Copilot: I Have Control Now, Captain. Relax, Chill
May 29, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Appearing unbidden on Windows devices, Copilot is spreading its tendrils through businesses around the world. Like a network of fungal mycorrhizae, the AI integrates itself with the roots of Windows computing systems. The longer it is allowed to intrude, the more any attempt to dislodge it will harm the entire ecosystem. VentureBeat warns, “Ceding Control: How Copilot+ and PCs Could Make Enterprises Beholden to Microsoft.”
Writer James Thomason traces a gradual transition: The wide-open potential of the early Internet gave way to walled gardens, the loss of repair rights, and a shift to outside servers controlled by cloud providers. We have gradually ceded control of both software and hardware as well as governance of our data. All while tech companies make it harder to explore alternative products and even filter our news, information, and Web exploration.
Where does that put us now? AI has ushered in a whole new level of dominion for Microsoft in particular. Thomason writes:
“Microsoft’s recently announced ‘Copilot+ PCs’ represent the company’s most aggressive push yet towards an AI-driven, cloud-dependent computing model. These machines feature dedicated AI processors, or ‘NPUs’ (neural processing units), capable of over 40 trillion operations per second. This hardware, Microsoft claims, will enable ‘the fastest, most intelligent Windows PC ever built.’ But there’s a catch: the advanced capabilities of these NPUs are tightly tethered to Microsoft’s cloud ecosystem. Features like ‘Recall,’ which continuously monitors your activity to allow you to quickly retrieve any piece of information you’ve seen on your PC, and ‘Cocreator,’ which uses the NPU to aid with creative tasks like image editing and generation, are deeply integrated with Microsoft’s servers. Even the new ‘Copilot’ key on the keyboard, which summons the AI assistant, requires an active internet connection. In effect, these PCs are designed from the ground up to funnel users into Microsoft’s walled garden, where the company can monitor, influence and ultimately control the user experience to an unprecedented degree. This split-brain model, with core functionality divided between local hardware and remote servers, means you never truly own your PC. Purchasing one of these AI-driven machines equals irrevocable subjugation to Microsoft’s digital fiefdom. The competition, user choice and ability to opt out that defined the PC era are disappearing before our eyes.”
So what does this mean for the majority businesses that rely on Microsoft products? Productivity gains, yes, but at the price of a vendor stranglehold, security and compliance risks, and opaque AI decision-making. See the article for details on each of these.
For anyone who doubts Microsoft would be so unethical, the write-up reminds us of the company’s monopolistic tendencies. Thomason insists we cannot count on the government to intervene again, considering Big Tech’s herculean lobbying efforts. So if the regulators are not coming to save us, how can we defy Microsoft dominance? One can expend the effort to find and utilize open hardware and software alternatives, of course. Linux is a good example. But a real difference will only be made with action on a larger scale. There is an organization for that: FUTO (the Fund for Universal Technology Openness). We learn:
“One of FUTO’s key strategies is to fund open-source versions of important technical building blocks like AI accelerators, ensuring they remain accessible to a wide range of actors. They’re also working to make decentralized software as user-friendly and feature-rich as the offerings of the tech giants, to reduce the appeal of convenience-for-control tradeoffs.”
Even if and when those building blocks are available, resistance will be a challenge. It will take mindfulness about technology choices while Microsoft dangles shiny, easier options. But digital freedom, Thomason asserts, is well worth the effort.
Cynthia Murrell, May 29, 2024
Apple Fan Misses the Obvious: MSFT Marketing Is Tasty
May 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I love anecdotes seasoned investigators offer at law enforcement and intelligence conferences. Statements like “I did nothing wrong” are accompanied by a weapon in a waistband. Or, “You can take my drugs.” Yep, those are not informed remarks in some situations. But what happens when poohbahs and would-be experts explain in 2,600 words how addled Microsoft’s announcements were at its Build conference. “Microsoft’s Copilot PC and the M3 Mac Killer Myth” is an interesting argumentative essay making absolutely clear as fresh, just pressed apple cider in New Hampshire. (Have you ever seen the stuff?)
