Grousing about Smart Software: Yeah, That Will Work
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I read “Writers Condemn Startup’s Plans to Publish 8,000 Books Next Year Using AI.” The innovator is an outfit called Spines. Cute, book spines and not mixed up with spiny mice or spiny rats.
The write up reports:
Spines – which secured $16m in a recent funding round – says that authors will retain 100% of their royalties. Co-founder Yehuda Niv, who previously ran a publisher and publishing services business in Israel, claimed that the company “isn’t self-publishing” or a vanity publisher but a “publishing platform”.
A platform, not a publisher. The difference is important because venture types don’t pump cash into traditional publishing companies in my experience.
The article identified another key differentiator for Spines:
Spines says it will reduce the time it takes to publish a book to two to three weeks.
When publishers with whom I worked talked about time, the units were months. In one case, it was more than a year. When I was writing books, the subject matter changed on a slightly different time scale. Traditional publishers do not zip along with the snappiness of a two year old French bulldog.
Spines is quoted in the write up as saying:
[We are] levelling the playing field for any person who aspires to be an author to get published within less than three weeks and at a fraction of the cost. Our goal is to help one million authors to publish their books using technology….”
Yep, technology. Is that a core competency of big time publishers?
Several observations from my dinobaby-friendly lair:
- If Spines works — that is, makes lots of money — a traditional publisher will probably buy the company and sue any entity which impinges on its “original” ideas.
- Costs for instant publishing on Amazon remain more attractive. The fees are based on delivery of digital content and royalties assessed. Spines may have to spend money to find writers able to pay the company to do the cover, set up, design, etc.
- Connecting agentic AI into a Spines-type service may be interesting to some.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Batting Google and Whiffing the Chance
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I read “The AI War Was Never Just about AI.” Okay, AI war. We have a handful of mostly unregulated technology companies, a few nation states, and some unknown wizards working in their family garage. The situation is that a very tiny number of companies are fighting to become de facto reality definers for the next few years, maybe a decade or two. Against that background, does a single country’s judiciary think it can “regulate” an online company. One pragmatic approach has been to ban a service, the approach taken by Australia, China, Iran, and Russia among others. A less popular approach would be to force the organization out of business by arresting key executives, seizing assets, and imposing penalties on that organization’s partners. Does that sound a bit over the top?
The cited article does not go to the pit in the apricot. Google has been allowed to create an interlocking group of services which permeate the fabric of global online activity. There is no entertainment for some people in Armenia except YouTube. There are few choices to promote a product online without bumping into the Disney style people herders who push those who want to sell toward Google’s advertising systems. There is no getting from Point A to Point B without Google’s finding services whether dolled up in an AI wrapper, a digital version of a map, or a helpful message on the sign of a lawn service truck for Google Local.
The write up says:
The government wants to break up Google’s monopoly over the search market, but its proposed remedies may in fact do more to shape the future of AI. Google owns 15 products that serve at least half a billion people and businesses each—a sprawling ecosystem of gadgets, search and advertising, personal applications, and enterprise software. An AI assistant that shows up in (or works well with) those products will be the one that those people are most likely to use. And Google has already woven its flagship Gemini AI models into Search, Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, the Play Store, and YouTube, all of which have at least 2 billion users each. AI doesn’t have to be life-changing to be successful; it just has to be frictionless.
Okay. With a new administration taking the stage, how will this goal of leveling the playing field work. The legal processes at Google’s disposal mean that whatever the US government does can be appealed. Appeals take time. Who lasts longer? A government lawyer working under the thumb of DOGE and budget cutting or a giant outfit like Google? My view is that Google has more lawyers and more continuity.
Second, breaking up Google may face some headwinds from government entities quite dependent on its activities. The entire OSINT sector looks to Google for nuggets of information. It is possible some government agencies have embedded Google personnel on site. The “advertising” industry depends on distribution via the online stores of Apple and Google. Why is this important? The data brokers repackage the app data into data streams consumed by some government agencies and their contractors.
The write up says:
This is why it’s relevant that the DOJ’s proposed antitrust remedy takes aim at Google’s broader ecosystem. Federal and state attorneys asked the court to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser; cease preferencing its search products in the Android mobile operating system; prevent it from paying other companies, including Apple and Samsung, to make Google the default search engine; and allow rivals to syndicate Google’s search results and use its search index to build their own products. All of these and the DOJ’s other requests, under the auspices of search, are really shots at Google’s expansive empire.
