Goat Trading: AI at Davos
January 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The AI supercars are racing along the Information Superhighway. Nikkei Asia published what I thought was the equivalent of archaeologists translating a Babylonian clay table about goat trading. Interesting but a bit out of sync with what was happening in a souk. Goat trading, if my understanding of Babylonian commerce, was a combination of a Filene’s basement sale and a hot rod parts swap meet. The article which evoked this thought was “Generative AI Regulation Dominates the Conversation at Davos.” No kidding? Really? I thought some at Davos were into money. I mean everything in Switzerland comes back to money in my experience.
Here’s a passage I found with a nod to the clay tablets of yore:
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, during a speech at Davos, flagged risks that AI poses to human rights, personal privacy and societies, calling on the private sector to join a multi-stakeholder effort to develop a "networked and adaptive" governance model for AI.
Now visualize a market at which middlemen, buyers of goats, sellers of goats, funders of goat transactions, and the goats themselves are in the air. Heady. Bold. Like the hot air filling a balloon, an unlikely construct takes flight. Can anyone govern a goat market or the trajectory of the hot air balloons floated by avid outputters?
Intense discussions can cause a number of balloons to float with hot air power. Talk is input to AI, isn’t it? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
The world of AI reminds me the ultimate outcome of intense discussions about the buying and selling of goats, horses, and AI companies. The official chatter and the “what ifs” are irrelevant in what is going on with smart software. Here’s another quote from the Nikkei write up:
In December, the European Union became the first to provisionally pass AI legislation. Countries around the world have been exploring regulation and governance around AI. Many sessions in Davos explored governance and regulations and why global leaders and tech companies should collaborate.
How are those official documents’ content changing the world of artificial intelligence? I think one can spot a hot air balloon held aloft on the heated emissions from the officials, important personages, and the individuals who are “experts” in all things “smart.”
Another quote, possibly applicable to goat trading in Babylon:
Vera Jourova, European Commission vice president for values and transparency, said during a panel discussion in Davos, that "legislation is much slower than the world of technologies, but that’s law." "We suddenly saw the generative AI at the foundation models of Chat GPT," she continued. "And it moved us to draft, together with local legislators, the new chapter in the AI act. We tried to react on the new real reality. The result is there. The fine tuning is still ongoing, but I believe that the AI act will come into force."
I am confident that there are laws regulating goat trading. I believe that some people follow those laws. On the other hand, when I was in a far off dusty land, I watched how goats were bought and sold. What does goat trading have to do with regulating, governing, or creating some global consensus about AI?
The marketplace is roaring along. You wanna buy a goat? There is a smart software vendor who will help you.
Stephen E Arnold, January xx, 2024
Google-gies: A New Literary Genre
January 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I think graduate students in American literature have a new genre to analyze. The best way to define an innovation in literature is to take an example and do what soon-to-be-unemployed MA and PhD candidates do best: Examine an original text. I think one word used to describe this type of examination is deconstruction. Close enough for horseshoes.
These former high tech feudal barons lament parties designed to facilitate discussion of dissolution, devolution, and disintegration. Thanks, second tier MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough again.
My name for this new branch of American writing is a combination of Google and elegy or Googlegy. I also considered Googletopsis in honor of William Cullen Bryant, but Googlegy is snappier in my opinion. The point is that the term applies to writing about the death of the Google myth.
Let’s turn to a recent example titled “Mourning Google.” The main idea is that the Google is dead or one facet of the estimable firm has passed into the Great Beyond. The writer is Tim Bray who was a Big Gun at OpenText and other firms before joining the Digital Camelot. He writes:
it really seems like the joy has well and truly departed the Googleplex.
Funereal? Yep. He continues:
And now, in Anno Domini 2024, Google has lost its edge in search. There are plenty of things it can’t find. There are compelling alternatives. To me this feels like a big inflection point, because around the stumbling feet of the Big Tech dinosaurs, the Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry. They exhibit creative energy and strongly-flavored voices, and those voices still sometimes find and reinforce each other without being sock puppets of shareholder-value-focused private empires.
