The Authority of a Parent: In Question?
August 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
If we cannot scan the kids, let us scan the guardians. That is what the ESRB, digital identity firm Yoti, and kiddie marketing firm SuperAwesome are asking the Federal Trade Commission according to The Register‘s piece, “Watchdog Mulls Online Facial Age-Verification Tech—For Kids’ Parents.” The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires websites and apps to make kids under 13 get a parent’s permission before they can harvest that sweet, early stage personal data. It is during the next step the petitioners would like to employ age-verification software on the grown-ups. As writer Jessica Lyons Hardcastle describes, the proposed process relies on several assumptions. She outlines the steps:
“1. First, a child visits a website and hits an age gate. The operator then asks the kid for their parent’s email, sends a note to the parent letting them know that they need to verify that they’re an adult for the child to proceed, and offers the facial-age scanning estimation as a possible verification method.
2. (Yes, let’s assume for a moment that the kid doesn’t do what every 10-year-old online does and lie about their age, or let’s assume the website or app has a way of recognizing it’s dealing with a kid, such as asking for some kind of ID.)
3. If the parent consents to having their face scanned, their system then takes a selfie and the software provides an age estimate.
4. If the age guesstimate indicates the parent is an adult, the kid can then proceed to the website. But if it determines they are not an adult, a couple of things happen.
5. If ‘there is some other uncertainty about whether the person is an adult’ then the person can choose an alternative verification method, such as a credit card, driver’s license, or social security number.
6. But if the method flat out decides they are not an adult, it’s a no go for access. We’re also going to assume here that the adult is actually the parent or legal guardian.”
Sure, why not? The tech works by converting one’s face into a set of numbers and feeding that to an AI that has been trained to assess age with those numbers. According to the ESRB, the actual facial scans are not saved for AI training, marketing, or any other purpose. But taking them, and their data-hungry partners, at their word is yet another assumption.
Cynthia Murrell, August 3, 2023
Research: A Suspicious Activity and Deserving of a Big Blinking X?
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The Stanford president does it. The Harvard ethics professor does it. Many journal paper authors do it. Why can’t those probing the innards of the company formerly known as Twatter do it?
I suppose those researchers can. The response to research one doesn’t accept can be a simple, “The data processes require review.” But no, no, no. The response elicited from the Twatter is presented in “X Sues Hate Speech Researchers Whose Scare Campaign Spooked Twitter Advertisers.” The headline is loaded with delicious weaponized words in my opinion; for instance, the ever popular “hate speech”, the phrase “scare campaign,” and “spooked.”
MidJourney, after some coaxing, spit out a frightened audience of past, present, and potential Twatter advertisers. I am not sure the smart software captured the reality of an advertiser faced with some brand-injuring information.
Wording aside, the totally objective real news write up reports:
X Corp sued a nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), for allegedly “actively working to assert false and misleading claims” regarding spiking levels of hate speech on X and successfully “encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform,” Twitter’s blog said.
I found this statement interesting:
X is alleging that CCDH is being secretly funded by foreign governments and X competitors to lob this attack on the platform, as well as claiming that CCDH is actively working to censor opposing viewpoints on the platform. Here, X is echoing statements of US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the CCDH of being a “foreign dark money group” in 2021—following a CCDH report on 12 social media accounts responsible for 65 percent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, Fox Business reported.
Imagine. The Musker questioning research.
Exactly what is “accurate” today? One could query the Stanford president, the Harvard ethicist, Mr. Musk, or the executives of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Wow. That sounds like work, probably as daunting as reviewing the methodology used for the report.
My moral and ethical compass is squarely tracking lunch today. No attorneys invited. No litigation necessary if my soup is cold. I will be dining in a location far from the spot once dominated by a quite beefy, blinking letter signifying Twatter. You know. I think I misspelled “tweeter.” I will fix it soon. Sorry.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Building Trust a Step at a Time the Silicon Valley Way
August 2, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. (´?_?`) Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
I know that most companies are not really “in” Silicon Valley. It is a figure of speech to put certain firms and their business practices in a basket. I then try to find something useful to say about the basket. Please, feel free to disagree. Just note that I am a dinobaby, and I am often reluctant to discard my perceptions. Look at the positive side of this mental orientation: If and when you are 78, you too can analyze from a perspective guaranteed to be different from the 20-somethings who are the future of lots of stuff; for example, who gets medical care. Think about that.