So after more than 20 years of non regulation and hand slapping, the current legal decision is going to take apart an entity which is more like a cancer than a telephone company like AT&T. IBM was mostly untouched by the US government as was Microsoft. Now I am to to believe that a vastly different type of commercial enterprise which is for some functions more robust and effective than a government can have its wings clipped.
Is the Department of Justice concerned about AI? Come on. The DoJ personnel are thinking about the Department of Government Efficiency, presidential retribution, and enhancing LinkedIn profiles.
We are not in Kansas any longer where there is no AI war.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Googlers Face Another Ka-Ching Moment in the United Kingdom
December 5, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
Mr. Harold Carlin, my high school history teacher, made us learn about the phrase “The sun never sets on the British empire.” It has, and Mr. Carlin like many old-school teachers forced our class to read about protectionism, subjugation of people who did not enjoy beef Wellington, or assorted monopolies.
Two intelligent entities discuss how to resolve legal problems. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Now Google may want to think about the phrase, “The sun never sets on Google legal matters related to its alleged behavior in the datasphere.”
“Google Must Face £7B UK Class Action over Search Engine Dominance” reported:
The complaint centers around Google shutting out competition for mobile search, resulting in higher prices for advertisers, which were allegedly passed on to consumers. According to consumer rights campaigner Nikki Stopford, who is bringing the claim on behalf of UK consumers, Android device makers that wanted access to Google’s Play Store had to accept its search service. The ad slinger also paid Apple billions to have Google Search as the default for the Safari browser in iOS.
The write up noted:
According to Stopford [a UK official], Google used its position to up prices paid by advertisers, resulting in higher costs to consumers. “What we’re trying to achieve with this claim is essentially compensate consumers,” she said.
Google has moved some of its smart software activities to the UK. One would think that with Google’s cash resources, its attorneys, and its smart software — mere government officials would have zero chance of winning this now repetitive allegation that dear Google has behaved in an untoward way.
If I were a government litigator, I would just drop the suit, Jack Smith style.
Will the sun set on these allegations against the “do no evil” outfit?
Nope, not as long as the opportunity for a payout exists. Google may have been too successful in its decades long rampage through traditional business practices. The good news is that Google has an almost limitless supply of money. The bad news is that countries have an almost limitless supply of regulators. But Google has smart software. Remember the film “The Terminator”? Winner: Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2024
China Seeks to Curb Algorithmic Influence and Manipulation
December 5, 2024
Someone is finally taking decisive action against unhealthy recommendation algorithms, AI-driven price optimization, and exploitative gig-work systems. That someone is China. ”China Sets Deadline for Big Tech to Clear Algorithm Issues, Close ‘Echo Chambers’,” reports the South China Morning Post. Ah, the efficiency of a repressive regime. Writer Hayley Wong informs us:
‘Tech operators in China have been given a deadline to rectify issues with recommendation algorithms, as authorities move to revise cybersecurity regulations in place since 2021. A three-month campaign to address ‘typical issues with algorithms’ on online platforms was launched on Sunday, according to a notice from the Communist Party’s commission for cyberspace affairs, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and other relevant departments. The campaign, which will last until February 14, marks the latest effort to curb the influence of Big Tech companies in shaping online views and opinions through algorithms – the technology behind the recommendation functions of most apps and websites. System providers should avoid recommendation algorithms that create ‘echo chambers’ and induce addiction, allow manipulation of trending items, or exploit gig workers’ rights, the notice said.
They should also crack down on unfair pricing and discounts targeting different demographics, ensure ‘healthy content’ for elderly and children, and impose a robust ‘algorithm review mechanism and data security management system’.”
Tech firms operating within China are also ordered to conduct internal investigations and improve algorithms’ security capabilities by the end of the year. What happens if firms fail? Reeducation? A visit to the death van? Or an opportunity to herd sheep in a really nice area near Xian? The brief write-up does not specify.
We think there may be a footnote to the new policy; for instance, “Use algos to advance our policies.”
Cynthia Murrell, December 5, 2024
Listary: A Chinese Alternative to Windows File Explorer
December 5, 2024
For anyone frustrated with Windows’ built-in search function, Lifehacker suggests an alternative. “Listary Is a Fast, Powerful Search Tool for Windows,” declares writer Justin Pot. He tells us:
“Listary is a free app with great indexing that allows you to find any file on your computer in just a couple of keystrokes. Tap the control key twice, start typing, and hit enter when you see what you want. You can also use the tool to launch applications or search the web. … The keyboard shortcut brings up a search window similar to Spotlight on the Mac. There is also a more advanced version of the application which you can bring up by clicking the tray icon for the application. This lets you do things like filter your search by file type or how recently it was created. This view also notably allows you to preview files before opening them, which I appreciate. You’re not limited to searching on your computer—you can also start web searches from here.”
