My Way or the Highway, Humanoid
March 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Curious how “nice” people achieve success? “Playground Bullies Do Prosper – And Go On to Earn More in Middle Age” may have an answer. The write up says:
Children who displayed aggressive behavior at school, such as bullying or temper outbursts, are likely to earn more money in middle age, according to a five-decade study that upends the maxim that bullies do not prosper.
If you want a tip for career success, I would interpret the write up’s information to start when young. Also, start small. The Logan Paul approach to making news is to fight the ageing Mike Tyson. Is that for you? I know I would not start small by irritating someone who walks with a cane. But, to each his or her own. If there is a small child selling Girl Scout Cookies, one might sharpen his or her leadership skills by knocking the cookie box to the ground and stomping on it. The modest demonstration of power can then be followed with the statement, “Those cookies contain harmful substances. You should be ashamed.” Then as your skills become more fluid and automatic, move up. I suggest testing one’s bullying expertise on a local branch of a street gang involved in possibly illegal activities.
Thanks MSFT Copilot. I wonder if you used sophisticated techniques when explaining to OpenAI that you were hedging your bets.
The write up quotes an expert as saying:
“We found that those children who teachers felt had problems with attention, peer relationships and emotional instability did end up earning less in the future, as we expected, but we were surprised to find a strong link between aggressive behavior at school and higher earnings in later life,” said Prof Emilia Del Bono, one of the study’s authors.
A bully might respond to this professor and say, “What are you going to do about it?” One response is, “You will earn more, young student.” The write up reports:
Many successful people have had problems of various kinds at school, from Winston Churchill, who was taken out of his primary school, to those who were expelled or suspended.
Will nice guys who are not bullies become the leaders of the post Covid world? The article quotes another expert as saying:
“We’re also seeing a generational shift where younger generations expect to have a culture of belonging and being treated with fairness, respect and kindness.”
Sounds promising. Has anyone told the companies terminating thousands of workers? What about outfits like IBM which are dumping humans for smart software? Yep, progress just like that made at Google in the last couple of years.
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2024
AI and Jobs: Under Estimating Perhaps?
March 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am interested in the impact of smart software on jobs. I spotted “1.5M UK Jobs Now at Risk from AI, Report Finds.” But the snappier assertion appears in the subtitle to the write up:
The number could rise to 7.9M in the future
The UK has about 68 million people (maybe more, maybe fewer but close enough). The estimate of 7.9 million job losses translates to seven million people out of work. Now these types of “future impact” estimates are diaphanous. But the message seems clear. Despite the nascent stage of smart software’s development, the number one use may be dumping humans and learning to love software. Will the software make today’s systems work more efficiently. In my experience, computerizing processes does very little to improve the outputs. Some tasks are completed quickly. However, get the process wrong, and one has a darned interesting project for a blue-chip consulting firm.
The smart software is alone in an empty office building. Does the smart software look lonely or unhappy? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough illustration.
The write up notes:
Back-office, entry-level, and part-time jobs are the ones mostly exposed, with employees on medium and low wages being at the greatest risk.
If this statement is accurate, life will be exciting for parents whose progeny camp out in the family room or who turn to other, possibly less socially acceptable, methods of generating cash. Crime comes to my mind, but you may see volunteers working to pick up trash in lovely Plymouth or Blackpool.
The write up notes:
Experts have argued that AI can be a force for good in the labor market — as long as it goes hand in hand with rebuilding workforce skills.
Academics, wizards, elected officials, consultants can find the silver lining in the cloud that spawned the tornado.
Several observations, if I may:
- The acceleration of tools to add AI to processes is evident in the continuous stream of “new” projects appearing in GitHub, Product Watch, and AI newsletters. The availability of tools means that applications will flow into job-reducing opportunities; that is, outfits which will pay cash to cut payroll.
- AI functions are now being embedded in mobile devices. Smart software will be a crutch and most users will not realize that their own skills are being transformed. Welcoming AI is an important first step in using AI to replace an expensive, unreliable humanoid.
- The floundering of government and non-governmental organizations is amusing to watch. Each day documents about managing the AI “risk” appear in my feedreader. Yet zero meaningful action is taking place as certain large companies work to consolidate their control of essential and mostly proprietary technologies and know how.
