AI for anything – or rather, you do not need to do anything to reap the benefits. Artificial intelligence, as it exists and is useful now, is probably already baked into your businesses software supply chain. Your managed security provider is probably using some algorithms baked up in a lab software to detect anomalous traffic, and here’s a secret, they didn’t do much AI work either, they bought software from the tiny sector of the market that actually does need to do employ data scientists.
I will leave it to you to ponder the wisdom of these words. I, for instance, do not know exactly what I am going to do until I do something, fiddle with it, and either change it up or trash it. You and most AI enthusiasts are probably different. That’s good. I envy your certitude. The author of the first essay is not gentle; he wants to piledrive you if you talk about smart software. I do not advocate violence under any circumstances. I can tolerate baloney about smart software. The piledriver person has hate in his heart. You have been warned.
The second write up is “ChatGPT Is Bullsh*t,” and it is an article published in SpringerLink, not a personal blog. Yep, bullsh*t as a term in an academic paper. Keep in mind, please, that Stanford University’s president and some Harvard wizards engaged in the bullsh*t business as part of their alleged making up data. Who needs AI when humans are perfectly capable of hallucinating, but I digress?
I noted this passage in the academic write up:
So perhaps we should, strictly, say not that ChatGPT is bullshit but that it outputs bullshit in a way that goes beyond being simply a vector of bullshit: it does not and cannot care about the truth of its output, and the person using it does so not to convey truth or falsehood but rather to convince the hearer that the text was written by a interested and attentive agent.
Please, read the 10 page research article about bullsh*t, soft bullsh*t, and hard bullsh*t. Form your own opinion.
I have now set the stage for some observations (probably unwanted and deeply disturbing to some in the smart software game).
- Artificial intelligence is a new big thing, and the hyperbole, misdirection, and outright lying like my saying I would use forbidden language in this essay irrelevant. The object of the new big thing is to make money, get power, maybe become an influencer on TikTok.
- The technology which seems to have flowered in January 2023 when Microsoft said, “We love OpenAI. It’s a better Clippy.” The problem is that it is now June 2024 and the advances have been slow and steady. This means that after a half century of research, the AI revolution is working hard to keep the hypemobile in gear. PR is quick; smart software improvement less speedy.
- The ripples the new big thing has sent across the datasphere attenuate the farther one is from the January 2023 marketing announcement. AI fatigue is now a thing. I think the hostility is likely to increase because real people are going to lose their jobs. Idle hands are the devil’s playthings. Excitement looms.
Net net: I think the profanity reveals the deep disgust some pundits and experts have for smart software, the companies pushing silver bullets into an old and rusty firearm, and an instinctual fear of the economic disruption the new big thing will cause. Exciting stuff. Oh, I am not stating a falsehood.
Stephen E Arnold, June 23, 2024
Perfect for Spying, Right?
June 28, 2024
And we thought noise-cancelling headphones were nifty. The University of Washington’s UW News announces “AI Headphones Let Wearer Listen to a Single Person in a Crowd, by Looking at them Just Once.” That will be a real help for the hard-of-hearing. Also spies. Writers Stefan Milne and Kiyomi Taguchi explain:
“A University of Washington team has developed an artificial intelligence system that lets a user wearing headphones look at a person speaking for three to five seconds to ‘enroll’ them. The system, called ‘Target Speech Hearing,’ then cancels all other sounds in the environment and plays just the enrolled speaker’s voice in real time even as the listener moves around in noisy places and no longer faces the speaker. … To use the system, a person wearing off-the-shelf headphones fitted with microphones taps a button while directing their head at someone talking. The sound waves from that speaker’s voice then should reach the microphones on both sides of the headset simultaneously; there’s a 16-degree margin of error. The headphones send that signal to an on-board embedded computer, where the team’s machine learning software learns the desired speaker’s vocal patterns. The system latches onto that speaker’s voice and continues to play it back to the listener, even as the pair moves around. The system’s ability to focus on the enrolled voice improves as the speaker keeps talking, giving the system more training data.”
If the sound quality is still not satisfactory, the user can refresh enrollment to improve clarity. Though the system is not commercially available, the code used for the prototype is available for others to tinker with. It is built on last year’s “semantic hearing” research by the same team. Target Speech Hearing still has some limitations. It does not work if multiple loud voices are coming from the target’s direction, and it can only eavesdrop on, er, listen to one speaker at a time. The researchers are now working on bringing their system to earbuds and hearing aids.
