What Does Eroding Intelligence Create? Take-a-Chance Apps in Curated App Stores
February 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am a real and still-alive dinobaby. I read “Undergraduates’ Average IQ Has Fallen 17 Points Since 1939. Here’s Why.” The headline tells the story. At least, Dartmouth is planning to use testing to make sure its admitted students can read and write. But it appears that interesting people are empowering certain business tactics whether they have great test scores or not.
“Warning: Fraudulent App Impersonating LastPass Currently Available in Apple App Store” strikes me as a good example of how tactics take advantage of what one might call somewhat slow or unaware people. The write up states:
The app attempts to copy our branding and user interface, though close examination of the posted screenshots reveal misspellings and other indicators the app is fraudulent.
Are there similarly structured apps in the Goggle Play store? You bet. A couple of days ago, I downloaded and paid a $1.95 for an app that allegedly would display the old-school per-core graphic load which Microsoft removed from Task Manager. Guess what? It did not load.
Several observations:
- The “stores” are not preventing problematic apps from being made available to users
- The people running the store are either unable to screen apps or just don’t care
- The baloney about curation is exactly that.
I wonder if the people running these curated app stores are unaware of what these misfires do to a customer. On the other hand, perhaps the customers neither know nor care that curated apps are creeping into fraud territory.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
School Technology: Making Up Performance Data for Years
February 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
What is the “make up data” trend? Why is it plaguing educational institutions. From Harvard to Stanford, those who are entrusted with shaping young-in-spirit minds are putting ethical behavior in the trash can. I think I know, but let’s look at allegations of another “synthetic” information event. For context in the UK there is a government agency called the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.” The agency is called OFSTED. Now let’s go to the “real” news story.“
A possible scene outside of a prestigious academic institution when regulations about data become enforceable… give it a decade or two. Thanks, MidJourney. Two tries and a good enough illustration.
“Ofsted Inspectors Make Up Evidence about a School’s Performance When IT Fails” reports:
Ofsted inspectors have been forced to “make up” evidence because the computer system they use to record inspections sometimes crashes, wiping all the data…
Quite a combo: Information technology and inventing data.
The article adds:
…inspectors have to replace those notes from memory without telling the school.
Will the method work for postal investigations? Sure. Can it be extended to other activities? What about data pertinent to the UK government initiates for smart software?
Stephen E Arnold, February 9, 2024
Old News Flash: Old-Fashioned Learning Methods Work. Amazing!
February 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Humans are tactile, visual learners with varying attention span lengths. Unfortunately attention spans are getting shorter due to kids’ addiction to small screens. Their small screen addiction is affecting how they learn and retain information. The Guardian shares news about an educational study that didn’t need to be researched because anecdotal evidence is enough: “A Groundbreaking Study Shows Kids Learn Better On Paper, Not Screens.” American student reading scores are at an all time low. Educators, parents, bureaucrats, and everyone are concerned and running around like decapitated chickens.
Thirteen-year-olds’ text comprehension skills have lowered by four points since the 2019-2020 pandemic school year and the average rate has fallen seven points compared to 2012. These are the worst results since reading levels were first recorded in 1971.
Biden’s administration is blaming remote learning and the pandemic. Conservative politicians are blaming teacher unions because they encouraged remote learning. Remote learning is the common denominator. Remote learning is the scapegoat but the claim is true. Kids will avoid school at all costs and the pandemic was the ultimate extended vacation.
There’s an even bigger culprit because COVID can’t be blamed in the coming years. The villains are computers and mobile devices. Unfortunately anecdotal evidence isn’t enough to satisfy bigwigs (which is good in most cases) so Columbia University’s Teachers College tested paper vs. screens for “deeper reading” and “shallow reading.” Here’s what they found:
“Using a sample of 59 children aged 10 to 12, a team led by Dr Karen Froud asked its subjects to read original texts in both formats while wearing hair nets filled with electrodes that permitted the researchers to analyze variations in the children’s brain responses. Performed in a laboratory at Teachers College with strict controls, the study – which has not yet been peer reviewed – used an entirely new method of word association in which the children “performed single-word semantic judgment tasks” after reading the passages. Vital to the usefulness of the study was the age of the participants – a three-year period that is “critical in reading development” – since fourth grade is when a crucial shift occurs from what another researcher describes as “learning to read” to “reading to learn”.”