Net net: The job loss estimate is interesting. My hunch is that it underestimates the impact of smart software on traditional work. This is good for smart software and possibly not so good for humanoids.
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2024
Backpressure: A Bit of a Problem in Enterprise Search in 2024
March 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have noticed numerous references to search and retrieval in the last few months. Most of these articles and podcasts focus on making an organization’s data accessible. That’s the same old story told since the days of STAIRS III and other dinobaby artifacts. The gist of the flow of search-related articles is that information is locked up or silo-ized. Using a combination of “artificial intelligence,” “open source” software, and powerful computing resources — problem solved.
A modern enterprise search content processing system struggles to keep pace with the changes to already processed content (the deltas) and the flow of new content in a wide range of file types and formats. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You have learned from your experience with Fast Search & Transfer file indexing it seems.
The 2019 essay “Backpressure Explained — The Resisted Flow of Data Through Software” is pertinent in 2024. The essay, written by Jay Phelps, states:
The purpose of software is to take input data and turn it into some desired output data. That output data might be JSON from an API, it might be HTML for a webpage, or the pixels displayed on your monitor. Backpressure is when the progress of turning that input to output is resisted in some way. In most cases that resistance is computational speed — trouble computing the output as fast as the input comes in — so that’s by far the easiest way to look at it.
Mr. Phelps identifies several types of backpressure. These are:
- More info to be processed than a system can handle
- Reading and writing file speeds are not up to the demand for reading and writing
- Communication “pipes” between and among servers are too small, slow, or unstable
- A group of hardware and software components cannot move data where it is needed fast enough.
I have simplified his more elegantly expressed points. Please, consult the original 2019 document for the information I have hip hopped over.
My point is that in the chatter about enterprise search and retrieval, there are a number of situations (use cases to those non-dinobabies) which create some interesting issues. Let me highlight these and then wrap up this short essay.
In an enterprise, the following situations exist and are often ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. When people pooh pooh my observations, it is clear to me that these people have [a] never been subject to a legal discovery process associated with enterprise search fraud and [b] are entitled whiz kids who don’t do too much in the quite dirty, messy, “real” world. (I do like the variety in T shirts and lumberjack shirts, however.)
First, in an enterprise, content changes. These “deltas” are a giant problem. I know that none of the systems I have examined, tested, installed, or advised which have a procedure to identify a change made to a PowerPoint, presented to a client, and converted to an email confirming a deal, price, or technical feature in anything close to real time. In fact, no one may know until the president’s laptop is examined by an investigator who discovers the “forgotten” information. Even more exciting is the opposing legal team’s review of a laptop dump as part of a discovery process “finds” the sequence of messages and connects the dots. Exciting, right. But “deltas” pose another problem. These modified content objects proliferate like gerbils. One can talk about information governance, but it is just that — talk, meaningless jabber.
Second, the content which an employees needs to answer a business question in a timely manner can reside in am employee’s laptop or a mobile phone, a digital notebook, in a Vimeo video or one of those nifty “private” YouTube videos, or behind the locked doors and specialized security systems loved by some pharma company’s research units, a Word document in something other than English, etc. Now the content is changed. The enterprise search fast talkers ignore identifying and indexing these documents with metadata that pinpoints the time of the change and who made it. Is this important? Some contract issues require this level of information access. Who asks for this stuff? How about a COTR for a billion dollar government contract?
Third, I have heard and read that modern enterprise search systems “use”, “apply,” “operate within” industry standard authentication systems. Sure they do within very narrowly defined situations. If the authorization system does not work, then quite problematic things happen. Examples range from an employee’s failure to find the information needed and makes a really bad decision. Alternatively the employee goes on an Easter egg hunt which may or may not work, but if the egg found is good enough, then that’s used. What happens? Bad things can happen? Have you ridden in an old Pinto? Access control is a tough problem, and it costs money to solve. Enterprise search solutions, even the whiz bang cloud centric distributed systems, implement something, which is often not the “right” thing.
Fourth, and I am going to stop here, the problem of end-to-end encrypted messaging systems. If you think employees do not use these, I suggest you do a bit of Eastern egg hunting. What about the content in those systems? You can tell me, “Our company does not use these.” I say, “Fine. I am a dinobaby, and I don’t have time to talk with you because you are so much more informed than I am.”
