Fortune, Trust, and Smart Software: A Delightful Confection
September 8, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Trust. I see this word bandied about like a digital shuttlecock whacked by frantic influencers, pundits, and poobahs. Fortune Magazine likes the idea of trust and uses it in this headline: “Silicon Valley’s Elites Can’t Be Trusted with the Future of AI. We Must Break Their Dominance–and Dangerous God Complex.” The headline is interesting. First, this if Fortune Magazine. Like Forbes in its pre-sponsored content days was a “capitalist tool.” Fortune Magazine was the giant PR megaphone for making money. Now Forbes is content marketing, and Fortune Magazine is not exactly a fan of modern Silicon Valley high school science club management. The clue is the word “trust” in the context of the phrase “God complex.”
A senior manager demonstrates a lack of support for a subordinate who does not warrant trust. Does the subordinate look happy? Thanks, MidJourney. No red warning banners for this original art. You are, however, still on the gradient descent I fear.
The write up includes a number of interesting statements. I want to highlight two of these and offer a couple of observations. No, I won’t trot out my favorite “Where have you been for the last 25 years? Collecting Google swag and Zuckbook coffee mugs?”
The first passage I noticed was:
Research shows the market dysfunction created by Google, Amazon, Facebook, and other large players that dominate e-commerce, advertising, and online information-sharing. Big Tech monopolists are already positioning themselves to dominate AI. The shortage of GPUs and massive lobbying dollars spent requesting expensive regulation that would lock out startups are just two examples of this troubling trend.
Yo, Fortune, what do monopolies do? Are these outfits into garden parties for homeless children and cleaning up the environment for the good of walruses? The Fortune Magazine of 2023 would probably complain about Co0rnelius Vanderbilt’s treatment of the business associate he beat and tossed into the street.
The second passage warranting a red checkmark was:
AI will fundamentally change society and billions of lives. Its development is too important to be left to the hubris of Silicon Valley’s elites. India is well positioned to break their dominance and level the AI playing field, accelerating innovation and benefiting all of humankind.
Oh, oh. The U.S. of A. is no longer the sure-fire winner for the sharp pencil people at Fortune Magazine.
Several observations:
- The Silicon Valley method has worn thin for Manhattan folk
- India is the new big dog
- Trust is in vogue.
Okay.
Stephen E Arnold, September 8, 2023
A New Fear: Riding the Gradient Descent to Unemployment
September 8, 2023
Is AI poised to replace living, breathing workers? A business professor from Harvard (the ethics hot spot) reassures us (sort of), “AI Won’t Replace Humans—But Humans with AI Will Replace Humans Without AI.” Harvard Business Review‘s Adi Ignatius interviewed AI scholar Karim Lakhani, who insists AI is a transformational technology on par with the Web browser. Companies and workers in all fields, he asserts, must catch up then keep up or risk being left behind. The professor states:
“This transition is really inevitable. And for the folks that are behind, the good news is that the cost to make the transition keeps getting lower and lower. The playbook for this is now well-known. And finally, the real challenge is not a technological challenge. I would say that’s like a 30% challenge. The real challenge is 70%, which is an organizational challenge. My great colleague Tsedal Neeley talks about the digital mindset. Every executive, every worker needs to have a digital mindset, which means understanding how these technologies work, but also understanding the deployment of them and then the change processes you need to do in terms of your organization to make use of them.”
Later, he advises:
“The first step is to begin, start experimentation, create the sandboxes, run internal bootcamps, and don’t just run bootcamps for technology workers, run bootcamps for everybody. Give them access to tools, figure out what use cases they develop, and then use that as a basis to rank and stack them and put them into play.”
Many of those use cases will be predictable. Many more will be unforeseen. One thing we can anticipate is this: users will rapidly acclimate to technologies that make their lives easier. Already, Lakhani notes, customer expectations have been set by AI-empowered big tech. People expect their Uber to show up within minutes and whisk them away or for an Amazon transaction dispute to be resolved instantly. Younger customers have less and less patience for businesses that operate in slower, antiquated ways. Will companies small, medium, and large have to embrace AI or risk becoming obsolete?
Cynthia Murrell, September 8, 2023
We Are from a Big Outfit. We Are Here to Help You. No, Really.
September 7, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
“Greetings, creators,” says the sincere (if smarmy voice of the Google things). “We are here to help you.”
Better listen up. The punishment may range from becoming hard to find (what’s new?) or loss of revenue.
