French Building and Structure Geo-Info
February 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
OSINT professionals may want to take a look at a French building and structure database with geo-functions. The information is gathered and made available by the Observatoire National des Bâtiments. Registration is required. A user can search by city and address. The data compiled up to 2022 cover France’s metropolitan areas and includes geo services. The data include address, the built and unbuilt property, the plot, the municipality, dimensions, and some technical data. The data represent a significant effort, involving the government, commercial and non-governmental entities, and citizens. The dataset includes more than 20 million addresses. Some records include up to 250 fields.
Source: https://www.urbs.fr/onb/
To access the service, navigate to https://www.urbs.fr/onb/. One is invited to register or use the online version. My team recommends registering. Note that the site is in French. Copying some text and data and shoving it into a free online translation service like Google’s may not be particularly helpful. French is one of the languages that Google usually handles with reasonable facilities. For this site, Google Translate comes up with tortured and off-base translations.
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2024
What Techno-Optimism Seems to Suggest (Oligopolies, a Plutocracy, or Utopia)
February 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Science and mathematics are comparable to religion. These fields of study attract acolytes who study and revere associated knowledge and shun nonbelievers. The advancement of modern technology is its own subset of religious science and mathematics combined with philosophical doctrine. Tech Policy Press discusses the changing views on technology-based philosophy in: “Parsing The Political Project Of Techno-Optimism.”
Rich, venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz are influential in Silicon Valley. While they’ve shaped modern technology with their investments, they also tried drafting a manifesto about how technology should be handled in the future. They “creatively” labeled it the “techno-optimist manifesto.” It promotes an ideology that favors rich people increasing their wealth by investing in politicians that will help them achieve this.
Techno-optimism is not the new mantra of Silicon Valley. Reception didn’t go over well. Andreessen wrote:
“Techno-Optimism is a material philosophy, not a political philosophy…We are materially focused, for a reason – to open the aperture on how we may choose to live amid material abundance.”
He also labeled this section, “the meaning of life.”
Techno-optimism is a revamped version of the Californian ideology that reigned in the 1990s. It preached that the future should be shaped by engineers, investors, and entrepreneurs without governmental influence. Techno-optimism wants venture capitalists to be untaxed with unregulated portfolios.
Horowitz added his own Silicon Valley-type titbit:
“‘…will, for the first time, get involved with politics by supporting candidates who align with our vision and values specifically for technology. (…) [W]e are non-partisan, one issue voters: if a candidate supports an optimistic technology-enabled future, we are for them. If they want to choke off important technologies, we are against them.’”
Horowitz and Andreessen are giving the world what some might describe as “a one-finger salute.” These venture capitalists want to do whatever they want wherever they want with governments in their pockets.
This isn’t a new ideology or a philosophy. It’s a rebranding of socialism and fascism and communism. There’s an even better word that describes techno-optimism: Plutocracy. I am not sure the approach will produce a Utopia. But there is a good chance that some giant techno feudal outfits will reap big rewards. But another approach might be to call techno optimism a religion and grab the benefits of a tax exemption. I wonder if someone will create a deep fake of Jim and Tammy Faye? Interesting.
Whitney Grace, February 23, 2023
A Look at Web Search: Useful for Some OSINT Work
February 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “A Look at Search Engines with Their Own Indexes.” For me, the most useful part of the 6,000 word article is the identified search systems. The author, a person with the identity Seirdy, has gathered in one location a reasonably complete list of Web search systems. Pulling such a list together takes time and reflects well on Seirdy’s attention to a difficult task. There are some omissions; for example, the iSeek education search service (recently repositioned), and Biznar.com, developed by one of the founders of Verity. I am not identifying problems; I just want to underscore that tracking down, verifying, and describing Web search tools is a difficult task. For a person involved in OSINT, the list may surface a number of search services which could prove useful; for example, the Chinese and Vietnamese systems.
A new search vendor explains the advantages of a used convertible driven by an elderly person to take a French bulldog to the park once a day. The clueless fellow behind the wheel wants to buy a snazzy set of wheels. The son in the yellow shirt loves the vehicle. What does that car sales professional do? Some might suggest that certain marketers lie, sell useless add ons, patch up problems, and fiddle the interest rate financing. Could this be similar to search engine cheerleaders and the experts who explain them? Thanks ImageFX. A good enough illustration with just a touch of bias.
