Deepseek: Why Trust Any Smart Software?
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
We have completed our work on my new book “The Telegram Labyrinth.” In the course of researching and writing about Pavel Durov’s online messaging system, we learned one thing: Software is not what it seems to the user. Most Telegram users believe that Telegram is end to end encrypted. It is, but only if the user goes through some hoops. The vast majority of users don’t go through hoops. Those millions upon millions of users know much about the third-party bots chugging away in Groups and Channels (public and private). Even fewer users realize that a service charge is applied to each monetary transaction in the Telegram system. That money flows to the GOAT (greatest of all time) technical wizard, Pavel Durov and some close associates. Who knew?
I read “The Demonization of Deepseek: How NIST Turned Open Science into a Security Scare.” The write up focuses on a study or analysis conducted by what used to be the National Bureau of Standards. (I loved those traffic jams on Quince Orchard Road in Gaithersburg, Maryland.) The software put under the NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) is the China-linked Deepseek smart software.
The cited article discusses the NIST study. Let’s see what it says about the China-linked artificial intelligence system. Presumably Deepseek did more with less; that is, the idea was to demonstrate that Chinese innovation could make US methods of large language models. The result would be better, faster, and cheaper. Cheap has a tendency to win in some product and service categories. Also, “good enough” is a winner in today’s market. (How about the reliability of some of those 2025 automobiles and trucks?)
The write up says:
NIST’s recent report on Deepseek is not a neutral technical evaluation. It is a political hit piece disguised as science. There is no evidence of backdoors, spyware, or data exfiltration. What is really happening is the U.S. government using fear and misinformation to sabotage open science, open research, and open source. They are attacking gifts to humanity with politics and lies to protect corporate power and preserve control. Deepseek’s work is a genuine contribution to human knowledge, and it is being discredited for reasons that have nothing to do with security.
Okay, that’s clear.
Let’s look at how the cited write up positions Deepseek:
Deepseek built competitive AI models. Not perfect, but impressive given their budget. They spent far less than OpenAI or Anthropic and still achieved near-frontier performance. Then they open-sourced everything under Apache 2.0.
The point of the write up is that analysis has been politicized. This is an interesting allegation. I am not confident that any “objective” analysis is indeed without spin. Remember those reports about smoking cigarettes and the work of the Tobacco Institute. (I am a dinobaby, but I remember.)
The write up does identify three concerns a user of Deepseek should have. Let me quote from the cited article:
- Using Deepseek’s API: If you send sensitive data to Deepseek’s hosted service, that data goes through Chinese infrastructure. This is a real data sovereignty issue, the same as using any foreign cloud provider.
- Jailbreak susceptibility: If you’re building production applications, you need to test ANY model for vulnerabilities and implement application-level safeguards. Don’t rely solely on model guardrails. Also – use an inference time guard model (such as LlamaGuard or Qwen3Guard) to classify and filter both prompts and responses.
- Bias and censorship: All models reflect their training data. Be aware of this regardless of which model you use.
Let me offer several observations:
- Most people are unaware of what can be accomplished from software use. Assumptions about what it does and does not do are dangerous. We have tested Deepseek running locally. It is okay. This means it can do some things well like translate a passage in English into German. It has no clue about timely issues because most LLMs are not updated in near real time. Some are, but others are not. Who needs timely information when cheating on a high school essay? Answer: no one.
- The write up focuses on Deepseek, but its implications are much more broad. I think that the mindless write ups from consulting firms and online magazines is a very big problem. Critical thinking is just not the common. It is a problem in the US but other countries have this blind spot as well.
- The idea that political perceptions alter what should be an objective analysis is troubling to me. I have written a number of reports for government agencies; for example, a report about Japan’s obsession with a database industry for the Office of Technology Assessment. Yep, I am a dinobaby remember. I may have been right or wrong in my report, but I was not influenced by any political concept or actor. I could have been because I did a stint in the office of Admiral / Congressman Craig Hosmer. My OTA work was not part of the “game” for me.
