Stop Indexing! And Pay Up!
July 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “Apple, Nvidia, Anthropic Used Thousands of Swiped YouTube Videos to Train AI.” The write up appears in two online publications, presumably to make an already contentious subject more clicky. The assertion in the title is the equivalent of someone in Salem, Massachusetts, pointing at a widower and saying, “She’s a witch.” Those willing to take the statement at face value would take action. The “trials” held in colonial Massachusetts. My high school history teacher was a witchcraft trial buff. (I think his name was Elmer Skaggs.) I thought about his descriptions of the events. I recall his graphic depictions and analysis of what I recall as “dunking.” The idea was that if a person was a witch, then that person could be immersed one or more times. I think the idea had been popular in medieval Europe, but it was not a New World innovation. Me-too is a core way to create novelty. The witch could survive being immersed for a period of time. With proof, hanging or burning were the next step. The accused who died was obviously not a witch. That’s Boolean logic in a pure form in my opinion.
The Library in Alexandria burns in front of people who wanted to look up information, learn, and create more information. Tough. Once the cultural institution is gone, just figure out the square root of two yourself. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
The accusations and evidence in the article depict companies building large language models as candidates for a test to prove that they have engaged in an improper act. The crime is processing content available on a public network, indexing it, and using the data to create outputs. Since the late 1960s, digitizing information and making it more easily accessible was perceived as an important and necessary activity. The US government supported indexing and searching of technical information. Other fields of endeavor recognized that as the volume of information expanded, the traditional methods of sitting at a table, reading a book or journal article, making notes, analyzing the information, and then conducting additional research or writing a technical report was simply not fast enough. What worked in a medieval library was not a method suited to put a satellite in orbit or perform other knowledge-value tasks.
Thus, online became a thing. Remember, we are talking punched cards, mainframes, and clunky line printers one day there was the Internet. The interest in broader access to online information grew and by 1985, people recognized that online access was useful for many tasks, not just looking up information about nuclear power technologies, a project I worked on in the 1970s. Flash forward 50 years, and we are upon the moment one can read about the “fact” that Apple, Nvidia, Anthropic Used Thousands of Swiped YouTube Videos to Train AI.
The write up says:
AI companies are generally secretive about their sources of training data, but an investigation by Proof News found some of the wealthiest AI companies in the world have used material from thousands of YouTube videos to train AI. Companies did so despite YouTube’s rules against harvesting materials from the platform without permission. Our investigation found that subtitles from 173,536 YouTube videos, siphoned from more than 48,000 channels, were used by Silicon Valley heavyweights, including Anthropic, Nvidia, Apple, and Salesforce.
I understand the surprise some experience when they learn that a software script visits a Web site, processes its content, and generates an index (a buzzy term today is large language model, but I prefer the simpler word index.)
I want to point out that for decades those engaged in making information findable and accessible online have processed content so that a user can enter a query and get a list of indexed items which match that user’s query. In the old days, one used Boolean logic which we met a few moments ago. Today a user’s query (the jazzy term is prompt now) is expanded, interpreted, matched to the user’s “preferences”, and a result generated. I like lists of items like the entries I used to make on a notecard when I was a high school debate team member. Others want little essays suitable for a class assignment on the Salem witchcraft trials in Mr. Skaggs’s class. Today another system can pass a query, get outputs, and then take another action. This is described by the in-crowd as workflow orchestration. Others call it, “taking a human’s job.”
My point is that for decades, the index and searching process has been without much innovation. Sure, software scripts can know when to enter a user name and password or capture information from Web pages that are transitory, disappearing in the blink of an eye. But it is still indexing over a network. The object remains to find information of utility to the user or another system.
The write up reports:
Proof News contributor Alex Reisner obtained a copy of Books3, another Pile dataset and last year published a piece in The Atlantic reporting his finding that more than 180,000 books, including those written by Margaret Atwood, Michael Pollan, and Zadie Smith, had been lifted. Many authors have since sued AI companies for the unauthorized use of their work and alleged copyright violations. Similar cases have since snowballed, and the platform hosting Books3 has taken it down. In response to the suits, defendants such as Meta, OpenAI, and Bloomberg have argued their actions constitute fair use. A case against EleutherAI, which originally scraped the books and made them public, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. Litigation in remaining cases remains in the early stages, leaving the questions surrounding permission and payment unresolved. The Pile has since been removed from its official download site, but it’s still available on file sharing services.