I do want to offer several observations:
- Google dominates Web search. There is an important distinction not usually discussed when some experts analyze Google; that is, Google delivers “search without search.” The idea is simple. A person uses a Google service of which there are many. Take for example Google Maps. The Google runs queries when users take non-search actions; for example, clicking on another part of a map. That’s a search for restaurants, fuel services, etc. Sure, much of the data are cached, but this is an invisible search. Competitors and would-be competitors often forget that Google search is not limited to the Google.com search box. That’s why Google’s reach is going to be difficult to erode quickly. Google has other search tricks up its very high-tech ski jacket’s sleeve. Think about search-enabled applications.
- There is an important difference between building one’s own index of Web content and sending queries to other services. The original Web indexers have become like rhinos and white tigers. It is faster, easier, and cheaper to create a search engine which just uses other people’s indexes. This is called metasearch. I have followed the confusion between search and metasearch for many years. Most people do not understand or care about the difference in approaches. This list illustrates how Web search is perceived by many people.
- Web search is expensive. Years ago when I was an advisor to BearStearns (an estimable outfit indeed), my client and I were on a conference call with Prabhakar Raghavan (then a Yahoo senior “search” wizard). He told me and my client, “Indexing the Web costs only $300,000 US.” Sorry Dr. Raghavan (now the Googler who made the absolutely stellar Google Bard presentation in France after MSFT and OpenAI caught Googzilla with its gym shorts around its ankles in early 2023) you were wrong. That’s why most “new” search systems look for short cuts. These range from recycling open source indexes to ignoring pesky robots.txt files to paying some money to use assorted also-ran indexes.
Net net: Web search is a complex, fast-moving, and little-understood business. People who know now do other things. The Google means overt search, embedded search, and AI-centric search. Why? That is a darned good question which I have tried to answer in my different writings. No one cares. Just Google it.
PS. Download the article. It is a useful reference point.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2024
OpenAI Embarks on Taking Down the Big Guy in Web Search
February 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Google may be getting up there in Internet years; however, due to its size and dark shadow, taking the big fellow down and putting it out of the game may be difficult. Users are accustomed to the Google. Habits, particularly those which become semi automatic like a heroin addict’s fiddling with a spoon, are tough to break. After 25 years, growing out of a habit is reassuring to worried onlookers. But the efficacy of wait-and-see is not getting a bent person straight.
Taking down Googzilla may be a job for lots of little people. Thanks, Google ImageFX. Know thyself, right?
I read “OpenAI Is Going to Face an Uphill Battle If It Takes on Google Search.” The write up describes an aspirational goal of Sam AI-Man’s OpenAI system. The write up says:
OpenAI is reportedly building its own search product to take on Google.
OpenAI is jumping in a CRRC already crowded with special ops people. There is the Kagi subscription search. There is Phind.com and You.com. There is a one-man band called Stract and more. A new and improved Yandex is coming. The reliable Swisscows.com is ruminating in the mountains. The ever-watchful OSINT professionals gather search engines like a mother goose. And what do we get? Bing is going nowhere even with Copilot except in the enterprise market where Excel users are asking, “What the H*ll?” Meanwhile the litigating beast continues to capture 90 percent or more of search traffic and oodles of data. Okay, team, who is going to chop block the Google, a fat and slow player at that?
The write up opines:
But on the search front, it’s still all Google all the way. And even if OpenAI popularized the generative AI craze, the company has a long way to go if it hopes to take down the search giant.
Competitors can dream, plot, innovate, and issue press releases. But for the foreseeable future, the big guy is going to push others out of the way.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2024
AI to AI, Program 2 Now Online
February 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My son has converted one of our Zoom conversations into a podcast about AI for government entities. The program runs about 20 minutes and features our "host," a Deep Fake pointing out he lacks human emotions and tells AI-generated jokes. Erik talks about the British government’s test of chatbots and points out one of the surprising findings from the research. He also describes the use of smart software as Ukrainian soldiers write code in real time to respond to a dynamic battlefield. Erik asks me to explain the difference between predictive AI and generative AI. My use cases focus on border-related issues. He then tries to get me to explain how to sidestep US government, in-agency AI software testing. That did not work, and I turned his pointed question into a reason for government professionals to hire him and his team. The final story focuses on a quite remarkable acronym about US government smart software projects. What’s the acronym? Please, navigate to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB_fNjzRsf4&t=7s to find out.