Don’t chuck printed books in the recycling bin yet! Printed tools are still the best way to learn and retain information. Technology is being thrust into classrooms from the most remote to inner cities. Technology is wonderful in spreading access to education but it’s not increasing literacy and other test scores. Technology is being promoted instead of actually teaching kids to learn.
As a trained librarian, the utility of reading books, taking notes in a notebook, and chasing information in reference materials seems obvious. But obvious to me is not obvious to others.
Whitney Grace, February 9, 2024
A Reminder: AI Winning Is Skewed to the Big Outfits
February 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have been commenting about the perception some companies have that AI start ups focusing on search will eventually reduce Google’s dominance. I understand the desire to see an underdog or a coalition of underdogs overcome a formidable opponent. Hollywood loves the unknown team which wins the championship. Movie goers root for an unlikely boxing unknown to win the famous champion’s belt. These wins do occur in real life. Some Googlers favorite sporting event is the NCAA tournament. That made-for-TV series features what are called Cinderella teams. (Will Walt Disney Co. sue if the subtitles for a game employees the the word “Cinderella”? Sure, why not?)
I believe that for the next 24 to 36 months, Google will not lose its grip on search, its services, or online advertising. I admit that once one noses into 2028, more disruption will further destabilize Google. But for now, the Google is not going to be derailed unless an exogenous event ruins Googzilla’s habitat.
I want to direct attention to the essay “AI’s Massive Cash Needs Are Big Tech’s Chance to Own the Future.” The write up contains useful information about selected players in the artificial intelligence Monopoly game. I want to focus on one “worm” chart included in the essay:
Several things struck me:
- The major players are familiar; that is, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Salesforce. Notably absent are IBM, Meta, Chinese firms, Western European companies other than Mistral, and smaller outfits funded by venture capitalists relying on “open source AI solutions.”
- The five major companies in the chart are betting money on different roulette wheel numbers. VCs use the same logic by investing in a portfolio of opportunities and then pray to the MBA gods that one of these puppies pays off.
- The cross investments ensure that information leaks from the different color “worms” into the hills controlled by the big outfits. I am not using the collusion word or the intelligence word. I am just mentioned that information has a tendency to leak.
- Plumbing and associated infrastructure costs suggest that start ups may buy cloud services from the big outfits. Log files can be fascinating sources of information to the service providers engineers too.
My point is that smaller outfits are unlikely to be able to dislodge the big firms on the right side of the “worm” graph. The big outfits can, however, easily invest in, acquire, or learn from the smaller outfits listed on the left side of the graph.
Does a clever AI-infused search start up have a chance to become a big time player. Sure, but I think it is more likely that once a smaller firm demonstrates some progress in a niche like Web search, a big outfit with cash will invest, duplicate, or acquire the feisty newcomer.
That’s why I am not counting out the Google to fall over dead in the next three years. I know my viewpoint is not one shared by some Web search outfits. That’s okay. Dinobabies often have different points of view.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
Does Cheap and Sneaky Work Better than Expensive and Hyperbole?
February 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My father was a member of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR). He loved reading about that historical “special operation.” I think he imagine himself in a make-shift uniform, hiding behind some bushes, and then greeting the friend of George III with some old-fashioned malice. My hunch is that John Arnold’s descendants wrote anti-British editorials and gave speeches. But what do I know? Not much that’s for sure.
The David and Goliath trope may be applicable to the cheap drone tactic. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
I thought about how a rag-tag, under-supplied collection of colonials could bedevil the British when I read The Guardian’s essay “Deadly, Cheap and Widespread: How Iran-Supplied Drones Are Changing the Nature of Warfare.” The write up opines that the drone which killed several Americans in Iraq:
is most likely to the smaller Shahed 101 or delta winged Shahed 131, both believed to be in Kataib Hezbollah’s arsenal …with estimated ranges of at least 700km (434 miles) and a cost of $20,000 (£15,700) or more. (Source Fabian Hinz, a weapons expert)
The point strikes me as a variant of David versus Goliath. The giant gets hurt by a lesser opponent with a cheap weapon. Iran is using drones, not exotic hardware like the F-16s Türkiye craves. A flimsy drone does not require the obvious paraphernalia of power the advanced jet does. Tin snips, some parts from Shenzhen retail outlets, and model airplane controls. No hangers, mechanics, engineers, and specially trained pilots.