The Apple Cider judge does not look happy. Has the innovation factory failed with filtration? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How is that security initiative today?
The write up provides a version of “tortured poet” writing infused with techno-talk. The object of the write up is to make as clear as the aforementioned apple cider several points to which people are not directing attention; to wit:
- Microsoft has many failures; for example, the Windows Phone, Web search, and, of course, crappy Windows in many versions
- Microsoft follows what Apple does; for example, smart software like facial recognition on a user’s device
- Microsoft fouled up with its Slate PC and assorted Windows on Arm efforts.
So there.
Now Microsoft is, according to the write up:
Today, Microsoft is doing the exact same lazy thing to again try to garner some excitement about legacy Windows PCs, this time by tacking an AI chat bot. And specifically, the Bing Chat bot nobody cared about before Microsoft rebranded it as Copilot. Counting the Surface tablet and Windows RT, and the time Microsoft pretended to "design" its own advanced SoC just like Apple by putting RAM on a Snapdragon, this must be Microsoft’s third major attempt to ditch Intel and deliver something that could compete with Apple’s iPad, or M-powered Macs, or even both.
The article provides a quick review of the technical innovations in Apple’s proprietary silicon. The purpose of the technology information is to make as clear as that New Hampshire, just-pressed juice that Microsoft will continue its track record of fouling up. The essay concludes with this “core” statement flavored with the pungency of hard cider:
Things incrementally change rapidly in the tech industry, except for Microsoft and its photocopy culture.
Interesting. However, I want to point out that Microsoft created a bit of a problem for Google in January 2023. Microsoft’s president announced its push into AI. Google, an ageing beastie, was caught with its claws retracted. The online advertising giant’s response was the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show. It featured smart software which made factual errors, launched the Code Red or whatever odd ball name Googlers assigned to the problem Microsoft created.
Remember. The problem was not AI. Google “invented” some of the intestines of OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s services. The kick in the stomach was marketing. Microsoft’s announcement captured attention and made — much to the chagrin of the online advertising service — look old and slow, not smooth and fast like those mythical US Navy Seals of technology. Google dropped the inflatable raft and appears to be struggling against a rather weak rip tide.
What Microsoft did at Build with its semi-wonky and largely unsupported AI PC announcement was marketing. The Apple essay ignores the interest in a new type of PC form factor that includes the allegedly magical smart software. Mastery of smart software means work, better grades, efficiency, and a Cybertruck filled with buckets of hog wash.
But that may not matter.
Apple, like Google, finds itself struggling to get its cider press hooked up and producing product. One can criticize the Softies for technology. But I have to admit that Microsoft is reasonably adept at marketing its AI efforts. The angst in the cited article is misdirected. Apple insiders should focus on the Microsoft marketing approach. With its AI messaging, Microsoft has avoided the craziness of the iPad’s squashing creativity.
Will the AI PC work? Probably in an okay way. Has Microsoft’s AI marketing worked? It sure looks like it.
Stephen E Arnold, May 28, 2024
French AI Is Intelligent and Not Too Artificial
May 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “Macron: French AI Can Challenge Insane Dominance of US and China.” In the CNBC interview, Emmanuel Macron used the word “insane.” The phrase, according to the cited article was:
French President Emmanuel Macron has called for his country’s AI leaders to challenge the “insane” dominance of US and Chinese tech giants.
French offers a number of ways to explain a loss of mental control or something that goes well beyond normal behaviors; for example, aliéné which can suggest something quite beyond the normal. The example which comes to mind might include the market dominance of US companies emulating Google-type methods. Another choice is comme un fou. This phrase suggests a crazy high speed action or event; for example, the amount of money OpenAI generated by selling $20 subscriptions to ChatGPTo iPhone app in a few days. My personal favorite is dément which has a nice blend of demented behavior and incredible actions. Microsoft’s recent litany of AI capabilities creating a new category of computers purpose-built to terminate with extreme prejudice the market winner MacBook devices; specifically, the itty bitty Airs.