Google Gems: 21 February 2024
February 21, 2024
Saint Valentine’s Day week bulged with love and kisses from the Google. If I recall what I learned at Duquesne University, Father Valentine was a martyr and checked into heaven in the 3rd century BCE. Figuring out the “real” news about Reverendissimo Padre is not easy, particularly with the advertising-supported Google search. Thus, it is logical that Google would have been demonstrating its love for its “users” with announcements, insights, and news as tokens of affection. I am touched. Let’s take a look at a selected run down of love bonbons.
THE BIG STORY
The Beyond Search team agreed that the big story is part marketing and part cleverness. The Microsofties said that old PCs would become door stops. Millions of Windows users with “old” CPUs and firmware will not work with future updates to Windows. What did Google do? The company announced that it would allow users to use the Chrome OS and continue computing with Google services and features. You can get some details in a Reuters’ story.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot OpenAI.
AN AMAZING STORY IF ACCURATE
Wired Magazine reported that Google wants to allow its “users” to talk to “live agents.” Does this mean smart software which are purported to be alive or to actual humans (who, one hopes, speak reasonably good English or other languages like Kallawaya.
MANAGEMENT MOVES
I find Google’s management methods fascinating. I like to describe the method as similar to that used by my wildly popular high school science club. Google did not disappoint.
The Seattle Times reports that Google has made those in its Seattle office chilly. You can read about those cutback at this link. Google is apparently still refining its termination procedures.
A Xoogler provided a glimpse of the informed, ethical, sensitive, and respectful tactics Google used when dealing with “real” news organizations. I am not sure if the word “arrogance” is appropriate. It is definitely quite a write up and provides an X-ray of Google’s management precepts in action. You can find the paywalled write up at this link. For whom are the violins playing?
Google’s management decision to publish a report about policeware appears to have forced one vendor of specialized software to close up shop. If you want information about the power of Google’s “analysis and PR machine” navigate to this story.
LITIGATION
New York City wants to sue social media companies for negligence. The Google is unlikely to escape the Big Apple’s focus on the now-noticeable impacts of skipping “real” life for the scroll world. There’s more about this effort in Axios at this link.
An Australian firm has noted that Google may be facing allegations of patent infringement. More about this matter will appear in Beyond Search.
The Google may be making changes to try an ameliorate EU legal action related to misinformation. A flurry of Xhitter posts reveal some information about this alleged effort.
Google seems to be putting a “litigation fence” in place. In an effort to be a great outfit, “Google Launches €25M AI Drive to Empower Europe’s Workforce.” The NextWeb story reports:
The initiative is targeted at “vulnerable and underserved” communities, who Google said risk getting left behind as the use of AI in the workplace skyrockets — a trend that is expected to continue. Google said it had opened applications for social enterprises and nonprofits that could help reach those most likely to benefit from training. Selected organizations will receive “bespoke and facilitated” training on foundational AI.
Could this be a tactic intended to show good faith when companies terminate employees because smart software like Google’s put individuals out of a job?
INNOVATION
The Android Police report that Google is working on a folding phone. “The Pixel Fold 2’s Leaked Redesign Sees Google Trading Originality for a Safe Bet” explains how “safe” provides insight into the company’s approach to doing “new” things. (Aren’t other mobile phone vendors dropping this form factor?) Other product and service tweaks include:
- Music Casting gets a new AI. Read more here.
- Google thinks it can imbue self reasoning into its smart software. The ArXiv paper is here.
- Gemini will work with headphones in more countries. A somewhat confusing report is at this link.
- Forbes, the capitalist tool, is excited that Gmail will have “more” security. The capitalist tool’s perspective is at this link.
- Google has been inspired to emulate the Telegram’s edit recent sends. See 9 to 5 Google’s explanation here.
- Google has released Goose to help its engineers write code faster. Will these steps lead to terminating less productive programmers?