I like the metaphors and the lingo. (Subsequent sections of the essay use vulgar language. Some of the author’s words appear on Google list of forbidden words, so I won’t repeat them. This is a blog, not English 602, Googlegy: Meaning and Social Impact.
The wrap up of the essay reveals some of the attitude of a Xoogler or former Googler presents this wonderful blend of nostalgia, greed, and personal emotion:
It was ethereal — OK, pretentious — almost beyond belief. Almost entirely vegetarian, rare plants hand-gathered by Zen monks and assembled into jewel-like little platelets-full that probably strengthened eleven different biochemical subsystems just by existing. And the desserts were beyond divine. Admittedly, sometimes when I left, my Norwegian-farmer metabolism grumbled a bit about not having had any proper food, but still. It was wonderful. It was absurd. And I got a $90K bonus that year because Google+ hit its numbers. It’s over, I think. It’s OK to miss it.
Why are Googlegies appearing? I have a theory, and if I were teaching graduate students, I would direct those eager minds toward a research topic in this untrodden intellectual space.
Let me share several observations:
- Using Swisscows.com or another reasonably useful Web search engine, one can locate other articles about the mythical death of the Google
- Medium and Substack harbor essays in this genre
- Conferences featuring speakers who were Googlers provide an opportunity for first-hand data collection
- Apply for a job and learn up close and personal how money assuages one’s conscience, emotions, and ethical whimpers.
I have a different viewpoint. The Google is busy redesigning the Web to maintain its grip on revenue from advertisers. Googley technology will, its senior managers hope, will blunt the rapacious outfits which are equally inspired by the spirit of Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller.
Welcome the birth of a new genre — Google-gies. Refreshing if too late.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2024
Regulators Shift into Gear to Investigate an AI Tie Up
January 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Solicitors, lawyers, and avocats want to mark the anniversary of the AI big bang. About one year ago, Microsoft pushed Google into hitting its Code Red button. Investment firms, developers, and wild-eyed entrepreneurs knew smart software was the real deal, not a digital file of a cartoon like that NFT baloney. In the last 12 months, AI went from jargon and eliciting yawns to the treasure map to the fabled city of El Dorado (even if it was a suburb of Grants, New Mexico. Google got the message quickly. The lawyers. Well, not too quickly.
Regulators look through the technological pile of 2023 gadgets. Despite being last year’s big thing, the law makers and justice deciders move into action mode. Exciting. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
“EU Joins UK in Scrutinizing OpenAI’s Relationship with Microsoft” documents what happens when lawyers — after decades of inaction — wake to do something constructive. Social media gutted the fabric of many cultural norms. AI isn’t going to be given a 20 year free pass. No way.
The write up reports:
Antitrust regulators in the EU have joined their British counterparts in scrutinizing Microsoft’s alliance with OpenAI.
What will happen now? Here’s my short list of actions:
- Legal eagles on both sides of the Atlantic will begin grooming their feathers in order to be selected to deal with the assorted forms, filings, hearings, and advisory meetings. Some of the lawyers will call Ferrari to make sure they are eligible to buy a supercar; others may cast an eye on an impounded oligarch-linked yacht. Yep, big bucks ahead.
- Microsoft and OpenAI will let loose an platoon of humanoid art history and business administration majors. These professionals will create a wide range of informative explainers. Smart software will be pressed into duty, and I anticipate some smart automation to provide Teflon the the flow of digital documentation.
- Firms — possibly some based in the EU and a few bold souls in the US — will present information making clear that competition is a good thing. Governments must regulate smart software
- Entities hostile to the EU and the US will also output information or disinformation. Which is what depends on one’s perspective.