That Web search function is preloaded with a few search engines, like Google, Wikipedia, IMDB, and YouTube, but one can add more platforms. The free version of Listary is for personal use only. The company, Bopsoft, makes its money on the Pro version, which is $20. Just once, not monthly or annually. That version offers network-drive indexing and customization options. Bopsoft appears to be based in Zaozhuang, China.
Cynthia Murrell, December 5, 2024
The Very Expensive AI Horse Race
December 4, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
One of the academic nemeses of smart software is a professional named Gary Marcus. Among his many intellectual accomplishments is cameo appearance on a former Jack Benny child star’s podcast. Mr. Marcus contributes his views of smart software to the person who, for a number of years, has been a voice actor on the Simpsons cartoon.
The big four robot stallions are racing to a finish line. Is the finish line moving away from the equines faster than the steeds can run? Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
I want to pay attention to Mr. Marcus’ Substack post “A New AI Scaling Law Shell Game?” The main idea is that the scaling law has entered popular computer jargon. Once the lingo of Galileo, scaling law now means that AI, like CPUs, are part of the belief that technology just gets better as it gets bigger.
In this essay, Mr. Marcus asserts that getting bigger may not work unless humanoids (presumably assisted by AI0 innovate other enabling processes. Mr. Marcus is aware of the cost of infrastructure, the cost of electricity, and the probable costs of exhausting content.
From my point of view, a bit more empirical “evidence” would be useful. (I am aware of academic research fraud.) Also, Mr. Marcus references me when he says keep your hands on your wallet. I am not sure that a fix is possible. The analogy is the old chestnut about changing a Sopwith Camel’s propeller when the aircraft is in a dogfight and the synchronized machine gun is firing through the propeller.
I want to highlight one passage in Mr. Marcus’ essay and offer a handful of comments. Here’s the passage I noted:
Over the last few weeks, much of the field has been quietly acknowledging that recent (not yet public) large-scale models aren’t as powerful as the putative laws were predicting. The new version is that there is not one scaling law, but three: scaling with how long you train a model (which isn’t really holding anymore), scaling with how long you post-train a model, and scaling with how long you let a given model wrestle with a given problem (or what Satya Nadella called scaling with “inference time compute”).
I think this is a paragraph I will add to my quotes file. The reasons are:
First, investors, would be entrepreneurs, and giant outfits really want a next big thing. Microsoft fired the opening shot in the smart software war in early 2023. Mr. Nadella suggested that smart software would be the next big thing for Microsoft. The company has invested in making good on this statement. Now Microsoft 365 is infused with smart software and Azure is burbling with digital glee with its “we’re first” status. However, a number of people have asked, “Where’s the financial payoff?” The answer is standard Silicon Valley catechism: The payoff is going to be huge. Invest now.” If prayers could power hope, AI is going to be hyperbolic just like the marketing collateral for AI promises. But it is almost 2025, and those billions have not generated more billions and profit for the Big Dogs of AI. Just sayin’.
Second, the idea that the scaling law is really multiple scaling laws is interesting. But if one scaling law fails to deliver, what happens to the other scaling laws? The interdependencies of the processes for the scaling laws might evoke new, hitherto identified scaling laws. Will each scaling law require massive investments to deliver? Is it feasible to pay off the investments in these processes with the original concept of the scaling law as applied to AI. I wonder if a reverse Ponzi scheme is emerging. The more pumped in the smaller the likelihood of success. Is AI a demonstration of convergence or The mathematical property you’re describing involves creating a sequence of fractions where the numerator is 1 and the denominator is an increasing sequence of integers. Just askin’.
Third, the performance or knowledge payoff I have experienced with my tests of OpenAI and the software available to me on You.com makes clear that the systems cannot handle what I consider routine questions. A recent example was my request to receive a list of the exhibitors at the November 1 Gateway Conference held in Dubai for crypto fans of Telegram’s The Open Network Foundation and TON Social. The systems were unable to deliver the lists. This is just one notable failure which a humanoid on my research team was able to rectify in an expeditious manner. (Did you know the Ku Group was on my researcher’s list?) Just reportin’.