The cheerful young and well paid professional, smiles at the creator and says, “Good morning, I am from a certain alleged monopoly. I am definitely here to help you.” Thanks, MidJourney. The gradient descent is allowing your coefficient of friction to be reduced.
I read “YouTube Advertising Formats.” I love the lack of a date on the write up. Metadata are often helpful. I like document version numbers too. As a dinobaby, I like the name of a person who allegedly wrote the article; for example, Mr. Nadella signs his blog posts about the future of the universe.
The write up makes one big point in my opinion: Creators lose control over ads shown before, during, and after their content is pushed to a user of YouTube and whatever other media the new, improved “smart” Google will offer its “users.”
Here’s how the Google makes sure a creator spots the important “fewer controls” message:
I love those little triangles and the white exclamation points. Very cool.
Why is this change taking place at this time? Here are my thoughts:
- Users of YouTube are not signing up for ad-free YouTube. The change makes it possible for Google to hose more “relevant” ads into the creators’ content.
- Users of YouTube are clicking the “skip” button far too frequently. What’s the fix? You cannot skip so much, pal.
- Google is indeed concerned about ad revenue flow. Despite the happy talk about Google’s revenue, the push to smart software has sparked an appetite for computation. The simple rule is: More compute means more costs.
Is there a fix? Sure, but those adjustments require cash to fund an administrative infrastructure and time to figure out how to leverage options like TikTok and the Zuckbook. Who has time and money? Perhaps a small percentage of creators?
Net net: In an unregulated environment and with powerless “creators,” the Google is here to help itself and maybe some others not so much.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
Google: An Ad Crisis Looms from the Cancer of Short Videos
September 7, 2023
The weird orange newspaper ran a story which I found important. To read the article, you will need to pony up cash; I suggest you consider doing that. I want to highlight a couple of key points in the news story and offer a couple of observations.
An online advertising expert looks out his hospital window and asks, “I wonder if the cancer in my liver will be cured before the cancer is removed from my employer’s corporate body?” The answer may be, “Liver cancer can be has a five year survival rate between 13 to 43 percent (give or take a few percentage points).” Will the patient get back to Foosball and off-site meetings? Is that computer capable of displaying TikTok videos? Thanks, Mother MJ. No annoying red appeal this banners today.
The article “Shorts Risks Cannibalising Core YouTube Business, Say Senior Staff” contains an interesting (although one must take with a dollop of mustard and some Dead Sea salt):
Recent YouTube strategy meetings have discussed the risk that long-form videos, which produce more revenue for the company, are “dying out” as a format, according to these people.
I am suspicious of quotes from “these people.” Nevertheless, let’s assume that the concern at the Google is real like news from “these people.”
The idea is that Google has been asleep at the switch as TikTok (the China linked short video service) became a go-to destination for people seeking information. Yep, some young people search TikTok for information, not just tips on self-harm and body dysmorphia. Google’s reaction was slow and predictable: Me too me too me too. Thus, Google rolled out “Shorts,” a TikTok clone and began pushing it to its YouTube faithful.
The party was rolling along until “these people” sat down and looked at viewing time for longer videos and the ad revenue from shorter videos. Another red alert siren began spinning up.
The orange newspaper story asserted:
In October last year, YouTube reported its first-ever quarterly decline in ad revenue since the company started giving its performance separately in 2020. In the following two quarters, the platform reported further falls compared with the same periods the previous year.
With a decline in longer videos, the Google cannot insert as many ads. If people watch shorter videos, Google has reduced ad opportunities. Although Google would love to pump ads into 30 second videos, viewers (users) might decide to feed their habit elsewhere. And where one may ask? How about TikTok or the would be cage fighter’s Meta service?
Several observations:
- Any decline in ad revenue is a force multiplier at the Google. The costs of running the outfit are difficult to control. Google has not been the best outfit in the world in creating new, non ad revenue streams in the last 25 years. That original pay-to-play inspiration has had legs, but with age, knees and hips wear out. Googzilla is not as spry as it used to be and its bright idea department has not found sustainable new revenue able to make up for a decline in traditional Google ad revenue… yet.
- The cost of video is tough to weasel out of Google’s financial statements. The murky “cloud” makes it easy to shift some costs to the enabler of the magical artificial intelligence push at the company. In reality, video is a black hole of costs. Storage, bandwidth, legal compliance, creator hassles, and overhead translate to more ads. Long videos are one place to put ads every few minutes. But when the videos are short like those cutting shapes dance lessons, the “short” is a killer proposition.