Why did I romp though this rather unpleasant issue in enterprise search and retrieval? The answer is, “Enterprise search remains a problematic concept.” I believe there is some litigation underway about how the problem of search can morph into a fantasy of a huge business because we have a solution.”
Sorry. Not yet. Marketing and closing deals are different from solving findability issues in an enterprise.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024
A Single, Glittering Google Gem for 27 March 2024
March 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
So many choices. But one gem outshines the others. Google’s search generative experience is generating publicity. The old chestnut may be true. Any publicity is good publicity. I would add a footnote. Any publicity about Google’s flawed smart software is probably good for Microsoft and other AI competitors. Google definitely looks as though it has some behaviors that are — how shall I phrase it? — questionable. No, maybe, ill-considered. No, let’s go with bungling. That word has a nice ring to it. Bungling.
I learned about this gem in “Google’s New AI Search Results Promotes Sites Pushing Malware, Scams.” The write up asserts:
Google’s new AI-powered ‘Search Generative Experience’ algorithms recommend scam sites that redirect visitors to unwanted Chrome extensions, fake iPhone giveaways, browser spam subscriptions, and tech support scams.
The technique which gets the user from the quantumly supreme Google to the bad actor goodies is redirects. Some user notification functions to pump even more inducements toward the befuddled user. (See, bungling and befuddled. Alliteration.)
Why do users fall for these bad actor gift traps? It seems that Google SGE conversational recommendations sound so darned wonderful, Google users just believe that the GOOG cares about the information it presents to those who “trust” the company. k
The write up points out that the DeepMinded Google provided this information about the bumbling SGE:
"We continue to update our advanced spam-fighting systems to keep spam out of Search, and we utilize these anti-spam protections to safeguard SGE," Google told BleepingComputer. "We’ve taken action under our policies to remove the examples shared, which were showing up for uncommon queries."
Isn’t that reassuring? I wonder if the anecdote about this most recent demonstration of the Google’s wizardry will become part of the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act?
This is a gem. It combines Google’s management process, word salad frippery, and smart software into one delightful bouquet. There you have it: Bungling, befuddled, bumbling, and bouquet. I am adding blundering. I do like butterfingered, however.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024
IBM and AI: A Spur to Other Ageing Companies?
March 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I love IBM. Well, I used to. Years ago I had three IBM PC 704 servers. Each was equipped with its expansion SCSI storage device. My love disappeared as we worked daily to keep the estimable ServeRAID softwware in tip top shape. For those unfamiliar with the thrill of ServeRAID, “tip top” means preventing the outstanding code from trashing data.
IBM is a winner. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are those server vulnerabilities today?
I was, therefore, not surprised to read “IBM Stock Nears an All-Time High—And It May Have Something to Do with its CEO Replacing As Many Workers with AI As Possible.” Instead of creating the first and best example of dinobaby substitution, Big Blue is now using smart software to reduce headcount. The write up says:
[IBM] used AI to reduce the number of employees working on relatively manual HR-related work to about 50 from 700 previously, which allowed them to focus on other things, he [Big Dog at IBM] wrote in an April commentary piece for Fortune. And in its January fourth quarter earnings, the company said it would cut costs in 2024 by $3 billion, up from $2 billion previously, in part by laying off thousands of workers—some of which it later chalked up to AI influence.
Is this development important? Yep. Here are the reasons:
- Despite its interesting track record in smart software, IBM has figured out it can add sizzle to the ageing giant by using smart software to reduce costs. Forget that cancer curing stuff. Go with straight humanoid replacement.
- The company has significant influence. Some Gen Y and Gen Z wizards don’t think about IBM. That’s fine, but banks, government agencies, Fortune 1000 firms, and family fund management firms do. What IBM does influences these bright entities’ thinking.
- The targeted workers are what one might call “expendable.” That’s a great way to motivate some of Big Blue’s war horses.
Net net: The future of AI is coming into focus for some outfits who may have a touch of arthritis.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024
Commercial Open Source: Fantastic Pipe Dream or Revenue Pipe Line?