The passage does a good job of making clear that most people are not aware of what indexing does, how it works, and why the process has become a fundamental component of many, many modern knowledge-centric systems. The idea is to find information of value to a person with a question, present relevant content, and enable the user to think new thoughts or write another essay about dead witches being innocent.
The challenge today is that anyone who has written anything wants money. The way online works is that for any single user’s query, the useful information constitutes a tiny, miniscule fraction of the information in the index. The cost of indexing and responding to the query is high, and those costs are difficult to control.
But everyone has to be paid for the information that individual “created.” I understand the idea, but the reality is that the reason indexing, search, and retrieval was invented, refined, and given numerous life extensions was to perform a core function: Answer a question or enable learning.
The write up makes it clear that “AI companies” are witches. The US legal system is going to determine who is a witch just like the process in colonial Salem. Several observations are warranted:
- Modifying what is a fundamental mechanism for information retrieval may be difficult to replace or re-invent in a quick, cost-efficient, and satisfactory manner. Digital information is loosey goosey; that is, it moves, slips, and slides either by individual’s actions or a mindless system’s.
- Slapping fines and big price tags on what remains an access service will take time to have an impact. As the implications of the impact become more well known to those who are aggrieved, they may find that their own information is altered in a fundamental way. How many research papers are “original”? How many journalists recycle as a basic work task? How many children’s lives are lost when the medical reference system does not have the data needed to treat the kid’s problem?
- Accusing companies of behaving improperly is definitely easy to do. Many companies do ignore rules, regulations, and cultural norms. Engineering Index’s publisher leaned that bootleg copies of printed Compendex indexes were available in China. What was Engineering Index going to do when I learned this almost 50 years ago? The answer was give speeches, complain to those who knew what the heck a Compendex was, and talk to lawyers. What happened to the Chinese content pirates? Not much.
I do understand the anger the essay expresses toward large companies doing indexing. These outfits are to some witches. However, if the indexing of content is derailed, I would suggest there are downstream consequences. Some of those consequences will make zero difference to anyone. A government worker at a national lab won’t be able to find details of an alloy used in a nuclear device. Who cares? Make some phone calls? Ask around. Yeah, that will work until the information is needed immediately.
A student accustomed to looking up information on a mobile phone won’t be able to find something. The document is a 404 or the information returned is an ad for a Temu product. So what? The kid will have to go the library, which one hopes will be funded, have printed material or commercial online databases, and a librarian on duty. (Good luck, traditional researchers.) A marketing team eager to get information about the number of Telegram users in Ukraine won’t be able to find it. The fix is to hire a consultant and hope those bright men and women have a way to get a number, a single number, good, bad, or indifferent.)
My concern is that as the intensity of the objections about a standard procedure for building an index escalate, the entire knowledge environment is put at risk. I have worked in online since 1962. That’s a long time. It is amazing to me that the plumbing of an information economy has been ignored for a long time. What happens when the companies doing the indexing go away? What happens when those producing the government reports, the blog posts, or the “real” news cannot find the information needed to create information? And once some information is created, how is another person going to find it. Ask an eighth grader how to use an online catalog to find a fungible book. Let me know what you learn? Better yet, do you know how to use a Remac card retrieval system?
The present concern about information access troubles me. There are mechanisms to deal with online. But the reason content is digitized is to find it, to enable understanding, and to create new information. Digital information is like gerbils. Start with a couple of journal articles, and one ends up with more journal articles. Kill this access and you get what you wanted. You know exactly who is the Salem witch.
Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2024
x
x
x
x
x
x
Quantum Supremacy: The PR Race Shames the Google
July 17, 2024
![dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The quantum computing era exists in research labs and a handful of specialized locations. The qubits are small, but the cooling system and control mechanisms are quite large. An environmentalist learning about the power consumption and climate footprint of a quantum computer might die of heart failure. But most of the worriers are thinking about AI’s power demands. Quantum computing is not a big deal. Yet.
But the title of “quantum supremacy champion” is a big deal. Sure the community of those energized by the concept may number in the tens of thousands, but quantum computing is a big deal. Google announced a couple of years ago that it was the quantum supremacy champ. I just read “New Quantum Computer Smashes Quantum Supremacy Record by a Factor of 100 — And It Consumes 30,000 Times Less Power.” The main point of the write up in my opinion is:
Anew quantum computer has broken a world record in “quantum supremacy,” topping the performance of benchmarking set by Google’s Sycamore machine by 100-fold.
