• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

 Subscribe

Worthless College Degrees. Hey, Where Is Mine?

Smart software involved in the graphic, otherwise just an addled dinobaby.

This write up is not about going “beyond search.” Heck, search has just changed adjectives and remains mostly a frustrating and confusing experience for employees. I want to highlight the information (which I assume to be 100 percent dead accurate like other free data on the Internet) about the “17 Most Useless College Degrees Employers Don’t Want Today.” Okay, high school seniors, pay attention. According to the estimable Finance Buzz, do not study these subjects and — heaven forbid — expect to get a job when you graduate from an online school, the local college, or a big-time, big-bucks university; I have grouped the write up’s earthworm list into some categories; to wit:

Do gooder work

• Criminal justice
• Education (Who needs an education when there is YouTube?)

Entertainment

• Fashion design
• Film, video, and photographic arts
• Music
• Performing arts

Information

• Advertising
• Creative writing (like Finance Buzz research articles?)
• Communications
• Computer science
• Languages (Emojis and some English are what is needed I assume)

Real losers

• Anthropology and archaeology (I thought these were different until Finance Buzz cleared up my confusion)
• Exercise science
• Religious studies

Waiting tables and working the midnight check in desk

• Culinary arts (Fry cook until the robots arrive)
• Hospitality (Smile and show people their table)
• Tourism (Do not fall into the volcano)

Assume the write up is providing verifiable facts. (I know, I know, this is the era of alternative facts.) If we flash forward five years, the already stretched resources for law enforcement and education will be in an even smaller pickle barrel. Good for the bad actors and the people who don’t want to learn. Perhaps less beneficial to others in society. I assume that one can make TikTok-type videos and generate a really bigly income until the Googlers change the compensation rules or TikTok is banned from the US. With the world awash in information and open source software available, who needs to learn anything. AI will do this work. Who in the heck gets a job in archaeology when one can learn from UnchartedX and Brothers of the Serpent? Exercise. Play football and get a contract when you are in middle school like talented kids in Brazil. And the cruise or specialty restaurant business? Those contracts are for six months for a reason. Plus cruise lines have started enforcing no video rules on the staff who were trying to make day in my life videos about the wonderful cruise ship environment. (Weren’t these vessels once called “prison ships”?) My hunch is that whoever assembled this stellar research at Finance Buzz was actually but indirectly writing about smart software and robots. These will decimate many jobs in the idenfied

What should a person study? Nuclear physics, mathematics (applied and theoretical maybe), chemistry, biogenetics, materials science, modern financial management, law (aren’t there enough lawyers?), medicine, and psychology until the DRG codes are restricted.

Excellent way to get a  job. And in what field was my degree? Medieval religious literature. Perfect for  life-long employment as a dinobaby essayist.

Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2025

Apple Fix: Just Buy Something That Mostly Works

No smart software involved. Just an addled dinobaby.

A year ago Apple announced AI which means, of course, Apple Intelligence. Well, Apple was “held back”. In 2025, the powerful innovation machine made the iPhone and Macs look a bit like the Windows see-through motif. Okay.

I read “Apple Reportedly Has a Secret Plan to Quickly Gain Ground in the AI Race.” I won’t point out that if information is circulating AND appears in an article, that information is not secret. It is public relations and marketing output. Second, forget the split infinitive. Since few recognize that datum is singular and data is plural or that the word none is singular, I won’t mention it. Obviously few “real” journalists care.

Now to the write up. In my opinion, the big secret revealed and analyzed is …

Sources report that the company is giving serious consideration to bidding for the startup Perplexity AI, which would allow it to transplant a chunk of expertise and ready-made technology into Apple Park and leapfrog many of the obstacles it currently faces. Perplexity runs an AI-powered search engine which can already perform the contextual tricks which Apple advertised ahead of the iPhone 16 launch but hasn’t yet managed to build into Siri.

