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

 Subscribe

More Googley Human Resource Goodness

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

The New York Post reported that a Googler has departed. “Google News Executive Shailesh Prakash Resigns As Tensions with Publishers Mount: Report” states:

Shailesh Prakash had served as a vice president and general manager for Google News. A source confirmed that he is no longer with the company… The circumstances behind Prakash’s resignation were not immediately clear. Google declined to comment.

Google tapped a professional who allegedly rode in the Bezos bulldozer when the world’s second or third richest man in the world acquired the Washington Post. (How has that been going? Yeah.)

Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.

Google has been cheerfully indexing content and selling advertising for decades. After a number of years of talking and allegedly providing some support to outfits collecting, massaging, and making “real” news available, the Google is facing some headwinds.

The article reports:

The Big Tech giant rankled online publishers last May after it introduced a feature called “AI Overviews” – which places an auto-generated summary at the top of its search results while burying links to other sites. News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers, including The Post, said the feature would be “catastrophic to our traffic” and has called on the feds to intervene.

News flash from rural Kentucky: The good old days of newspaper publishing are unlikely to make a comeback. What’s the evidence for this statement? Video and outfits like Telegram and WhatsApp deliver content to cohorts who don’t think too much about a print anything.

The article pointed out:

Last month, The Post exclusively reported on emails that revealed how Google leveraged its access to the Office of the US Trade Representative as it sought to undermine overseas regulations — including Canada’s Online News Act, which required Google to pay for the right to display news content.

You can read that report “Google Emails with US Trade Reps Reveal Cozy Ties As Tech Giant Pushed to Hijack Policy” if you have time.

Let’s think about why a member of Google leadership like Shailesh Prakash would bail out. Among the options are:

1. He wanted to spend more time with his family
2. Another outfit wanted to hire him to manage something in the world of publishing
3. He failed in making publishers happy.

The larger question is, “Why would Google think that one fellow could make a multi-decade problem go away?” The fact that I can ask this question reveals how Google’s consulting infused leaders think about an entire business sector. It also provides some insight into the confidence of a professional like Mr. Prakash.

What flees sinking ships? Certainly not the lawyers that Google will throw at this “problem.” Google has money and that may be enough to buy time and perhaps prevail. If there aren’t any publishers grousing, the problem gets resolved. Efficient.

Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2024

AI Help for Struggling Journalists. Absolutely

Writers, artists, and other creatives have labeled AI as their doom of their industries and livelihoods. Generative AI Newsroom explains one way that AI could be helpful to writers: “How Teams of AI Agents Could Provide Valuable Leads For Investigative Data Journalism.” Investigative and data journalism requires the teamwork of many individuals. Due to the teamwork of the journalists, they create impactful stories.

Media outlets experimented with adding generative AI to journalism and it wasn’t successful. The information was inaccurate and very specific instructions. While OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot seems intuitive with its Q and A interface, investigative journalism requires a more robust AI.

Investigative journalism and other writing vocations require team work, so AI for those jobs could benefit from it too. The Generative AI Newsroom is working on an AI that would assist journalists:

“Specifically, we developed a prototype system that, when provided with a dataset and a description of its contents, generates a “tip sheet” — a list of newsworthy observations that may inspire further journalistic explorations of datasets. Behind the scenes, this system employs three AI agents, emulating the roles of a data analyst, an investigative reporter, and a data editor. To carry out our agentic workflow, we utilized GPT-4-turbo via OpenAI’s Assistants API, which allows the model to iteratively execute code and interact with the results of data analyses.”

A human journalist, editor, and analyst works with the AI:

“In our setup, the analyst is made responsible for turning journalistic questions into quantitative analyses. It conducts the analysis, interprets the results, and feeds these insights into the broader process. The reporter, meanwhile, generates the questions, pushes the analyst with follow-ups to guide the process towards something newsworthy, and distills the key findings into something meaningful. The editor, then, mainly steps in as the quality control, ensuring the integrity of the work, bulletproofing the analysis, and pushing the outputs towards factual accuracy.”

