Google: Android and the Walled Garden
March 31, 2025
Dinobaby says, “No smart software involved. That’s for “real” journalists and pundits.
In my little corner of the world, I do not see Google as “open.” One can toss around the idea 24×7, and I won’t change my mind. Despite its unusual approach to management, the company has managed to contain the damage from Xooglers’ yip yapping about the company. Xoogler.co is focused on helping people. I suppose there are versions of Sarah Wynn-Williams “Careless People” floating around. Few talk much about THE Timnit Gebru “parrot” paper. Google is, it seems, just not the buzz generator it was in 2006, the year the decline began to accelerate in my opinion.
We have another example of “circling the wagons” strategy. It is a doozy.
“Google Moves All Android Development Behind Closed Doors” reports with some “real” writing and recycling of Google generated slick talk an interesting shift in the world of the little green man icon:
Google had to merge the two branches, which lead to problems and issues, so Google decided it’s now moving all development of Android behind closed doors
How many versions of messaging apps did Google have before it decided that “let many flowers bloom” was not in line with the sleek profile the ageing Google want to flaunt on Wall Street?
The article asks a good question:
…if development happens entirely behind closed doors, with only the occasional code drop, is the software in question really open source? Technically, the answer is obviously ‘yes’ – there’s no requirement that development take place in public. However, I’m fairly sure that when most people think of open source, they think not only of occasionally throwing chunks of code over the proverbial corporate walls, but also of open development, where everybody is free to contribute, pipe in, and follow along.
News flash from the dinobaby: Open source software, when bandied about by folks who don’t worry too much about their mom missing a Social Security check means:
- We don’t want to chase and fix bugs. Make it open source and let the community do it for free.
- We probably have coded up something that violates laws. By making it open source, we are really benefiting those other developers and creating opportunities for innovation.
- We can use the buzzword “open source” and jazz the VCs with a term that is ripe with promise for untold riches
- A student thinks: I can make my project into open source and maybe it will help me get a job.
- A hacker thinks: I can get “cred” by taking my exploit and coding a version that penetration testers will find helpful and possibly not discover the backdoor.
I have not exhausted the kumbaya about open source.
It is clear that Google is moving in several directions, a luxury only Googzillas have:
First, Google says, “We will really, really, cross my fingers and hope to die, share code … just like always.
Second, Google can add one more oxen drawn wagon to its defensive circle. The company will need it when the licensing terms for Android include some very special provisions. Of course, Google may be charitable and not add additional fees to its mobile OS.
Third, it can wave the “we good managers” flag.
Fourth, as the write up correctly notes:
…Darwin, the open source base underneath macOS and iOS, is technically open source, but nobody cares because Apple made it pretty much worthless in and of itself. Anything of value is stripped out and not only developed behind closed doors, but also not released as open source, ensuring Darwin is nothing but a curiosity we sometimes remember exists. Android could be heading in the same direction.
I think the “could” is a hedge. I penciled in “will.” But I am a dinobaby. What do I know?
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2025
Apple CEO Chases Chinese AI and Phone Sales
March 31, 2025
While the hullabaloo about making stakes in China’s burgeoning market has died down, Big Tech companies still want pieces of the Chinese pie or dumpling would be a better metaphor here. An example of Big Tech wanting to entrench itself in the ChinBaiese market is Apple. Mac Rumors reports that Apple CEO Tim Cook was recently in China and he complimented start-up Deepseek for its AI models. The story, “Apple CEO Tim Cook Praises China’s Deepseek”
While Cook didn’t say he would pursue a partnership with Deepseek, he was impressed with their AI models. He called them excellent, because Deepseek delivers AI models with high performance capabilities that have lower costs and compute requirements. Deepseek’s research has been compared to OpenAI for achieving similar results by using less resources.
When Cook visited China he reportedly made an agreement with Alibaba Group to integrate its Qwen models into Apple Intelligence. There are also rumors that Apple’s speaking with Baidu about providing LLMs for the Chinese market.
Does this mean that Tim Apple hopes he can use Chinese smart tech in the iPhone and make that more appealing to Chinese users? Hmmmm.
Cook conducted more business during his visit:
In addition to his comments on AI, Cook announced plans to expand Apple’s cooperation with the China Development Research Foundation, alongside continued investments in clean energy development. Throughout his visit, Cook posted updates on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, showcasing a range of Apple products being used in classrooms, creative environments, and more.
Cook’s comments mark a continuation of Apple’s intensified focus on the Chinese market at a time when the company is facing declining iPhone shipments and heightened competition from domestic brands. Apple’s smartphone shipments in China are believed to have fallen by 25% year-over-year in the fourth quarter of 2024, while annual shipments dropped 17% to 42.9 million units, placing Apple behind local competitors Vivo and Huawei.”