Analysis of this “secret” is a bit underwhelming. Here’s the paragraph that is supposed to make sense of this non-secret secret:

Historically, Apple has been wary of large acquisitions, whereas rivals, such as Facebook (buying WhatsApp for $22 billion) and Google (acquiring cloud security platform Wiz for $32 billion), have spent big to scoop up companies. It could be a mark of how worried Apple is about the AI situation that it’s considering such a major and out-of-character move. But after a year of headaches and obstacles, it also could pay off in a big way.

Okay, but what about Google acquiring Motorola? What about Microsoft’s clever purchase of Nokia? And there are other examples. Big companies buying other companies can work out or fizzle. Where is Dodgeball now? Orkut?

The actual issue strikes me as Apple’s failure to recognize that smart software — whether it works particularly well or not — was a marketing pony to ride in the technical circus. Microsoft got the message, and it seems that the marketing play triggered Google. But the tie up seems to be under a bit of stress as of June 2025.

Another problem is that buying AI requires that the purchaser manage the operation, ensure continued innovation of an order slightly more demanding that imitating a Windows interface, and getting the wizard huskies to remain hooked to the dog sled.

What seems to be taking place is a division of the smart software world into three sectors:

1. Companies that “do” large language models; for example, Google, OpenAI, and others
2. Companies that “wrap” large language models and generate start ups that are presented as AI but are interfaces
3. Companies that “integrate” or “glue on” AI to an existing service, platform, or system.

Apple failed at number 1. It hasn’t invented anything in the AI world. (I think I learned about Siri in a Stanford Research Institute presentation many, many years ago. (No, it did not work particularly well even in the demo.)

Apple is not too good at wrapping anything. Safari doesn’t wrap. Safari blazes its own weird trail which is okay for those who love Apple software. For someone like me, I find it annoying.

Apple has demonstrated that it could not “glue on” SIRI.

Okay, Apple has not scored a home run with either approach one, two, or three.

Thus, the analysis, in my opinion, is that Apple like some other outfits now realize smart software — whether it is 100 percent reliable — continues to generate buzz. The task for Apple, therefore, is to figure out how to convert whatever it does into buzz. Skip the cost of invention. Sidestep wrapping AI and look for “partners” who do what department stores in the 1950s: Wrap my holiday gifts. And, three, try to make “glue on” work.

Net net: Will Apple undertake auto de fe and see the light?

Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2025

Hot Bots Bite

No smart software involved. Just an addled dinobaby.

I read “Discord is Threatening to Shutdown BotGhost: The Ensh*ttification of Discord.” (I really hate that “ensh*t neologism.) The write up is interesting. If you know zero about bots, just skip it. If you do know something about bots in “walled gardens.” Take a look. The use of software robots which are getting smarter and smarter thanks to “artificial intelligence” will emerge, morph, and become vectors for some very exciting types of online criminal activity. Sure, bots can do “good,” but most people with a make-money-fast idea will find ways to botify online crime. With crypto currency scoped to be an important part of “everything” apps, excitement is just around the corner.

However, I want to call attention to the comments section of Hacker News. Several of the observations struck me as germane to my interests in bots purpose built for online criminal activity. Your interests are probably different from mine, but here’s a selection of the remarks I found on point for me:

1. throwaway7679 posts: [caps in original] “NEITHER DISCORD NOR ITS AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS, OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE APIs, API DATA, DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY DISCORD SERVICES. The existence of terms like this make any discussion of the other terms look pretty silly. Their policy is simply that they do whatever they want, and that hasn’t changed.”
2. sneak posts: “Discord has the plaintext of every single message ever sent via Discord, including all DMs. Can you imagine the value to LLM companies? It’s probably the single largest collection of sexting content outside of WeChat (and Apple’s archive of iCloud Backups that contain all of the iMessages).”
3. immibis posts: “Reddit is more evil than Discord IMO – they did this years ago, tried to shut down all bots and unofficial apps, and they heavily manipulate consensus opinion, which Discord doesn’t as far as I know.”
4. macspoofing posts: “…For software platforms, this has been a constant. It happened with Twitter, Facebook, Google (Search/Ads, Maps, Chat), Reddit, LinkedIn – basically ever major software platform started off with relatively open APIs that were then closed-off as it gained critical mass and focused on monetization.”
5. altairprime posts: “LinkedIn lost a lawsuit about prohibiting third parties tools from accessing its site, Matrix has strong interop, Elite Dangerous offers OAuth API for sign-in and player data download, and so on. There are others but that’s sixty seconds worth of thinking about it. Mastodon metastasized the user store but each site is still a tiny centralized user store. That’s how user stores work. Doesn’t mean they’re automatically monopolistic. Discord’s taking the Reddit-Apollo approach to forcing them offline — half-assed conversations for months followed by an abrupt fuck-you moment with little recourse — which given Discord’s free of charge growth mechanism, means that — just like Reddit — they’re likely going to shutdown anything by that’s providing a valuable service to a significant fraction of their users, either to Sherlock and charge money for it, or simply to terminate what they view as an obstruction.”

