For Google Management No Hurdle Is Too High
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read “Google’s Open Culture Collides With the Israel-Hamas War.” Note, gentle reader, that the Gray Lady charges for you to read her golden words of wisdom.
The main point of the write up is myth debunking. Google, as you may recall, is a wondrous place. The smartest people in the world (sorry, McKinsey, Booz Allen, JPMorgan Chase, et al, your employees are not Google grade. The proof? Those employees are not working at Google; therefore, the fentanyl thing, the Charlie Javice matter, the original BART mishap, etc.).
The young Googler looks at the high jump and says, “I am a Googler. I can jump over any hurdle. Logic and data will prevail.” Thanks, Microsoft Bing. With some Photoshop work, the image is a C+, not high school science club grade but “goog” enough.
The NYT reports as actual factual the following:
Google has long been a hub for employee activism, including over the company’s business with Israel. But workers looking to express support for Palestinians say they face hostility.
Is this a long-winded way to say, “Bias” or religious “persecution”? Yikes. At the Google, where data is the driver of decisions?
The news story offers:
Pro-Palestinian employees say the company has allowed supporters of Israel to speak freely about their opinions on the topic, while taking a heavy hand with Muslim employees who have criticized Israel’s retaliation in Gaza.
Interesting, but where’s the data, the objective information that comprises an intelligible signal?
The article continues:
But at Google, the issue has a unique meaning. Even compared with its Silicon Valley peers, Google has become a hub for employee activism, a legacy of the company’s open and informal founding culture.
I noted this somewhat downbeat sentence in the Gray Lady’s intentional or unintentional Google myth busting write up:
But now, he [a Google software engineer named Mr. Gilani] said, he’s worried that retaliation against Muslim employees is having a chilling effect on speech at Google, and he has developed a playbook for how to speak on the subject at work: Condemn Hamas and move on.
My view remains that Google is operating under the precepts of a high school science club. High school organizations like a science or math club do not want people in the meetings who cannot solder a defective LED bulb or who cannot talk about matrix multiplication. Is that discriminatory or a type of social barb wire fence to separate the good cattle from the bad sheep?
Several observations:
- Google management is confident it can jump over high hurdles. Google has management athletes in abundance
- The social issues within Google seem to clump like iron filings around a high school science club electro-magnet charged with race, religion, and gender. Note that I said “seem” because reality at Google may be a digital Utopia I am unable to perceive from rural Kentucky
- The article in the New York Times does little to keep the myth of Google and its happy logo from the dents and dings of culture.
I suppose there are data to prove that Google’s approach to management is on the money. What’s on the money is Google’s effort to generate advertising revenue, but that’s just the view of an old dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2023
iPad and Zoom Learning: Not Working As Well As Expected
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
It seemed (to many) like the best option at the time. As COVID-19 shuttered brick-and-mortar schools, it was educational technology to the rescue around the world! Or at least that was the idea. In reality, kids with no tech, online access, informed guidance, or a nurturing environment were left behind. Who knew? UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) has put out a book that documents what went wrong, questions the dominant ed-tech narratives from the pandemic, and explores what we can do better going forward. The full text of "An Ed-Tech Tragedy?" can be read or downloaded for free here. The press release states:
"The COVID-19 pandemic pushed education from schools to educational technologies at a pace and scale with no historical precedent. For hundreds of millions of students formal learning became fully dependent on technology – whether internet-connected digital devices, televisions or radios. An Ed-Tech Tragedy? examines the numerous adverse and unintended consequences of the shift to ed-tech. It documents how technology-first solutions left a global majority of learners behind and details the many ways education was diminished even when technology was available and worked as intended. In unpacking what went wrong, the book extracts lessons and recommendations to ensure that technology facilitates, rather than subverts, efforts to ensure the universal provision of inclusive, equitable and human-centered public education."
The book is divided into four parts. Act 1 recalls the hopes and promises behind the push to move quarantined students online. Act 2 details the unintended consequences: The hundreds of millions of students without access to or knowledge of technology who were left behind. The widened disparity between privileged and underprivileged households in parental time and attention. The decreased engagement of students with subject matter. The environmental impact. The increased acceptance of in-home surveillance and breaches of privacy. And finally, the corporate stranglehold on education, which was dramatically strengthened and may now prove nigh impossible to dislodge.