Do I believe this? I am on the fence, but in the quantum computing “my super car is faster than your super car” means something to those in the game. What’s interesting to me is that the PR claim is not twice as fast as the Google’s quantum supremacy gizmo. Nor is the claim to be 10 times faster. The assertion is that a company called Quantinuum (the winner of the high-tech company naming contest with three letter “u”s, one “q” and four syllables) outperformed the Googlers by a factor of 100.
Two successful high-tech executives argue fiercely about performance. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, and I love the quirky spelling? Is this a new feature of your smart software?
Now does the speedy quantum computer work better than one’s iPhone or Steam console. The article reports:
But in the new study, Quantinuum scientists — in partnership with JPMorgan, Caltech and Argonne National Laboratory — achieved an XEB score of approximately 0.35. This means the H2 quantum computer can produce results without producing an error 35% of the time.
To put this in context, use this system to plot your drive from your home to Texarkana. You will make it there one out of every three multi day drives. Close enough for horse shoes or an MVP (minimum viable product). But it is progress of sorts.
So what does the Google do? Its marketing team goes back to AI software and magically “DeepMind’s PEER Scales Language Models with Millions of Tiny Experts” appears in Venture Beat. Forget that quantum supremacy claim. The Google has “millions of tiny experts.” Millions. The PR piece reports:
DeepMind’s Parameter Efficient Expert Retrieval (PEER) architecture addresses the challenges of scaling MoE [mixture of experts and not to me confused with millions of experts [MOE].
I know this PR story about the Google is not quantum computing related, but it illustrates the “my super car is faster than your super car” mentality.
What can one believe about Google or any other high-technology outfit talking about the performance of its system or software? I don’t believe too much, probably about 10 percent of what I read or hear.
But the constant need to be perceived as the smartest science quick recall team is now routine. Come on, geniuses, be more creative.
Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2024
AI and Human Workers: AI Wins for Now
July 17, 2024
When it come to US employment news, an Australian paper does not beat around the bush. Citing a recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, The Sydney Morning Herald reports, “Nearly Half of US Firms Using AI Say Goal Is to Cut Staffing Costs.” Gee, what a surprise. Writer Brian Delk summarizes:
“In a survey conducted earlier this month of firms using AI since early 2022 in the Richmond, Virginia region, 45 per cent said they were automating tasks to reduce staffing and labor costs. The survey also found that almost all the firms are using automation technology to increase output. ‘CFOs say their firms are tapping AI to automate a host of tasks, from paying suppliers, invoicing, procurement, financial reporting, and optimizing facilities utilization,’ said Duke finance professor John Graham, academic director of the survey of 450 financial executives. ‘This is on top of companies using ChatGPT to generate creative ideas and to draft job descriptions, contracts, marketing plans, and press releases.’ The report stated that over the past year almost 60 per cent of companies surveyed have ‘have implemented software, equipment, or technology to automate tasks previously completed by employees.’ ‘These companies indicate that they use automation to increase product quality (58 per cent of firms), increase output (49 per cent), reduce labor costs (47 per cent), and substitute for workers (33 per cent).’”
Delk points to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas for a bit of comfort. Its data shows the impact of AI on employment has been minimal at the nearly 40% of Texas firms using AI. For now. Also, the Richmond survey found manufacturing firms to be more likely (53%) to adopt AI than those in the service sector (43%). One wonders whether that will even out once the uncanny valley has been traversed. Either way, it seems businesses are getting more comfortable replacing human workers with cheaper, more subservient AI tools.
Cynthia Murrell, July 17, 2024
Google Ups the Ante: Skip the Quantum. Aim Higher!
July 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
After losing its quantum supremacy crown to an outfit with lots of “u”s in its name and making clear it deploys a million software bots to do AI things, the Google PR machine continues to grind away.
The glowing “G” on god’s/God’s chest is the clue that reveals Google’s identity. Does that sound correct? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough to the Google for me.
What’s a bigger deal than quantum supremacy or the million AI bot assertion? Answer: Be like god or God as the case may be. I learned about this celestial achievement in “Google Researchers Say They Simulated the Emergence of Life.” The researchers have not actually created life. PR announcements can be sufficiently abstract to make a big Game of Life seem like more than an update of the 1970s John Horton Conway confection on a two-dimensional grid. Google’s goal is to get a mention in the Wikipedia article perhaps?
Google operates at a different scale in its PR world. Google does not fool around with black and white squares, blinkers, and spaceships. Google makes a simulation of life. Here’s how the write up explains the breakthrough:
In an experiment that simulated what would happen if you left a bunch of random data alone for millions of generations, Google researchers say they witnessed the emergence of self-replicating digital lifeforms.