Several observations:

1. Telegram not mentioned in the comments which I reviewed (more are being added, but I am not keeping track of these additions as of 1125 am US Eastern on June 25, 2025)
2. Bots are a contentious type of software
3. The point about the “value” of messages to large language models is accurate.

Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2025

Read This Essay and Learn Why AI Can Do Programming

No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.

I, entirely by accident since Web search does not work too well, an essay titled “Ticket-Driven Development: The Fastest Way to Go Nowhere.” I would have used a different title; for example, “Smart Software Can Do Faster and Cheaper Code” or “Skip Computer Science. Be a Plumber.” Despite my lack of good vibe coding from the essay’s title, I did like the information in the write up. The basic idea is that managers just want throughput. This is not news.

The most useful segment of the write up is this passage:

You don’t need a process revolution to fix this. You need permission to care again. Here’s what that looks like:

• Leave the code a little better than you found it — even if no one asked you to.
• Pair up occasionally, not because it’s mandated, but because it helps.
• Ask why. Even if you already know the answer. Especially then.
• Write the extra comment. Rename the method. Delete the dead file.
• Treat the ticket as a boundary, not a blindfold.

Because the real job isn’t closing tickets it’s building systems that work.

I wish to offer several observations:

1. Repetitive boring, mindless work is perfect for smart software
2. Implementing dot points one to five will result in a reprimand, transfer to a salubrious location, or termination with extreme prejudice
3. Spending long hours with an AI version of an old-fashioned psychiatrist because you will go crazy.

After reading the essay, I realized that the managerial approach, the “ticket-driven workflow”, and the need for throughput applies to many jobs. Leadership no longer has middle managers who manage. When leadership intervenes, one gets [a] consultants or [b] knee-jerk decisions or mandates.

The crisis is in organizational set up and management. The developers? Sorry, you have been replaced. Say, “hello” to our version of smart software. Her name is No Kidding.

Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2025

AI Management: Excellence in Distancing Decisions from Consequences

Smart software involved in the graphic, otherwise just an addled dinobaby.

This write up “Exclusive: Scale AI’s Spam, Security Woes Plagued the Company While Serving Google” raises two minor issues and one that is not called out in the headline or the subtitle:

$14 billion investment from Meta struggled to contain ‘spammy behavior’ from unqualified contributors as it trained Gemini.

Who can get excited about a workflow and editorial quality issue. What is “quality”? In one of my Google monographs I pointed out that Google used at one time a number of numerical recipes to figure out “quality.” Did that work? Well, it was good enough to help get the Yahoo-inspired Google advertising program off the ground. Then quality became like those good brownies from 1953: Stuffed with ingredients no self-respecting Stanford computer science graduate would eat for lunch.

I believe some caution is required when trying to understand a very large and profitable company from someone who is no longer working at the company. Nevertheless, the article presents a couple of interesting assertions and dodges what I consider the big issue.

Consider this statement in the article:

In a statement to Inc., Scale AI spokesperson Joe Osborne said: “This story is filled with so many inaccuracies, it’s hard to keep track. What these documents show, and what we explained to Inc ahead of publishing, is that we had clear safeguards in place to detect and remove spam before anything goes to customers.” [Editor’s Note: “this” means the rumor that Scale cut corners.]

The story is that a process included data that would screw up the neural network.