The AI is still in its testing phase but it sounds like a viable tool to incorporate AI into media outlets. While humans are an integral part of the process, what happens when the AI becomes better at storytelling than humans? It is possible. Where does the human role come in then?

Whitney Grace, October 10, 2024

Takedown Notices May Slightly Boost Sales of Content

It looks like take-down notices might help sales of legitimate books. A little bit. TorrentFreak shares the findings from a study by the University of Warsaw, Poland, in, “Taking Pirated Copies Offline Can Benefit Book Sales, Research Finds.” Writer Ernesto Van der Sar explains:

“This year alone, Google has processed hundreds of millions of takedown requests on behalf of publishers, at a frequency we have never seen before. The same publishers also target the pirate sites and their hosting providers directly, hoping to achieve results. Thus far, little is known about the effectiveness of these measures. In theory, takedowns are supposed to lead to limited availability of pirate sources and a subsequent increase in legitimate sales. But does it really work that way? To find out more, researchers from the University of Warsaw, Poland, set up a field experiment. They reached out to several major publishers and partnered with an anti-piracy outfit, to test whether takedown efforts have a measurable effect on legitimate book sales.”

See the write-up for the team’s methodology. There is a caveat: The study included only print books, because Poland’s e-book market is too small to be statistically reliable. This is an important detail, since digital e-books are a more direct swap for pirated copies found online. Even so, the researchers found takedown notices produced a slight bump in print-book sales. Research assistants confirmed they could find fewer pirated copies, and the ones they did find were harder to unearth. The write-up notes more research is needed before any conclusions can be drawn.

How hard will publishers tug at this thread? By this logic, if one closes libraries that will help book sales, too. Eliminating review copies may cause some sales. Why not publish books and keep them secret until Amazon provides a link? So many money-grubbing possibilities, and all it would cost is an educated public.

Cynthia Murrell, August 13, 2024

Anarchist Content Links: Zines Live

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

One of my team called my attention to “Library. It’s Going Down Reading Library.” I know I am not clued into the lingo of anarchists. As a result, the Library … Library rhetoric just put me on a slow blinking yellow alert or emulating the linguistic style of Its Going Down, Alert. It’s Slow Blinking Alert.”

Syntactical musings behind me, the list includes links to publications focused on fostering even more chaos than one encounters at a Costco or a Southwest Airlines boarding gate. The content of these publications is thought provoking to some and others may be reassured that tearing down may be more interesting than building up.

The publications are grouped in categories. Let me list a handful:

• Antifascism
• Anti-Politics
• Anti-Prison, Anti-Police, and Counter-Insurgency.

Personally I would have presented antifascism as anti-fascism to be consistent with the other antis, but that’s what anarchy suggests, doesn’t it?

When one clicks on a category, the viewer is presented with a curated list of “going down” related content. Here’s a listing of what’s on offer for the topic AI has made great again, Automation:

Livewire: Against Automation, Against UBI, Against Capital

If one wants more “controversial” content, one can visit these links:

• https://crimethinc.com/zines
• https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

Each of these has the “zine” vibe and provides useful information. I noted the lingo and the names of the authors. It is often helpful to have an entity with which one can associate certain interesting topics.

My take on these modest collections: Some folks are quite agitated and want to make live more challenging that an 80-year-old dinobaby finds it. (But zines remind me of weird newsprint or photocopied booklets in the 1970s or so.)  If the content of these publications is accurate, we have not “zine” anything yet.

Stephen E Arnold, July 19, 2024

Prediction: Next Target Up — Public Libraries

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

The publishers (in spirit at least) have kneecapped the Internet Archive. If you don’t know what the online service does or did, it does not matter. I learned from the estimable ShowBiz411.com site, a cultural treasure is gone. Forget digital books, the article “Paramount Erases Archives of MTV Website, Wipes Music, Culture History After 30 Plus Years” says:

Parent company Paramount, formerly Viacom, has tossed twenty plus years of news archives. All that’s left is a placeholder site for reality shows. The M in MTV – music — is gone, and so is all the reporting and all the journalism performed by music and political writers ever written. It’s as if MTV never existed. (It’s the same for VH1.com, all gone.)