Cue the pipe organ. Play Toccata and Fugue in D minor. The write up says:
Laurie and his team’s simulation is a digital primordial soup of sorts. No rules were imposed, and no impetus was given to the random data. To keep things as lean as possible, they used a funky programming language called Brainfuck, which to use the researchers’ words is known for its “obscure minimalism,” allowing for only two mathematical operations: adding one or subtracting one. The long and short of it is that they modified it to only allow the random data — stand-ins for molecules — to interact with each other, “left to execute code and overwrite themselves and neighbors based on their own instructions.” And despite these austere conditions, self-replicating programs were able to form.
Okay, tone down the volume on the organ, please.
The big discovery is, according to a statement in the write up attributed to a real life God-ler:
there are “inherent mechanisms” that allow life to form.
The God-ler did not claim the title of God-ler. Plus some point out that Google’s big announcement is not life. (No kidding?)
Several observations:
- Okay, sucking up power and computer resources to run a 1970s game suggests that some folks have a fairly unstructured work experience. May I suggest a bit of work on Google Maps and its usability?
- Google’s PR machine appears to value quantumly supreme reports of innovations, break throughs, and towering technical competence. Okay, but Google sells advertising, and the PR output doesn’t change that fact. Google sells ads. Period.
- The speed with which Google PR can react to any perceived achievement that is better or bigger than a Google achievement pushes the Emit PR button. Who punches this button?
Net net: I find these discoveries and innovations amusing. Yeah, Google is an ad outfit and probably should be headquartered on Madison Avenue or an even more prestigious location. Definitely away from Beelzebub and his ilk.
Stephen E Arnold, July 16, 2024
AI: Helps an Individual, Harms Committee Thinking Which Is Often Sketchy at Best
July 16, 2024
![dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I spotted an academic journal article type write up called “Generative AI Enhances Individual Creativity But Reduces the Collective Diversity of Novel Content.” I would give the paper a C, an average grade. The most interesting point in the write up is that when one person uses smart software like a ChatGPT-type service, the output can make that person seem to a third party smarter, more creative, and more insightful than a person slumped over a wine bottle outside of a drug dealer’s digs.
The main point, which I found interesting, is that a group using ChatGPT drops down into my IQ range, which is “Dumb Turtle.” I think this is potentially significant. I use the word “potential” because the study relied upon human “evaluators” and imprecise subjective criteria; for instance, novelty and emotional characteristics. This means that if the evaluators are teacher or people who have to critique writing are making the judgments, these folks have baked in biases and preconceptions. I know first hand because one of my pieces of writing was published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch at the same time my high school English teacher clapped a C for narrative value and D for language choice. She was not a fan of my phrase “burger boat drive in.” Anyway I got paid $18 for the write up.
Let’s pick up this “finding” that a group degenerates or converges on mediocrity. (Remember, please, that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.) Here’s how the researchers express this idea:
While these results point to an increase in individual creativity, there is risk of losing collective novelty. In general equilibrium, an interesting question is whether the stories enhanced and inspired by AI will be able to create sufficient variation in the outputs they lead to. Specifically, if the publishing (and self-publishing) industry were to embrace more generative AI-inspired stories, our findings suggest that the produced stories would become less unique in aggregate and more similar to each other. This downward spiral shows parallels to an emerging social dilemma (42): If individual writers find out that their generative AI-inspired writing is evaluated as more creative, they have an incentive to use generative AI more in the future, but by doing so, the collective novelty of stories may be reduced further. In short, our results suggest that despite the enhancement effect that generative AI had on individual creativity, there may be a cautionary note if generative AI were adopted more widely for creative tasks.
I am familiar with the stellar outputs of committees. Some groups deliver zero and often retrograde outputs; that is, the committee makes a situation worse. I am thinking of the home owners’ association about a mile from my office. One aggrieved home owner attended a board meeting and shot one of the elected officials. Exciting plus the scene of the murder was a church conference room. Driveways can be hot topics when the group decides to change rules which affected this fellow’s own driveway.
Sometimes committees come up with good ideas; for example, at one government agency where I was serving as the IV&V professional (independent verification and validation) which decided to disband because there was a tiny bit of hanky panky in the procurement process. That was a good idea.
Other committee outputs are worthless; for example, the transcripts of the questions from elected officials directed to high-technology executives. I won’t name any committees of this type because I worked for a congress person, and I observe the unofficial rule: Button up, butter cup.