Net net: Trust is important. I think it is being eroded. I also believe that there are few people who present information without fear or favor. Now here’s the key part of my perception: One cannot trust smart software or any of the programmer assembled, hidden threshold, and masked training methods that go into these confections. More critical thinking is needed. A deceptive business practice if well crafted cannot be perceived. Remember Telegram Messenger is 13 years young and users of the system don’t have much awareness of bots, mini apps, and dapps. What don’t people know about smart software?
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
Hey, Pew, Wanna Bet?
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
My Telegram Labyrinth book is almost over the finish line. I include some discussion of online gambling in Telegram. Of particular interest to me and my research team was kiddie games. A number of these reward the young child with crypto tokens. Get enough tokens and the game provides the player with options. A couple of these options point the kiddie directly to an online casino running in Telegram Messenger. What happens next? A few players win. Others lose. The approach is structured and intentional. The goal of some of these fun games is addicting youngsters to online gambling via crypto.
Nifty. Telegram has been up and running since 2013. In the last few years, online gambling has become a part of the organization’s strategic vision. Anyone, including a child with a mobile device, can play online gambling on Telegram. From Telegram’s point of view, this is freedom. From a parent who discovers a financial downside from their child’s play, this is stressful.
I read “Americans Increasingly See Legal Sports Betting As a Bad Thing for Society and Sports.” The Pew research outfit dug into online gambling. What did the number crunchers learn? Here are a handful of findings:
- More Americans view legal sports betting as bad for society and sports. (Hey, addiction is a problem. Who knew?)
- One-fifth of Americans bet online. The good news is that sports betting is not growing. (Is that why advertising for online gaming seems to be more prevalent?)
- 47 percent of men under 30 say legal sports betting is a bad thing, up from 22 percent who said this in 2022.
Now check out this tough-to-read graphic:
Views of online gambling vary within the demographic groups in the sample. I noted that old people (dinobabies like me) do not wager as frequently as those between the ages of 18 and 29. I wonder if the age of the VCs pumping money into AI come from this demographic. Betting seems okay to more of them. Ask someone over 65, only 12 percent of those you query will say, “Great idea.”
I would argue that online gambling is readily available. More services are emulating the Telegram model. The Pew study seemed to ignore the target demographic for the users of the Telegram kiddie gambling games. That is a whiff to me. But will anyone care? Only the parents and it may take years for the research firms to figure out where the key change is taking place.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
The Use Case for AI at the United Nations: Give AI a Whirl
October 15, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a news story about the United Nations. The organization allegedly expressed concern that the organizations reports were not getting read. The solution to this problem appears in a Gizmodo “real news” report. “AI Finds Its Niche: Writing Corporate Press Releases.”
Gizmodo reports:
The researchers found that AI-assisted language cropped up in about 6 to 10 percent of job listings pulled from LinkedIn across the sample. Notably, smaller firms were more likely to use AI, peaking at closer to 15% of all total listings containing AI-crafted text.
Not good news for people who major in strategic communications at a major university. Why hire a 20-something when, smart software can do the job. Pass around the outputs. Let some leadership make changes. Fire out that puppy. Anyone — including a 50 year old internal sales person — can do it. That’s upskilling. You have a person on a small monthly stipend and a commission. You give this person a chance to show his/her AI expertise. Bingo. Headcount reduction. Efficiency. Less management friction.
The “real news” outfit’s article states:
t’s not just the corporate world that is using AI, of course. The research team also looked at English-language press releases published by the United Nations over the last couple of years and found that the organization has seemingly been utilizing AI to draft its content on a regular basis. They found that the percentage of text likely to be AI-generated has climbed from 3.1% in the first quarter of 2023 to 10.1% by the third quarter of 2023 and peaked around 13.7% by the same quarter of 2024.
If you worked at the UN and wanted to experiment with AI to boost readership, that sounds like an idea to test. Imagine if more people knew about the UN’s profile of that popular actor Broken Tooth.
Caution may be appropriate. The write up adds:
the researchers found the rate of AI usage may have already plateaued, rather than continuing to climb. For press releases, the figure peaked at 24.3% being likely AI-generated, in December 2023, but it has since stabilized at about a half-percent lower and hasn’t shifted significantly since. Job listings, too, have shown signs of decline since reaching their peak, according to the researchers. At the UN, AI usage appears to be increasing, but the rate of growth has slowed considerably.