I read “Meta, Amazon and Microsoft team up to take down Google Maps.” The source is a newspaper which I label “estimable tabloid.” The story caught my attention because it identified what this dinobaby perceives as collusion among commercial enterprises. My hunch is that some people living outside the US might label the business approach different. Classification debates are the most fun when held at information science trade shows. Vendors explain why their classification system is the absolute best way to put information in baskets. Exciting.
So my basket contains three outfits which want to undermine or get the biggest piece of the map action that Google controls. None of these outfits are monopolistic. If they were, the Cracker Jack US government agency charged with taking action against outfits that JP Morgan would definitely want to own would not lose its cases against a few big tech outfits.
The article explains:
The Operture Maps Foundation is an open initiative, making it a compelling alternative to Google Maps for app and software-makers. Google Maps takes a closed approach, giving Google greater control over how its map data is used and implemented. It also charges app developers for access to Google Maps, based on how many times the app’s users call on mapping info.
I wonder if this suggests that Operture Maps is different from the Google?
The article points out:
Overture Maps Foundation was established in 2022, as a partnership between Amazon AWS, Microsoft, Meta and TomTom. Its aim is “to create the smartest map on the planet,” according to TomTom VP of Engineering Mike Harrell. It also aims to make sure all your map needs in the future won’t be supplied by either Google or Apple.
I interpret this passage to mean that three big dogs want to team up to become a bigger dog. The consequence of being a bigger dog is that it can chow down on the goodies destined for the behemoths Apple and Google.
Viewed from the perspective of a consumer, I see this as an attempt for three “competitors” to team up and go after Apple and Google. Each company has a map business. Viewed as a person who worked in government entities for a number of years, I can interpret this tie up as a way to get some free meals and maybe a boondoggle from one or more lobbyists working on behalf of these firms. Viewed as someone concerned about the ineffectual nature of US regulation of the activities of big tech, I am more inclined than ever to use a paper map.
Will the Silicon Valley “way” work in other nation states? Probably not. China has taken steps to manage some of these super duper outfits within their borders. The European Union is skeptical of many big tech, Silicon Valley ideas. But at the end of the fiscal year, will objections matter?
I know what my answer is. Grab that paper map. We’re going on a road trip with location tracking and selective information whether I like it or not. I think I trust my paper map.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Hollywood and Unintended Consequences: The AI Puppy Has Escaped
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
For most viewers, the ongoing writers’ and actors’ guild strikes simply mean the unwelcome delay of their usual diversions. Perhaps they will revisit an old hobby or refresh themselves on what an in-person sunset looks like. But for those in the entertainment industry, this is nothing short of a fight for their livelihoods and, for some, human innovation itself. The Hollywood Reporter transcribes an interview with a prominent SAG-AFTRA negotiator in, “Justine Bateman: Pulling AI Into the Arts is ‘Absolutely the Wrong Direction’.”
Streaming is one major issue in these strikes. Studios are making big bucks off that technology but, strikers assert, pre-streaming contracts fail to protect the interests of actors, writers, and other content creators. Then there is AI, which many see as the bigger threat. Studio efforts to profit from algorithm-built content is already well underway. So, if the studios win out in these negotiations, don’t plan on being a Hollywood writer unless you are really famous, know AI methods, and have a friend in the executive suite. Others can practice van life.
Bateman is very concerned about that issue, of course, but she is also anxious for our collective creative soul. She states:
“Generative AI can only function if you feed it a bunch of material. In the film business, it constitutes our past work. Otherwise, it’s just an empty blender and it can’t do anything on its own. That’s what we were looking at the time [at UCLA]. Machine learning and generative AI have exploded since then. … When I could see that it was going to be used to widen profit margins, in white-collar jobs and more generally replace human expression with our past human expression, I just went, ‘This is an end of the progression of society if we just stayed here.’ If you keep recycling what we’ve got from the past, nothing new will ever be generated. If generative AI started in the beginning of the 20th century, we would never have had jazz, rock ’n’ roll, film noir. That’s what it stops. There are some useful applications to it — I don’t know of that many —but pulling it into the arts is absolutely the wrong direction.'”