And the security issue? I noted this passage:

The [spam] episode raises the question of whether or not Google at one point had vital data muddied by workers who lacked the credentials required by the Bulba program. It also calls into question Scale AI’s security and vetting protocols.  “It was a mess. They had no authentication at the beginning,” says the former contributor. [Editor’s Note: Bulba means “Bard.”]

A person reading the article might conclude that Scale AI was a corner cutting outfit. I don’t know. But when big money starts to flow and more can be turned on, some companies just do what’s expedient. The signals in this Scale example are the put the pedal to the metal approach to process and the information that people knew that bad data was getting pumped into Googzilla.

But what’s the big point that’s missing from the write up? In my opinion, Google management made a decision to rely on Scale. Then Google management distanced itself from the operation. In the good old days of US business, blue-suited informed middle managers pursued quality, some companies would have spotted the problems and ridden herd on the subcontractor.

Google did not do this in an effective manner.

Now Scale AI is beavering away for Meta which may be an unexpected win for the Google. Will Meta’s smart software begin to make recommendations like “glue your cheese on the pizza”? My personal view is that I now know why Google’s smart software has been more about public relations and marketing, not about delivering something that is crystal clear about its product line up, output reliability, and hallucinatory behaviors.

At least Google management can rely on Deepseek to revolutionize understanding the human genome. Will the company manage in as effective a manner as its marketing department touts its achievements?

Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2025

Microsoft Innovation: Emulating the Bold Interface Move by Apple?

This dinobaby wrote this tiny essay without any help from smart software. Not even hallucinating gradient descents can match these bold innovations.

Bold. Decisive. Innovative. Forward leaning. Have I covered the adjectives used to communicate “real” innovation? I needed these and more to capture my reaction to the information in “Forget the Blue Screen of Death – Windows Is Replacing It with an Even More Terrifying Black Screen of Death.”

Yep, terrifying. I don’t feel terrified when my monitors display a warning. I guess some people do.

The write up reports:

Microsoft is replacing the Windows 11 Blue Screen of Death (BSoD) with a Black Screen of Death, after decades of the latter’s presence on multiple Windows iterations. It apparently wants to provide more clarity and concise information to help troubleshoot user errors easily.

The important aspect of this bold decision to change the color of an alert screen may be Apple color envy.

Apple itself said, “Apple Introduces a Delightful and Elegant New Software Design.” The innovation was… changing colors and channeling Windows Vista.

Let’s recap. Microsoft makes an alert screen black. Apple changes its colors.

Peak innovation. I guess that is what happens when artificial intelligence does not deliver.

Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2025

Microsoft and OpenAI: An Expensive Sitcom

No smart software involved. Just an addled dinobaby.

I remember how clever I thought the book title “Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?: Leading a Great Enterprise Through Dramatic Change.” I find the break dancing content between Microsoft and OpenAI even more amusing. Bloomberg “real” news reported that Microsoft is “struggling to sell its Copilot solutions. Why? Those Microsoft customers want OpenAI’s ChatGPT. That’s a hoot.

Computerworld adds to this side show more Monte Python twists. “Microsoft and OpenAI: Will They Opt for the Nuclear Option?” (I am not too keen on the use of the word “nuclear.” People bandy it about without understanding exactly what the actual consequences of such an opton means. Please, do a bit of homework before suggesting that two enterprises are doing anything remotely similar.)

The estimable Computerworld reports:

Microsoft needs access to OpenAI technologies to keep its worldwide lead in AI and grow its valuation beyond its current more than $3.5 trillion. OpenAI needs Microsoft to sign a deal so the company can go public via an IPO. Without an IPO, the company isn’t likely to keep its highly valued AI researchers — they’ll probably be poached by companies willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the talent.

The problem seems to be that Microsoft is trying to sell its version of smart software. The enterprise customers and even dinobabies like myself prefer the hallucinatory and unpredictable ChatGPT to the downright weirdness of Copilot in Notepad. The Computerworld story says:

Hovering over it all is an even bigger wildcard. Microsoft’s and OpenAI’s existing agreement dramatically curtails Microsoft’s rights to OpenAI technologies if the technologies reach what is called artificial general intelligence (AGI) — the point at which AI becomes capable of human reasoning. AGI wasn’t defined in that agreement. But Altman has said he believes AGI might be reached as early as this year.