My thought is that the UN might want to step up its AI-enhanced outputs.
I think it is interesting that the billions of dollars invested in AI has produced such outstanding results for the news release use case. Winner!
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
AI Big Dog Chases Fake Rabbit at Race Track and Says, “Stop Now, Rabbit”
October 15, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I like company leaders or inventors who say, “You must not use my product or service that way.” How does that work for smart software? I read “Techie Finishes Coursera Course with Perplexity Comet AI, Aravind Srinivas Warns Do Not Do This.” This write up explains that a person took an online course. The work required was typical lecture-stuff. The student copied the list of tasks and pasted them into Perplexity, one of the beloved high-flying US artificial intelligence company’s system.
The write up says:
In the clip, Comet AI is seen breezing through a 45-minute Coursera training assignment with the simple prompt: “Complete the assignment.” Within seconds, the AI assistant appears to tackle 12 questions automatically, all without the user having to lift a finger.
Smart software is tailor made for high school students, college students, individuals trying to qualify for technical certifications, and doctors grinding through a semi-mandatory instruction program related to a robot surgery device. Instead of learning the old-fashioned way, the AI assisted approach involves identifying the work and feeding it into an AI system. Then one submits the output.
There were two factoids in the write up that I thought noteworthy.
The first is that the course the person cheating studied was AI Ethics, Responsibility, and Creativity. I can visualize a number of MBA students taking an ethics class in business using Perplexity or some other smart software to complete assignments. I mean what MBA student wants to miss out on the role of off-shore banking in modern business. Forget the ethics baloney.
The second is that a big dog in smart software suddenly has a twinge of what the French call l’esprit d’escalier. My French is rusty, but the idea is that a person thinks of something after leaving a meeting; for example, walking down the stairs and realizing, “I screwed up. I should have said…” Here’s how the write up presents this amusing point:
[Perplexity AI and its billionaire CEO Aravind Srinivas] said “Absolutely don’t do this.”
My thought is that AI wizards demonstrate that their intelligence is not the equivalent of foresight. One cannot rewind time or unspill milk. As for the MBAs, use AI and skip ethics. The objective is money, power, and control. Ethics won’t help too much. But AI? That’s a useful technology. Just ask the fellow who completed an online class in less time than it takes to consume a few TikTok-type videos. Do you think workers upskilling to use AI will use AI to demonstrate their mastery? Never. Ho ho ho.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2025
Want Clicks? Use Sex. It Works
October 15, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Imagine
I read a number of gloomy news articles today. The AI balloon will destroy the economy. Chicago is no longer that wonderful town, but was it ever. Telegram says it will put AI into its enchanting Messenger service. Plus, I read a New York Times’ story titled “Elon Musk Gambles on Sexy A.I. Companions.” That brilliant world leading technologist knows how to get clicks: Sex. What an idea. No one has thought of that before! (Oh, the story lurks behind a paywall. Another brilliant idea for 2025.)
Thanks Venice.ai. Good enough.
The write up says:
Mr. Musk, already known for pushing boundaries, has broken with mainstream norms and demonstrated the lengths to which he will go to gain ground in the A.I. field, where xAI has lagged behind more established competitors. Other A.I. companies, such as Meta or OpenAI, have shied away from creating chatbots that can engage in sexual conversations because of the reputational and regulatory risks.
Elon Musk has not. The idea of allow users of a social media, smart software game that unwraps more explicit challenges is a good one. It is not as white hot as a burning Tesla Cybertruck with its 12-volt powered automatic doors, but the idea is steamy.
The write up says:
The billionaire has urged his followers on X to try conversing with the sexy chatbots, sharing a video clip on X of an animated Ani dancing in underwear.
That sounds exciting. For a dinobaby like me, I prefer people fully clothed and behaving according to the conventions I learned in college when i took the required course “College Social Customs.” I admit that I was one of the few people on campus who took these “customs” to heart, The makings of a dinobaby were apparently rooted in my make up. Others in the class went to a bar to get drunk and flout as many of the guidelines as possible. Mr. Musk seems to share a kindred spirit with those in my 1962 freshman in college behavior course.