Shades of the Colonials I think. The article continues:
The drones …are best considered cheap substitutes for guided cruise missiles, most effective against soft or “static structures” which force those under threat to “either invest money in defenses or disperse and relocate which renders things like aircraft on bases more inefficient”
Is there a factoid in this presumably accurate story from a British newspaper? Yes. My take-away is that simple and basic can do considerable harm. Oh, let me add “economical”, but that is rarely a popular concept among some government entities and approved contractors.
Net net: How about thinking like some of those old-time Revolutionaries in what has become the US?
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2024
AI, AI, Ai-Yi-Ai: Too Much Already
February 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I want to say that smart software and systems are annoying me, not a lot, just a little.
Al algorithms are advancing society from science fiction into everyday life. AI algorithms are indexes and math. But the algorithms are still processes simulating reason mental functions. We’ve come to think, unfortunately, that AI like ChatGPT are sentient and capable of rational thought.
Mita Williams wrote a the post “I Will Dropkick You If You Refer To An LLM As A Librarian” on her blog Librarian of Things. In her post, she explains that AI is being given more credit than it deserves and large language models (LLMs) are being compared to libraries. While Williams responds to these assertions as a true academic with citations and explanations, her train of thought is more in line with Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift.
Twain and Swift are two great English-speaking authors and satirists. They made outrageous claims and their essays will make many people giggle or laugh. Williams should rewrite her post like them. Her humor would probably be lost on the majority of readers, though. Here’s the just of her post: A lot of people are saying AI and their LLM learning tools are like giant repositories of knowledge capable of human emotion, reasoning, and intelligence. Williams argues they’re not and that assumption should be reevaluated.
Furthermore, smart software can be configured to do some things more quickly and accurately rate than some human. Williams is right:
“This is why I will not describe products like ChatGPT as Artificial General Intelligence. This is why I will avoid using the word learned when describing the behavior of software, and will substitute that word with associated instead. Your LLM is more like a library catalogue than a library but if you call it a library, I won’t be upset. I recognize that we are experiencing the development of new form of cultural artifact of massive import and influence. But an LLM is not a librarian and I won’t let you call it that.”
I am a somewhat critical librarian. I like books. Smart software … not so much at this time.
Whitney Grace, February 8, 2024
Universities and Innovation: Clever Financial Plays May Help Big Companies, Not Students
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read an interesting essay in The Economist (a newspaper to boot) titled “Universities Are Failing to Boost Economic Growth.” The write up contained some facts anchored in dinobaby time; for example, “In the 1960s the research and development (R&D) unit of DuPont, a chemicals company, published more articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech combined.”
A successful academic who exists in a revolving door between successful corporate employment and prestigious academic positions innovate with [a] a YouTube program, [b] sponsors who manufacture interesting products, and [c] taking liberties with the idea of reproducible results from his or her research. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Getting more invasive today, right?
I did not know that. I recall, however, that my former boss at Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the mid-1970s had me and couple of other compliant worker bees work on a project to update a big-time report about innovation. My recollection is that our interviews with universities were less productive than conversations held at a number of leading companies around the world. The gulf between university research departments had yet to morph into what were later called “technology transfer departments.” Over the years, as the Economist newspaper points out:
The golden age of the corporate lab then came to an end when competition policy loosened in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, growth in university research convinced many bosses that they no longer needed to spend money on their own. Today only a few firms, in big tech and pharma, offer anything comparable to the DuPonts of the past.
The shift, from my point of view, was that big companies could shift costs, outsource research, and cut themselves free from the wonky wizards that one could find wandering around the Cherry Hill Mall near the now-gone Bell Laboratories.
Thus, the schools became producers of innovation.
The Economist newspaper considers the question, “Why can’t big outfits surf on these university insights?” My question is, “Is the Economist newspaper overlooking the academic linkages that exist between the big companies producing lots of cash and a number of select universities. IBM is proud to be camped out at MIT. Google operates two research annexes at Stanford University and the University of Washington. Even smaller companies have ties; for example, Megatrends is close to Indiana University by proximity and spiritually linked to a university in a country far away. Accidents? Nope.