Why? The write up couches the savvy business decision of the Paramount leadership this way:

There’s no precedent for this, and no valid reason. Just cheapness and stupidity.

Tibby, my floppy ear Frenchie, is listening to music from the Internet Archive. He knows the publishers removed 500,000 books. Will he lose access to his beloved early 20th century hill music? Will he ever be able to watch reruns of the rock the casbah music video? No. He is a risk. A threat. A despicable knowledge seeker. Thanks to myself for this nifty picture.

My knowledge of MTV and VH1 is limited. I do recall telling my children, “Would you turn that down, please?” What a waste of energy. Future students of American culture will have a void. I assume some artifacts of the music videos will remain. But the motherlode is gone. Is this a loss? On one hand, no. Thank goodness I will not have to glimpse performs rocking the casbah. On the other hand, yes. Archaeologists study bits of stone, trying to figure out how those who left them built Machu Pichu did it. The value of lost information to those in the future is tough to discuss. But knowledge products may be like mine tailings. At some point, a bright person can figure out how to extract trace elements in quantity.

I have a slightly different view of these two recent cultural milestones. I have a hunch that the publishers want to protect their intellectual property. Internet Archive rolled over because its senior executives learned from their lawyers that lawsuits about copyright violations would be tough to win. The informed approach was to delete 500,000 books. Imagine an online service like the Internet Archive trying to be a library.

That brings me to what I think is going on. Copyright litigation will make quite a lot of digital information disappear. That means that increasing fees to public libraries for digital copies of books to “loan” to patrons must go up. Libraries who don’t play ball may find that those institutions will be faced with other publisher punishments: No American Library Association after parties, no consortia discounts, and at some point no free books.

Yes, libraries will have to charge a patron to check out a physical book and then the “publishers” will get a percentage.

The Andrew Carnegie “free” thing is wrong. Libraries rip off the publishers. Authors may be mentioned, but what publisher cares about 99 percent of its authors? (I hear crickets.)

Several thoughts struck me as I was walking my floppy ear Frenchie:

1. The loss of information (some of which may have knowledge value) is no big deal in a social structure which does not value education. If people cannot read, who cares about books? Publishers and the wretches who write them. Period.
2. The video copyright timebomb of the Paramount video content has been defused. Let’s keep those lawyers at bay, please. Who will care? Nostalgia buffs and the parents of the “stars”?
3. The Internet Archive has music; libraries have music. Those are targets not on Paramount’s back. Who will shoot at these targets? Copyright litigators. Go go go.

Net net: My prediction is that libraries must change to a pay-to-loan model or get shut down. Who wants informed people running around disagreeing with lawyers, accountants, and art history majors?

Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2024

Chasing a Folly: Identifying AI Content

As are other academic publishers, Springer Nature Group is plagued by fake papers. Now the company announces, “Springer Nature Unveils Two New AI Tools to Protect Research Integrity.” How effective the tools are remains to be proven, but at least the company is making an effort. The press release describes text-checker Geppetto and image-analysis tool SnappShot. We learn:

“Geppetto works by dividing the paper up into sections and uses its own algorithms to check the consistency of the text in each section. The sections are then given a score based on the probability that the text in them has been AI generated. The higher the score, the greater the probability of there being problems, initiating a human check by Springer Nature staff. Geppetto is already responsible for identifying hundreds of fake papers soon after submission, preventing them from being published – and from taking up editors’ and peer reviewers’ valuable time.

SnappShot, also developed in-house, is an AI-assisted image integrity analysis tool. Currently used to analyze PDF files containing gel and blot images and look for duplications in those image types – another known integrity problem within the industry – this will be expanded to cover additional image types and integrity problems and speed up checks on papers.”

Springer Nature’s Chris Graf emphasizes the importance of research integrity and vows to continue developing and improving in-house tools. To that end, we learn, the company is still growing its fraud-detection team. The post points out Springer Nature is a contributing member of the STM Integrity Hub.