It’s evident that Apple continues to want a piece of the Chinese dumpling, but also seeks to incorporate Chinese technology into its products. Subtle, Tim Apple, subtle.
Whitney Grace, March 31, 2025
Cypersecurity Pros, Bit of an Issue. You Think?
March 28, 2025
Be aware. A dinobaby wrote this essay. No smart software involved.
I read a research report in the Register titled “MINJA Sneak Attack Poisons AI Models for Other Chatbot Users.” The write up is interesting and, I think, important. The weakness is that the essay does not make explicit that this type of vulnerability can be automated and the outputs used to create the type of weaponized content produced by some intelligence agencies (and PR firms).
The write up provides diagrams and useful detail. For this short blog post, my take on the technique is a manipulation of an LLM’s penchant for adapting to the prompts during a human-interface interaction. If the bad actor crafts misleading information, the outputs can be skewed.
How serious is the behavior in LLMs? In my view, the PR and hype about AI renders the intentional fiddling to a trivial concern. That’s not where the technique nor the implications of its effectiveness belong. Triggering wonky behavior is as easy as mismatching patient data as the article illustrates.
Before one gets too excited about autonomous systems using LLMs to just do it, more attention to the intentional weaponization of LLMs is needed.
Will the AI wizards fix this problem? Sure, someday, but it is an issue that requires time, money, and innovation. We live in an era of marketing. I know I cannot trust most people. Now I know that I can’t trust a MINJA that sneaks into my search or research and delivers a knock out blow.
The Register could have been a bit more energetic in its presentation of this issue. The cited essay does a good job of encouraging bad actors and propagandists to be more diligent in their use of LLMs.
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2025
OpenAI and Alleged Environmental Costs: No Problem
March 28, 2025
We know ChatGPT uses an obscene amount of energy and water. But it can be difficult to envision exactly how much. Digg offers some helpful infographics in, "Do You Know How Much Energy ChatGPT Actually Uses?" Writer Darcy Jimenez tells us:
"Since it was first released in 2022, ChatGPT has gained a reputation for being particularly bad for the environment — for example, the GPT-4 model uses as many as 0.14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) generating something as simple as a 100-word email. It can be tricky to fully appreciate the environmental impact of using ChatGPT, though, so the researchers at Business Energy UK made some visualizations to help. Using findings from a 2023 research paper, they calculated the AI chatbot’s estimated water and electricity usage per day, week, month and year, assuming its 200 million weekly users feed it five prompts per day."
See the post for those enlightening graphics. Here are just a few of the astounding statistics:
"Electricity: each day, ChatGPT uses 19.99 million kWh. That’s enough power to charge 4 million phones, or run the Empire State Building for 270 days. … ChatGPT uses a whopping 7.23 billion kWh per year, which is more electricity than the world’s 112 lowest-consumption countries consume over the same period. It’s also enough to power every home in Wyoming for two and a half years."
And:
"Water: The 19.58 million gallons ChatGPT drinks every day could fill a bath for each of Colorado Springs’s 488,664 residents. That amount is also equivalent to everyone in Belgium flushing their toilet at the same time. … In the space of a year, the chatbot uses 7.14 billion gallons of water. That’s enough to fill up the Central Park Reservoir seven times, or power Las Vegas’s Fountains of Bellagio shows for almost 600 years."
Wow. See the write-up for more mind-boggling comparisons. Dolphin lovers and snail darter fans may want to check out the write up.
Cynthia Murrell, March 28, 2025
Amazon Twitches: Love That Streaming, Dontcha?
March 28, 2025
Having a pervasive online presence is great for business, especially if you’re an influencer and you want endorsements. There’s also a dark side to being in the public eye and that comes in the form of anything from home invasions to death threats. Twitch star Amouranth’s home was burgled and she ended up being assaulted. Three more female Twitch stars were in the danger zone. The BBC reports that, “Twitch Creators ‘Taking Live Stream Death Threats Very Seriously.”
Twitch stars Emiru, China, and Valkyrae received death threats from a follower named Russell. He appeared on their stream from Pacific Park, Santa Monica. He threatened to unalive [sic] Emiru when she refused to share her contact information. The streamers reported the incident to Santa Monica police.
Emiru, China, and Valkyrae have millions of followers online. They went to Santa Monica, rode some rides, and then they were followed by a bad actor. When he asked for Emiru’s contact information, she refused and he made the threat. The streamers were scared, so they screamed and ran into a store.