March 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Open source is a term which strikes me as au courant. Artificial intelligence software is often described as “open source.” The idea has a bit of “do good” mixed with the idea that commercial software puts customers in handcuffs. (I think I hear Kumbaya playing faintly in the background.) Is it possible to blend the idea of free and open software with the principles of commercial software lock in? Notable open source entrepreneurs have become difficult to differentiate from a run-of-the-mill technology company. Examples include RedHat, Elastic, and OpenAI. Ooops. Sorry. OpenAI is a different type of company. I think.
Will open source software, particularly open source AI components, end up like this private playground? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You are into open source, aren’t you? I hope your commitment is stronger than for server and cloud security.
I had these open source thoughts when I read “AI and Data Infrastructure Drives Demand for Open Source Startups.” The source of the information is Runa Capital, now located in Luxembourg. The firm publishes a report called the Runa Open Source Start Up Index, and it is a “rosy” document. The point of the article is that Runa sees open source as a financial opportunity. You can start your exploration of the tables and charts at this link on the Runa Capital Web site.
I want to focus on some information tucked into the article, just not presented in bold face or with a snappy chart. Here’s the passage I noted:
Defining what constitutes “open source” has its own inherent challenges too, as there is a spectrum of how “open source” a startup is — some are more akin to “open core,” where most of their major features are locked behind a premium paywall, and some have licenses which are more restrictive than others. So for this, the curators at Runa decided that the startup must simply have a product that is “reasonably connected to its open-source repositories,” which obviously involves a degree of subjectivity when deciding which ones make the cut.
The word “reasonably” invokes an image of lawyers negotiating on behalf of their clients. Nothing is quite so far from the kumbaya of the “real” open source software initiative as lawyers. Just look at the licenses for open source software.
I also noted this statement:
Thus, according to Runa’s methodology, it uses what it calls the “commercial perception of open-source” for its report, rather than the actual license the company attaches to its project.
What is “open source”? My hunch it is whatever the lawyers and courts conclude.
Why is this important?
The talk about “open source” is relevant to the “next big thing” in technology. And what is that? ANSWER: A fresh set of money making plays.
I know that there are true believers in open source. I wish them financial and kumbaya-type success.
My take is different: Open source, as the term is used today, is one of the phrases repurposed to breathe life in what some critics call a techno-feudal world. I don’t have a dog in the race. I don’t want a dog in any race. I am a dinobaby. I find amusement in how language becomes the Teflon on which money (one hopes) glides effortlessly.
And the kumbaya? Hmm.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2024
Xoogler Predicts the Future: China Bad, Xoogler Good
March 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Did you know China, when viewed from the vantage point of a former Google executive, is bad? That is a stunning comment. Google tried valiantly to convert China into a money stream. That worked until it didn’t. Now a former Googler or Xoogler in some circles has changed his tune.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Working on security I presume?
“Eric Schmidt’s China Alarm” includes some interesting observations. None of which address Google’s attempt to build a China-acceptable search engine. Oh, well, anyone can forget minor initiatives like that. Let’s look at a couple of comments from the article:
How about this comment about responding to China:
"We have to do whatever it takes."
I wonder if Mr. Schmidt has been watching Dr. Strangelove on YouTube. Someone might pull that viewing history to clarify “whatever it takes.”
Another comment I found interesting is:
China has already become a peer of the U.S. and has a clear plan for how it wants to dominate critical fields, from semiconductors to AI, and clean energy to biotech.
That’s interesting. My thought is that the “clear plan” seems to embrace education; that is, producing more engineers than some other countries, leveraging open source technology, and erecting interesting barriers to prevent US companies from selling some products in the Middle Kingdom. How long has this “clear plan” been chugging along? I spotted portions of the plan in Wuhan in 2007. But I guess now it’s a more significant issue after decades of being front and center.
I noted this comment about artificial intelligence:
Schmidt also said Europe’s proposals on regulating artificial intelligence "need to be re-done," and in general says he is opposed to regulating AI and other advances to solve problems that have yet to appear.
The idea is an interesting one. The UN and numerous NGOs and governmental entities around the world are trying to regulate, tame, direct, or ameliorate the impact of smart software. How’s that going? My answer is, “Nowhere fast.”