Let me offer several observations about smart software producing outputs that point to dumb turtle mode:
- Services firms (lawyers and blue chip consultants) will produce less useful information relying on smart software than on what crazed Type A achievers produce. Yes, I know that one major blue chip consulting firm helped engineer the excitement one can see in certain towns in West Virginia, but imagine even more negative downstream effects. Wow!
- Dumb committees relying on AI will be among the first to suggest, “Let AI set the agenda.” And, “Let AI provide the list of options.” Great idea and one that might be more exciting that an aircraft door exiting the airplane frame at 15,000 feet.
- The bean counters in the organization will look at the efficiency of using AI for committee work and probably suggest, “Let’s eliminate the staff who spend more than 85 percent of their time in committee meetings.” That will save money and produce some interesting downstream consequences. (I once had a job which was to attendee committee meetings.)
Net net: AI will help some; AI will produce surprises which cannot be easily anticipated it seems.
Stephen E Arnold, July 16, 2024
The Future of UK Libraries? Quite a Question
July 16, 2024
Librarians pride themselves on their knowledge of resources and literature. Most are eager to lend their expertise to help patrons find, use, and even understand the information they want or need. Checking out books is perhaps the least valuable part of their job but, to some UK bean counters, that is the only part worth keeping. Oh, and they don’t really need humans for that. Just cameras and smartcards. The Guardian ponders, “End of the Librarian? Council Cuts and New Tech Push Profession to the Brink.” Reporter Jon Ungoed-Thomas writes:
“Officials in some local authorities are proposing that libraries can be operated at times without any professional librarians, relying on self-service technology, smartcards for entry and CCTV. This has been criticized as a ‘mad idea’, limiting access to librarians’ advice and expertise for the young, vulnerable and many elderly people. Buckinghamshire council outlined plans at a cabinet meeting in June to save about £550,000 a year and reduce staffed hours by up to 30% with the technology. Library users with smartcards will be monitored by CCTV to ensure people do not ‘tailgate’ into the buildings.”
The libraries in London that have already moved to the self-service model, however, have had some challenges. For one thing, they are unavailable to anyone without a library card and those under 16 unless accompanied by an adult. They also decided they should really invest in a (human) security guard in case of emergency. Besides, as of yet, patrons have been slow to embrace change.
Advocates for swapping the reassuring warmth of erudite humans with lifeless self-serve kiosks claim certain benefits. The change could increase libraries’ operating hours by up to 50%, they say, and could save floundering locations from closing altogether. It could also reduce staffing by up to 40%. But many see that point as a net negative. For example, we learn:
“Laura Swaffield, chair of the charity The Library Campaign, which supports library users’ and friends’ groups, said libraries were under attack in many parts of the country. ‘Libraries have a wider role as community resources. We oppose self-service technology where it is being used as a means of leaving libraries unstaffed. If you just want to pick up some light reading, or you know how to use the computer, that’s fine. Many people need far more than this. The library is the most accessible front door to a whole range of information and support.’”
Indeed. Perhaps some nice librarians could point council members to resources that would help them understand that.
Cynthia Murrell, July 16, 2024
The Wiz: Google Gears Up for Enterprise Security
July 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Anyone remember this verse from “Ease on Down the Road,” from The Wiz, the hit musical from the 1970s? Here’s the passage:
‘Cause there may be times
When you think you lost your mind
And the steps you’re takin’
Leave you three, four steps behind
But the road you’re walking
Might be long sometimes
You just keep on trukin’
And you’ll just be fine, yeah
Why am I playing catchy tunes in my head on Monday, July 15, 2024? I just read “Google Near $23 Billion Deal for Cybersecurity Startup Wiz.” For years, I have been relating Israeli-developed cyber security technology to law enforcement and intelligence professionals. I try in each lecture to profile a firm, typically based in Tel Aviv or environs and staffed with former military professionals. I try to relate the functionality of the system to the particular case or matter I am discussing in my lecture.
The happy band is easin’ down the road. The Googlers have something new to sell. Does it work? Sure, get down. Boogie. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Has your security created an opportunity for Google marketers?
That stopped in October 2023. A former Israeli intelligence officer told me, “The massacre was Israel’s 9/11. There was an intelligence failure.” I backed away form the Israeli security, cyber crime, and intelware systems. They did not work. If we flash forward to July 15, 2024, the marketing is back. The well-known NSO Group is hawking its technology at high-profile LE and intel conferences. Enhancements to existing systems arrive in the form of email newsletters at the pace of the pre-October 2023 missives.