The Economist newspaper is doing the Oxford debate thing: From a superior position, the observations are stentorious. The knife like insights are crafted to cut those of lesser intellect down to size. Chop slice dice like a smart kitchen appliance.
I noted this passage:
Perhaps, with time, universities and the corporate sector will work together more profitably. Tighter competition policy could force businesses to behave a little more like they did in the post-war period, and beef up their internal research.
Is the Economist newspaper on the right track with this university R&D and corporate innovation arguments?
In a word, “Yep.”
Here’s my view:
- Universities teamed up with companies to get money in exchange for cheaper knowledge work subsidized by eager graduate students and PR savvy departments
- Companies used the tie ups to identify ideas with the potential for commercial application and the young at heart and generally naive students, faculty, and researchers as a recruiting short cut. (It is amazing what some PhDs would do for a mouse pad with a prized logo on it.)
- Researchers, graduate students, esteemed faculty, and probably motivated adjunct professors with some steady income after being terminated in a “real” job started making up data. (Yep, think about the bubbling scandals at Harvard University, for instance.)
- Universities embraced the idea that education is a business. Ah, those student loan plays were useful. Other outfits used the reputation to recruit students who would pay for the cost of a degree in cash. From what countries were these folks? That’s a bit of a demographic secret, isn’t it?
Where are we now? Spend some time with recent college graduates. That will answer the question, I believe. Innovation today is defined narrowly. A recent report from Google identified companies engaged in the development of mobile phone spyware. How many universities in Eastern Europe were on the Google list? Answer: Zero. How many companies and state-sponsored universities were on the list? Answer: Zero. How comprehensive was the listing of companies in Madrid, Spain? Answer: Incomplete.
I want to point out that educational institutions have quite distinct innovation fingerprints. The Economist newspaper does not recognize these differences. A small number of companies are engaged in big-time innovation while most are in the business of being cute or clever. The Economist does not pay much attention to this. The individuals, whether in an academic setting or in a corporate environment, are more than willing to make up data, surf on the work of other unacknowledged individuals, or suck of good ideas and information and then head back to a home country to enjoy a life better than some of their peers experience.
If we narrow the focus to the US, we have an unrecognized challenge — Dealing with shaped or synthetic information. In a broader context, the best instruction in certain disciplines is not in the US. One must look to other countries. In terms of successful companies, the financial rewards are shifting from innovation to me-too plays and old-fashioned monopolistic methods.
How do I know? Just ask a cashier (human, not robot) to make change without letting the cash register calculate what you will receive. Is there a fix? Sure, go for the next silver bullet solution. The method is working quite well for some. And what does “economic growth” mean? Defining terms can be helpful even to an Oxford Union influencer.
Stephen E Arnold, February 7, 2024
Can Googzilla Read a Manifesto and Exhibit Fear?
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Let’s think about scale. A start up wants to make a dent in Google’s search traffic. The start up has 2,000 words to blast away at the Google business model. Looking at the 2,000 words from a search tower buttressed by Google’s fourth quarter 2023 revenues of $86.31 billion (up 13% year over the same period in 2022). Does this look like a mismatch? I think it is more of a would-be competitor’s philosophical view of what should be versus what could be. Microsoft Bing is getting a clue as well.
Viewed from the perspective of a student of Spanish literature, the search start up may be today’s version of Don Quixote. The somewhat addled Alonso Quijano pronounced himself a caballero andante or what fans of chivalry in the US of A call a knight errant. What’s errant? In the 16th century, “errant” was self appointed, a bit like a journalism super star who road to fame on the outputs of the unfettered Twitter service and morphs into a pundit, a wizard, a seer.
A modern-day Don Quixote finds himself in an interesting spot. The fire-breathing dragon is cooking its lunch. The bold knight explains that the big beastie is toast. Yeah. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Actually good enough today. Wow.
With a new handle, Don Quixote leaves the persona of Sr. Quijano behind and goes off the make Spain into a better place. The cause of Spanish angst is the windmill. The good Don tries to kill the windmills. But the windmills just keep on grinding grain. The good Don fails. He dies. Ouch!