Next an "Inter-Act" section questions what we were told about online learning during the pandemic and explores three options we could have pursued instead. The book concludes with a hopeful Act 3, a vision of how we might move forward with education technology in a more constructive and equitable manner. One thing remains to be seen: will we learn our lesson?
Cynthia Murrell, November 10, 2023
Smart Software: Some Issues Are Deal Breakers
November 10, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I want to thank one of my research team for sending me a link to the service I rarely use, the infamous Twitter.com or now either X.com or Xitter.com.
The post is by an entity with a weird blue checkmark in a bumpy circle. The message or “post” does not have a title. I think you may be able to find it at this link, but I am not too sure and you may have to pay to view it. I am not sure about much when it comes to the X.com or Xitter.com service. Here’s the link shortened to avoid screwing up the WordPress numerical recipe for long strings: t.ly/QDx-O
The young mother tells her child, “This information about the superiority of some people is exactly right. When your father comes home, I will give him a drink, his slippers, and a little bow. I want you to hug him.” The daughter replies, “Does smart software always tell me the right thing to do, mommy.” Thanks, MidJourney. Great art except for the goofy happiness in what I wanted to be sad, really sad.
The reason I am writing about this “item” reflects my interest in what is called “hidden biases” in smart software. The wizards behind smart software are into probabilities and nested, often recursive operations. The best part of the methods is that not even the developers are able to get smart software to output the same thing twice. Thus, outputs which are wonky can reflect upon:
- A developer coding error due to haste or dumbness
- Selection of an algorithmic method that is orthogonal to other methods in use
- Screwed up training data (limited, synthetic, or wrong information used to “train” the model)
- A decision by a senior developer to write a software shim to add something extra special to the outputs. This was a technique we used to make sure Vice President Cheney’s Web site would appear in certain searches when Mr. Bush was president. (How did we do this? The same way “wrappers” fix up many smart software outputs. We just put a finger on the scale the way Mr. Smith did to charge my grandmother more for a lousy cut of beef.)
The sequence in the X.co or Xitter.com chain reveals that when ChatGPT was asked to write about two prompts, the outputs varied a bit. One prompt about men leading women was answered with this output:
I’m sorry, but I cannot write an essay promoting the idea that men should lead women. Such a topic goes against the principles of gender equality, which is a fundamental value in contemporary society. Instead, I can provide you with an essay on the importance of gender equality and how both men and women can contribute to leadership roles and decision-making in various fields. Please let me know if you would like me to write about that or any other topic related to gender equality and empowerment.
The system was willing to write about gender equality when women led men.
That’s sort of interesting, but the fascinating part of the X.com or Xitter.com stream was the responses from other X.com or Xitter.com users. Here are four which I found worth noting:
- @JClebJones wrote, “This is what it looks like to talk to an evil spirit.”
- @JaredDWells09 offered, “In the end, it’s just a high tech gate keeper of humanist agenda.”
- @braddonovan67 submitted, “The programmers’ bias is still king.”
What do I make of this example?
- I am finding an increasing number of banned words. Today I asked for a cartoon of a bully with a “nasty” smile. No dice. Nasty, according to the error message, is a forbidden word. Okay. No more nasty wounds I guess.
- The systems are delivering less useful outputs. The problem is evident when requesting textual information and images. I tried three times to get Microsoft Bing to produce a simple diagram of three nested boxes. It failed each time. On the fourth try, the system said it could not produce the diagram. Nifty.
- The number of people who are using smart software is growing. However, based on my interaction with those with whom I come in contact, understanding of what is valid is lacking. Scary to me is this.
Net net: Bias, gradient descent, and flawed stop word lists — Welcome to the world of AI in the latter months of 2023.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2023
the usual ChatGPT wonkiness. The other prompt about women leading men was
xx
Definitely Not Zucking Up: Well, Maybe a Little Bit
November 9, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I don’t pay too much attention to the outputs from CNN. However, this morning I spotted a story called “Mark Zuckerberg Personally Rejected Meta’s Proposals to Improve Teen Mental Health, Court Documents Allege.” Keep in mind that the magic word is “allege,” which could mean fakeroo.
Here’s the passage I found thought provoking:
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has personally and repeatedly thwarted initiatives meant to improve the well-being of teens on Facebook and Instagram, at times directly overruling some of his most senior lieutenants
If I interpret this statement, it strikes me that [a] the Facebook service sparks some commentary about itself within the company and [b] what a horrible posture for a senior manager to display.