Some watchers said the streamers staged the incident. Valkyrae responded:
‘Posting on X, she also said what happened demonstrates the ‘harsh reality women live in’ and hit out at online comments that it was staged to drive hits.
‘Seeing accounts accusing my friends and I for faking this and blaming us instead of questioning the man’s behaviour has been embarrassing to see.
‘I’ve learned it doesn’t matter how much I accomplish in this industry or how much I try to gain respect, some men will hate women and blame women no matter the situation.’
Emiru did not appear in the follow-up stream on Monday but posted on X afterwards.
‘I wish I could say this was some kind of one-in-a-million incident, but the truth is, it is not,’ she said. ‘This is what life is like for girls.
‘I hope if anything, people see what happened and realise how much of a reality it is for women and content creators as a whole.’”
It’s horrible that these high profile streamers were accosted, received death threats, and were also accused of staging. It demonstrates what women in the public eye are incredibly vulnerable.
Whitney Grace, March 28, 2025
Programmers: The Way of the Dodo Bird?
March 27, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
Let’s just assume that the US economy is A-OK. One discipline is indispensable now and in the future. What is it? The programmer.
Perhaps not if the information in “Employment for Computer Programmers in the U.S. Has Plummeted to Its Lowest Level Since 1980—Years Before the Internet Existed” is accurate.
The write up states:
There are now fewer computer programmers in the U.S. than there were when Pac-Man was first invented—years before the internet existed as we know it. Computer-programmer employment dropped to its lowest level since 1980, the Washington Post reported, using data from the Current Population Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There were more than 300,000 computer-programming jobs in 1980. The number peaked above 700,000 during the dot-com boom of the early 2000s but employment opportunities have withered to about half that today. U.S. employment grew nearly 75% in that 45-year period, according to the Post.
What’s interesting is that article makes a classification decision I wasn’t expecting; specifically:
Computer programmers are different from software developers, who liaise between programmers and engineers and design bespoke solutions—a much more diverse set of responsibilities compared to programmers, who mostly carry out the coding work directly. Software development jobs are expected to grow 17% from 2023 to 2033, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau meanwhile projects about a 10% decline in computer programming employment opportunities from 2023 to 2033.
Let’s go with the distinction.
Why are programmers’ jobs disappearing? The write up has the answer:
There has been a 27.5% plummet in the 12-month average of computer-programming employment since about 2023—coinciding with OpenAI’s introduction of ChatGPT the year before. ChatGPT can handle coding tasks without a user needing more detailed knowledge of the code being written. The correlation between the decline of programmer jobs and the rise of AI tools signals to some experts that the burgeoning technology could begin to cost some coding experts their jobs.
Now experts are getting fired? Does that resonate with everyone? Experts.
There is an upside if one indulges in a willing suspension of disbelief. The write up says:
Programmers will be required to perform complicated tasks, Krishna argued, and AI can instead serve to eliminate the simpler, time-consuming tasks those programmers would once need to perform, which would increase productivity and subsequently company performance.
My question, “Did AI contribute to this article?” In my opinion, something is off. It might be dependent on the references to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and “real” newspapers as sources for the numbers. Would a high school debate teacher give the green light to the logic in categorizing and linking those heading for the termination guillotine and those who are on the path to carpet land. The use of AI hype as fact is interesting as well.
I am thrilled to be a dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2025
The Chinese AI PR Keeps Flowing
March 27, 2025
Is China moving ahead in the AI race? Some seem to think so. Interesting Engineering reports, "‘World’s First’ Fully Autonomous AI Agent Unveiled in China, Handles Real-World Tasks." Writer Christopher McFadden tells us:
"A group of Chinese software engineers have developed what they have called the ‘world’s first’ fully autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agent. Called ‘Manus,’ the AI agent can independently perform complex tasks without human guidance. Unlike AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, or Grok, which need human input to perform things, Manus can proactively make decisions and complete tasks independently. To this end, the AI agent doesn’t necessarily need to wait for instructions to do something. For example, if a human asks, ‘ Find me an apartment,’ Manus can conduct research, evaluate multiple factors (crime rates, weather, market trends), and provide tailored recommendations."
Apparently, Manus works like a contractor directing their subcontractors. We learn:
"Rather than using just one AI model, Manus operates like an executive managing multiple specialized sub-agents. This allows it to tackle complex, multi-step workflows seamlessly. Moreover, the AI agent can work asynchronously, meaning it completes tasks in the background and notifies users only when results are ready, without constant human supervision. This is a significant development; most AIs have relied heavily on humans to initiate tasks. Manus represents a shift toward fully independent AI, raising exciting possibilities and serious concerns about job displacement and responsibility."