The article makes clear that Mr. Schmidt is not just a Xoogler; he is a global statesperson. But in the back of my mind, once a Googler, always a Googler.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2024
AI Proofing Tools in Higher Education Limbo
March 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Where is the line between AI-assisted plagiarism and a mere proofreading tool? That is something universities really should have decided by now. Those that have not risk appearing hypocritical and unjust. For example, the University of North Georgia (UNG) specifically recommends students use Grammarly to help proofread their papers. And yet, as News Nation reports, a “Student Fights AI Cheating Allegations for Using Grammarly” at that school.
The trouble began when Marley Stevens’ professor ran her paper through plagiarism-detection software Turnitin, which flagged it for an AI violation. Apparently that (ironically) AI-powered tool did not know Grammarly was on the university’s “nice” list. But surely the charge of cheating was reversed once human administrators got involved, right? Nope. Writer Damita Memezes tells us:
“‘I’m on probation until February 16 of next year. And this started when he sent me the email. It was October. I didn’t think that now in March of 2024, that this would still be a big thing that was going on,’ Stevens said. Despite Grammarly being recommended on the University of North Georgia’s website, Stevens found herself embroiled in battle to clear her name. The tool, briefly removed from the school’s website, later resurfaced, adding to the confusion surrounding its acceptable usage despite the software’s utilization of generative AI. ‘I have a teacher this semester who told me in an email like “yes use Grammarly. It’s a great tool.” And they advertise it,’ Stevens said. … Despite Stevens’ appeal and subsequent GoFundMe campaign to rectify the situation, her options seem limited. The university’s stance, citing the absence of suspension or expulsion, has left her in a bureaucratic bind.”
Grammarly’s Jenny Maxwell defends the tool and emphasizes her company’s transparency around its generative components. She suggests colleges and universities update their assessment methods to address evolving tech like Grammarly. For good measure, we would add Microsoft Word’s Copilot and Google Chrome’s "help me write" feature. Shouldn’t schools be training students in the responsible use of today’s technology? According to UNG, yes. And also, no.
This means that if you use Word and its smart software, you may be a cheater. No need to wait until you go to work at a blue chip consulting firm. You are working on your basic consulting skills.
Cynthia Murrell, March 26, 2024
Can Ma Bell Boogie?
March 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
AT&T provides numerous communication and information services to the US government and companies. People see the blue and white trucks with obligatory orange cones and think nothing about their presence. Decades after Judge Green rained on the AT&T monopoly parade, the company has regained some of its market chutzpah. The old-line Bell heads knew that would happen. One reason was the simple fact that communications services have a tendency to pool; that is, online, for instance, wants to be a monopoly. Like water, online and communication services seek the lowest level. One can grouse about a leaking basement, but one is complaining about a basic fact. Complain away, but the water pools. Similarly AT&T benefits and knows how to make the best of this pooling, consolidating, and collecting reality.
I do miss the “old” AT&T. Say what you will about today’s destabilizing communications environment, just don’t forget that the pre-Judge Green world produced useful innovations, provided hardware that worked, and made it possible for some government functions to work much better than those operations perform today.
Thanks, MSFT, it seems you understand ageing companies which struggle in the midst of the cyber whippersnappers.
But what’s happened?
In February 2024, AT&T experienced an outage. The redundant, fail-safe, state-of-the-art infrastructure failed. “AT&T Cellular Service Restored after Daylong Outage; Cause Still Unknown” reported:
AT&T said late Thursday [February 24, 2024] that based on an initial review, the outage was “caused by the application and execution of an incorrect process used as we were expanding our network, not a cyber attack.” The company will continue to assess the outage.
What do we publicly know about this remarkable event a month ago? Not much. I am not going to speculate how a single misstep can knock out AT&T, but it raises some questions about AT&T’s procedures, its security, and, yes, its technical competence. The AT&T Ashburn data center is an interesting cluster of facilities. Could it be “knocked offline”? My concern is that the answer to this question is, “You bet your bippy it could.”
A second interesting event surfaced as well. AT&T suffered a mysterious breach which appears to have compromised data about millions of “customers.” And “AT&T Won’t Say How Its Customers’ Data Spilled Online.” Here’s a statement from the report of the breach:
When reached for comment, AT&T spokesperson Stephen Stokes told TechCrunch in a statement: “We have no indications of a compromise of our systems. We determined in 2021 that the information offered on this online forum did not appear to have come from our systems. This appears to be the same dataset that has been recycled several times on this forum.”