So, are the WAG and SAG-AFTRA negotiators all that stand between us and a future of culture-on-repeat? Somehow, this dino-baby has faith human creativity is powerful enough to win out in the end. Just not sure how.
Cynthia Murrell, August 2, 2023
Google: When Wizards Cannot Talk to One Another
August 1, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
Google is in the vanguard of modern management methods. As a dinobaby, I thought that employees who disagree would talk about the issue and work out a solution. Perhaps it would be a test of Option A and Option B? Maybe a small working group would dive into a tough technical point and generate a list of talking points for further discussion, testing, and possibly an opinion from a consulting firm?
How would my old-fashioned approach work?
One youthful wizard says, “Your method is not in line with the one we have selected.” The other youthful wizard replies, “Have you tested both and logged the data?” The very serious wizard with the bigger salary responds, “That’s not necessary. Your method is not in line with the one we have selected. By the way, you may find your future elsewhere.” Thanks MidJourney. You have nailed the inability of certain smart people to discuss without demeaning another. Has this happened to you MidJourney?
The answer is, “Are you crazy?”
Navigate to “Google Fails to Get AI Engineer Lawsuit Claiming Wrongful Termination Thrown Out.” As I understand the news report, Google allegedly fired a person who wrote a paper allegedly disagreeing with another Google paper. This, if true, reminded me of the Stochastic Parrot dust up which made Googler Dr. Timnit Gebru a folk hero among some. She is finding her future elsewhere now.
Navigate to the cited article to get more details.
Several points:
- Google appears to be unable to resolve internal discussions without creating PR instead of technical progress.
- The management methods strike me as illogical. I recall discussions with Googlers about the importance of logic, and it is becoming clear to me that Google logic follows it own rules. (Perhaps Google people managers should hire people that can thrive within Google logic?)
- The recourse to the legal system to resolve which may be a technical matter is intellectually satisfying. I am confident that judges, legal eagles, expert witnesses are fully versed in chip engineering for complex and possibly proprietary methods. Have Google people management personnel considered just hiring such multi-faceted legal brains and eliminating wrong-thinking engineers?
Net net: A big time “real” news reporter objected to my use of the phrase “high school management methods.” Okay, perhaps “adolescent management methods” or “adolescent thought processes” are more felicitous phrases. But not for me. These fascinating Google management methods which generate news and legal precedents may render it unnecessary for the firm to use such words as “trust,” “user experience,” and other glittering generalities.
The reality is that cooperative resolution seems to be a facet of quantum supremacy that this dinobaby does not understand.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2023
Impossible. A Google AI Advocates for Plagiarism? Impossible.
August 1, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google became the world’s leading search engine because of its quality results. Alphabet Inc. might lose that title with its new “Search Generative Experience” (SGE) that uses an AI algorithm to copies and paste text from across the Internet and claims them as original content. SGE plagiarizes its information and even worse it cites false information. The article “Plagiarism Engine: Google’s Content-Swiping AI Could Break The Internet” posted on Tom’s Hardware examines SGE’s beta phase.
SGE’s search results page contains advice and answers from Google that occupy the entire first screen, requiring users to scroll to find organic search results. Google explains that they are experimenting with SGE and it will change before it’s deployed. Google claims it wants to put Web sites front and center, but their location in SGE (three blocks to the right of search results) will get few clicks and these are not always the best resources.
SGE attempts to answer search results with cobbled together text chunks that appear at the top of results pages. These text chunks are a mess:
“Even worse, the answers in Google’s SGE boxes are frequently plagiarized, often word-for-word, from the related links. Depending on what you search for, you may find a paragraph taken from just one source or get a whole bunch of sentences and factoids from different articles mashed together into a plagiarism stew. … It’s pretty easy to find sources that back up your claims when your claims are word-for-word copied from those sources. While the bot could do a better job of laundering its plagiarism, it’s inevitable that the response would come from some human’s work. No matter how advanced LLMs get, they will never be the primary source of facts or advice and can only repurpose what people have done.”
Google’s SGE has many negative implications. It touts false information as the truth. The average Internet user trusts Google to promote factual information and they do not investigate beyond the first search page. This will cause individual and societal harm, ranging from incorrect medical information to promoting conspiracy theories.