However, I am maintaining a neutral and skeptical stance. There is the October 2023 event, the subsequent war, and the increasing agitation about tactics, weapons systems in use, and efficacy of digital safeguards.
Google does not share my concerns. That’s why the company is Google, and I am a dinobaby tracking cyber security from my small office in rural Kentucky. Google makes news. I make nothing as a marginalized dinobaby.
The Wiz tells the story of a young girl who wants to get her dog back after a storm carries the creature away. The young girl offs the evil witch and seeks the help of a comedian from Peoria, Illinois, to get back to her real life. The Wiz has a happy ending, and the quoted verse makes the point that the young girl, like the Google, has to keep taking steps even though the Information Highway may be long.
That’s what Google is doing. The company is buying security (which I want to point out is cut from the same cloth as the systems which failed to notice the October 2023 run up). Google has Mandiant. Google offers a free Dark Web scanning service. Now Google has Wiz.
What’s Wiz do? Like other Israeli security companies, it does the sort of thing intended to prevent events like October 2023’s attack. And like other aggressively marketed Israeli cyber technology companies’ capabilities, one has to ask, “Will Wiz work in an emerging and fluid threat environment?” This is an important question because of the failure of the in situ Israeli cyber security systems, disabled watch stations, and general blindness to social media signals about the October 2023 incident.
If one zips through the Wiz’s Web site, one can craft a description of what the firm purports to do; for example:
Wiz is a cloud security firm embodying capabilities associated with the Israeli military technology. The idea is to create a one-stop shop to secure cloud assets. The idea is to identify and mitigate risks. The system incorporates automated functions and graphic outputs. The company asserts that it can secure models used for smart software and enforce security policies automatically.
Does it work? I will leave that up to you and the bad actors who find novel methods to work around big, modern, automated security systems. Did you know that human error and old-fashioned methods like emails with links that deliver stealers work?
Can Google make the Mandiant Wiz combination work magic? Is Googzilla a modern day Wiz able to transport the little girl back to real life?
Google has paid a rumored $20 billion plus to deliver this reality.
I maintain my neutral and skeptical stance. I keep thinking about October 2023, the aftermath of a massive security failure, and the over-the-top presentations by Israeli cyber security vendors. If the stuff worked, why did October 2023 happen? Like most modern cyber security solutions, marketing to the people who desperately want a silver bullet or digital stake to pound through the heart of cyber risk produces sales.
I am not sure that sales, marketing, and assertions about automation work in what is an inherently insecure, fast-changing, and globally vulnerable environment.
But Google will keep on trukin’’ because Microsoft has created a heck of a marketing opportunity for the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2024
What Will the AT&T Executives Serve Their Lawyers at the Security Breach Debrief?
July 15, 2024
![dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
On the flight back to my digital redoubt in rural Kentucky, I had the thrill of sitting behind a couple of telecom types who were laughing at the pickle AT&T has plopped on top of what I think of a Judge Green slushee. Do lime slushees and dill pickles go together? For my tastes, nope. Judge Green wanted to de-monopolize the Ma Bell I knew and loved. (Yes, I cashed some Ma Bell checks and I had a Young Pioneers hat.)
We are back to what amounts a Ma Bell trifecta: AT&T (the new version which wears spurs and chaps), Verizon (everyone’s favorite throw back carrier), and the new T-Mobile (bite those customer pocketbooks as if they were bratwursts mit sauerkraut). Each of these outfits is interesting. But at the moment, AT&T is in the spotlight.
“Data of Nearly All AT&T Customers Downloaded to a Third-Party Platform in a 2022 Security Breach” dances around a modest cyber misstep at what is now a quite old and frail Ma Bell. Imagine the good old days before the Judge Green decision to create Baby Bells. Security breaches were possible, but it was quite tough to get the customer data. Attacks were limited to those with the knowledge (somewhat tough to obtain), the tools (3B series computers and lots of mainframes), and access to network connections. Technology has advanced. Consequently competition means that no one makes money via security. Security is better at old-school monopolies because money can be spent without worrying about revenue. As one AT&T executive said to my boss at a blue-chip consulting company, “You guys charge so much we will have to get another railroad car filled with quarters to pay your bill.” Ho ho ho — except the fellow was not joking. At the pre-Judge Green AT&T, spending money on security was definitely not an issue. Today? Seems to be different.