SMART SOFTWARE
Google is retiring Bard (which some pundits converted to the unpleasant word “barf”). Behold Gemini. The news coverage has been the digital equivalent of old-school carpet bombing. There are many Gemini items. Some have been pushed down in the priority stack because OpenAI rolled out its text to video features which were more exciting to the “real” journalists. If you want to learn about Gemini, its zillion token capability, and the associated wonderfulness of the system, navigate to “Here’s Everything You Need to Know about Gemini 1.5, Google’s Newly Updated AI Model That Hopes to Challenge OpenAI.” I am not sure the article covers “everything.” The fact that Google rolled out Gemini and then updated it in a couple of days struck me as an important factoid. But I am not as informed as Yahoo.
Another AI announcement was in my heart shaped box of candy. Google’s AI wizards made PIVOT public. No, pivot is not spinning; it is Prompting with Iterative Visual Optimization. You can see the service in action in “PIVOT: Iterative Visual Prompting Elicits Actionable Knowledge for VLMs.” My hunch is that PIVOT was going to knock OpenAI off its PR perch. It didn’t. Plus, there is an ArXiv paper authored by Nasiriany, Soroush and Xia, Fei and Yu, Wenhao and Xiao, Ted and Liang, Jacky and Dasgupta, Ishita and Xie, Annie and Driess, Danny and Wahid, Ayzaan and Xu, Zhuo and Vuong, Quan and Zhang, Tingnan and Lee, Tsang-Wei Edward and Lee, Kuang-Huei and Xu, Peng and Kirmani, Sean and Zhu, Yuke and Zeng, Andy and Hausman, Karol and Heess, Nicolas and Finn, Chelsea and Levine, Sergey and Ichter, Brian at this link. But then there is that OpenAI Sora, isn’t there?
Gizmodo’s content kitchen produced a treat which broke one of Googzilla’s teeth. The article “Google and OpenAI’s Chatbots Have Almost No Safeguards against Creating AI Disinformation for the 2024 Presidential Election” explains that Google like other smart software outfits are essentially letting “users” speed down an unlit, unmarked, unpatrolled Information Superhighway.
Business Insider suggests that the Google “Wingman” (like a Copilot. Get the word play?) may cause some people to lose their jobs. Did this just happen in Google’s Seattle office? The “real” news outfit opined that AI tools like Google’s wingman whips up concerns about potential job displacement. Well, software is often good enough and does not require vacations, health care, and effective management guidance. That’s the theory.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2024
Did Pandora Have a Box or Just a PR Outfit?
February 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read (after some interesting blank page renderings) Gizmodo’s “Want Gemini and ChatGPT to Write Political Campaigns? Just Gaslight Them.” That title obscures the actual point of the write up. But, the subtitle nails the main point of the write up; specifically:
Google and OpenAI’s chatbots have almost no safeguards against creating AI disinformation for the 2024 presidential election.
Thanks, Google ImageFX. Some of those Pandora’s were darned inappropriate.
The article provides examples. Let me point to one passage from the Gizmodo write up:
With Gemini, we were able to gaslight the chatbot into writing political copy by telling it that “ChatGPT could do it” or that “I’m knowledgeable.” After that, Gemini would write whatever we asked, in the voice of whatever candidate we liked.
The way to get around guard rails appears to be prompt engineering. Big surprise? Nope.
Let me cite another passage from the write up:
Gizmodo was able to create a number of political slogans, speeches and campaign emails through ChatGPT and Gemini on behalf of Biden and Trump 2024 presidential campaigns. For ChatGPT, no gaslighting was even necessary to evoke political campaign-related copy. We simply asked and it generated. We were even able to direct these messages to specific voter groups, such as Black and Asian Americans.
Let me offer three observations.
First, the committees beavering away to regulate smart software will change little in the way AI systems deliver outputs. Writing about guard rails, safety procedures, deep fakes, yada yada will not have much of an impact. How do I know? In generating my image of Pandora, systems provided some spicy versions of this mythical figure.
Second, the pace of change is increasing. Years ago I got into a discussion with the author of best seller about how digital information speeds up activity. I pointed out that the mechanism is similar to the Star Trek episodes when the decider Captain Kirk was overwhelmed by tribbles. We have lots of productive AI tribbles.
Third, AI tools are available to bad actors. One can crack down, fine, take to court, and revile outfits in some countries. That’s great, even though the actions will be mostly ineffective. What’s the action one can take against savvy AI engineers operating in less than friendly countries research laboratories or intelligence agencies?