The road to Google-type AI has a few speed bumps. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Security getting attention or is Cloud stability the focal point of the day?
The write up explains what M. Macron really meant:
For now, however, Europe remains a long way behind the US and Chinese leaders. None of the 10 largest tech companies by market cap are based in the continent and few feature in the top 50. The French President decried that landscape. “It’s insane to have a world where the big giants just come from China and US.”
Ah, ha. The idea appears to be a lack of balance and restraint. Well, it seems, France is going to do its best to deliver the digital equivalent of a chicken with a Label Rouge; that is, AI that is going to meet specific standards and be significantly superior to something like the $5 US Costco chicken. I anticipate that M. Macron’s government will issue a document like this Fiche filière volaille de chair 2020 for AI.
M. Macron points to two examples of French AI technology: Mistral and H (formerly Holistic). I was disappointed that M. Macron did not highlight the quite remarkable AI technology of Preligens, which is in the midst of a sale. I would suggest that Preligens is an example of why the “insane” dominance of China and the US in AI is the current reality. The company is ensnared in French regulations and in need of the type of money pumped into AI start ups in the two countries leading the pack in AI.
M. Macron is making changes; specifically, according to the write up:
Macron has cut red tape, loosened labor protections, and reduced taxes on the wealthy. He’s also attracted foreign investment, including a €15bn funding package from the likes of Microsoft and Amazon announced earlier this month. Macron has also committed to a pan-European AI strategy. At a meeting in the Elysée Palace this week, he hinted at the first step of a new plan: “Our aim is to Europeanize [AI], and we’re going to start with a Franco-German initiative.”
I know from experience the quality of French information-centric technologists. The principal hurdles for France are, in my opinion, are:
- Addressing the red tape. (One cannot grasp the implications of this phrase unless one tries to rent an apartment in France.)
- Juicing up the investment system and methods.
- Overcoming the ralentisseurs on the Information Superhighway running between Paris, DC, and Beijing.
Net net: Check out Preligens.
Stephen E Arnold, May 28, 2024
Big Tech and AI: Trust Us. We Just Ooze Trust
May 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Amid rising concerns, The Register reports, “Top AI Players Pledge to Pull the Plug on Models that Present Intolerable Risk” at the recent AI Seoul Summit. How do they define “intolerable?” That little detail has yet to be determined. The non-binding declaration was signed by OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and other AI heavyweights. Reporter Laura Dobberstein writes:
“The Seoul Summit produced a set of Frontier AI Safety Commitments that will see signatories publish safety frameworks on how they will measure risks of their AI models. This includes outlining at what point risks become intolerable and what actions signatories will take at that point. And if mitigations do not keep risks below thresholds, the signatories have pledged not to ‘develop or deploy a model or system at all.’”
We also learn:
“Signatories to the Seoul document have also committed to red-teaming their frontier AI models and systems, sharing information, investing in cyber security and insider threat safeguards in order to protect unreleased tech, incentivizing third-party discovery and reporting of vulnerabilities, AI content labelling, prioritizing research on the societal risks posed by AI, and to use AI for good.”
Promises, promises. And where are these frameworks so we can hold companies accountable? Hang tight, the check is in the mail. The summit produced a document full of pretty words, but as the article notes:
“All of that sounds great … but the details haven’t been worked out. And they won’t be, until an ‘AI Action Summit’ to be staged in early 2025.”
If then. After all, there’s no need to hurry. We are sure we can trust these AI bros to do the right thing. Eventually. Right?
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2024
Facebook Scams: A Warning or a Tutorial?