Based in Berlin, Springer Nature was formed in 2015 through the combination of Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Education, and Springer Science+Business Media. A few of its noteworthy publications include Scientific American, Nature, and this collection of Biology, Clinical Medicine, and Health journals.

Cynthia Murrell, June 24, 2024

Thomson Reuters: A Trust Report about Trust from an Outfit with Trust Principles

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

Thomson Reuters is into trust. The company has a Web page called “Trust Principles.” Here’s a snippet:

The Trust Principles were created in 1941, in the midst of World War II, in agreement with The Newspaper Proprietors Association Limited and The Press Association Limited (being the Reuters shareholders at that time). The Trust Principles imposed obligations on Reuters and its employees to act at all times with integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Reuters Directors and shareholders were determined to protect and preserve the Trust Principles when Reuters became a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. A unique structure was put in place to achieve this. A new company was formed and given the name ‘Reuters Founders Share Company Limited’, its purpose being to hold a ‘Founders Share’ in Reuters.

Trust nestles in some legalese and a bit of business history. The only reason I mention this anchoring in trust is that Thomson Reuters reported quarterly revenue of $1.88 billion in May 2024, up from $1.74 billion in May 2023. The financial crowd had expected $1.85 billion in the quarter, and Thomson Reuters beat that. Surplus funds makes it possible to fund many important tasks; for example, a study of trust.

The ouroboros, according to some big thinkers, symbolizes the entity’s journey and the unity of all things; for example, defining trust, studying trust, and writing about trust as embodied in the symbol.

My conclusion is that trust as a marketing and business principle seems to be good for business. Therefore, I trust, and I am confident that the information in “Global Audiences Suspicious of AI-Powered Newsrooms, Report Finds.” The subject of the trusted news story is the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. The Thomson Reuters reporter presents in a trusted way this statement:

According to the survey, 52% of U.S. respondents and 63% of UK respondents said they would be uncomfortable with news produced mostly with AI. The report surveyed 2,000 people in each country, noting that respondents were more comfortable with behind-the-scenes uses of AI to make journalists’ work more efficient.

To make the point a person working for the trusted outfit’s trusted report says in what strikes me as a trustworthy way:

“It was surprising to see the level of suspicion,” said Nic Newman, senior research associate at the Reuters Institute and lead author of the Digital News Report. “People broadly had fears about what might happen to content reliability and trust.”

In case you have lost the thread, let me summarize. The trusted outfit Thomson Reuters funded a study about trust. The research was conducted by the trusted outfit’s own Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. The conclusion of the report, as presented by the trusted outfit, is that people want news they can trust. I think I have covered the post card with enough trust stickers.

I know I can trust the information. Here’s a factoid from the “real” news report:

Vitus “V” Spehar, a TikTok creator with 3.1 million followers, was one news personality cited by some of the survey respondents. Spehar has become known for their unique style of delivering the top headlines of the day while laying on the floor under their desk, which they previously told Reuters is intended to offer a more gentle perspective on current events and contrast with a traditional news anchor who sits at a desk.

How can one not trust a report that includes a need met by a TikTok creator? Would a Thomson Reuters’ professional write a news story from under his or her desk or cube or home office kitchen table?

I think self funded research which finds that the funding entity’s approach to trust is exactly what those in search of “real” news need. Wikipedia includes some interesting information about Thomson Reuters in its discussion of the company in the section titled “Involvement in Surveillance.” Wikipedia alleges that Thomson Reuters licenses data to Palantir Technologies, an assertion which if accurate I find orthogonal to my interpretation of the word “trust.” But Wikipedia is not Thomson Reuters.

I will not ask questions about the methodology of the study. I trust the Thomson Reuters’ professionals. I will not ask questions about the link between revenue and digital information. I have the trust principles to assuage any doubt. I will not comment on the wonderful ouroboros-like quality of an enterprise embodying trust, funding a study of trust, and converting those data into a news story about itself. The symmetry is delicious and, of course, trustworthy. For information about Thomson Reuters’s trust use of artificial intelligence see this Web page.

Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2024

What Is That Wapo Wapo Wapo Sound?