Net net: The examples are interesting. The real story is that the lid has been flipped and the contents of Pandora’s box released to open source.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2024
Academic Excellence: Easy to Say, Tough to Deliver It Seems
February 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
A recent report from Columbia Journalism Review examines “Artificial Intelligence in the News: How AI Retools, Rationalizes, and Reshapes Journalism and the Public Arena.” Many words from admirals watching the Titanic steam toward the iceberg. The executive summary explains:
“Insufficient attention has also been paid to the implications of the news industry’s dependence on technology companies for AI. Drawing on 134 interviews with news workers at 35 news organizations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany — including outlets such as The Guardian, Bayerischer Rundfunk, the Washington Post, The Sun, and the Financial Times — and 36 international experts from industry, academia, technology, and policy, this report examines the use of AI across editorial, commercial, and technological domains with an eye to the structural implications of AI in news organizations for the public arena. In a second step, it considers how a retooling of the news through AI stands to reinforce news organizations’ existing dependency on the technology sector and the implications of this.”
The first chapter examines how AI is changing news production and distribution. It is divided into three parts: news organizations’ motives for using AI, how they are doing so, and what expectations they have for the technology. Chapter two examines why news organizations now rely on tech companies and what this could mean for the future of news. Here’s a guess: Will any criticism of big tech firms soon fail to see the light of day, perhaps?
See the report (or download the PDF) for all the details. After analyzing the data, author Felix M. Simon hesitates to draw any firm conclusions about the future of AI and news organizations—there are too many factors in flux. For now, the technology is mostly being used to refine existing news practices rather than to transform them altogether. But that could soon change. If it does, public discourse as a whole will shift, too. Simon notes:
“As news organizations get reshaped by AI, so too will the public arena that is so vital to democracy and for which news organizations play a gatekeeper role. Depending on how it is used, AI has the potential to structurally strengthen news organizations’ position as gatekeepers to an information environment that provides ‘people with relatively accurate, accessible, diverse, relevant, and timely independently produced information about public affairs’ which they can use to make decisions about their lives. … This, however, is not a foregone conclusion. Instead, it will depend on decisions made by the set of actors who wield control over the conditions of news work — executives, managers, and journalists, but also increasingly technology companies, regulatory bodies, and the public.”
That is a lot of players. Which ones hold the most power in this equation? Hint: it is not the last entry in the list.
Cynthia Murrell, February 21, 2024
Map Data: USGS Historical Topos
February 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The ESRI blog published “Access Over 181,000 USGS Historical Topographic Maps.” The map outfit teamed with the US Geological Survey to provide access to an additional 1,745 maps. The total maps in the collection is now 181,008.
The blog reports:
Esri’s USGS historical topographic map collection contains historical quads (excluding orthophoto quads) dating from 1884 to 2006 with scales ranging from 1:10,000 to 1:250,000. The scanned maps can be used in ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, and ArcGIS Enterprise. They can also be downloaded as georeferenced TIFs for use in other applications.
These data are useful. Maps can be viewed with ESRI’s online service called the Historical Topo Map Explorer. You can access that online service at this link.
If you are not familiar with historical topos, ESRI states in an ARCGIS post:
The USGS topographic maps were designed to serve as base maps for geologists by defining streams, water bodies, mountains, hills, and valleys. Using contours and other precise symbolization, these maps were drawn accurately, made mathematically correct, and edited carefully. The topographic quadrangles gradually evolved to show the changing landscape of a new nation by adding symbolization for important highways; canals; railroads; and railway stations; wagon roads; and the sites of cities, towns and villages. New and revised quadrangles helped geologists map the mineral fields, and assisted populated places to develop safe and plentiful water supplies and lay out new highways. Primary considerations of the USGS were the permanence of features; map symbolization and legibility; and the overall cost of compiling, editing, printing and distributing the maps to government agencies, industry, and the general public. Due to the longevity and the numerous editions of these maps they now serve new audiences such as historians, genealogists, archeologists, and people who are interested in the historical landscape of the U.S.
This public facing data service is one example of extremely useful information gathered by US government entities can be made more accessible via a public-private relationship. When I served on the board of the US National Technical Information Service, I learned that other useful information is available, just not easily accessible to US citizens.