Google is purposely doing this an anti-competition practice. Google wants users to stay on its Web sites as long as possible. The implications of SGE as an all-encompassing search experience and information source support that practice.
Google and SGE steal people’s original work that irrevocably harms the publishing, art, and media industries. Media companies are already suing Google and other AI-based companies to protect their original content. The best way to stop Google is for an ultimate team-up between media companies:
“Companies could band together, through trade associations, to demand that Google respect intellectual property and not take actions that would destroy the open web as we know it. Readers can help by either scrolling past the company’s SGE to click on organic results or switching to a different search engine. Bing has shown a better way to incorporate AI, making its chatbot the non-default option and citing every piece of information it uses with a specific link back…”
If media companies teamed together for a class action lawsuit it could stop Google’s SGE bad practices and could even breakup Google’s monopoly.
Whitney Grace, August 1, 2023
Meta Being Meta: Move Fast and Snap Threads
July 31, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I want to admit that as a dinobaby I don’t care about [a] Barbie, [b] X [pronouced “ech” or “yech”], twit, or tweeter, [c] Zuckbook, meta-anything, or broken threads. Others seem to care deeply. The chief TWIT (Leo Laporte) — who is valiantly trying to replicate the success of the non-advertising “value for value” model for podcasting — cares about the Tweeter. He can be the one and only TWIT; the Twitter is now X [pronouced “ech” or “yech”], a delightful letter which evokes a number of interesting Web sites when auto-fill is relying on click popularity for relevance. Many of those younger than I care about the tweeter; for instance, with Twitter as a tailwind, some real journalists were able to tell their publisher employers, “I am out of here.” But with the tweeter in disarray does an opportunity exist for the Zuck to cause the tweeter to eXit?
A modern god among mortals looks at the graffito on the pantheon. Anger rises. Blood lust enflames the almighty. Then digital divinity savagely snarls, “Attack now. And render the glands from every musky sheep-ox in my digital domain. Move fast, or you will spend one full day with Cleggus Bombasticus. And you know that is sheer sheol.” [Ah, alliteration. But what is “sheol”?]
Plus, I can name one outfit interested in the Musky Zucky digital cage match, the Bezos bulldozer’s “real” news machine. I read “Move Fast and Beat Musk: The Inside Story of How Meta Built Threads,” which was ground out by the spinning wheels of “real” journalists. I would have preferred a different title; for instance my idea is in italics, Move fast and zuck up! but that’s just my addled view of the world.
The WaPo write up states:
Threads drew more than 100 million users in its first five days — making it, by some estimations, the most successful social media app launch of all time. Threads’ long-term success is not assured. Weeks after its July 5 launch, analytics firms estimated that the app’s usage dropped by more than half from its early peak. And Meta has a long history of copycat products or features that have failed to gain traction…
That’s the story. Take advantage of the Musker’s outstanding management to create a business opportunity for a blue belt in an arcane fighting method. Some allegedly accurate data suggest that “Most of the 100 million people who signed up for Threads stopped using it.”
Why would usage allegedly drop?
The Bezos bulldozer “real” news system reports:
Meta’s [Seine] Kim responded, “Our industry leading integrity enforcement tools and human review are wired into Threads.”
Yes, a quote to note.
Several observations:
- Threads arrived with the baggage of Zuckbook. Early sign ups decided to not go back to pick up the big suitcases.
- The persistence of users to send IXXes (pronounced ech, a sound similar to the “etch” in retch) illustrates one of Arnold’s Rules of Online: Once an online habit is formed, changing behavior may be impossible without just pulling the plug. Digital addiction is a thing.
- Those surfing on the tweeter to build their brand are loath to admit that without the essentially free service their golden goose is queued to become one possibly poisonous Chicken McNugget.
Snapped threads? Yes, even those wrapped tightly around the Musker. Thus, I find one of my co-worker’s quips apt: “Move fast and zuck up.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 2023
Cyber Security Firms Gear Up: Does More Jargon Mean More Sales? Yes, Yes, Yes
July 31, 2023
I read a story which will make stakeholders in cyber security firms turn cartwheels. Imagine not one, not two, not three, but 10 uncertainty inducing, sleepless night making fears.