Cynthia Murrell, June 28, 2024
Can the Bezos Bulldozer Crush Temu, Shein, Regulators, and AI?
June 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The question, to be fair, should be, “Can the Bezos-less bulldozer crush Temu, Shein, Regulators, Subscriptions to Alexa, and AI?” The article, which appeared in the “real” news online service Venture Beat, presents an argument suggesting that the answer is, “Yes! Absolutely.”
Thanks MSFT Copilot. Good bulldozer.
The write up “AWS AI Takeover: 5 Cloud-Winning Plays They’re [sic] Using to Dominate the Market” depends upon an Amazon Big Dog named Matt Wood, VP of AI products at AWS. The article strikes me as something drafted by a small group at Amazon and then polished to PR perfection. The reasons the bulldozer will crush Google, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard’s on-premises play, and the keep-on-searching IBM Watson, among others, are:
- Covering the numbers or logo of the AI companies in the “game”; for example, Anthropic, AI21 Labs, and other whale players
- Hitting up its partners, customers, and friends to get support for the Amazon AI wonderfulness
- Engineering AI to be itty bitty pieces one can use to build a giant AI solution capable of dominating D&B industry sectors like banking, energy, commodities, and any other multi-billion sector one cares to name
- Skipping the Google folly of dealing with consumers. Amazon wants the really big contracts with really big companies, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations.
- Amazon is just better at security. Those leaky S3 buckets are not Amazon’s problem. The customers failed to use Amazon’s stellar security tools.
Did these five points convince you?
If you did not embrace the spirit of the bulldozer, the Venture Beat article states:
Make no mistake, fellow nerds. AWS is playing a long game here. They’re not interested in winning the next AI benchmark or topping the leaderboard in the latest Kaggle competition. They’re building the platform that will power the AI applications of tomorrow, and they plan to power all of them. AWS isn’t just building the infrastructure, they’re becoming the operating system for AI itself.
Convinced yet? Well, okay. I am not on the bulldozer yet. I do hear its engine roaring and I smell the no-longer-green emissions from the bulldozer’s data centers. Also, I am not sure the Google, IBM, and Microsoft are ready to roll over and let the bulldozer crush them into the former rain forest’s red soil. I recall researching Sagemaker which had some AI-type jargon applied to that “smart” service. Ah, you don’t know Sagemaker? Yeah. Too bad.
The rather positive leaning Amazon write up points out that as nifty as those five points about Amazon’s supremacy in the AI jungle, the company has vision. Okay, it is not the customer first idea from 1998 or so. But it is interesting. Amazon will have infrastructure. Amazon will provide model access. (I want to ask, “For how long?” but I won’t.), and Amazon will have app development.
The article includes a table providing detail about these three legs of the stool in the bulldozer’s cabin. There is also a run down of Amazon’s recent media and prospect directed announcements. Too bad the article does not include hyperlinks to these documents. Oh, well.
And after about 3,300 words about Amazon, the article includes about 260 words about Microsoft and Google. That’s a good balance. Too bad IBM. You did not make the cut. And HP? Nope. You did not get an “Also participated” certificate.
Net net: Quite a document. And no mention of Sagemaker. The Bezos-less bulldozer just smashes forward. Success is in crushing. Keep at it. And that “they” in the Venture Beat article title: Shouldn’t “they” be an “it”?
Stephen E Arnold, June 27, 2024
Nerd Flame War: AI AI AI
June 27, 2024
The Internet is built on trolls and their boorish behavior. The worst of the trolls are self-confessed “experts” on anything. Every online community has their loitering trolls and tech enthusiasts aren’t any different. In the old days of Internet lore, online verbal battles were dubbed “flame wars” and XDA-Developers reports that OpenAI started one: “AI Has Thrown Stack Overflow Into Civil War.”
A huge argument in AI development is online content being harvested for large language models (LLMs) to train algorithms. Writers and artists were rightly upset were used to train image and writing algorithms. OpenAI recently partnered with Stack Overflow to collect data and the users aren’t happy. Stack Overflow is a renowned tech support community for sysadmin, developers, and programmers. Stack Overflow even brags that it is world’s largest developer community.