A fully independent AI? Perhaps. If so, the escalated threat to human jobs may be real. Manus has some questioning whether the US is truly the unrivaled leader in the AI space. We shall see if the expectations pan out or are, once again, overblown.
Cynthia Murrell, March 27, 2025
Insecure Managers Watch: Whistle While You Shirk
March 27, 2025
It’s never been easier to spy…er…watch employees while they work. Systems track employees and their work. Employees are monitored with software that’s akin to spyware except it wears a white hat (sort of) instead of a black one. Computer World says that employers are spying…er…monitoring their employees more than ever: “Electronic Employee Monitoring Reaches An All-Time High.”
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reported that 80% of companies are tracking remote and hybrid workers. Everything from keystrokes to tone in communications is being recorded. This is often happening without the knowledge of the employees. Meanwhile Gartner believes that spying…er…watching employees is up 30% from 2024, making it 71%.
One reason employees are being monitored more is that return-to-office mandates aren’t working. Employers aren’t enforcing them because employees value flexibility to work where they’re most productive. There’s also a changing workplace trend that employees value supportive management. If the support isn’t there, they’re not afraid to share their discontent online.
Employees are worried about the spying…er…monitoring:
“The constant oversight is stressing workers. In a survey of 1,500 US-based employers and 1,500 workers by ExpressVPN, 24% said they take fewer breaks to avoid looking idle, while 32% feel pressured to work faster. In response, 16% fake productivity with unnecessary apps, 15% schedule emails, and 12% use tools to evade detection. Nearly half (49%) would consider leaving if surveillance increased, with 24% willing to accept a pay cut to avoid it. ‘Surveillance may seem like a solution for improving efficiency, but it’s clearly eroding trust and morale in the workplace,’ said Lauren Hendry Parsons, ExpressVPN’s Digital Privacy Advocate. ‘As companies adopt increasingly invasive tools, they risk losing the loyalty and well-being of their workforce.’”
When employees are watched it lowers their productivity. Many of them also want a disclosure about being monitored and how their information is being used.
Maybe the modern workplace works better as a prison?
Whitney Grace, March 27, 2025
Digital Marketing: Is It Worse Than Social Media? Yep, in Some Ways
March 26, 2025
Yep, another dinobaby original.
With the US taking an interesting trajectory, I have seen an uptick in articles that tackle the question, “Why are many of society’s functions leaking synthetic oil?”
“How Digital Marketing Broke Society” takes a different analytic path. The culprit is not social media. (Please, visualize the tattoos on 11 year olds in TikTok- and Facebook-type content.) The bad actor is “digital marketing.” I must admit that I interpreted “digital marketing” with Google, but, please, don’t take my mental shortcut. You are more informed and neutral than I.
A young Silicon Valley type professional surfing to a digital advertising company on a flood of zeros and ones. He is making six figures and in his mom’s mind, her son is doing good things. He is such a good young man. She then turns her attention to his agentic note: “Love ya, mom.”
Let’s look at what Joan Westenberg (a person about whom I have zero knowledge) asserts.
I noted this passage:
We are, increasingly, a cross-generational society of extremely online, screen-tapping, doom scrolling depressives. And it’s having an impact. More than ever, we are divided by misinformation and disinformation, driven by and vulnerable to ignorance, hate-mongering, and bullshit, reactive more than proactive, caught in what is either a global backslide or a cycle of decay. We’re lonely, scared, and more likely than ever to take it out on total strangers. We read less. We watch more, and what we watch is short-form, viral videos designed to tap into the dopamine-fueled, base parts of our brains.
I think her point comes across, and it resonates with me. Every time I go to the gym I see people in need of serious calorie burning sitting on a machine or a bench fiddling with their mobile phones. I hit the gym at 6 am, and I am astounded that so many people have urgent messages to which they must respond. Hey, do some exercises. But these folks are gym potatoes engaged in doom scrolling I have concluded.
Ms. Westenberg adds:
An entirely new system of influence came into being, operating largely beneath conscious awareness. Dark patterns increased, making it harder for users to protect their privacy or limit their exposure. Intermittent variable rewards—the psychological mechanism that powers slot machines—became standard practice. The industry successfully reframed this surveillance and manipulation as “personalization” and “enhanced user experience”—linguistic legerdemain that positioned exploitation as a service.
I think this is accurate. (Remember, please, that I am interpreting this as Googley behavior. The company can pay for streaming video mostly for free because it seems to have the knack for using advertising to get more advertising and offering tools to facilitate most of the steps in the money extraction process. You, gentle reader, must be more open minded than I am.)