A more pointed discussion of Ma Bell’s breaking her hip again appears in “AT&T Breach Leaked Call and Text Records from Nearly All Wireless Customers” states:
AT&T revealed Friday morning (July 12, 2024) that a cybersecurity attack had exposed call records and texts from “nearly all” of the carrier’s cellular customers (including people on mobile virtual network operators, or MVNOs, that use AT&T’s network, like Cricket, Boost Mobile, and Consumer Cellular). The breach contains data from between May 1st, 2022, and October 31st, 2022, in addition to records from a “very small number” of customers on January 2nd, 2023.
The “problem” if I understand the reference to Snowflake. Is AT&T suggesting that Snowflake is responsible for the breach? Big outfits like to identify the source of the problem. If Snowflake made the misstep, isn’t it the responsibility of AT&T’s cyber unit to make sure that the security was as good as or better than the security implemented before the Judge Green break up? I think AT&T, like other big companies, wants to find a way to shift blame, not say, “We put the pickle in the lime slushee.”
My posture toward two year old security issues is, “What’s the point of covering up a loss of ‘nearly all’ customers’ data?” I know the answer: Optics and the share price.
As a person who owned a Young Pioneers’ hat, I am truly disappointed in the company. The Regional Managers for whom I worked as a contractor had security on the list of top priorities from day one. Whether we were fooling around with a Western Electric data service or the research charge back system prior to the break up, security was not someone else’s problem.
Today it appears that AT&T has made some decisions which are now perched on the top officer’s head. Security problems are, therefore, tough to miss. Boeing loses doors and wheels from aircraft. Microsoft tantalizes bad actors with insecure systems. AT&T outsources high value data and then moves more slowly than the last remaining turtle in the mine run off pond near my home in Harrod’s Creek.
Maybe big is not as wonderful as some expect the idea to be? Responsibility for one’s decisions and an ethical compass are not cyber tools, but both notions are missing in some big company operations. Will the after-action team guzzle lime slushees with pickles on top?
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2024
AI and Electricity: Cost and Saving Whales
July 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness. Grumbling about the payoff from those billions of dollars injected into smart software continues. The most recent angle is electricity. AI is a power sucker, a big-time energy glutton. I learned this when I read the slightly alarmist write up “Artificial Intelligence Needs So Much Power It’s Destroying the Electrical Grid.” Texas, not a hot bed of AI excitement, seems to be doing quite well with the power grid problem without much help from AI. Mother Nature has made vivid the weaknesses of the infrastructure in that great state.
Some dolphins may love the power plant cooling effluent (run off). Other animals, not so much. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Working on security this week?
But let’s get back to saving whales and the piggishness of those with many GPUs processing data to help out the eighth-graders with their 200 word essays.
The write up says:
As a recent report from the Electric Power Research Institute lays out, just 15 states contain 80% of the data centers in the U.S.. Some states – such as Virginia, home to Data Center Alley – astonishingly have over 25% of their electricity consumed by data centers. There are similar trends of clustered data center growth in other parts of the world. For example, Ireland has become a data center nation.
So what?
The article says that it takes just two years to spin up a smart software data center but it takes four years to enhance an electrical grid. Based on my experience at a unit of Halliburton specializing in nuclear power, the four year number seems a bit optimistic. One doesn’t flip a switch and turn on Three Mile Island. One does not pick a nice spot near a river and start building a nuclear power reactor. Despite the recent Supreme Court ruling calling into question what certain frisky Executive Branch agencies can require, home owners’ associations and medical groups can make life interesting. Plus building out energy infrastructure is expensive and takes time. How long does it take for several feet of specialized concrete to set? Longer than pouring some hardware store quick fix into a hole in your driveway?
The article says:
There are several ways the industry is addressing this energy crisis. First, computing hardware has gotten substantially more energy efficient over the years in terms of the operations executed per watt consumed. Data centers’ power use efficiency, a metric that shows the ratio of power consumed for computing versus for cooling and other infrastructure, has been reduced to 1.5 on average, and even to an impressive 1.2 in advanced facilities. New data centers have more efficient cooling by using water cooling and external cool air when it’s available. Unfortunately, efficiency alone is not going to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, Jevons paradox points to how efficiency may result in an increase of energy consumption in the longer run. In addition, hardware efficiency gains have slowed down substantially as the industry has hit the limits of chip technology scaling.
Okay, let’s put aside the grid and the dolphins for a moment.
AI has and will continue to have downstream consequences. Although the methods of smart software are “old” when measured in terms of Internet innovations, the knock on effects are not known.