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

Do you hear that thumping wapo wapo wapo sound? I do. It reminds me of an old school pickup truck with a flat tire on a hot summer’s day? Yep, wapo wapo wapo. That’s it!

“Jeff Bezos Has Worst Response Ever to Washington Post Turmoil” emitted this sound when I read the essay in New Republic. The newspaper for Washington, DC and its environs is the Post. When I lived in Washington, DC, the newspaper was a must read. Before I trundled off to the cheerful workplace of Halliburton Nuclear and later to the incredibly sensitive and human blue chip consulting firm known affectionately as the Boozer, I would read the WaPo. I had to be prepared. If I were working with a Congress person like Admiral Craig Hosmer, USN Retired, I had to know what Miss Manners had to say that day. A faux pas could be fatal.

The old pickup truck has a problem because one of the tires went wapo wapo wapo and then the truck stopped. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

The WaPo is now a Jeff Bezos property. I have forgotten how the financial deal was structured, but he has a home in DC and every person who is in contention as one of the richest men on earth needs a newspaper. The write up explains:

In a memo to the paper’s top personnel on Tuesday, the billionaire technocrat backed the new CEO Will Lewis, a former lieutenant to right-wing media mogul Richard Murdoch, whose controversial appointment at the Post has made waves across the industry in the wake of reporting on his shady journalistic practices.

That’s inspiring for a newspaper: A political angle and “shady journalistic practices.” What happened to that old every day is Day One and the customer is important? I suppose a PR person could trot those out. But the big story seems to be the newspaper is losing readers and money. Don’t people in DC read? Oh, silly question. No, now the up-and-come movers and shakers doom scroll and watch YouTube. The cited article includes a snippet from the Bezos bulldozer it appears. That item states:

…the journalistic standards and ethics at The Post will not change… You have my full commitment to n maintaining the quality, ethics, and standards we all believe in.

Two ethics in one short item. Will those add up this way: ethics plus ethics equals trust? Sure. I believe everything one of the richest people in the world says. It seems that one of the new hires to drive the newspaper world’s version of Jack Benny’s wheezing Maxwell was involved in some hanky-panky from private telephone conversations.

Several observations:

1. “Real” newspapers seem to be facing some challenges. These range from money to money to money. Did I mention money?
2. The newspaper owner and the management team have to overcome the money hurdle. How does one do that? Maybe smart software from an outfit like AWS and the Sagemaker product line? The AI can output good enough content at a lower cost and without grousing humans, vacations, health care, and annoying reporters poking into the lifestyle of the rich, powerful, famous, and rich. Did I mention “rich” twice? But if Mr. Bezos can work two ethics into one short memo, I can fit two into a longer blog post.
3. The readers and journalists are likely to lose. I think readers will just suck down content from their mobile devices and the journalists will have to find their futures elsewhere like certain lawyers, many customer service personnel, and gig workers who do “art” for publishers, among others.

Net net: Do you hear the wapo wapo wapo? How long will the Bezos pickup truck roll along?

Stephen E Arnold, June 20, 2024

The Gray Lady Tap Dances

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

The collision of myth, double talk, technology, and money produces some fascinating tap dancing. Tip tap tip tap. Tap tap. That’s the sound of the folks involved with explaining that technology is no big deal. Drum roll. Then the coda. Tip tap tip tap. Tap tap tap. It is not money. Tip tap tip tap. tap tap.

I think quite a few business decisions are about money; specifically, getting a bonus or a hefty raise because “efficiency” improves “quality.” One can dance around the dead horse, but at some point that horse needs to be relocated.

The “real” Mona Lisa. Can she be enhanced, managed, and be populated with metadata without a human art director? Yep. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

I read “New York Times Union Urges Management to Reconsider 9 Art Department Cuts as Paper Ramps Up AI Tools | Exclusive.” The write up weaves a number of themes together. There is the possibility of management waffling, a common practice these days. Recall, an incident, Microsoft? The ever-present next big thing makes an appearance. Plus, there is the Gray Lady, working hard to maintain its position as the newspaper for for the USA today. (That sounds familiar, doesn’t it?)