In short, 2024 will be an interesting year because one of the major threat to the Google could be converted to the digital equivalent of a eunuch in an Assyrian ruler’s court. What will this mean? Google wins. Unanticipated consequence? Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2024
Research: A Slippery Path to Wisdom Now
January 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
When deciding whether to believe something on the Internet all one must do is google it, right? Not so fast. Citing five studies performed between 2019 and 2022, Scientific American describes “How Search Engines Boost Misinformation.” Writer Lauren Leffer tells us:
“Encouraging Internet users to rely on search engines to verify questionable online articles can make them more prone to believing false or misleading information, according to a study published today in Nature. The new research quantitatively demonstrates how search results, especially those prompted by queries that contain keywords from misleading articles, can easily lead people down digital rabbit holes and backfire. Guidance to Google a topic is insufficient if people aren’t considering what they search for and the factors that determine the results, the study suggests.”
Those of us with critical thinking skills may believe that caveat goes without saying but, alas, it does not. Apparently evaluating the reliability of sources through lateral reading must be taught to most searchers. Another important but underutilized practice is to rephrase a query before hitting enter. Certain terms are predominantly used by purveyors of misinformation, so copy-and-pasting a dubious headline will turn up dubious sources to support it. We learn:
“For example, one of the misleading articles used in the study was entitled ‘U.S. faces engineered famine as COVID lockdowns and vax mandates could lead to widespread hunger, unrest this winter.’ When participants included ‘engineered famine’—a unique term specifically used by low-quality news sources—in their fact-check searches, 63 percent of these queries prompted unreliable results. In comparison, none of the search queries that excluded the word ‘engineered’ returned misinformation. ‘I was surprised by how many people were using this kind of naive search strategy,’ says the study’s lead author Kevin Aslett, an assistant professor of computational social science at the University of Central Florida. ‘It’s really concerning to me.’”
That is putting it mildly. These studies offer evidence to support suspicions that thoughtless searching is getting us into trouble. See the article for more information on the subject. Maybe a smart LLM will spit it out for you, and let you use it as your own?
Cynthia Murrell, January 19, 2024
Signals for the Future: January 2024
January 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Data points fly more rapidly than arrows in an Akiro Kurosawa battle scene. My research team identified several items of interest which the free lunchers collectively identified as mysterious signals for the future. Are my special librarians, computer programmers, and eager beavers prognosticators you can trust to presage the future? I advise some caution. Nevertheless, let me share their divinations with you.
This is an illustration of John Arnold, a founder of Hartford, Connecticut, trying to discern the signals about the future of his direct descendant Stephen E Arnold. I use the same type of device, but I focus on a less ambitious time span. Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
Enablers in the Spotlight
First, Turkey has figured out that the digital enablers which operate as Internet server providers, hosting services which offer virtual machines and crypto, developers of assorted obfuscation software are a problem. The odd orange newspaper reported in “Turkey Tightens Internet Censorship ahead of Elections.” The signal my team identified appears in this passage:
Documents seen by the Financial Times show that Turkey’s Information Technologies and Communications Authority (BTK) told internet service providers a month ago to curtail access to more than a dozen popular virtual private network services.
If Turkey’s actions return the results the government of Turkey find acceptable, will other countries adopt a similar course of action. My dinobaby memory allowed me to point out that this is old news. China and Iran have played this face card before. One of my team pointed out, “Yes, but this time it is virtual private networks.” I asked one of the burrito eaters to see if M247 has been the subject of any chatter. What’s an M247? Good question. The answer is, “An enabler.”
AI Kills Jobs
Second, one of my hard workers pointed out that Computerworld published an article with a bold assertion. Was it a bit of puffery or was it a signal? The answer was, “A signal.”
“AI to Impact 60% of Jobs in Developed Economies: IMF” points out:
The blog post points out that automation has typically impacted routine tasks. However, this is different with AI, as it can potentially affect skilled jobs. “As a result, advanced economies face greater risks from AI — but also more opportunities to leverage its benefits — compared with emerging market and developing economies,” said the blog post. The older workforce would be more vulnerable to the impact of technology than the younger college-educated workers. “Technological change may affect older workers through the need to learn new skills. Firms may not find it beneficial to invest in teaching new skills to workers with a shorter career horizon; older workers may also be less likely to engage in such training, since the perceived benefit may be limited given the limited remaining years of employment,” said the IMF report.