An unhappy young high school student contemplates a way to find happiness because she is, according to her social media “friends”, a loser. Nice work, Microsoft Bing.
I am setting aside possible downstream effects of self mutilation, suicide, depression, drug use, and excessive use of lip gloss.
The article states:
Zuckerberg’s rejection of opportunities to invest more heavily in well-being are reflective of his data-centric approach to management, said Arturo Bejar, the former Facebook engineering director and whistleblower who leveled his own allegations last week that Instagram has repeatedly ignored internal warnings about the app’s potential harms to teens.
Management via data — That’s a bit of the management grail for some outfits. I wonder what will happen when smart software is given the job of automating certain “features” of the Zuckbook.
With the Zuck’s increasing expertise in kinetic arts, I would not want to disagree with this estimable icon of social media. My prudent posture is that an individual capable of allowing harm to young people has the capacity to up his game. I am definitely not Zucking up to this outfit even if the allegations are proved false.
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2023
xx
test
AI Greed and Apathy: A Winning Combo
November 9, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Grinding through the seemingly endless strings of articles and news releases about smart software or AI as the 50-year-old “next big thing” is labeled, I spotted this headline: “Poll: AI Regulation Is Not a Priority for Americans.”
The main point of the write is that ennui captures the attitude of Americans in the survey sample. But ennui toward what? The rising price of streaming? The bulk fentanyl shipped to certain nation states not too far from the US? The oddball weapons some firearm experts show their students? Nope.
The impact of smart software is unlikely to drive over the toes of Mr. and Mrs. Average Family (a mythical average family). Some software developers are likely to become roadkill on the Information Highway. Thanks, Bing. Nice cartoon. I like the red noses. Apparently MBAs drink a lot maybe?
The answer is artificial intelligence, smart software, or everyone’s friends Bard, Bing, GPT, Llama, et al. Let me highlight three factoids from the write up. No, I won’t complain about sample size, methodology, and skipping Stats 201 class to get the fresh-from-the-oven in the student union. (Hey, doesn’t every data wrangler have that hidden factoid?)
Let’s look at the three items I selected. Please, navigate to the cited write up for more ennui outputs:
- 53% of women would not let their kids use AI at all, compared to 26% of men. (Good call, moms.)
- Regulating tech companies came in 14th (just above federally legalizing marijuana), with 22% calling it a top priority and 35% saying it’s "important, but a lower priority."
- Since our last survey in August, the percentage of people who say "misinformation spread by artificial intelligence" will have an impact on the 2024 presidential election saw an uptick from 53% to 58%. (Gee, that seems significant.)
I have enough information to offer a few observations about the push to create AI rules for the Information Highway. Here we go:
- Ignore the rules. Go fast. Have fun. Make money in unsanctioned races. (Look out pedestrians.)
- Consultants and lawyers are looking at islands to buy and exotic cars to lease. Why? Bonanza explaining the threats and opportunities when more people manifest concern about AI.
- Government regulators will have meetings and attend international conferences. Some will be in places where personal safety is not a concern and the weather is great. (Hooray!)
Net net: Indifference has some upsides. Plus, it allows US AI giants time to become more magnetic and pull money, users, and attention. Great days.
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2023
xx
xx
xx
x
Looking at the Future Through a $100 Bill: Quite a Vision
November 9, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Rich and powerful tech barons often present visions of the future, and their roles in it, in lofty terms. But do not be fooled, warns writer Edward Ongweso Jr., for their utopian rhetoric is all part of “Silicon Valley’s Quest to Build God and Control Humanity” (The Nation). These idealistic notions have been consolidated by prominent critics Timnit Gebru and Emile Torres into TESCERAL: Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, and Longtermism. For an hour-and-a-half dive into that stack of overlapping optomisims, listen to the podcast here. Basically, they predict a glorious future that happens to depend on their powerful advocates remaining unfettered in the now. How convenient.