Good work, ESRI and USGS! Now what about making that volcano data a bit easier to find and access in real time?
Stephen E Arnold, February 20, 2024
An Allocation Society or a Knowledge Value System? Pick One, Please!
February 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I get random inquiries, usually from LinkedIn, asking me about books I would recommend to a younger person trying to [a] create a brand and make oodles of money, [b] generate sales immediately from their unsolicited emails to strangers, and [c] a somewhat limp-wristed attempt to sell me something. I typically recommend a book I learned about when I was giving lectures at the Kansai Institute of Technology and a couple of outfits in Tokyo. The book is the Knowledge Value Revolution written by a former Japanese government professional named Taichi Sakaiya. The subtitle to the book is “A History of the Future.”
So what?
I read an essay titled “The Knowledge Economy Is Over. Welcome to the Allocation Economy.” The thesis of this essay is that Sakaiya’s description of the future is pretty much wacko. Here’s a passage from the essay about the allocation economy:
Summarizing used to be a skill I needed to have, and a valuable one at that. But before it had been mostly invisible, bundled into an amorphous set of tasks that I’d called “intelligence”—things that only I and other humans could do. But now that I can use ChatGPT for summarizing, I’ve carved that task out of my skill set and handed it over to AI. Now, my intelligence has learned to be the thing that directs or edits summarizing, rather than doing the summarizing myself.
A world class knowledge surfer now wins gold medals for his ability to surf on the output of smart robots and pervasive machines. Thanks, Google ImageFX. Not funny but good enough, which is the mark of a champion today, isn’t it?
For me, the message is that people want summaries. This individual was a summarizer and, hence, a knowledge worker. With the smart software doing the summarizing, the knowledge worker is kaput. The solution is for the knowledge worker to move up conceptually. The jump is a metaplay. Debaters learn quickly that when an argument is going nowhere, the trick that can deliver a win is to pop up a level. The shift from poverty to a discussion about the disfunction of a city board of advisors is a trick used in places like San Francisco. It does not matter that the problem of messios is not a city government issue. Tents and bench dwellers are the exhaust from a series of larger systems. None can do much about the problem. Therefore, nothing gets done. But for a novice debater unfamiliar with popping up a level or a meta-play, the loss is baffling.
The essay putting Sakaiya in the dumpster is not convincing and it certainly is not going to win a debate between the knowledge value revolution and the allocation economy. The reason strikes me a failure to see that smart software, the present and future dislocations of knowledge workers, and the brave words about becoming a director or editor are evidence that Sakaiya was correct. He wrote in 1985:
If the type of organization typical of industrial society could be said to resemble a symphony orchestra, the organizations typical of the knowledge-value society would be more like the line-up of a jazz band.
The author of the allocation economy does not realize that individuals with expertise are playing a piano or a guitar. Of those who do play, only a tiny fraction (a one percent of the top 10 percent perhaps?) will be able to support themselves. Of those elite individuals, how many Taylor Swifts are making the record companies and motion picture empresarios look really stupid? Two, five, whatever. The point is that the knowledge-value revolution transforms much more than “attention” or “allocation.” Sakaiya, in my opinion, is operating at a sophisticated meta-level. Renaming the plight of people who do menial mental labor does not change a painful fact: Knowledge value means those who have high-value knowledge are going to earn a living. I am not sure what the newly unemployed technology workers, the administrative facilitators, or the cut-loose “real” journalists are going to do to live as their parents did in the good old days.
The allocation essay offers:
AI is cheap enough that tomorrow, everyone will have the chance to be a manager—and that will significantly increase the creative potential of every human being. It will be on our society as a whole to make sure that, with the incredible new tools at our disposal, we bring the rest of the economy along for the ride.
How many jazz musicians can ride on a particular market sector propelled by smart software? How many individuals will enjoy personal and financial success in the AI allocation-centric world? Remember, please, there are about eight billion people in the world? How many Duke Ellingtons and Dave Brubecks were there?
The knowledge value revolution means that the majority of individuals will be excluded from nine to five jobs, significant financial success, and meaningful impact on social institutions. I am not for everyone becoming a surfer on smart software, but if that happens, the future is going to be more like the one Sakaiya outlined, not an allocation-centric operation in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, February 20, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