The write up says:
Mr. Musk has said the A.I. companions will help people strengthen their real-world connections and address one of his chief anxieties: population decline that he warns could lead to civilizational collapse.
My hunch is that the idea is for the right kind of people to have babies. Mr. Musk and Pavel Durov (founder of Telegram) have sired lots of kiddies. These kiddies are probably closer to what Mr. Musk wants to pop out of his sexual incubator.
The write up says:
Mr. Musk’s chatbots lack some sexual content limitations imposed by other chatbot creators that do allow some illicit conversations, users said. Nomi AI, for example, blocks some extreme material, limiting conversations to something more akin to what would be allowed on the dating app Tinder.
Yep, I get the point. Sex sells. Want sex? Use Grok and publicize the result on X.com.
How popular will this Grok feature be among the more young-at-heart users of Grok? Answer: Popular. Will other tech bro type outfits emulate Mr. Musk’s innovative marketing method? Answer: Mr. Musk is a follower. Just check out some of the services offered by certain online adult services.
What a wonderful online service. Perfect for 2025 and inclusion in a College Social Customs class for idea-starved students. No tavern required. Just a mobile device. Ah, innovation.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
Who Is Afraid of the Big Bad AI Wolf? Mr. Beast Perhaps?
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The story “MrBeast Warns of ‘Scary Times’ as AI Threatens YouTube Creators” is apparently about You Tube creators. Mr. Beast, a notable YouTube personality, is the source of the information. Is the article about YouTube creators? Yep, but it is also about Mr. Beast.
The write up says:
MrBeast may not personally face the threat of being replaced by AI as his brand thrives on large-scale, real-world stunts that rely on authenticity and human emotion. But his concern runs deeper than self-preservation. It’s about the millions of smaller creators who depend on platforms like YouTube to make a living. As one of the most influential figures on the internet, his words carry weight. The 27-year-old recently topped Forbes’ 2025 list of highest-earning creators, earning roughly $85 million and building a following of over 630 million across platforms.
Okay, Mr. Beast’s fame depended on YouTube. He is still in the YouTube fold. However, he has other business enterprises. He recognizes that smart software could create problems for creators.
I think smart software is another software tool. It is becoming a utility like a PDF editor.
The problem with Mr. Beast’s analysis is that it appears to be focused on other creators. I am not so sure. I think the comments presented in the write up reveal more about Mr. Beast than they do about the “other” creators. One example is:
“When AI videos are just as good as normal videos, I wonder what that will do to YouTube and how it will impact the millions of creators currently making content for a living… scary times,” MrBeast — whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson — wrote on X.
I am no expert on human psychology, but I see the use of the word “impact” and “scary” as a glimpse of what Mr. Beast is thinking. His production costs allegedly rival those of traditional commercial video outfits. The ideas and tropes have become increasingly strained and bizarre. YouTube acts in a unilateral way and outputs smarm to the creators desperate to know why the flow of their money has been reduced if not cut off. Those disappearing van life videos are just one example of how video magnets can melt down and be crushed under the wheels of the Google bus.
My thought is that Google will use AI to create alterative Mr. Beast-type videos with AI. Then squeeze the Mr. Beast type creators and let the traffic flow to Mother Google. No royalties required, so Google wins. Mr. Beast-type creators can find their future and money elsewhere. Simple.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2025
Blue Chip Consultants: Spin, Sizzle, and Fizzle with AI
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Can one quantify the payoffs from AI? Not easily. So what’s the solution? How about a “free” as in “marketing collateral” report from the blue-chip consulting firm McKinsey & Co. (You know that outfit because it figured out how to put Eastern Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia on the map.)
I like company reports like “Upgrading Software Business Models to Thrive in the AI Era.” These combine the weird spirit of Ezra Pound with used car sales professionals and blend in a bit of “we know more” rhetoric. Based on my experience, this is a winning combination for many professionals. This document speaks to those in the business of selling software. Today software does not come in boxes or as part of the deal when one buys a giant mainframe. Nope, software is out there. In the cloud. Companies use cloud solutions because — as consultants explained years ago — an organization can fire most technical staff and shift to pay-as-you go services. That big room that held the mainframe can become a sublease. That’s efficiency.