The main point of the write up is that the NYT’s art department might lose staff. The culprit is not smart software. Money is not the issue. Quality will not suffer. Yada yada. The write up says:

The Times denies that the reductions are in any way related to the newspaper’s AI initiatives.

And the check is in the mail.

I also noted:

A spokesman for the Times said the affected employees are being offered a buyout, and have nothing to do with the use of AI. “Last month, The Times’s newsroom made the difficult decision to reduce the size of its art production team with workflow changes to make photo toning and color correction work more efficient,” Charlie Stadtlander told TheWrap.”On May 30th, we offered generous voluntary buyouts for 9 employees to accept. These changes involve the adoption of new workflows and the expanded use of industry-standard tools that have been in use for years — they are not related to The Times’s AI efforts.”

Nope. Never. Impossible. Unthinkable.

What is the smart software identified as a staff reducer? It is Claro but that is not the name of the company. The current name of the service is Pixometry, which is a mashup of Claro and Elpical. So what does this controversial smart software do? The firm’s Web site says:

Pixometry is the latest evolution of Claro, the leading automated image enhancement platform for Publishers and Retailers around the globe. Combining exceptional software with outstanding layered AI services, Pixometry delivers a powerful image processing engine capable of creating stunning looking images, highly accurate cut-outs and automatic keywording in seconds. Reducing the demands upon the Photoshop teams, Pixometry integrates seamlessly with production systems and prepares images for use in printed and digital media.

The Pixometry software delivers:

Cloud based automatic image enhancement & visual asset management solutions for publishers & retail business.

Its functions include:

• Automatic image “correction” because “real” is better than real
• Automatic cut outs and key wording (I think a cut out is a background remover so a single image can be plucked from a “real” photo
• Consistent, high quality results. None of that bleary art director eye contact.
• Multi-channel utilization. The software eliminates telling a Photoshop wizard I need a high-res image for the magazine and a then a 96 spot per inch version for the Web. How long will that take? What? I need the images now.
• Applied AI image intelligence. Hey, no hallucinations here. This is “real” image enhancement and better than what those Cooper Union space cadets produce when they are not wandering around looking for inspiration or whatever.

Does that sound like reality shaping or deep fake territory? Hmmm. That’s a question none of the hair-on-fire write ups addresses. But if you are a Photoshop  and Lightroom wizard, the software means hasta la vista in my opinion. Smart software may suck at office parties but it does not require vacays, health care (just minor system updates), or unions. Software does not argue, wear political buttons, or sit around staring into space because of a late night at the “library.”

Pretty obscure unless you are a Photoshop wizard. The Pixometry Web site explains that it provides a searchable database of images and what looks like one click enhancement of images. Hey, every image needs a bit of help to be “real”, just like “real” news and “real” management explanations. The Pixometry Web site identifies some organizations as “loving” Pixometry; for example, the star-crossed BBC, News UK, El Mercurio, and the New York Times. Yes, love!

Let’s recap. Most of the reporting about this use of applied smart software gets the name of the system wrong. None of the write ups point out that art director functions in the hands of a latte guzzling professional are not quick, easy, or without numerous glitches. Furthermore, the humans in the “art” department must be managed.

The NYT is, it appears, trying to do the two-step around software that is better, faster, and cheaper than the human powered options. Other observations are:

1. The fast-talking is not going to change the economic benefit of smart software
2. The notion of a newspaper fixing up photos underscores that deep fakes have permeated institutions which operate as if it were 1923 skidoo time
3. The skilled and semi-skilled workers in knowledge industries may taste blood when the titanium snake of AI bites them on the ankle. Some bites will be fatal.

Net net: Being up front may have some benefits. Skip the old soft shoe, please.

Stephen E Arnold, June 17, 2024

Publishers Sign Up for the Great Unknown: Risky, Oh, Yeah

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

OpenAI is paying for content. Why? Maybe to avoid lawsuits? Maybe to get access to “real” news to try to get ahead of its perceived rivals? Maybe because Sam AI-Man pushes forward while its perceived competitors do weird things like add features, launch services which are lousy, or which have the taste of the bitter fruit of Zuckus nepenthes.