People cannot agree over beach rights and school taxes. The smart software (which may remain without regulation for a decade) is a much bigger deal. The dollars at stake are huge. Most people do not know that a Board of Directors for a Fortune 1000 company will spend more time arguing about parking spaces than a $300 million acquisition. The reason? Most humans cannot conceive of the numbers of dollars associated with artificial intelligence. If the AI next big thing does not work, quite a few outfits are going to be selling snake oil from tables at flea markets.

Here’s the humorous twist from my vantage point. Microsoft itself kicked off the AI boom with its announcements a couple of years ago. Google, already wondering how it can keep the money gushing to pay the costs of simply being Google, short circuited and hit the switch for Code Red, Yellow, Orange, and probably the color only five people on earth have ever seen.

And what’s happened? The Google-spawned methods aren’t eliminating hallucinations. The OpenAI methods are not eliminating hallucinations. The improvements are more and more difficult to explain. Meanwhile start ups are doing interesting things with AI systems that are good enough for certain use cases. I particularly like consulting and investment firms using AI to get rid of MBAs.

The punch line for this joke is that the Microsoft version of ChatGPT seems to have more brand deliciousness. Microsoft linked with OpenAI, created its own “line of AI,” and now finds that the frisky money burner OpenAI is more popular and can just define artificial general intelligence to its liking and enjoy the philosophical discussions among AI experts and lawyers.

One cannot make this sequence up. Jack Benny’s radio scripts came close, but I think the Microsoft – OpenAI program is a prize winner.

Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2025

Publishing for Cash: What Is Here Is Bad. What Is Coming May Be Worse

Smart software involved in the graphic, otherwise just an addled dinobaby.

Shocker. Pew Research discovers that most “Americans” do not pay for news. Amazing. Is it possible that the Pew professionals were unaware of the reason newspapers, radio, and television included comic strips, horoscopes, sports scores, and popular music in their “real” news content? I read in the middle of 2025 the research report “Few Americans Pay for News When They Encounter Paywalls.” For a number of years I worked for a large publishing company in Manhattan. I also worked at a privately owned publishing company in fly over country.

The sky looks threatening. Is it clouds, locusts, or the specter of the new Dark Ages? Thanks, you.com. Good enough.

I learned several things. Please, keep in mind that I am a dinobaby and I have zero in common with GenX, Y, Z, or the horrific GenAI. The learnings:

• Publishing companies spend time and money trying to figure out how to convert information into cash. This “problem” extended from the time I took my first real job in 1972 to yesterday when I received an email from a former publisher who is thinking about batteries as the future.
• Information loses its value as it diffuses; that is, if I know something, I can generate money IF I can find the one person who recognizes the value of that information. For anyone else, the information is worthless and probably nonsense because that individual does not have the context to understand the “value” of an item of information.
• Information has a tendency to diffuse. It is a bit like something with a very short half life. Time makes information even more tricky. If the context changes exogenously, the information I have may be rendered valueless without warning.

So what’s the solution? Here are the answers I have encountered in my professional life:

1. Convert the “information” into magic and the result of a secret process. This is popular in consulting, certain government entities, and banker types. Believe me, people love the incantations, the jargon talk, and the scent of spontaneous ozone creation.
2. Talk about “ideals,” and deliver lowest common denominator content. The idea that the comix and sports scores will “sell” and the revenue can be used to pursue ideals. (I worked at an outfit like this, and I liked its simple, direct approach to money.)
3. Make the information “exclusive” and charge a very few people a whole lot of money to access this “special” information. I am not going to explain how lobbying, insider talk, and trade show receptions facilitate this type of information wheeling and dealing. Just get a LexisNexis-type of account, run some queries, and check out the bill. The approach works for certain scientific and engineering information, financial data, and information people have no idea is available for big bucks.
4. Embrace the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach. Believe me this works. Look at YouTube thumbnails. The graphics and word choice make clear that sensationalism, titillation, and jazzification are the order of the day.