This particular report is the work of four — count them — four people who can help your business. Just bring money and the right attitude. McKinsey is selective. That’s how it decided to enter the pharmaceutical consulting business. Here’s a statement the happy and cooperative group of like-minded consultants presented:
while global enterprise spending on AI applications has increased eightfold over the last year to close to $5 billion, it still only represents less than 1 percent of total software application spending.
Converting this consultant speak to my style of English, the four blue chippers are trying to say that AI is not living up to the hype. Why? A software company today is having a tough time proving that AI delivers. The lack of fungible proof in the form of profits means that something is not going according to plan. Remember: The plan is to increase the revenue from software infused with AI.
Options include the exciting taxi meter approach. This means that the customers of enterprise software doesn’t know how much something costs upfront. Invoices deliver the cost. Surprise is not popular among some bean counters. Amazon’s AWS is in the surprise business. So is Microsoft Azure. However, surprise is not a good approach for some customers.
Licensees of enterprise software with that AI goodness mixed in could balk at paying fees for computational processes outside the control of the software licensee. This is the excitement a first year calculus student experiences when the values of variables are mysterious or unknown. Once one wrestles the variables to the ground, then one learns that the curve never reaches the x axis. It’s infinite, sport.
Pricing AI is a killer. The China-linked folks at Deepseek and its fellow travelers are into the easy, fast, and cheap approach to smart software. One can argue whether the intellectual property is original. One cannot argue that cheap is a compelling feature of some AI solutions. Cue the song: Where or When with the lines:
It seems we stood and talked like this before
We looked at each other in the same way then
But I can’t remember where or QWEN…
The problem is that enterprise software with AI is tough to price. The enterprise software company’s engineering and development costs go up. Their actual operating costs rise. The enterprise software company has to provide fungible proof that the bundle delivers value to warrant a higher price. That’s hard. AI is everywhere, and quite a few services are free, cheap or, or do it yourself code.
McKinsey itself does not have an answer to the problem the report from four blue chip consultants has identified. The report itself is start evidence that explaining AI pricing, operational, and use case data is a work in progress. My view is that:
- AI hype painted a picture of wonderful, easily identifiable benefits. That picture is a bit like a AI generated video. It is momentarily engaging but not real.
- AI state of the art today is output with errors. Hey, that sounds special when one is relying on AI for a medical diagnosis for your child or grandchild or managing your retirement account.,
- AI is a utility function. Software utilities get bundled into software that does something for which the user or licensee is willing to pay. At this time, AI is a work in progress, a novelty, and a cloud of unknowing. At some point, the fog will clear, but it won’t happen as quickly as the AI furnaces burn cash.
- What to sell, to whom, and pricing are problems created by AI. Asking smart software what to do is probably not going to produce a useful answer when the enterprise market is in turmoil, wallowing in uncertainty, and increasingly resistant to “surprise” pricing models.
Net net: McKinsey itself has not figured out AI. The idea is that clients will hire blue chip consultants to figure out AI. Therefore, the more studies and analyses blue chip consultants conduct, the closer these outfits will come to an answer. That’s good for the consulting business. The enterprise software companies may hire the blue chip consultants to answer the money and value questions. The bad news is that the fate of AI in enterprise software developers is in the hands of the licensees. Based on the McKinsey report, these folks are going slow. The mismatch among these players may produce friction. That will be exciting.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2025
The Ka-Ching Game: The EU Rings the Big Tech Cash Register Tactic
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The unusually tinted Financial Times published another “they will pay up and change, really” write up. The article is “Meta and Apple Close to Settling EU Cases.” [Note: You have to pay to read the FT’s orange write up.] The main idea is that these U S big technology outfits are cutting deals. The objective is to show that these two firms are interested in making friends with European Commission professionals. The combination of nice talk and multi-million euro payments should do the trick. That’s the hope.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The cute penalty method the EU crafted involved daily financial penalties for assorted alleged business practices. The penalties had an escalator feature. If the U S big tech outfits did not comply or pretend to comply, then the EU could send an invoice for up to five percent of the firm’s gross revenues. Could the E U collect? Well, that’s another issue. If Apple leaves the E U, the elected officials would have to use an Android mobile. If Meta departed, the elected officials would have to listen to their children’s complaints about their ruined social life. I think some grandmothers would be honked if the flow of grandchildren pictures were interrupted. (Who needs this? Take the money, Christina.)