Net net: Will AI repay the billions sunk into the data centers, the legal fees (many still looming), the staff, and the marketing? If you ask an accelerationist, the answer is, “Absolutely.” If you ask a dinobaby, you may hear, “Maybe, but some fundamental innovations are going to be needed.” If you ask an AI will kill us all type like the Xoogler Mo Gawdat, you will hear, “Doom looms.” Just dinobabyin’.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2024
Legacy Code: Avoid, Fix, or Flee (Two Out of Three Mean Forget It)
December 4, 2024
In his Substack post, “Legacy Schmegacy,” software engineer David Reis offers some pointers on preventing and coping with legacy code. We found this snippet interesting:
“Someone must fix the legacy code, but it doesn’t have to be you. It’s far more honorable to switch projects or companies than to lead a misguided rewrite.”
That’s the spirit: quit and let someone else deal with it. But not everyone is in the position to cut and run. For those actually interested in addressing the problem, Reis has some suggestions. First, though, the post lists factors that can prevent legacy code in the first place:
- “The longer a programmer’s tenure the less code will become legacy, since authors will be around to appreciate and maintain it.
- The more code is well architected, clear and documented the less it will become legacy, since there is a higher chance the author can transfer it to a new owner successfully.
- The more the company uses pair programming, code reviews, and other knowledge transfer techniques, the less code will become legacy, as people other than the author will have knowledge about it.
- The more the company grows junior engineers the less code will become legacy, since the best way to grow juniors is to hand them ownership of components.
- The more a company uses simple standard technologies, the less likely code will become legacy, since knowledge about them will be widespread in the organization. Ironically if you define innovation as adopting new technologies, the more a team innovates the more legacy it will have. Every time it adopts a new technology, either it won’t work, and the attempt will become legacy, or it will succeed, and the old systems will.”
Reiss’ number one suggestion to avoid creating legacy code is, “don’t write crappy code.” Noted. Also, stick with tried and true methods unless shiny a new tech is definitely the best option. Perhaps most importantly, coders should teach others in the organization how their code works and leave behind good documentation. So, common sense and best practices. Brilliant!
When confronted with a predecessor’s code, he advises one to “delegacify” it. That is a word he coined to mean: Take time to understand the code and see if it can be improved over time before tossing it out entirely. Or, as noted above, just run away. That can be an option for some.
Cynthia Murrell, December 4, 2024
The New Coca Cola of Marketing: Xmas Ads
December 4, 2024
Though Coca-Cola has long purported that “It’s the Real Thing,” a recent ad is all fake. NBC News reports, “Coca-Cola Causes Controversy with AI-Made Ad.” We learn:
“Coca-Cola is facing backlash online over an artificial intelligence-made Christmas promotional video that users are calling ‘soulless’ and ‘devoid of any actual creativity.’ The AI-made video features everything from big red Coca-Cola trucks driving through snowy streets to people smiling in scarves and knitted hats holding Coca-Cola bottles. The video was meant to pay homage to the company’s 1995 commercial ‘Holidays Are Coming,’ which featured similar imagery, but with human actors and real trucks.”
The company’s last ad generated with AI, released earlier this year, did not face similar backlash. Is that because, as University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Neeraj Arora suggests, Coke’s Christmas ads are somehow sacrosanct? Or is it because March’s Masterpiece is actually original, clever, and well executed? Or because the artworks copied in that ad are treated with respect and, for some, clearly labeled? Whatever the reason, the riff on Coca-Cola’s own classic 1995 ad missed the mark.
Perhaps it was just too soon. It may be a matter of when, not if, the public comes to accept AI-generated advertising as the norm. One thing is certain: Coca Cola knows how to make sure marketing professors teach memorable case examples of corporate “let’s get hip” thinking.
Cynthia Murrell, December 4, 2024
FOGINT: Telegram and Its Race Against Time
December 3, 2024
The article is a product of the humans working on the FOGINT team. The image is from Gifr.com.
The Financial Times recently stirred debate in the cryptocurrency community with its article, “Telegram Finances Propped Up by Crypto Gains As Founder Fights Charges.” Telegram’s ambitions for an initial public offering (IPO) hinge on proving it has a sustainable, profitable business model.
According to the FT, Telegram sold off cryptocurrency holdings to shore up its balance sheet, reporting revenue of $525 million. The financials, based on unaudited statements, framed the crypto sale as a “tactical” move, with Durov’s confinement in France having no material impact on the company.