The young CEO says, “I can’t relax. I just see endless strings of letters floating before my eyes: EDR EPP XDR ITDR, MTD, M, SASE, SSE, UES, and ZTNA. My heavens, ZTNA. Horrible. Who can help me?” MidJourney has a preference for certain types of feminine CEOs. I wonder if there is bias in the depths of the machine.
Navigate to “The Top 10 Technologies Defining the Future of Cybersecurity.” Read the list. Now think about how vulnerable your organization is. You will be compromised. The only question is, “When?”
What are these fear inducers? I will provide the acronyms. You will have to go to the cited article and learn what they mean. Think of this as a two-punch FUD moment. I provide the acronyms which are unfamiliar and mildly disconcerting. Then read the explanations and ask, “Will I have to buy bigger, better, and more cyber security services?” I shall answer your question this way, “Does an electric vehicle require special handling when the power drops to a goose egg?”
Here are the FUD-ronyms:
- EDR
- EPP
- XDR
- ITDR
- MTD
- M
- SASE
- SSE
- UES
- ZTNA.
Scared yet?
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 2023
Google: Running the Same Old Game Plan
July 31, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google has been running the same old game plan since the early 2000s. But some experts are unaware of its simplicity. In the period from 2002 to 2004, I did a number of reports for my commercial clients about Google. In 2004, I recycled some of the research and analysis into The Google Legacy. The thesis of the monograph, published in England by the now defunct Infonortics Ltd. explained the infrastructure for search was enhanced to provide an alternative to commercial software for personal, business, and government use. The idea that a search-and-retrieval system based on precedent technology and funded in part by the National Science Foundation with a patent assigned to Stanford University could become Googzilla was a difficult idea to swallow. One of the investment banks who paid for our research got the message even though others did not. I wonder if that one group at the then world’s largest software company remembers my lecture about the threat Google posed to a certain suite of software applications? Probably not. The 20 somethings and the few suits at the lecture looked like kindergarteners waiting for recess.
I followed up The Google Legacy with Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator. This monograph was again based on proprietary research done for my commercial clients. I recycled some of the information, scrubbing that which was deemed inappropriate for anyone to buy for a few British pounds. In that work, I rather methodically explained that Google’s patent documents provided useful information about why the mere Web search engine was investing in some what seemed like odd-ball technologies like software janitors. I reworked one diagram to show how the Google infrastructure operated like a prison cell or walled garden. The idea is that once one is in, one may have to work to get past the gatekeeper to get out. I know the image from a book does not translate to a blog post, but, truth be told, I am disinclined to recreate art. At age 78, it is often difficult to figure out why smart drawing tools are doing what they want, not what I want.
Here’s the diagram:
The prison cell or walled garden (2006) from Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator, published by Infonortics Ltd., 2006. And for any copyright trolls out there, I created the illustration 20 years ago, not Alamy and not Getty and no reputable publisher.
Three observations about the diagram are: [a] The box, prison cell, or walled garden contains entities, [b] once “in” there is a way out but the exit is via Google intermediated, defined, and controlled methods, and [c] anything in the walled garden perceives that the prison cell is the outside world. The idea obviously is for Google to become the digital world which people will perceive as the Internet.
I thought about my decades old research when I read “Google Tries to Defend Its Web Environment Integrity as Critics Slam It as Dangerous.” The write up explains that Google wants to make online activity better. In the comments to the article, several people point out that Google is using jargon and fuzzy misleading language to hide its actual intentions with the WEI.
The critics and the write up miss the point entirely: Look at the diagram. WEI, like the AMP initiative, is another method added to existing methods for Google to extend its hegemony over online activity. The patent, implement, and explain approach drags out over years. Attention spans, even for academics who make up data like the president of Stanford University, are not interested in anything other than personal goal achievement. Finding out something visible for years is difficult. When some interesting factoid is discovered, few accept it. Google has a great brand, and it cares about user experience and the other fog the firm generates.
MidJourney created this nice image of a Googler preparing for a presentation to the senior management of Google in 2001. In that presentation, the wizard was outlining Google’s fundamental strategy: Fake left, go right. The slogan for the company, based on my research, keep them fooled. Looking the wrong way is the basic rule of being a successful Googler, strategist, or magician.