- YouTube is a big deal. Depending on whose silly traffic estimates one believes, YouTube is as big a fish in terms of eyeballs as Google.com search. Google search is under fire from numerous directions. Prabhakar Raghavan has not mounted much of a defense to the criticisms directed at Google search’s genuine inability to deliver relevant search results. Now the YouTube ad money flow is drying up like streams near Moab.
Net net: YouTube has become a golden goose. But short videos are a cancer and who can make fois gras out of a cancerous liver?
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
A Perfect Plan: Mainframes Will Live Forever
September 7, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Experienced COBOL programmers are in high demand and short supply, but IBM is about to release an AI tool that might render that lucrative position obsolete. The Register reports: “IBM Says GenAI Can Convert that Old COBOL Code to Java for You.” Dubbed the watsonx Code Assistant for Z, the tool should be available near the end of this year. Reporter Dan Robinson gives us a little background:
“COBOL supports many vital processes within organizations globally – some that would surprise newbie devs. The language was designed specifically to be portable and easier for coding business applications. The good news is that it works. The bad news is it’s been working for a little long. COBOL has been around for over 60 years, and many of the developers who wrote those applications have since retired or are no longer with us. ‘If you can find a COBOL programmer, they are expensive. I have seen figures showing they can command some of the highest salaries because so many mission critical apps are written in COBOL and they need maintenance,’ Omdia Chief Analyst Roy Illsley told us.
Migrating the code to Java means there are many more programmers around, he added, and if the apps run on Linux on Z then they can potentially be moved off the mainframe more easily in future.”
Perhaps. There are an estimated 775 to 850 billion lines of COBOL code at work in the business world, and IBM is positioning Code Assistant to help prioritize, refactor, and convert them all into Java. There is just one pesky problem:
“IBM is not the only IT outfit turning to AI tools to help developers code or maintain applications, however, the quality of AI-assisted output has been questioned. A Stanford University study found that programmers who accepted help from AI tools like Github Copilot produce less secure code than those who did not.”
So maybe firms should hold on to those COBOL programmers’ contact info, just in case.
Cynthia Murrell, September 7, 2023
Search: The Moonshot for Alphabet Google YouTube Etc. May Be Off by Miles
September 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google is now 25. Yep, a quarter century. If you want to read a revisionist history of the beloved firm, point your Chrome browser (yep, it is part of the alleged monopoly) at “Questions, Shrugs and What Comes Next: A Quarter Century of Change.” The cited article appears in the Google blog (does anyone remember Blogger or what about the Google blog search?). The idea is that Sundar Pichai logged into a Google workspace (yep, that’s the software system intended to deal Microsoft a mortal blow).
I just wanted to hire a normal clown. It was not possible. The clown search became a monster. Let’s have fun! Thanks, MidJourney, you old gradient descent entity.
What does Mr. Pichai write, allegedly without the assistance of other Googlers, advisors, and legal eagles?
One of this statements is:
Search is still at the core of our mission, and it’s still our biggest moonshot with so much more to do.
Okay, I want to stop there. I wanted to find a service in Louisville, Kentucky, that sends clowns to birthday parties. Pretty simple, right. I entered the query “Louisville Kentucky clowns birthday parties.” I expected to see a list of people or companies in the clown rental business. Wrong? I received this output from the “biggest moonshot” outfit:
The top hit was to The Bash, a service which lists clowns. That link pointed me to Bunny Bear Entertainment and Salem Sisters 502. No phone number, just a link to get a free quote. Okay, that looks good. Click on the link and what happens? A form appears and someone will contact me. Yeah, I wanted to talk to a person.
The second hit was to Phillips (presenting itself as kiddyskingdom.com) at a toll free number. Same deal. A referral service. No, I could not talk to a human in Louisville.
The third hit was to About Faces. Yep, another SEO-ized reseller of clown services. No phone number for me to call to talk to a real live clown.
Several observations:
- Google search (the moonshot) is not useful. It creates work; it does not provide what I wanted.
- Google’s business is selling ads which are funding Google Cloud ambitions to break out of the one-trick-pony pejorative aimed at the company by the Softie Steve Ballmer a long time ago.
- The blog post is a marketing pitch for Google’s smart software.
Net net: Vintage Google operating without regard to regulatory scrutiny, allegations that the company is a monopoly, or managing people in a way that is what I hoped the clown company would provide to me: Laughs.