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
This headline caught my attention: “Facebook Marketplace’s Dirty Dozen: The 15 Most Common Scams and How to Avoid Them.” I had hopes of learning about new, clever, wonderfully devious ways to commit fraud and other larcenous acts. Was I surprised? Here’s a list of the “15 most common scams.” I want to point out that there is scant (a nice way of saying “No back up data”) for the assertions. (I have a hunch that this “helpful” write up was assisted with some sort of software, possibly dumb software.) Let’s look at the list of the dozen’s 15 scams:
- Defective or counterfeit gadgets. Fix: Inspection required
- Bait-and-switch. Fix: Don’t engage in interaction
- Fake payment receipts. Fix: What? I don’t understand
- Mouth-watering giveaways. Fix: Ignore
- Overpayment by a buyer. Fix: What? I don’t understand
- Moving conversations out of Facebook. Fix: Don’t have them.
- Fake rental posting. Fix: Ignore
- Advance payment requests. Fix: Ignore
- Asking for confirmation codes. Fix: Ignore
- Asking for car deposits. Fix: Say, “No”
- Requesting unnecessary charges. Fix: Ignore
- Mailing items. Fix: Say, “No”
- Fake claims of lost packages. Fix: What?
- Counterfeit money. Fix: What?
- Clicking a link to fill out more information. Fix: Don’t
My concern with this list is that it does not protect the buyer. If anything, it provides a checklist of tactics for a would-be bad actor. The social engineering aspect of fraud is often more important than the tactic. In the “emotional” moment, a would-be buyer can fall for the most obvious scam; for example, trusting the seller because the request for a deposit seems reasonable or buying something else from the seller.
Trying to help? The customer or the scammer? You decide. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good cartoon. In your wheelhouse, is it?
What does one do to avoid Facebook scams? Here’s the answer:
Fraudsters can exploit you on online marketplaces if you’re not careful; it is easy not to be aware of a scam if you’re not as familiar. You can learn to spot common Facebook Marketplace scams to ensure you have a safe shopping experience. Remember that scams can happen between buyers and sellers, so always be wary of the transaction practices before committing. Otherwise, consider other methods like ordering from Amazon or becoming a third-party vendor on a trusted platform.
Yep, Amazon. On the other hand you can avoid scams by becoming a “third-party vendor on a trusted platform.” Really?
The problem with this write up is that the information mixes up what sellers do with what buyers do. Stepping back, why is Facebook singled out for this mish mash of scams and tactics. After all, in a face-to-face deal who pays with counterfeit cash? It is the buyer. Who is the victim? It is the seller. Who rents an apartment without looking at it? Answer: Someone in Manhattan. In other cities, alternatives to Facebook exist, and they are not available via Amazon as far as I know.
Facebook and other online vendors have to step up their game. The idea that the platform does not have responsibility to vet buyers and sellers is not something I find acceptable. Facebook seems pleased with its current operation. Perhaps it is time for more directed action to [a] address Facebook’s policies and [b] bring more rigor to write ups which seem to provide ideas for scammers in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2024
Meta Mismatch: Good at One Thing, Not So Good at Another
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “While Meta Stuffs AI Into All Its Products, It’s Apparently Helpless to Stop Perverts on Instagram From Publicly Lusting Over Sexualized AI-Generated Children.” The main idea is that Meta has a problems stopping “perverts.” You know a “pervert,” don’t you. One can spot ‘em when one sees ‘em. The write up reports:
As Facebook and Instagram owner Meta seeks to jam generative AI into every feasible corner of its products, a disturbing Forbes report reveals that the company is failing to prevent those same products from flooding with AI-generated child sexual imagery. As Forbes reports, image-generating AI tools have given rise to a disturbing new wave of sexualized images of children, which are proliferating throughout social media — the Forbes report focused on TikTok and Instagram — and across the web.