I thought about the novel when I read “The Age of PageRank is Over [Manifesto].” The author champions a Web search start up called Kagi. The business model of Kagi is to get people to pay to gain access to the Kagi search system. The logic of the subscription model is that X number of people use online search. If our system can get a tiny percentage of those people to pay, we will be able to grow, expand, and deliver good search. The idea is that what Google delivers is crappy, distorted by advertisers who cough up big bucks, and designed to convert more and more online users to the One True Source of Information.
The “manifesto” says:
The websites driven by this business model became advertising and tracking-infested giants that will do whatever it takes to “engage” and monetize unsuspecting visitors. This includes algorithmic feeds, low-quality clickbait articles (which also contributed to the deterioration of journalism globally), stuffing the pages with as many ads and affiliate links as possible (to the detriment of the user experience and their own credibility), playing ads in videos every 45 seconds (to the detriment of generations of kids growing up watching these) and mining as much user data as possible.
These indeed are the attributes of Google and similar advertising-supported services. However, these attributes are what make stakeholders happy. These business model components are exactly what many other companies labor to implement and extend. Even law enforcement likes Google. At one conference I learned that 92 percent of cyber investigators rely on Google for information. If basic Google sucks, just use Google dorks or supplementary services captured in OSINT tools, browser add ins, and nifty search widgets.
Furthermore, switching from one search engine is not a matter of a single click. The no-Google approach requires the user pick a path through a knowledge mine field; for example:
- The user must know what he or she does invokes Google. Most users have no clue where Google fits in one’s online life. When told, those users do not understand.
- The user must identify or learn about one or more services that are NOT Google related.
- The user must figure out what makes one “search” service better than another, not an easy task even for alleged search experts
- The user must make a conscious choice to spit out cash
- The user must then learn how to get a “new” search system to deliver the results the user (trained and nudged by Google for 90 percent of online users in the US and Western Europe)
- The user must change his or her Google habit.
Now those six steps may not seem much of a problem to a person with the neurological wiring of Alonso Quijano or Don Quixote in more popular parlance. But from my experience in online and assorted tasks, these are tricky obstacles to scale.
Back to the Manifesto. I quote:
Nowadays when a user uses an ad-supported search engine, they are bound to encounter noise, wrong and misleading websites in the search results, inevitably insulting their intelligence and wasting their brain cycles. The algorithms themselves are constantly leading an internal battle between optimizing for ad revenue and optimizing for what the user wants.
My take on this passage is that users are supposed to know when they “encounter noise, wrong and misleading websites in the search results.” Okay, good luck with that. Convenience, the familiar, and easy everything raises electrified fences. Users just do what they have learned to do; they believe what they believe; and they accept what others are doing. Google has been working for more than two decades to develop what some call a monopoly. I think there are other words which are more representative of what Google has constructed. That’s why I don’t put on my armor, get a horse, and charge at windmills.
The Manifesto points to a new future for search; to wit:
In the future, instead of everyone sharing the same search engine, you’ll have your completely individual, personalized Mike or Julia or Jarvis – the AI. Instead of being scared to share information with it, you will volunteer your data, knowing its incentives align with yours. The more you tell your assistant, the better it can help you, so when you ask it to recommend a good restaurant nearby, it’ll provide options based on what you like to eat and how far you want to drive. Ask it for a good coffee maker, and it’ll recommend choices within your budget from your favorite brands with only your best interests in mind. The search will be personal and contextual and excitingly so!
Right.
However, here’s the reality of doing something new in search. An outfit like Google shows up. The slick representatives offer big piles of money. The start up sells out. What happens? Where’s Dodgeball now? Transformics? Oingo? The Google-type outfits buy threats or “innovators”. Google then uses what it requires. The result?
Google-type companies evolve and remain Googley. Search was a tough market before Google. My team built technology acquired by Lycos. We were fortunate. Would my team do Web search today? Nope. We are working on a different innovative system.
The impact of generative information retrieval applications is difficult to predict. New categories of software are already emerging; for example, the Arc AI search browser innovation. The software is novel, but I have not installed it. The idea is that it is smart and will unleash a finding agent. Maybe this will be a winner? Maybe.