Several observations:
- The EU will take money; the EU will cook up additional rules to make the Wild West outfits come to town but mostly behave
- The U S big tech companies will write a check, issue smarmy statements, and do exactly what they want to do. Decades of regulatory inefficacy creates certain opportunities. Some U S outfits spot those and figure out how to benefit from lack of action or ineptitude
- The efforts to curtail the U S big tech companies have historically been a rinse and repeat exercise. That won’t change.
The problem for the EU with regard to the U S is different from the other challenges it faces. In my opinion, the E U like other countries is:
- Unprepared for the new services in development by U S firms. I address these in a series of lectures I am doing for some government types in Colorado. Attendance at the talks is restricted, so I can’t provide any details about these five new services hurtling toward the online markets in the U S and elsewhere
- Unable to break its cycle of clever laws, U S company behavior, and accept money. More is needed. A good example of how one country addressed a problem online took place in France. That was a positive, decisive action and will interrupt the flow of cash from fines. Perhaps more E U countries should consider this French approach?
- The Big Tech outfits are not constrained by geographic borders. In case you have not caught up with some of the ideas of Silicon Valley, may I suggest you read the enervating and somewhat weird writings of a fellow named René Gerard?
Net net: Yep, a deal. No big surprise. Will it work? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
Text Wranglers, Attention
October 13, 2025
This is a short item for people who manipulate or wrangle text. Navigate to TextTools. The site provides access to several dozen utilities. I checked a handful of the services and found them to be free. The one I tested was Difference Checker. Paste the text of the two files or in my case code snippets. The output flags the differences. Worth a look.
Stephen E Arnold, October 13, 2025
AI and America: Not a Winner It Seems
October 13, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Los Alamos National Laboratory perceives itself as one of the world’s leading science and research facilities. Jason Pruet is the Director of Los Alamos’s National Security AI Office and he was interviewed in “Q&A With Jason Pruet.” Pruet’s job is to prepare the laboratory for AI integration. He used to view AI as another tool for advancement, but Pruet now believes AI would disrupt the fundamental landscape of science, security, and more.
In the interview, Pruet states that the US government invested more in AI than any time in the past. He compared this investment to the World War II paradigm of science for the public good. Pruet explained that before the war, the US government wasn’t involved with science. After the war, Los Alamos shifted the dynamic and shaped modern America’s dedication to science, engineering, etc.
One of the biggest advances in AI technology is transformer architecture that allows huge progress to scale AI models, especially for mixing different information types. Pruet said that China is treating AI like a general purpose technology (i.e electricity) and they’ve launched a National AI strategy. The recent advances in AI are changing power structures. It’s turning into a new international arms race but that might not be the best metaphor:
“[Pruet:] All that said, I’m increasingly uncomfortable viewing this through the lens of a traditional arms race. Many thoughtful and respected people have emphasized that AI poses enormous risks for humanity. There are credible reports that China’s leadership has come to the same view, and that internally, they are trying to better balance the potential risks rather than recklessly seek advantage. It may be that the only path for managing these risks involves new kinds of international collaborations and agreements.”
Then Pruet had this to say about the state of the US’s AI development:
“Like we’re behind. The ability to use machines for general-purpose reasoning represents a seminal advance with enormous consequences. This will accelerate progress in science and technology and expand the frontiers of knowledge. It could also pose disruptions to national security paradigms, educational systems, energy, and other foundational aspects of our society. As with other powerful general-purpose technologies, making this transition will depend on creating the right ecosystem. To do that, we will need new kinds of partnerships with industry and universities.”
The sentiment seems to be focused on going faster and farther than any other country in the AI game. With the circular deals OpenAI has been crafting, AI seems to be more about financial innovation than technical innovation.
Whitney Grace, October 13, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