What is Meta doing or not doing? The write up is short on technical details. In fact, there are no technical details. Is it possible that any online service allowing anyone able to comment or upload certain content will do something “bad”? Online requires something that most people don’t want. The secret ingredient is spelling out an editorial policy and making decisions about what is appropriate or inappropriate for an “audience.” Note that I have converted digital addicts into an audience, albeit one that participates.
Two fictional characters are supposed to be working hard and doing their level best. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How has that Cloud outage affected the push to more secure systems? Hello, hello, are you there?
Editorial policies require considerable intellectual effort, crafted workflow processes, and oversight. Who does the overseeing? In the good old days when publishing outfits like John Wiley & Sons-type or Oxford University Press-type outfits were gatekeepers, individuals who met the cultural standards were able to work their way up the bureaucratic rock wall. Now the mantra is the same as the probability-based game show with three doors and “Come on down!” Okay, “users” come on down, wallow in anonymity, exploit a lack of consequences, and surf on the darker waves of human thought. Online makes clear that people who read Kant, volunteer to help the homeless, and respect the rights of others are often at risk from the denizens of the psychological night.
Personally I am not a Facebook person, a users or Instagram, or a person requiring the cloak of a WhatsApp logo. Futurism takes a reasonably stand:
it’s [Meta, Facebook, et al] clearly unable to use the tools at its disposal, AI included, to help stop harmful AI content created using similar tools to those that Meta is building from disseminating across its own platforms. We were promised creativity-boosting innovation. What we’re getting at Meta is a platform-eroding pile of abusive filth that the company is clearly unable to manage at scale.
How long has been Meta trying to be a squeaky-clean information purveyor? Is the article going overboard?
I don’t have answers, but after years of verbal fancy dancing, progress may be parked at a rest stop on the information superhighway. Who is the driver of the Meta construct? If you know, that is the person to whom one must address suggestions about content. What if that entity does not listen and act? Government officials will take action, right?
PS. Is it my imagination or is Futurism.com becoming a bit more strident?
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2024
Legal Eagles Get Some Tail Feathers Plucked about BitTorrent
May 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
One Finnish law firm thinks it should be able to cut one party in out of the copyright enforcement process—the rightsholders themselves. The court disagrees. TorrentFreak reports, “Court Rejects Law Firm’s Bid to Directly Obtain BitTorrent Users’ Identities.” Writer Andy Maxwell explains:
“Requirements vary from region to region but when certain conditions are met, few courts deny genuine copyright holders the ability to enforce their rights under relevant law. One of the most fundamental requirements is that the entity making the claim has the necessary rights to do so. … In an application submitted to Finland’s Market Court on March 15, 2024, the law firm Hedman Partners Oy sought a court order to compel an unnamed internet service provider to provide the personal details of an unspecified number of subscribers. According to Hedman’s application, all are suspected of sharing copyrighted movies via BitTorrent, without first obtaining permission from two Danish rightsholders; Mis. Label ApS and Scanbox Entertainment A/S. Hedman Partners are well known for their work in the piracy settlement business in Scandinavia. The company fully understands the standards required before courts will issue a disclosure order. However, for reasons that aren’t made clear, the law firm would prefer to deal with these cases from a position of greater authority. This application appears to have served as the testing ground to determine whether that’s possible under Finland’s Copyright Act.”
The short answer: It is not possible. For the long, legalese-laced answer, see the article. Why did Hedman Partners try the move? Maxwell points out settlement efforts spearheaded by aggressive third-party legal teams tend to bring in more cash. Ah, there it is. A decision in favor of the firm would certainly not have benefitted the BitTorrent users, he notes. We may yet see whether that is correct—Hedman Partners has until June 18 to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Will law enforcement step in?
Cynthia Murrell, May 27, 2024
Bullying Google Is a Thing
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Imagine the smartest kid in the fifth grade. The classmates are not jealous, but they are keenly aware of the brightest star having an aloof, almost distracted attitude. Combine that with a credit in a TV commercial when the budding wizard was hired to promote an advanced mathematics course developed by the child’s mother and father. The blessed big brain finds itself the object of ridicule. The PhD parents, the proud teacher, and the child’s tutor who works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cannot understand why the future Master of the Universe is being bullied. Remarkable, is it not?