Several observations are warranted:
- Power consumption can be scheduled. The method worked to combat air pollution in Poland, and it will work for data centers. (Sure, the folks wanting computation will complain, but suck it up, buttercups. Plan and engineer for efficiency.)
- The electrical grid, like the other infrastructures in the US, need investment. This is a job for private industry and the governmental authorities. Do some planning and deliver results, please.
- Those wanting to scare people will continue to exercise their First Amendment rights. Go for it. However, I would suggest putting observations in a more informed context may be helpful. But when six o’clock news weather people scare the heck out of fifth graders when a storm or snow approaches, is this an appropriate approach to factual information? Answer: Sure when it gets clicks, eyeballs, and ad money.
Net net: No big changes for now are coming. I hope that the “deciders” get their Fiat 500 in gear.
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2024
AI Weapons: Someone Just Did Actual Research!
July 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read a write up that had more in common with a write up about the wonders of a steam engine than a technological report of note. The title of the “real” news report is “AI and Ukraine Drone Warfare Are Bringing Us One Step Closer to Killer Robots.”
I poked through my files and found a couple of images posted as either advertisements for specialized manufacturing firms or by marketers hunting for clicks among the warfighting crowd. Here’s one:
The illustration represents a warfighting drone. I was able to snap this image in a lecture I attended in 2021. At that time, an individual could purchase online the device in quantity for about US$9,000.
Here’s another view:
This militarized drone has 10 inch (254 millimeter) propellers / blades.
The boxy looking thing below the rotors houses electronics, batteries, and a payload of something like a Octanitrocubane- or HMX-type of kinetic charge.
Imagine four years ago, a person or organization could buy a couple of these devices and use them in a way warmly supported by bad actors. Why fool around with an unreliable individual pumped on drugs to carry a mobile phone that would receive the “show time” command? Just sit back. Guide the drone. And — well — evidence that kinetics work.
The write up is, therefore, years behind what’s been happening in some countries for years. Yep, years.
Consider this passage:
As the involvement of AI in military applications grows, alarm over the eventual emergence of fully autonomous weapons grows with it.
I want to point out that Palmer Lucky’s Andruil outfit has been fooling around in the autonomous system space since 2017. One buzz phrase an Andruil person used in a talk was, “Lattice for Mission Autonomy.” Was Mr. Lucky to focus on this area? Based on what I picked up at a couple of conferences in Europe in 2015, the answer is, “Nope.”
The write up does have a useful factoid in the “real” news report?
It is not technology. It is not range. It is not speed, stealth, or sleekness.
It is cheap. Yes, low cost. Why spend thousands when one can assemble a drone with hobby parts, a repurposed radio control unit from the local model airplane club, and a workable but old mobile phone?
Sign up for Telegram. Get some coordinates and let that cheap drone fly. If an operating unit has a technical whiz on the team, just let the gizmo go and look for rectangular shapes with a backpack near them. (That’s a soldier answering nature’s call.) Autonomy may not be perfect, but close enough can work.
The write up says:
Attack drones used by Ukraine and Russia have typically been remotely piloted by humans thus far – often wearing VR headsets – but numerous Ukrainian companies have developed systems that can fly drones, identify targets, and track them using only AI. The detection systems employ the same fundamentals as the facial recognition systems often controversially associated with law enforcement. Some are trained with deep learning or live combat footage.
Does anyone believe that other nation-states have figured out how to use off-the-shelf components to change how warfighting takes place? Ukraine started the drone innovation thing late. Some other countries have been beavering away on autonomous capabilities for many years.
For me, the most important factoid in the write up is:
… Ukrainian AI warfare reveals that the technology can be developed rapidly and relatively cheaply. Some companies are making AI drones using off-the-shelf parts and code, which can be sent to the frontlines for immediate live testing. That speed has attracted overseas companies seeking access to battlefield data.
Yep, cheap and fast.
Innovation in some countries is locked in a time warp due to procurement policies and bureaucracy. The US F 35 was conceived decades ago. Not surprisingly, today’s deployed aircraft lack the computing sophistication of the semiconductors in a mobile phone I can acquire today a local mobile phone repair shop, often operating from a trailer on Dixie Highway. A chip from the 2001 time period is not going to do the TikTok-type or smart software-type of function like an iPhone.
So cheap and speedy iteration are the big reveals in the write up. Are those the hallmarks of US defense procurement?
Stephen E Arnold, July 12, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