Now back to the Pew research. Here’s a passage I noted:

The survey also asked anyone who said they ever come across paywalls what they typically do first when that happens. Just 1% say they pay for access when they come across an article that requires payment. The most common reaction is that people seek the information somewhere else (53%). About a third (32%) say they typically give up on accessing the information.

Stop. That’s the key finding: one percent pay.

Let me suggest:

1. Humans will take the easiest path; that is, they will accept what is output or what they hear from their “sources”
2. Humans will take “facts” and glue they together to come up with more “facts”. Without context — that is, what used to be viewed as a traditional education and a commitment to lifelong learning, these people will lose the ability to think. Some like this result, of course.
3. Humans face a sharper divide between the information “haves” and the information “have nots.”

Net net: The new dark ages are on the horizon. How’s that for a speculative conclusion from the Pew research?

Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2025

Add On AI: Sounds Easy, But Maybe Just a Signal You Missed the Train

No smart software to write this essay. This dinobaby is somewhat old fashioned.

I know about Reddit. I don’t post to Reddit. I don’t read Reddit. I do know that like Apple, Microsoft, and Telegram, the company is not a pioneer in smart software. I think it is possible to bolt on Item Z to Product B. Apple pulled this off with the Mac and laser printer bundle. Result? Desktop publishing.

Can Reddit pull off a desktop publishing-type of home run? Reddit sure hopes it can (just like Apple, Microsoft, and Telegram, et al).

“At 20 Years Old, Reddit Is Defending Its Data and Fighting AI with AI” says:

Reddit isn’t just fending off AI. It launched its own Reddit Answers AI service in December, using technology from OpenAI and Google. Unlike general-purpose chatbots that summarize others’ web pages, the Reddit Answers chatbot generates responses based purely on the social media service, and it redirects people to the source conversations so they can see the specific user comments. A Reddit spokesperson said that over 1 million people are using Reddit Answers each week. Huffman has been pitching Reddit Answers as a best-of-both worlds tool, gluing together the simplicity of AI chatbots with Reddit’s corpus of commentary. He used the feature after seeing electronic music group Justice play recently in San Francisco.

The question becomes, “Will users who think about smart software as ChatGPT be happy with a Reddit AI which is an add on?”

Several observations:

1. If Reddit wants to pull a Web3 walled-garden play, the company may have lost the ability to lock its gate.
2. ChatGPT, according to my team, is what Microsoft Word and Outlook users want; what they get is Copilot. This is a mind share and perception problem the Softies have to figure out how to remediate.
3. If the uptake of ChatGPT or something from the “glue cheese on pizza” outfit, Reddit may have to face a world similar to the one that shunned MySpace or Webvan.
4. Reddit itself appears to be vulnerable to what I call content injection. The idea is that weaponized content like search engine optimization posts are posted (injected) to Reddit. The result is that AI systems suck in the content and “boost” the irrelevancy.

My hunch is that an outfit like Reddit may find that its users may prefer asking ChatGPT or migrating to one of the new Telegram-type services now being coded in Silicon Valley.

Like Yahoo, the portal to the Internet in 1990s, Reddit may not have a front page that pulls users. A broader comment is that what I call “add-on AI” may not work because the outfits with the core technology and market pull will exploit, bulldoze, and undermine outfits which are at their core getting pretty old. We need a new truism, “When AIs fight, only the stakeholders get trampled.”

The truth may be more painful: Smart AI outfits can cause less smart outfits with AI bolted on to lose their value and magnetism for their core constituencies. Is there a fix? Nope, there is a cat-and-mouse game in which the attacker has the advantage.

Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2025

Palantir Rattles the Windows in the Nuclear Industry

This dinobaby asked ChatGPT about Palantir. Interesting output.

“Palantir Partners to Develop AI Software for Nuclear Construction” caught me by surprise. I did not think the company founded in 2003 was an artificial intelligence company with expertise in the nuclear field. The cited article reports:

Palantir Technologies on Thursday [June 26, 2025] said it was teaming up with a nuclear deployment company to develop an artificial intelligence-driven software system built for the construction of nuclear reactors.