Life for some recently RIFed and dinobabies will be more difficult. This is a signal? My team says, “Yes, dinobaby.”
Advertising As Cancer
Final signal for this post: One of my team made a big deal out of the information in “We Removed Advertising Cookies, Here’s What Happened.” Most of the write up will thrill the lucky people who are into search engine optimization and related marketing hoo hah. The signal appears in this passage:
When third-party cookies are fully deprecated this year, there will undoubtedly be more struggles for performance marketers. Without traditional pixels or conversion signals, Google (largest ad platform in the world) struggles to find intent of web visitors to purchase.
We listened as our colleague explained: “Google is going to do whatever it can to generate more revenue. The cookie thing, combined with the ChatGPT-type of search, means that Google’s goldon goose is getting perilously close to one of those craters with chemical-laced boiling water at Yellowstone.” That’s an interesting signal. Can we hear a goose squawking now?
Make of these signals what you will. My team and I will look and listen for more.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2024
Stretchy Security and Flexible Explanations from SEC and X
January 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Gizmodo presented an interesting write up about an alleged security issue involving the US Securities & Exchange Commission. Is this an important agency? I don’t know. “X Confirms SEC Hack, Says Account Didn’t Have 2FA Turned On” states:
Turns out that the SEC’s X account was hacked, partially because it neglected a very basic rule of online security.
“Well, Pa, that new security fence does not seem too secure to me,” observes the farmer’s wife. Flexible and security with give are not the optimal ways to protect the green. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Four tries and something good enough. Yes!
X.com — now known by some as the former Twitter or the Fail Whale outfit — puts the blame on the US SEC. That’s a familiar tactic in Silicon Valley. The users are at fault. Some people believe Google’s incognito mode is secret, and others assume that Apple iPhones do not have a backdoor. Wow, I believe these companies, don’t you?
The article reports:
[The] hacking episode temporarily threw the web3 community into chaos after the SEC’s compromised account made a post falsely claiming that the SEC had approved the much anticipated Bitcoin ETFs that the crypto world has been obsessed with of late. The claims also briefly sent Bitcoin on a wild ride, as the asset shot up in value temporarily, before crashing back down when it became apparent the news was fake.
My question is, “How stretchy and flexible are security systems available from outfits like Twitter (now X)?” Another question is, “How secure are government agencies?”
The apparent answer is, “Good enough.” That’s the high water mark in today’s world. Excellence? Meh.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2024
Information Voids for Vacuous Intellects
January 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In countries around the world, 2024 is a critical election year, and the problem of online mis- and disinformation is worse than ever. Nature emphasizes the seriousness of the issue as it describes “How Online Misinformation Exploits ‘Information Voids’—and What to Do About It.” Apparently we humans are so bad at considering the source that advising us to do our own research just makes the situation worse. Citing a recent Nature study, the article states:
“According to the ‘illusory truth effect’, people perceive something to be true the more they are exposed to it, regardless of its veracity. This phenomenon pre-dates the digital age and now manifests itself through search engines and social media. In their recent study, Kevin Aslett, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, and his colleagues found that people who used Google Search to evaluate the accuracy of news stories — stories that the authors but not the participants knew to be inaccurate — ended up trusting those stories more. This is because their attempts to search for such news made them more likely to be shown sources that corroborated an inaccurate story.”