Will Google WEI win? It does not matter because Google will just whip up another acronym, toss some verbal froth around, and move forward. What is interesting to me is Google’s success. Points I have noted over the years are:
- Kindergarten colors, Google mouse pads, and talking like General Electric once did about “bringing good things” continues to work
- Google’s dominance is not just accepted, changing or blocking anything Google wants to do is sacrilegious. It has become a sacred digital cow
- The inability of regulators to see Google as it is remains a constant, like Google’s advertising revenue
- Certain government agencies could not perform their work if Google were impeded in any significant way. No, I will not elaborate on this observation in a public blog post. Don’t even ask. I may make a comment in my keynote at the Massachusetts / New York Association of Crime Analysts’ conference in early October 2023. If you can’t get in, you are out of luck getting information on Point Four.
Net net: Fire up your Chrome browser. Look for reality in the Google search results. Turn cartwheels to comply with Google’s requirements. Pay money for traffic via Google advertising. Learn how to create good blog posts from Google search engine optimization experts. Use Google Maps. Put your email in Gmail. Do the Google thing. Then ask yourself, “How do I know if the information provided by Google is “real”? Just don’t get curious about synthetic data for Google smart software. Predictions about Big Brother are wrong. Google, not the government, is the digital parent whom you embraced after a good “Backrub.” Why change from high school science thought processes? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 2023
The Frontier Club: Doing Good with AI?
July 28, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read some of the stories about several big outfits teaming to create “the frontier model forum.” I have no idea what the phrase means.
MidJourney created this interesting representation of a meeting of a group similar to the Frontier Model Forum. True, MidJourney presented young people in what seems to be an intense, intellectual discussion. Upon inspection, the subject is the décor for a high school prom. Do the decorations speak to the millions who are going without food, or do the decorations underscore the importance of high value experiences for those with good hair? I have no idea, but it reminds me of a typical high school in-group confabulation.
To fill the void, I turned to the gold standard in technology Pablum and the article “Major Generative AI Players Join to Create the Frontier Model Forum.” That’s a good start. I think I interpreted collusion between the syllables of the headline.
I noted this passage, hoping to satisfy my curiosity: According to a statement issued by the four companies [Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI] Wednesday, the Forum will offer membership to organizations that design and develop large-scale generative AI tools and platforms that push the boundaries of what’s currently possible in the field. The group says those “frontier” models require participating organizations to “demonstrate a strong commitment to frontier model safety,” and to be “willing to contribute to advancing the Forum’s efforts by
participating in joint initiatives.”
Definitely clear. Are there companies not in the list? I know of several in France, China has some independent free thinkers beavering away at AI, and probably a handful of others. Don’t they count?
The article makes it clear that doing good results from the “frontier” thing. I had a high school history teacher named Earl Skaggs. His avocation was documenting the interesting activities which took place on the American frontier. He was a veritable analog Wiki on the subjects of claim jumping, murder, robbery, swindling, rustling, and illegal gambling. I am confident that this high-tech “frontier” thing will be ethical, stable, and focused on the good of the people. Am I an unenlightened dinobaby?
I noted this statement:
“Companies creating AI technology have a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, secure, and remains under human control,” Brad Smith, Microsoft vice chair and president, said in a statement. “This initiative is a vital step to bring the tech sector together in advancing AI responsibly and tackling the challenges so that it benefits all of humanity.”
Mr. Smith is famous for his explanation of 1,000 programmers welded into a cyber attack force to take advantage of Microsoft. He also may be unaware of Israel’s smart weapons; for example, see the comments in “Revolutionizing Warfare: Israel Implements AI Systems in Military Operations.” Obviously the frontier thing is designed to prevent such weaponization. Since Israel is chugging away with smart weapons in use, my hunch is that the PR jargon handwaving is not working.
Net net: How long will the meetings of the “frontier thing” become contentious? One of my team said, “Never, this group will never meet in person. PR is the goal.” Goodness, this person is skeptical. If I were an Israeli commander using smart weapons to protect my troops, I would issue orders to pull back the smart stuff and use the same outstanding tactics evidenced by a certain nation state’s warriors in central Europe. How popular would that make the commander?
Do I know what the Frontier Model Forum is? Yep, PR.
Stephen E Arnold, July 28, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