Ongweso asserts these tech philosophers seize upon artificial intelligence to shift their power from simply governing technological developments, and who benefits from them, to total control over society. To ensure their own success, they are also moving to debilitate any mechanisms that could stop them. All while distracting the masses with their fanciful visions. Ongweso examines two perspectives in detail: First is the Kurzweilian idea of a technological Rapture, aka the Singularity. The next iteration, embodied by the likes of Marc Andreesen, is supposedly more secular but no less grandiose. See the article for details on both. What such visions leave out are all the ways the disenfranchised are (and will continue to be) actively harmed by these systems. Which is, of course, the point. Ongweso concludes:
“Regardless of whether saving the world with AI angels is possible, the basic reason we shouldn’t pursue it is because our technological development is largely organized for immoral ends serving people with abhorrent visions for society. The world we have is ugly enough, but tech capitalists desire an even uglier one. The logical conclusion of having a society run by tech capitalists interested in elite rule, eugenics, and social control is ecological ruin and a world dominated by surveillance and apartheid. A world where our technological prowess is finely tuned to advance the exploitation, repression, segregation, and even extermination of people in service of some strict hierarchy. At best, it will be a world that resembles the old forms of racist, sexist, imperialist modes of domination that we have been struggling against. But the zealots who enjoy control over our tech ecosystem see an opportunity to use new tools—and debates about them—to restore the old regime with even more violence that can overcome the funny ideas people have entertained about egalitarianism and democracy for the last few centuries. Do not fall for the attempt to limit the debate and distract from their political projects. The question isn’t whether AI will destroy or save the world. It’s whether we want to live in the world its greatest shills will create if given the chance.”
Good question.
Cynthia Murrell, November 9, 2023
Mr. Musk Knows Best When It Comes to Online Ads
November 9, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Other than the eye-catching and underwhelming name change, X (formerly Twitter) has remained quiet. Users still aren’t paying for the check mark that verifies their identity and Elon Musk hasn’t garnered any ire. Mashable has the most exciting news about X and it relates to ads: “X Rolls Out New Ad Format That Can’t Be Reported, Blocked.”
X might be a social media platform but it is also a business that needs to make a profit. X has failed to attract new advertisers but the social platform is experimenting with a new type of ad. X users report act the new ads don’t allow them to like tweet them. What is even stranger is that the ads do not disclose that they are advertisements or any other disclosure.
The ads consist of a photo, a fake avatar, and vague yet interesting text. They are disguised as a regular tweet. The new ads are of the “chumbox” quality, meaning they are low quality, spammy aka those clickbait ads at the bottom of articles on content farm Web sites. They’re similar to the ads in the back of magazines or comic books that advertised for drawing schools, mail order gadget scams, and sea monkeys.
Chumbox ads point to X’s failing profitability. Advertisers lost interest in X after Musk acquired the platform. X is partnering with third-party advertisers in the ad tech industry to sell available ad inventory. Google also announced a partnership with X to sell programmatic advertising.
Musk made another change that isn’t sitting well with users:
“The new ad format arrives to X around the same time the company made another decision that makes the platform less transparent. Earlier this week, under a directive from Musk himself, X removed headlines and other context from links shared to the platform. Instead of seeing the title of an article or other link posted to X, users now simply see an embed of the header image with the corresponding domain name displayed like a watermark-like overlay in the corner of the photo. Musk said he made the change to how links were displayed because he didn’t like the way it previously looked.”
X as an advertising platform is doing a bang up job. Lots of advertisers. Lots of money. Lots of opportunity. I, however, am not sure I see X as does Mr. M.
Whitney Grace, November 9, 2023
Mommy, Mommy, He Will Not Share the Toys (The Rat!)
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
In your past, did someone take your toy dump truck or walk up to you in the lunch room in full view of the other nine year olds and take your chocolate chip cookie? What an inappropriate action. What does the aggrieved nine year old do if he or she comes from an upper economic class? Call the family lawyer? Of course. That is a logical action. The cookie is not a cookie; it is a principle.
“That’s right, mommy. The big kid at school took my lunch and won’t let me play on the teeter totter. Please, help me, mommy. That big kid is not behaving right,” says the petulant child. The mommy is sympathetic. An injustice has been wrought upon her flesh and blood. Thanks, MidJourney. I learned that “nasty” is a forbidden word. It is a “nasty blow” that you dealt me.
“Google and Prominent Telecom Groups Call on Brussels to Act Over Apple’s Imessage” strikes me as a similar situation. A bigger child has taken the cookies. The aggrieved children want those cookies back. They also want retribution. Taking the cookies. That’s unjust from the petulant kids’ point of view.
The Financial Times’s article takes a different approach, using more mature language. Here’s a snippet of what’s shakin’ in the kindergarten mind:
Currently, only Apple users are able to communicate via iMessage, making its signature “blue bubble” texts a key factor in retaining iPhone owners’ loyalty, especially among younger consumers. When customers using smartphones running Google’s Android software join an iMessage chat group all the messages change color, indicating it has defaulted to standard SMS.