Doesn’t Google bear some responsibility for this phenomenon? Apparently the company believes it is already doing enough by deprioritizing unsubstantiated news, posting content warnings, and including its “about this result” tab. But it is all too easy to wander right past those measures into a “data void,” a virtual space full of specious content. The first impulse when confronted with questionable information is to copy the claim and paste it straight into a search bar. But that is the worst approach. We learn:
“When [participants] entered terms used in inaccurate news stories, such as ‘engineered famine’, to get information, they were more likely to find sources uncritically reporting an engineered famine. The results also held when participants used search terms to describe other unsubstantiated claims about SARS-CoV-2: for example, that it rarely spreads between asymptomatic people, or that it surges among people even after they are vaccinated. Clearly, copying terms from inaccurate news stories into a search engine reinforces misinformation, making it a poor method for verifying accuracy.”
But what to do instead? The article notes Google steadfastly refuses to moderate content, as social media platforms do, preferring to rely on its (opaque) automated methods. Aslett and company suggest inserting human judgement into the process could help, but apparently that is too old fashioned for Google. Could educating people on better research methods help? Sure, if they would only take the time to apply them. We are left with this conclusion: instead of researching claims from untrustworthy sources, one should just ignore them. But that brings us full circle: one must be willing and able to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy sources. Is that too much to ask?
Cynthia Murrell, January 18, 2024
Two Surveys. One Message. Too Bad
January 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Generative Artificial Intelligence Will Lead to Job Cuts This Year, CEOs Say.” The data come from a consulting/accounting outfit’s survey of executives at the oh-so-exclusive World Economic Forum meeting in the Piscataway, New Jersey, of Switzerland. The company running the survey is PwC (once an acronym for Price Waterhouse Coopers. The moniker has embraced a number of interesting investigations. For details, navigate to this link.)
Survey says, “Economic gain is the meaning of life.” Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
The big finding from my point of view is:
A quarter of global chief executives expect the deployment of generative artificial intelligence to lead to headcount reductions of at least 5 per cent this year
Good, reassuring number from big gun world leaders.
However, the International Monetary Fund also did a survey. The percentage of jobs affected range from 26 percent in low income countries, 40 percent for emerging markets, and 60 percent for advanced economies.
What can one make of these numbers; specifically, the five percent to the 60 percent? My team’s thoughts are:
- The gap is interesting, but the CEOs appear to be either downplaying, displaying PR output, or working to avoid getting caught in sticky wicket.
- The methodology and the sample of each survey are different, but both are skewed. The IMF taps analysts, bankers, and politicians. PwC goes to those who are prospects for PwC professional services.
- Each survey suggests that government efforts to manage smart software are likely to be futile. On one hand, CEOs will say, “No big deal.” Some will point to the PwC survey and say, “Here’s proof.” The financial types will hold up the IMF results and say, “We need to move fast or we risk losing out on the efficiency payback.”
What does Bill Gates think about smart software? In “Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates on AI’s Impact on Jobs: It’s Great for White-Collar Workers, Coders” the genius for our time says:
I have found it’s a real productivity increase. Likewise, for coders, you’re seeing 40%, 50% productivity improvements which means you can get programs [done] sooner. You can make them higher quality and make them better. So mostly what we’ll see is that the productivity of white-collar [workers] will go up
Happy days for sure! What’s next? Smart software will move forward. Potential payouts are too juicy. The World Economic Forum and the IMF share one key core tenet: Money. (Tip: Be young.)
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2024
A Swiss Email Provider Delivers Some Sharp Cheese about MSFT Outlook
January 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
What company does my team love more than Google? Give up. It is Microsoft. Whether it is the invasive Outlook plug in for Zoom on the Mac or the incredible fly ins, pop ups, and whining about Edge, what’s not to like about this outstanding, customer-centric firm? Nothing. That’s right. Nothing Microsoft does can be considered duplicitous, monopolistic, avaricious, or improper. The company lives and breathes the ethics of Thomas Dewey, the 19 century American philosopher. This is my opinion, of course. Some may disagree.
A perky Swiss farmer delivers an Outlook info dump. Will this delivery enable the growth of suveillance methodologies? Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Thou did not protest when I asked for this picture.