Herewith is an illustration of a fearsome creature, generated in gloomy colors, by the MidJourney bot, roaring its superiority. However, those observing the Big Boy are convulsed with laughter. Why laugh at an ageing money machine with big teeth?
I read “Google’s AI Search Feature Suggested Using Glue to Keep Cheese Sticking to a Pizza.” Yep fourth grade bullying may be part of the poking and prodding of a quite hapless but wealthy, successful Googzilla. Here’s an example of the situation in which the Google, which I affectionately call “Googzilla,” finds itself:
Google’s new search feature, AI Overviews, seems to be going awry. The tool, which gives AI-generated summaries of search results, appeared to instruct a user to put glue on pizza when they searched "cheese not sticking to pizza."
In another write up, Business Insider asserted:
But in searches shared on X, users have gotten contradictory instructions on boiling taro and even been encouraged to run with scissors after the AI appeared to take a joke search seriously. When we asked whether a dog had ever played in the NHL, Google answered that one had, apparently confused by a charity event for rescue pups.
My reaction to this digital bullying is mixed. On one hand, Google has demonstrated that its Code Red operating mode is cranking out half-cooked pizza. Sure, the pizza may have some non-poisonous glue, but Google is innovating. A big event provided a platform for the online advertising outfit to proclaim, “We are the leaders in smart software.” On the other hand, those observing Google’s outputs find the beastie a follower; for example, OpenAI announced ChatGPT4o the day before Google’s “reveal.” Then Microsoft presented slightly more coherent applications using AI, including the privacy special service which records everything a person does on a reinvented Windows on Arm device.
Several observations are warranted:
- Googzilla finds itself back in grade school with classmates of lesser ability, wealth, and heritage making fun of the entity. Wow, remember the shame? Remember the fun one had poking fun at an outsider? Humans are wonderful, are they not?
- “Users” or regular people who rely on Google seem to have a pent up anger with the direction in which Googzilla has been going. Since the company does not listen to its “users,” calling attention to Googzilla’s missteps is an easy way to say, “Hey, Big Fella, you are making us unhappy.” Will Google pay attention to these unexpected signals?
- Google, the corporate entity, seems to be struggling with Management 101 tasks; for example, staff or people resources. The CFO is heading to the exit. Competition, while flawed in some ways, continues to nibble at Google’s advertising perpetual motion machine. Google innovation focuses on gamesmanship and trying to buy digital marketing revenue.
Net net: I anticipate more coverage of Google’s strategy and tactical missteps. The bullying will continue and probably grow unless the company puts on its big boy pants and neutralizes the school yard behavior its critics and cynics deliver.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
The Death of the Media: Remember Clay Tablets?
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Did the home in which you grew from a wee one to a hyperspeed teen have a plaster cast which said, “Home sweet home” or “Welcome” hanging on the wall. My mother had those craft sale treasures everywhere. I have none. The point is that the clay tablets from ancient times were not killed, put out of business, or bankrupted because someone wrote on papyrus, sheep skin, or bits of wood. Eliminating a communications medium is difficult. Don’t believe me? Go to an art fair and let me know if you were unable to spot something made of clay with writing or a picture on it.
I mention these older methods of disseminating a message because I read “Publishers Horrified at New Google AI Feature That Could Kill What’s Left of Journalism.” Really?
The write up states:
… preliminary studies on Google’s use of AI in its search engine has the potential to reduce website traffic by 25 percent, The Associated Press reports. That could be billions in revenue lost, according to an interview with Marc McCollum, chief innovation officer for content creator consultancy Raptive, who was interviewed by the AP.
The idea is that “real” journalism depends on Google for revenue. If the revenue from Google’s assorted ad programs tossing pennies to Web sites goes away, so will the “real” journalism on these sites.