Stack Overflow users are angry, because they weren’t ask permission to use their content for AI training models and they don’t like the platform’s response to their protests. Users are deleting their posts or altering them to display correct information. In response, Stack Overflow is restoring deleted and incorrect information, temporarily suspending users who delete content, and hiding behind the terms of service. The entire situation is explained here:
“Delving into discussion online about OpenAI and Stack Overflow’s partnership, there’s plenty to unpack. The level of hostility towards Stack Overflow varies, with some users seeing their answers as being posted online without conditions – effectively free for all to use, and Stack Overflow granting OpenAI access to that data as no great betrayal. These users might argue that they’ve posted their answers for the betterment of everyone’s knowledge, and don’t place any conditions on its use, similar to a highly permissive open source license.
Other users are irked that Stack Overflow is providing access to an open-resource to a company using it to build closed-source products, which won’t necessarily better all users (and may even replace the site they were originally posted on.) Despite OpenAI’s stated ambition, there is no guarantee that Stack Overflow will remain freely accessible in perpetuity, or that access to any AIs trained on this data will be free to the users who contributed to it.”
Reddit and other online communities are facing the same problems. LLMs are made from Stack Overflow and Reddit to train generative AI algorithms like ChatGPT. OpenAI’s ChatGPT is regarded as overblown because it continues to fail multiple tests. We know, however, that generative AI will improve with time. We also know that people will use the easiest solution and generative AI chatbots will become those tools. It’s easier to verbally ask or write a question than searching.
Whitney Grace, June 27, 2024
Prediction: Next Target Up — Public Libraries
June 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The publishers (in spirit at least) have kneecapped the Internet Archive. If you don’t know what the online service does or did, it does not matter. I learned from the estimable ShowBiz411.com site, a cultural treasure is gone. Forget digital books, the article “Paramount Erases Archives of MTV Website, Wipes Music, Culture History After 30 Plus Years” says:
Parent company Paramount, formerly Viacom, has tossed twenty plus years of news archives. All that’s left is a placeholder site for reality shows. The M in MTV – music — is gone, and so is all the reporting and all the journalism performed by music and political writers ever written. It’s as if MTV never existed. (It’s the same for VH1.com, all gone.)
Why? The write up couches the savvy business decision of the Paramount leadership this way:
There’s no precedent for this, and no valid reason. Just cheapness and stupidity.
Tibby, my floppy ear Frenchie, is listening to music from the Internet Archive. He knows the publishers removed 500,000 books. Will he lose access to his beloved early 20th century hill music? Will he ever be able to watch reruns of the rock the casbah music video? No. He is a risk. A threat. A despicable knowledge seeker. Thanks to myself for this nifty picture.
My knowledge of MTV and VH1 is limited. I do recall telling my children, “Would you turn that down, please?” What a waste of energy. Future students of American culture will have a void. I assume some artifacts of the music videos will remain. But the motherlode is gone. Is this a loss? On one hand, no. Thank goodness I will not have to glimpse performs rocking the casbah. On the other hand, yes. Archaeologists study bits of stone, trying to figure out how those who left them built Machu Pichu did it. The value of lost information to those in the future is tough to discuss. But knowledge products may be like mine tailings. At some point, a bright person can figure out how to extract trace elements in quantity.
I have a slightly different view of these two recent cultural milestones. I have a hunch that the publishers want to protect their intellectual property. Internet Archive rolled over because its senior executives learned from their lawyers that lawsuits about copyright violations would be tough to win. The informed approach was to delete 500,000 books. Imagine an online service like the Internet Archive trying to be a library.
That brings me to what I think is going on. Copyright litigation will make quite a lot of digital information disappear. That means that increasing fees to public libraries for digital copies of books to “loan” to patrons must go up. Libraries who don’t play ball may find that those institutions will be faced with other publisher punishments: No American Library Association after parties, no consortia discounts, and at some point no free books.
Yes, libraries will have to charge a patron to check out a physical book and then the “publishers” will get a percentage.
The Andrew Carnegie “free” thing is wrong. Libraries rip off the publishers. Authors may be mentioned, but what publisher cares about 99 percent of its authors? (I hear crickets.)
Several thoughts struck me as I was walking my floppy ear Frenchie:
- The loss of information (some of which may have knowledge value) is no big deal in a social structure which does not value education. If people cannot read, who cares about books? Publishers and the wretches who write them. Period.
- The video copyright timebomb of the Paramount video content has been defused. Let’s keep those lawyers at bay, please. Who will care? Nostalgia buffs and the parents of the “stars”?
- The Internet Archive has music; libraries have music. Those are targets not on Paramount’s back. Who will shoot at these targets? Copyright litigators. Go go go.
Net net: My prediction is that libraries must change to a pay-to-loan model or get shut down. Who wants informed people running around disagreeing with lawyers, accountants, and art history majors?
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