I have paid much attention to Palantir, but I did own a small amount of Palantir stock but I dumped it.

Screenshot of the ChatGPT output on June 27, 2025, at 855 am US Eastern

Today I wanted to refresh my memory about the company. I navigated to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and plugged in key words and this is what the Sam Altman system generated for me. Note: It is unlikely that the ChatGPT system can output the same report because probability doesn’t work the way users of the system think it does.

Remember: The quoted passage is copied directly from the ChatGPT response. ChatGPT told me:

Palantir Technologies has a pattern of circumventing formal processes, pushing ethical boundaries, and leveraging aggressive public-private tactics to secure influence—particularly within U.S. defense and intelligence communities.

Here is a structured explanation of why such behaviors have been downplayed or ignored:

 

---

1. Operational Utility Overrides Bureaucratic Violations

• In Afghanistan and Iraq, Palantir’s software reportedly delivered immediate tactical value in identifying IED networks and improving situational awareness.
• By deploying software and engineers directly to the field without formal contracts, Palantir created facts on the ground—a working product that soldiers wanted, and field commanders endorsed.
• Pentagon leadership faced a dilemma: challenge Palantir for its violations or continue using a system that operators said worked better than the legacy alternatives (e.g., DCGS-A).
• This “bottom-up demand” shielded Palantir from early procurement blowback.

 

---

2. Information Warfare and Lobbying

• Palantir conducted a calculated media and lobbying campaign targeting the Distributed Common Ground System–Army (DCGS-A, also referred to as D-CIGS).
• By discrediting IBM and other legacy defense contractors, Palantir positioned itself as the modern, Silicon Valley alternative.
• This messaging resonated with Congress, think tanks, and parts of the press, framing Palantir as a disruptor, not a rule-breaker.
• Lobbying disclosures show Palantir spent millions courting lawmakers and decision-makers.

 

---

3. Legal Maneuvering and Settlements

• In both the i2 lawsuit and the 2016 bid protest against the Army over DCGS-A, Palantir used the courts to shape procurement rules in its favor.
• The Court of Federal Claims sided with Palantir in 2016, affirming that the Army violated federal acquisition regulations by excluding commercial solutions from its process ([Palantir USG v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (2016)]). This set a precedent that indirectly legitimized Palantir’s aggressive tactics.

 

---

4. Shift in Public Attention and National Security Prioritization

• Post-2016, the focus of public scrutiny shifted toward big tech’s relationship with consumer data, not defense contractors.
• Palantir successfully repositioned itself as a key player in pandemic response, immigration enforcement, and border security—domains where national interest arguments silence criticism.
• The company also leaned into its identity as a pro-Western, anti-authoritarian force, which further insulated it from deeper ethical scrutiny.

 

---

5. Opacity and Media Fatigue

• Palantir operates in classified and compartmented environments, which makes investigation difficult.
• Many journalists lack the access or technical background to track the nuance of procurement violations or reverse engineering disputes.
• After years of unresolved criticism, media fatigue set in—journalists moved on, and watchdog groups prioritized new targets (e.g., TikTok, Clearview AI, etc.).

 

---

Conclusion:

Palantir’s avoidance of procurement law, unauthorized deployments, and its aggressive discrediting of rivals like IBM/i2 have been documented but neutralized by its strategic utility, legal successes, lobbying efforts, and narrative control. The firm masks tactical rule-breaking with patriotic branding, which has proved highly effective in suppressing deeper accountability.

True, false, reality, or hallucinatory? I don’t know. Nuclear in the context of this ChatGPT output that suggests the Palantir outfit is definitely operating in a very interesting manner. What would Palantir’s AI say about the company?

Stephen  E Arnold, June 30, 2025

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Employment
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • Way to Go, Waymo: The Non-Googley Drivers Are Breaking the Law
  • Yep, Making the AI Hype Real Will Be Expensive. Hundreds of Billions, Probably More, Says Microsoft
  • Forget AI AI AI. Think Enron Enron Enron
  • Google Web Indexing: Some Think It Is Degrading. Impossible
  • Telegram Notes: Manny, Snoop, and Millions in Minutes

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org