Another point in Ms. Westenberg’s essay caught my attention; to wit:
Meta’s internal research found that divisive content generates significantly higher engagement, translating directly to advertising revenue. YouTube’s recommendation algorithm precisely drives users toward increasingly extreme content because it maximizes watch time and ad impressions. Marketing technology companies have built their entire business models around the commodification of attention – regardless of its social consequences. Digital marketing is capitalism at its most predatory—a system where deliberately amplifying society’s worst impulses becomes a rational business strategy. The industry has created a machine that converts social discord into shareholder value. In an attention economy, hatred isn’t just profitable; it’s the optimal product. The economic model and the foundational worldview of digital marketing operate on the premise that human consciousness exists primarily as a resource to be mined, refined, and sold. It’s a form of cognitive colonization—claiming and exploiting mental territory that once belonged to human beings. You can read it in the language of the industry: users are “captured,” attention is “harvested,” and engagement is “extracted.”
Yes, data mining works. Predictive analytics work for precisely the insight behind Eugene Wigner’s 1960 essay “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” Digital marketing just applies this idea, and, in my opinion, it is indeed highly effective in 21st century human-centric predictive work.
I want to quote the passage that makes me quite happy with Ms. Westenberg’s essay, and if I may do a bit of predictive assertion, makes me feel warm and fuzzy about her mental orientation; specifically, she writes and I quote:
I spent fifteen years in digital marketing. Building campaigns, funnels, and content. But over the last month, I shut down my marketing business. The decision was both ethical and existential. I can’t continue participating in an industry that has evolved from persuasion – harmful enough – to psychological exploitation and the deliberate destruction of our social order. Every optimization, targeting refinement, and engagement metric has brought us closer to a world where human autonomy is systematically undermined for commercial gain. The techniques I learned and taught others—the psychological triggers, the attention-capturing mechanisms, the behavioral prediction models—have escaped their commercial confines to taint our information ecosystem and devour the foundations of political discourse. Digital marketing is a fundamental threat to human flourishing, cognitive autonomy, and democratic governance. The industry has normalized a state of perpetual surveillance and manipulation that would have been unthinkable just decades ago. Its methodologies have created a world where attention is constantly hijacked, emotions are continuously manipulated, and reality itself is customized in pursuit of extraction value.
I am not sure that the flow of digital or weaponized information will stop. I suppose at some point a power outage or some other exogenous event will knock online out, but for the foreseeable future, we have to surf on the torrents flooding the information highway.
Net net: I suppose I should recast my thinking and consider the perpetrators at those who are simply following the Google Legacy.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2025
The Future of Programming in an AI Spruik World
March 26, 2025
Software engineers are, reasonably, concerned about losing their jobs to AI. Australian blogger Clinton Boys asks, "How Will LLMs Take Our Jobs?" After reading several posts by programmers using LLMs for side projects, he believes such accounts suggest where we are headed. He writes:
"The consensus seems to be that rather than a side project being some sort of idea you have, then spend a couple of hours on, maybe learn a few things, but quickly get distracted by life or a new side project, you can now just chuck your idea into the model and after a couple of hours of iterating you have a working project. To me, this all seems to point to the fact that we are currently in the middle of a significant paradigm shift, akin to the transition from writing assembly to compiled programming languages. A potential future is unfolding before our eyes in which programmers don’t write in programming languages anymore, but write in natural language, and generative AI handles the grunt work of actually writing the code, the same way a compiler translates your C code into machine instructions."
Perhaps. But then, he ponders, will the job even fit the title of "engineer"? Will the challenges and creative potential many love about this career vanish? And what would they do then? Boys suggests several routes one might take, with the caveat that a realistic path forward would probably blend several of these. He recognizes one could simply give up and choose a different career entirely. An understandable choice, if one can afford to start over. If not, one might join the AI cavalcade by learning how to create LLMs and/or derive value from them. It may also be wise to climb the corporate ladder—managers should be safer longer, Boys expects. Then again one might play ostrich:
"You could also cross your fingers and hope it pans out differently — particularly if, like me you find the vision of the future spruiked by the most bullish LLM proponents a little ghoulish and offensive to our collective humanity."
Always an option, we suppose. I had to look up the Australian term "spruik." According to Wordsmith.org, it means "to make an elaborate speech, especially to attract customers." Fitting. Finally, Boys says, one could bet on software connoisseurs of the future. Much as some now pay more for hand-made pastries or small-batch IPAs, some clients may be willing to shell out for software crafted the old-fashioned way. One can hope.
Cynthia Murrell, March 26, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