A “healthy disregard for the impossible.” Sure. I trust Google. I believe the Google. But delivering on point search results. I don’t need a clown for that. I have one.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2023
Gannett: Whoops! AI Cost Cutting Gets Messy
September 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Gannett, the “real” news bastion of excellence experimented with smart software. The idea is that humanoids are expensive, unreliable, and tough to manage. Software — especially smart software — is just “set it an forget it.”
A young manager / mother appears in distress after her smart software robot spilled the mild. Thanks, MidJourney. Not even close to what I requested.
That was the idea in the Gannett carpetland. How did that work out?
“Gannett to Pause AI Experiment after Botched High School Sports Articles” reports:
Newspaper chain Gannett has paused the use of an artificial intelligence tool to write high school sports dispatches after the technology made several major flubs in articles in at least one of its papers.
The estimable Gannett organization’s effort generated some online buzz. The CNN article adds:
The reports were mocked on social media for being repetitive, lacking key details, using odd language and generally sounding like they’d been written by a computer with no actual knowledge of sports.
That statement echoes my views of MBAs with zero knowledge of business making bonehead management decisions. Gannett is well managed; therefore, the executives are not responsible for the decision to use smart software to cut costs and expand the firm’s “real” news coverage.
I wonder if the staff terminated would volunteer to return to work to write “real” news? You know. The hard stuff like high school sports articles.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2023
Amazon Offers AI-Powered Review Consolidation for Busy Shoppers
September 6, 2023
I read the reviews for a product. I bought the product. Reality was — how shall I frame it — different from the word pictures. Trust those reviews. ? Hmmm. So far, Amazon’s generative AI focus has been on supplying services to developers on its AWS platform. Now, reports ABC News, “Amazon Is Rolling Out a Generative AI Feature that Summarizes Product Reviews.” Writer Haleluya Hadero tells us:
“The feature, which the company began testing earlier this year, is designed to help shoppers determine at a glance what other customers said about a product before they spend time reading through individual reviews. It will pick out common themes and summarize them in a short paragraph on the product detail page.”
A few mobile shoppers have early access to the algorithmic summaries while Amazon tweaks the tool with user feedback. Eventually, the company said, shoppers will be able to surface common themes in reviews. Sounds nifty, but there is one problem: Consolidating reviews that are fake, generated by paid shills, or just plain wrong does nothing to improve their accuracy. But Amazon is more eager to jump on the AI bandwagon than to perform quality control on its reviews system. We learn:
“The Seattle-based company has been looking for ways to integrate more artificial intelligence into its product offerings as the generative AI race heats up among tech companies. Amazon hasn’t released its own high-profile AI chatbot or imaging tool. Instead, it’s been focusing on services that will allow developers to build their own generative AI tools on its cloud infrastructure AWS. Earlier this year, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in his letter to shareholders that generative AI will be a ‘big deal’ for the company. He also said during an earnings call with investors last week that ‘every single one’ of Amazon’s businesses currently has multiple generative AI initiatives underway, including its devices unit, which works on products like the voice assistant Alexa.”
Perhaps one day Alexa will recite custom poetry or paint family portraits for us based on the eavesdropping she’s done over the years. Heartwarming. One day, sure.
Cynthia Murrell, September 19, 2023
Vaporware: It Costs Little and May Pay Off Big
September 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Since ChatGPT and assorted AI image-creation tools burst onto the scene, it seems generative AI is all anyone in the tech world can talk about. Some AI companies have been valued in the billions by those who expect trillion-dollar markets. But, asks Gary Marcus of Marcus on AI, “What if Generative AI Turned Out To Be a Dud?”
Might it be the industry has leapt before looking? Marcus points out generative AI revenues are estimated in just the hundreds of millions so far. He describes reasons the field may never satisfy expectations, like pervasive bias, that pesky hallucination problem, and the mediocrity of algorithmic prose. He also notes people seem to be confusing generative AI with theoretical Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is actually much further from being realized. See the write-up for those details.
As disastrous as unrealized AI dreams may be for investors, Marcus is more concerned about policy decisions being made on pure speculation. He writes:
“On the global front, the Biden administration has both limited access to high-end hardware chips that are (currently) essential for generative AI, and limited investment in China; China’s not exactly being warm towards global cooperation either. Tensions are extremely high, and a lot of it to revolve around dreams about who might ‘win the AI war.’ But what if it the winner was nobody, at least not any time soon?”