I read and was troubled that one of my favorite US firms received some critical analysis about the MSFT Outlook email program. The sharp comments appeared in a blog post titled “Outlook Is Microsoft’s New Data Collection Service.” Proton offers an encrypted email service and a VPN from Switzerland. (Did you know the Swiss have farmers who wash their cows and stack their firewood neatly? I am from central Illinois, and our farmers ignore their cows and pile firewood. As long as a cow can make it into the slaughter house, the cow is good to go. As long as the firewood burns, winner.)
The write up reports or asserts, depending on one’s point of view:
Everyone talks about the privacy-washing(new window) campaigns of Google and Apple as they mine your online data to generate advertising revenue. But now it looks like Outlook is no longer simply an email service(new window); it’s a data collection mechanism for Microsoft’s 772 external partners and an ad delivery system for Microsoft itself.
Surveillance is the key to making money from advertising or bulk data sales to commercial and possibly some other organizations. Proton enumerates how these sucked up data may be used:
- Store and/or access information on the user’s device
- Develop and improve products
- Personalize ads and content
- Measure ads and content
- Derive audience insights
- Obtain precise geolocation data
- Identify users through device scanning
The write up provides this list of information allegedly available to Microsoft:
- Name and contact data
- Passwords
- Demographic data
- Payment data
- Subscription and licensing data
- Search queries
- Device and usage data
- Error reports and performance data
- Voice data
- Text, inking, and typing data
- Images
- Location data
- Content
- Feedback and ratings
- Traffic data.
My goodness.
I particularly like the geolocation data. With Google trying to turn off the geofence functions, Microsoft definitely may be an option for some customers to test. Good, bad, or indifferent, millions of people use Microsoft Outlook. Imagine the contact lists, the entity names, and the other information extractable from messages, attachments, draft folders, and the deleted content. As an Illinois farmer might say, “Winner!”
For more information about Microsoft’s alleged data practices, please, refer to the Proton article. I became uncomfortable when I read the section about how MSFT steals my email password. Imagine. Theft of a password — Is it true? My favorite giant American software company would not do that to me, a loyal customer, would it?
The write up is a bit of content marketing rah rah for Proton. I am not convinced, but I think I will have my team do some poking around on the Proton Web site. But Microsoft? No, the company would not take this action would it?
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2023
AI Inventors Barred from Patents. For Now
January 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
For anyone wondering whether an AI system can be officially recognized as a patent inventor, the answer in two countries is no. Or at least not yet. We learn from The Fashion Law, “UK Supreme Court Says AI Cannot Be Patent Inventor.” Inventor Stephen Thaler pursued two patents on behalf of DABUS, his AI system. After the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, High Court, and the Court of Appeal all rejected the applications, the intrepid algorithm advocate appealed to the highest court in that land. The article reveals:
“In the December 20 decision, which was authored by Judge David Kitchin, the Supreme Court confirmed that as a matter of law, under the Patents Act, an inventor must be a natural person, and that DABUS does not meet this requirement. Against that background, the court determined that Thaler could not apply for and/or obtain a patent on behalf of DABUS.”
The court also specified the patent applications now stand as “withdrawn.” Thaler also tried his luck in the US legal system but met with a similar result. So is it the end of the line for DABUS’s inventor ambitions? Not necessarily:
“In the court’s determination, Judge Kitchin stated that Thaler’s appeal is ‘not concerned with the broader question whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable, nor is it concerned with the question whether the meaning of the term ‘inventor’ ought to be expanded … to include machines powered by AI ….’”
So the legislature may yet allow AIs into the patent application queues. Will being a “natural person” soon become unnecessary to apply for a patent? If so, will patent offices increase their reliance on algorithms to handle the increased caseload? Then machines would grant patents to machines. Would natural people even be necessary anymore? Once a techno feudalist with truckloads of cash and flocks of legal eagles pulls up to a hearing, rules can become — how shall I say it? — malleable.
Cynthia Murrell, January 17, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