Publishers are like beavers. Publishers have to do whatever they can to generate cash. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. Not a cartoon and not a single dam, but just like MSFT security good enough, today’s benchmark of excellence.

“Journalists Deeply Troubled by OpenAI’s Content Deals with Vox, The Atlantic” is a good example of the angst Sam AI-Man is causing among “real” news outfits and their Fourth Estate professionals. The write up reports:

“Alarmed” writers unions question transparency of AI training deals with ChatGPT maker.

Oh, oh. An echo of Google’s Code Red am I hearing? No, what I hear is the ka-ching of the bank teller’s deposit system as the “owner” of the Fourth Estate professional business process gets Sam AI-Man’s money. Let’s not confuse “real” news with “real” money, shall we? In the current economic climate, money matters. Today it is difficult to sell advertising unless one is a slam dunk monopoly with an ad sales system that is tough to beat. Today it is tough to get those who consume news via a podcast or a public Web site to subscribe. I think that the number I heard for conversions is something like one or two subscribers per 100 visitors on a really good day. Most days are not really good.

“Real” journalists can be unionized. The idea is that their services have to be protected from the lawyers and bean counters who run many high profile publishing outfit. The problem with unions is that these seek to limit what the proprietors can do in a largely unregulated capitalist set up like the one operating within the United States. In a long-forgotten pre-digital era, those in a union dust up in 1921 at Blair Mountain in my favorite state, West Virginia. Today, the union members are more likely to launch social media posts and hook up with a needy lawyering outfit.

Let me be clear. Some of the “real” journalists will find fame as YouTubers, pundits on what’s left of traditional TV or cable news programs, or by writing a book which catches the attention of Netflix. Most, however, will do gig work and migrate to employment adjacent to “real” news. The problem is that in any set of “real” journalists, the top 10 percent will be advantaged. The others may head to favelas, their parent’s basement, or a Sheetz parking lot in my favorite state for some chemical relief. Does that sound scary?

Think about this.

Sam AI-Man, according to the Observer’s story “Sam Altman Says OpenAI Doesn’t Fully Understand How GPT Works Despite Rapid Progress.” These money-focused publishers are signing up for something that not only do they not understand but the fellow who is surfing the crazy wave of smart software does not understand. But taking money and worrying about the future is not something publishing executives in their carpetlands think about. Money in hand is good. Worrying about the future, according to their life coach, is not worth the mental stress. It is go-go in a now-now moment.

I cannot foretell the future. If I could, I would not be an 80-year-old dinobaby sitting in my home office marveling at the downstream consequences of what amounts to a 2024 variant of the DR-LINK technology. I can offer a handful of hypotheses:

1. “Real” journalists are going to find that publishers cut deals to get cash without thinking of the “real” journalists or the risks inherent in hopping in a small cabin with Sam AI-Man for a voyage in the unknown.
2. Money and cost reductions will fuel selling information to Sam AI-Man and any other Big Tech outfit which comes calling with a check book. Money now is better than looking at a graph of advertising sales over the last five years. Money trumps “real” journalists’ complaints when they are offered part-time work or an opportunity to find their future elsewhere.
3. Publishing outfits have never been technology adept, and I think that engineered blindness is now built into the companies’ management processes. Change is going to make publishing an interesting business. That’s good for consultants and bankruptcy specialists. It will not be so good for those who do not have golden parachutes or platinum flying cars.

Net net: What are the options for the “real” journalists’ unions? Lawyers, maybe. Social media posts. Absolutely. Will these prevent publishers from doing what publishers have to do? Nope.

Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2024

Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

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

• Categories

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

• Archives

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

• Recent Posts

  • FOGINT: Security Tools Over Promise & Under Deliver
  • More Googley Human Resource Goodness
  • Point-and-Click Coding: An eGame Boom Booster
  • China Smart, US Dumb: LLMs Bad, MoEs Good
  • Management Brilliance Microsoft Suggests to Customers, “You Did It!”

• Meta

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