On the national level, Marcus observes, important efforts to protect consumers from bias, misinformation, and privacy violations are being hampered by a perceived need to develop the technology as soon as possible. The post continues:
“We might not get the consumer protections we need, because we are trying to foster something that may not grow as expected. I am not saying anyone’s particular policies are wrong, but if the premise that generative AI is going to be bigger than fire and electricity turns out to be mistaken, or at least doesn’t bear out in the next decade, it’s certainly possible that we could wind up with what in hindsight is a lot of needless extra tension with China, possibly even a war in Taiwan, over a mirage, along with a social-media level fiasco in which consumers are exploited in news, and misinformation rules the day because governments were afraid to clamp down hard enough.”
Terrific.
Cynthia Murrell, September 6, 2023
Gartner Hype Cycle: Some Pointed Criticism from Analytics India
September 5, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read the Analytics India article “Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a Waste of Time.” The “hype cycle” is a graph designed to sell consulting services. My personal perception is that Gideon or a close compatriot talked about the Boston Consulting Group’s version of General Eisenhower’s two by two matrix. Here’s an example of
I want to credit Chris Adams article about the Eisenhower Matrix. You can find Mr. Adams’ write up at this link. I don’t know what General Eisenhower’s inspiration was, but the BCG adaptation was consulting marketing genius. Here’s an example of the BCG variant:
This illustration comes from Business to You at this link.
Before looking at a Gartner graph goodie, I want to point out that the BCG innovation was to make the icons relate to numbers. BCG pointed to the “dogs” icon and then showed the numbers like market share, product costs, etc. that converted an executive in love with the status quo to consider rehoming the dogs or just put a beloved pet down. In the lingo of one blue chip outfit, the dog could find its future elsewhere.
I did a Bing image search for Gartner hype cycle and found a cornucopia of outputs. Here’s one I selected because it looked better than some of the others:
If you want to view a readable version, navigate to this Medium post by Compassionate Technologies of which I have zero knowledge. (But do the words “technology” and “compassion” go together?)
The key point about the Gartner graph is that they all look alike; that is, the curves don’t change, which is the point I guess. A technology begins at point 0,0 and moves up a hockey stick curve (maybe the increasing hype) and then appear to flatten out. I am confident that the Gartner experts are not gathering technology market and investment data and thinking in terms of linear regression, standard deviation, or a calculator on a mobile phone.
The client says, “Your team’s report strikes me as filled with unsupported assertions. My company cannot accept the analysis. We won’t pay the fee for this type of work.” Oh, oh. Thanks, MidJourney, close to my prompt but close only counts in horse shoes.
The difference between the BCG graph is that numbers are used to explain the “dogs,” “stars,” etc. The Gartner graph is a marketing vehicle. Those have read my essays over the years know that I view the world with some baked in biases; for example, the BCG graph is great marketing which leads to substantive consulting. This is one characteristic of a blue chip consulting firm. The Gartner graph is subjective or impressionistic, a bit like a Van Gogh night sky. Sure, there are stars, but those puppies don’t look like swirlies to me. Thus, Gartner is to me a mid tier consulting firm. Some consumers of these types of marketing graphs use them to justify certain actions; for instance, selecting a particular type of software. When the software goes off the rails, the data-starved impressionistic chart leaves some hungry for more data. When another project comes along, the firm may seek a blue-chip outfit even if its work is more expensive.
Now back to the Analytics India article cited above.
The author makes a statement with which I agree:
The Gartner Hype Cycle is not science, but Gartner presents it as an established law.
Exactly. This is marketing, not the BCG analytics centric Eisenhower 2×2 matrix.
Here’s another passage from the write up (originally from Michael Mullany):
Many technologies simply fade away with time or die. According to Michael Mullany, an additional 20% of all technologies that were tracked for multiple years on the Hype Cycle became obsolete before reaching any kind of mainstream success. The Gartner Hype Cycle is not science, but Gartner presents it as an established natural law. Expressing similar sentiments, a user on Hacker News wrote, “Why do people think the Gartner Hype Cycle is a law of Physics?” when in fact, the Hype Cycle lacks empirical backing and fails to consider technologies that deviate from its prescribed path.
Yep, marketing.
Do I care? Not any more. When I was doing consulting to buy cheap fuel for my Pinto (the kind that would explode if struck from behind), I did care. The blue chip outfit at which I worked was numbers oriented. That was a good thing.
Stephen E Arnold, September 5, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