Leaked data are no big deal and the incident remains unexplained. The AT&T system went down essential at one fell swoop. Plus there is no explanation which resonates with my understanding of the Bell “way.”
Some questions:
- What has AT&T accomplished by its lack of public transparency?
- Has the company lost its ability to manage a large, dynamic system due to cost cutting?
- Is a lack of training and perhaps capable staff undermining what I think of as “mission critical capabilities” for business and government entities?
- What are US regulatory authorities doing to address what is, in my opinion, a threat to the economy of the US and the country’s national security?
Couple the AT&T events with emerging technology like artificial intelligence, will the company make appropriate decisions or create vulnerabilities typically associated with a dominant software company?
Not a positive set up in my opinion. Ma Bell, are you to old and fat to boogie?
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2024
Research into Baloney Uses Four Letter Words
March 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am critical of university studies. However, I spotted one which strikes as the heart of the Silicon Valley approach to life. “Research Shows That People Who BS Are More Likely to Fall for BS” has an interesting subtitle; to wit:
People who frequently mislead others are less able to distinguish fact from fiction, according to University of Waterloo researchers
A very good looking bull spends time reviewing information helpful to him in selling his artificial intelligence system. Unlike the two cows, he does not realize that he is living in a construct of BS. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are you doing with those printer woes today? Good enough, I assume.
Consider the headline in the context of promises about technologies which will “change everything.” Examples range from the marvels of artificial intelligence to the crazy assertions about quantum computing. My hunch is that the reason baloney has become one of the most popular mental foods in the datasphere is that people desperately want a silver bullet. Other know that if a silver bullet is described with appropriate language and a bit of sizzle, the thought can be a runway for money.
What’s this mean? We have created a culture in North America that makes “technology” and “glittering generalities” into hyperbole factories. Why believe me? Let’s look at the “research.”
The write up reports:
People who frequently try to impress or persuade others with misleading exaggerations and distortions are themselves more likely to be fooled by impressive-sounding misinformation… The researchers found that people who frequently engage in “persuasive bullshitting” were actually quite poor at identifying it. Specifically, they had trouble distinguishing intentionally profound or scientifically accurate fact from impressive but meaningless fiction. Importantly, these frequent BSers are also much more likely to fall for fake news headlines.
Let’s think about this assertion. The technology story teller is an influential entity. In the world of AI, for example, some firms which have claimed “quantum supremacy” showcase executives who spin glorious word pictures of smart software reshaping the world. The upsides are magnetic; the downsides dismissed.
What about crypto champions? Telegram, founded by two Russian brothers, are spinning fabulous tales of revenue from advertising in an encrypted messaging system and cheerleading for a more innovative crypto currency. Operating from Dubai, there are true believers. What’s not to like? Maybe these bros have the solution that has long been part of the Harvard winkle confections.
What shocked me about the write up was the use of the word “bullshit.” Here’s an example from the academic article:
“We found that the more frequently someone engages in persuasive bullshitting, the more likely they are to be duped by various types of misleading information regardless of their cognitive ability, engagement in reflective thinking, or metacognitive skills,” Littrell said. “Persuasive BSers seem to mistake superficial profoundness for actual profoundness. So, if something simply sounds profound, truthful, or accurate to them that means it really is. But evasive bullshitters were much better at making this distinction.”
What if the write up is itself BS? What if the journal publishing the article — British Journal of Social Psychology — is BS? On one level, I want to agree that those skilled in the art of baloney manufacturing, distributing, and outputting have a quite specific skill. On the other hand, I admit that I cannot determine at first glance if the information provided is not synthetic, ripped off, shaped, or weaponized. I would assert that most people are not able to identify what is “verifiable”, “an accurate accepted fact”, or “true.”
We live in a post-reality era. When the presidents of outfits like Harvard and Stanford face challenges to their research accuracy, what can I do when confronted with a media release about BS. Upon reflection, I think the generalization that people cannot figure out what’s on point or not is true. When drug store cashiers cannot make change, I think that’s strong anecdotal evidence that other parts of their mental toolkit have broken or missing parts.
But the statement that those who output BS cannot themselves identify BS may be part of a broader educational failure. Lazy people, those who take short cuts, people who know how to do the PT Barnum thing, and sales professionals trying to close a deal reflect a societal issue. In a world of baloney, everything is baloney.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