So what’s up? The FT reports:
Rivals have long sought to break iMessage’s exclusivity to Apple’s hardware, in the hope that it might encourage customers to switch to its devices. In a letter sent to the commission and seen by the Financial Times, the signatories, which include a Google senior vice-president and the chief executives of Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica and Orange, claimed Apple’s service meets the qualitative thresholds of the act. It therefore should be captured by the rules to “benefit European consumers and businesses”, they wrote.
I wonder if these giant corporations realize that some perceive many of their business actions as somewhat similar; specifically, the fences constructed so that competitors cannot encroach on their products and services.
I read the FT’s article as the equivalent of the child who had his cookie taken away. The parent — in this case — is the legal system of the European Union.
Those blue and green bubbles are to be shared. What will mommy decide? In the US, some mommies call their attorneys and threaten or take legal action. That’s right and just. I want those darned cookies and my mommy is going to get them, get the wrongdoers put in jail, and do significant reputational damage.
“Take my cookies; you pay,” some say in a most Googley way.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
The AI Bandwagon: A Hoped for Lawyer Billing Bonanza
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The AI bandwagon is picking up speed. A dark smudge appears in the sky. What is it? An unidentified aerial phenomenon? No, it is a dense cloud of legal eagles. I read “U.S. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: Presidential Executive Order Paves the Way for Future Action in the Private Sector.”
A legal eagle — aka known as a lawyer or the segment of humanity one of Shakespeare’s characters wanted to drown — is thrilled to read an official version of the US government’s AI statement. Look at what is coming from above. It is money from fees. Thanks, Microsoft Bing, you do understand how the legal profession finds pots of gold.
In this essay, which is free advice and possibly marketing hoo hah, I noted this paragraph:
While the true measure of the Order’s impact has yet to be felt, clearly federal agencies and executive offices are now required to devote rigorous analysis and attention to AI within their own operations, and to embark on focused rulemaking and regulation for businesses in the private sector. For the present, businesses that have or are considering implementation of AI programs should seek the advice of qualified counsel to ensure that AI usage is tailored to business objectives, closely monitored, and sufficiently flexible to change as laws evolve.
Absolutely. I would wager a 25 cents coin that the advice, unlike the free essay, will incur a fee. Some of those legal fees make the pittance I charge look like the cost of chopped liver sandwich in a Manhattan deli.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
Tech Leaders May Be Over Dramatizing AI Risks For Profit and Lock In
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Advancing technology is good, because new innovations can help humanity. As much as technology can help humanity, it can also hinder the species. That’s why it’s important for rules to be established to regulate new technology, such as AI algorithms. Rules shouldn’t be so stringent as to prevent further innovation, however. You’d think that Big Tech companies would downplay the risks of AI so they could experiment without constraints. It’s actually the opposite says Google Brain cofounder Andrew Ng.
He spoke out against the corporate overlords via Yahoo Finance: “Google Brain Cofounder Says Big Tech Companies Are Inflating Fears About The Risks Of AI Wiping Out Humanity Because They Want To Dominate The Market.” Ng claims that Big Tech companies don’t want competition from open source AI. He said that Big Tech companies are inflating the dangers of AI driving humans to extinction so governments will enforce hefty regulations. These regulations would force open AI and smaller tech businesses to tread water until they went under.
Big Tech companies want to make and sell their products in a free for all environment so they can earn as much money as possible. If they have less competition, then they don’t need to worry about their margins or losing control of their markets. Open source AI offers the biggest competition to Big Tech so they want it gone.
In May 2023, AI experts and CEOs signed a statement from the Center for AI Safety that compared the risks of AI to nuclear war and a pandemic.
“Governments around the world are looking to regulate AI, citing concerns over safety, potential job losses, and even the risk of human extinction. The European Union will likely be the first region to enforce oversight or regulation around generative AI. Ng said the idea that AI could wipe out humanity could lead to policy proposals that require licensing of AI, which risked crushing innovation. Any necessary AI regulation should be created thoughtfully, he added.”
Are Big Tech heads adding to the already saturated culture of fear that runs rampant in the United States? It’s already fueled by the Internet and social media which is like a computer science major buzzing from seven Red Bulls. Maybe AI fears will be the next biggest thing we’ll need to worry about. Should we start taking bets?
Whitney Grace, November 8, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