The challenge is that Google and its “finding” functions are woven into many applications that don’t look like search. Examples range from finding an email to the new and allegedly helpful AI additions to Google Maps. If someone can zap Googzilla, my thought is that it will be like the extinction event that took care of its ancestors. One day, nice weather. The next day, snow. Is a traditional search engine enhanced with AI available as a subscription the killer asteroid? One of the techno feudalists will probably have the technology to deflect or vaporize the intruder. One cannot allow Googzilla to go hungry, can one?
Manifestos are good. The authors let off steam. Unfortunately getting sustainable revenues in a world of techno feudalists is, in my opinion, as difficult as killing a windmill. Someone will collect all the search manifestos and publish a book called “The End of Googzilla.” Yep, someday, just not at this time.
PS. There are angles to consider, just not the somewhat tired magazine subscription tactic. Does anyone care? Nah.
Stephen E Arnold, February 7, 2024
Alternative Channels, Superstar Writers, and Content Filtering
February 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In this post-Twitter world, a duel of influencers is playing out in the blogosphere. At issue: Substack’s alleged Nazi problem. The kerfuffle began with a piece in The Atlantic by Jonathan M. Katz, but has evolved into a debate between Platformer’s Casey Newton and Jesse Singal of Singal-Minded. Both those blogs are hosted by Substack.
To get up to speed on the controversy, see the original Atlantic article. Newton wrote a couple posts about Substack’s responses and detailing Platformer’s involvement. In “Substack Says It Will Remove Nazi Publications from the Platform,” he writes:
“Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies. As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.”
How many publications did Platformer flag, and how many of those did Substack remove? Were they significant publications, and did they really violate the rules? These are the burning questions Singal sought to answer. He shares his account in, “Platformer’s Reporting on Substack’s Supposed ‘Nazi Problem’ Is Shoddy and Misleading.” But first, he specifies his own perspective on Katz’ Atlantic article:
“In my view, this whole thing is little more than a moral panic. Moreover, Katz cut certain corners to obscure the fact that to the extent there are Nazis on Substack at all, it appears they have almost no following or influence, and make almost no money. In one case, for example, Katz falsely claimed that a white nationalist was making a comfortable living writing on Substack, but even the most cursory bit of research would have revealed that that is completely false.”
Singal says he plans a detailed article supporting that assertion, but first he must pick apart Platformer’s position. Readers are treated to details from an email exchange between the bloggers and reasons Singal feels Newton’s responses are inadequate. One can navigate to that post for those details if one wants to get into the weeds. As of this writing, Newton has not published a response to Singal’s diatribe. Were we better off when such duels took place 280 characters at a time?
One positive about newspapers: An established editorial process kept superstars grounded in reality. Now entitlement, more than content, seems to be in the driver’s seat.
Cynthia Murrell, February 7, 2024
New AI to AI Audio and Video Program
February 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
This is Stephen E Arnold. I wanted to let you know that my son Erik and I have created an audio and video program about artificial intelligence, smart software, and machine learning. What makes this show different is our focus. Both of us have worked on government projects in the US and in other countries. Our experience suggested a program tailored for those working in government agencies at the national or federal level, state, county, or local level might be useful. We will try to combine examples of the use of smart software and related technical information. The theme of each program is “smart software for government use cases.”
In the first episode, our topics include a look at the State of Texas’s use of AI to help efficiency, a review of the challenges AI poses, a discussion about Human Resources departments, a technical review of AI content crawlers, and lastly a look ahead in 2024 for smart software.
The format of each show segment is presentation of some facts. Then my son and I discuss our assessment of the information. We don’t always see “eye to eye.” That’s where the name of our program originated. AI to AI.
Our digital assistant is named Ivan Aitoo, pronounced “eye-two.” He is created by an artificial intelligence system. He plays an important part in the program. He introduces each show with a run down of the stories in the program. Also, he concludes each program by telling a joke generated by — what else? — yet another artificial intelligence system. Ivan is delightful, but he has no sense of humor and no audience sensitivity.
You can listen to the audio version of the program at this link on the Apple podcast service. A video version is available on YouTube at this link. The program runs about 20 minutes, and we hope to produce a program every two weeks. (The program is provided as an information service, and it includes neither advertising nor sponsored content.)
If you have comments about the program, you can email them to benkent2020 at yahoo dot com.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