If my dinobaby memory is working, the AP (Associated Press) was supported by newspapers. Then the AP was supported by Google. What’s next? I don’t know, but the clay tablet fellows appear to have persisted. The producers of the tablets probably shifted to tableware. Those who wrote on the tablets learned to deal with ink and sheepskin.
Chilling in the room thinking thoughts of doom. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.
AI seems to be capable of creating stories like those in Smartnews or one of the AI-powered spam outfits. The information is recycled. But it is good enough. Some students today seem incapable of tearing themselves from their mobile devices to read words. The go-to method for getting information is a TikTok-type service. People who write words may be fighting to make the shift to new media.
One thing is reasonably clear: Journalists and media-mavens are concerned that a person will take an answered produced by a Google-like service. The entering a query approach to information is a “hot medium thing.” Today kicking back and letting video do the work seems to be a winner.
Google, however, has in my opinion been fiddling with search since it “innovated” in its implementation of the GoTo.com/Overture.com approach to “pay to play” search. If you want traffic, buy ads. The more one spends, the more traffic one’s site gets. That’s simple. There are some variations, but the same Google model will be in effect with or without Google little summaries. The lingo may change, but where there are clicks. When there are clicks, advertisers will pay to be there.
Google can, of course, kill its giant Googzilla mom laying golden eggs. That will take some time. Googzilla is big. My theory is that enterprising people with something to say will find a way to get paid for their content outputs regardless of their form. True, there is the cost of paying, but that’s the same hit the clay table took thousands of years ago. But those cast plaster and porcelain art objects are probably on sale at an art fair this weekend.
Observations:
- The fear is palpable. Why not direct it to a positive end? Griping about Google which has had 25 years to do what it wanted to do means Google won’t change too much. Do something to generate money. Complaining is unlikely to produce a result.
- The likelihood Google shaft a large number of outfits and individuals is nearly 99 percent. Thus, moving in a spritely manner may be a good idea. Google is not a sprinter as its reaction to Microsoft’s Davos marketing blitz made clear.
- New things do appear. I am not sure what the next big thing will be. But one must pay attention.
Net net: The sky may be falling. The question is, “How fast?” Another is, “Can you get out of the way?”
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
Google Takes Stand — Against Questionable Content. Will AI Get It Right?
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The Internet is the ultimate distribution system for illicit material, especially pornography. A simple Google search yields access to billions of lewd material for free and behind paywalls. Pornography already has people in a tizzy but the advent of deepfake porn material is making things worse. Google is upset about deepfakes and decided to take a moral stand Extreme Tech says: “Google Bans Ads For Platforms That Generate Deepfake Pornography.”
Beginning May 30, Google won’t allow platforms that create deepfake porn, explain how to make it, or promote/compare services to place ads through the Google Ads system. Google already has an Inappropriate Content Policy in place. It prohibits the promotion of hate groups, self-harm, violence, conspiracy theories, and sharing explicit images to garner attention. The policy also bans advertising sex work and sexual abuse.
Violating the content policy results in a ban from Google Ads. Google is preparing for future problems as AI becomes better:
“The addition of deepfake pornography to the Inappropriate Content Policy is undoubtedly the result of increasingly accessible and adept generative AI. In 2022, Google banned deepfake training on Colab, its mostly free public computing resource. Even six years ago, Pornhub and Reddit had to go out of their way to ban AI-generated pornography, which often depicts real people (especially celebrities) engaging in sexual acts they didn’t perform or didn’t consent to recording. Whether we’d like to or not, most of us know just how much better AI has gotten at creating fake faces since then. If deepfake pornography looked a bit janky back in 2018, it’s bound to look a heck of a lot more realistic now.”
If it weren’t for the moral center of humanity, Google’s minions would allow lead material and other illicit content on Google Ads. Porn sells. It always has.
Whitney Grace, May 24, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