CCN added flair with its piece, “Pavel Durov’s Telegram Nets $335M Windfall: Can It Ride a Crypto Bull to a $30B IPO by 2026,” highlighting that while crypto revenues and TON reserves have helped Telegram stay afloat, the firm still faces substantial debt and operating losses—$259 million in 2023 alone.
Crypto.news zeroed in on debt in its article, “How Telegram Made Over Half a Billion Dollars Thanks to Crypto?” Telegram, wholly owned by Durov, has raised $2.4 billion in debt financing, with repayment looming in 2026. In September, it used part of its crypto proceeds to repurchase $124.5 million in bonds. (Note: None of the news sources we reviewed noted that Telegram is using a variant of the MicroStrategy strategy of acquiring crypto currency to pump up the company’s “value.” See DLNews for more detail.)
The FOGINT research team identifies three key dynamics:
- Cash Flow Through Crypto Sales: Telegram’s crypto transactions inject much-needed liquidity, transforming a significant 2023 loss into a manageable red blot on its financial history.
- Tight Links to The Open Network Foundation (TON): Despite TON’s ostensible independence, the Foundation is deeply intertwined with Telegram. This relationship traces back to the U.S. SEC’s 2019 intervention against GRAM (now TON), which forced Telegram to offload its blockchain to the “independent” Foundation in 2023. Regulators in the U.S., UAE, and Switzerland appear to tolerate this arrangement for now.
- Racing Against the Clock: Telegram is fast-tracking innovations, like the BotFather’s high-speed processing and partnerships with firms such as Ku Group. Its developer meetups and funding programs are designed to rapidly build out its ecosystem. The urgency stems from a softening stance toward law enforcement—Telegram now appears more willing to share user data, potentially feeding into global investigative pipelines.
This newfound openness aligns with Telegram’s aggressive push to monetize its TON blockchain. At the November 1-2 Gateway Conference in Dubai, Telegram launched an all-out campaign to promote its crypto ecosystem. From YouTube videos and meetups to venture fund pitches, the effort signals a company operating in overdrive.
Blockchain researcher Sean Brizendine said: “”The Telegram hype is definitely real, and the Durov brothers’ future is on the line. Now is the time to pay attention as Telegram’s moves are breaking fast and furious.”
Why the rush? Telegram’s 900 million users and its wildly popular crypto games have been critical growth engines. But with its ethos of “do what you want” giving way to “use our crypto platform,” the stakes are higher than ever. The “leader” is in the grasp of French authorities. Fast-fashion-like life cycles of its crypto ventures underline a harsh reality: For Telegram, succeeding in crypto is no longer optional—it’s a turning point for the company and its affiliated organizations. Cornered animals can be more dangerous than some people think.
Stephen E Arnold, December 3, 2024
BlueSky: Tweeting Birds Are Flocking Around
December 3, 2024
As X, formerly Twitter, becomes more toxic, alternative BlueSky has welcomed many refugees fleeing Musk’s regime. In fact, the decentralized social media platform recently hit 15 million users. Blood in the Machine takes this opportunity to declare, “Bluesky’s Success Is a Rejection of Big Tech’s Operating System.” The post is largely about enumerating X’s flaws. Will such a marketing angle make the Twitter clone a winner?
After a brief lesson in recent social-media history, blogger Brian Merchant observes:
“The online world has become so hostile to users that Bluesky’s pitch of ‘here is a straightforward feed of text-based user-generated posts that we promise not to mess with’ is revelatory. Its scaling model and raison d’être are a very rejection of the platforms that have colonized the rest of our digital lives, and relentlessly commodified them. No wonder everyone seems to be rooting for its success, even if there are, pointedly, no guarantees those ideals will remain in place.”
Why no guarantees? The taint of venture capital, for one. The platform’s recent $15 million series A funding round was led by Blockchain Capital. Despite that firm’s focus on cryptocurrency, BlueSky promises it will continue to prioritize the user over the likes of crypto and NFTs. Will it deliver? At least wary users can turn to Mastodon. For now.
The write-up continues:
“BlueSky is giving hope to people who spend long hours online precisely because it is purporting to be, and so far succeeding, at least in its very short lifespan, in being everything that big tech is not. No AI spam, no glitchy ad tech, no link throttling, no malignant billionaire owner. BlueSky is not just tapping into this wellspring of goodwill because it promises a return to the halcyon days of *Twitter*—but a return to the days before ossified, rent-seeking tech monopolies drove our collective online experience to hell.”
But how long will this retro trip last?
Cynthia Murrell, December 3, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
