More on Intelligence and Social Media: Birds Versus Humans
May 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I have zero clue if the two stories about which I will write a short essay are accurate. I don’t care because the two news items are in delicious tension. Do you feel the frisson? The first story is “Parrots in Captivity Seem to Enjoy Video-Chatting with Their Friends on Messenger.” The core of the story strikes me as:
A new (very small) study led by researchers at the University of Glasgow and Northeastern University compared parrots’ responses when given the option to video chat with other birds via Meta’s Messenger versus watching pre-recorded videos. And it seems they’ve got a preference for real-time conversations.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Is your security a type of deep fake?
Let me make this somewhat over-burdened sentence more direct. Birds like to talk to other birds, live, and in real time. The bird is not keen on the type of video humans gobble up.
Now the second story. It has the click–licious headline “Gen Z Mostly Doesn’t Care If Influencers Are Actual Humans, New Study Shows.” The main idea of this “real” news story is, in my opinion:
The report [from a Sprout Social report] notes that 46 percent of Gen Z respondents, specifically, said they would be more interested in a brand that worked with an influencer generated with AI.
The idea is that humans are okay with fake video which aims to influence them through fake humans.
My atrophied dinobaby brain interprets the information in each cited article this way: Birds prefer to interact with real birds. Humans are okay with fake humans. I will have to recalibrate my understanding of the bird brain.
Let’s assume both write ups are chock full of statistically-valid data. The assorted data processes conformed to the requirements of Statistics 101. The researchers suggest humans are okay with fake data. Birds, specifically parrots, prefer the real doo-dah.
Observations:
- Humans may not be able to differentiate real from fake. When presented with fakes, humans may prefer the bogus.
- I may need to reassess the meaning of the phrase “bird brain.”
- Researchers demonstrate the results of years of study in these findings.
Net net: The chills I referenced in the first paragraph of this essay I now recognize as fear.
Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2024
Google Search Is Broken
May 10, 2024
ChatGPT and other generative AI engines have screwed up search engines, including the all-powerful Google. The Blaze article, “Why Google Search Is Broken” explains why Internet search is broke, and the causes. The Internet is full of information and the best way to get noticed in search results is using SEO. A black hat technique (it will probably be considered old school in the near future) to manipulate search results is to litter a post with keywords aka “keyword stuffing.”
ChatGPT users realized that it’s a fantastic tool for SEO, because they tell the AI algorithm to draft a post with a specific keyword and it generates a decent one. Google’s search algorithm then reads that post and pushes it to the top of search results. ChatGPT was designed to read and learn language the same way as Google: skin the Internet, scoop up information from Web sites, and then use it to teach the algorithm. This threatens Google’s search profit margins and Alphabet Inc. doesn’t like that:
“By and large, people don’t want to read AI-generated content, no matter how accurate it is. But the trouble for Google is that it can’t reliably detect and filter AI-generated content. I’ve used several AI detection apps, and they are 50% accurate at best. Google’s brain trust can probably do a much better job, but even then, it’s computationally expensive, and even the mighty Google can’t analyze every single page on the web, so the company must find workarounds.
This past fall, Google rolled out its Helpful Content Update, in which Google started to strongly emphasize sites based on user-generated content in search results, such as forums. The site that received the most notable boost in search rankings was Reddit. Meanwhile, many independent bloggers saw their traffic crash, whether or not they used AI.”
Google wants to save money by offloading AI detection/monitoring to forum moderators that usually aren’t paid. Unfortunately SEO experts figured out Google’s new trick and are now spamming user-content driven Websites. Google recently signed a deal with Reddit to acquire its user data to train its AI project, Gemini.
Google hates AI generated SEO and people who game its search algorithms. Google doesn’t have the resources to detect all the SEO experts, but went they are found Google extracts vengeance with deindexing and making better tools. Google released a new update to its spam policies to remove low-quality, unoriginal content made to abuse its search algorithm. The overall goal is to remove AI-generated sites from search results.
If you read between the lines, Google doesn’t want to lose more revenue and is calling out bad actors.
Whitney Grace, May 10, 2024
Microsoft and Its Customers: Out of Phase, Orthogonal, and Confused
May 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I am writing this post using something called Open LiveWriter. I switched when Microsoft updated our Windows machines and killed printing, a mouse linked via a KVM, and the 2012 version of its blog word processing software. I use a number of software products, and I keep old programs in order to compare them to modern options available to a user. The operative point is that a Windows update rendered the 2012 version of LiveWriter lost in the wonderland of Windows’ Byzantine code.
A young leader of an important project does not want to hear too much from her followers. In fact, she wishes they would shut up and get with the program. Thank, MSFT Copilot. How’s the Job One of security coming today?
There are reports, which I am not sure I believe, that Windows 11 is a modern version of Windows Vista. The idea is that users are switching to Windows 10. Well, maybe. But the point is that users are not happy with Microsoft’s alleged changes to Windows; for instance:
- Notifications (advertising) in the Windows 11 start menu
- Alleged telemetry which provides a stream of user action and activity data to Microsoft for analysis (maybe marketing purposes?)
- Gratuitous interface changes which range from moving control items from a control panel to a settings panel to fiddling with task manager
- Wonky updates like the printer issue, driver wonkiness, and smart help which usually returns nothing of much help.
I read “This Third-Party App Blocks Integrated Windows 11 Advertising.” You can read the original article to track down this customization tool. My hunch is that its functions will be intentionally blocked by some bonus centric Softie or a change to the basic Windows 11 control panel will cause the software to perform like LiveWriter 2012.
I want to focus on a comment to the cited article written by seeprime:
Microsoft has seriously degraded File Explorer over the years. They should stop prolonging the Gates culture of rewarding software development, of new and shiny things, at the expense of fixing what’s not working optimally.
Now that security, not AI and not Windows 11, are the top priority at Microsoft, will the company remediate the grouses users have about the product? My answer is, “No.” Here’s why:
- Fixing, as seeprime, suggests is less important that coming up with some that seems “new.” The approach is dangerous because the “new” thing may be developed by someone uninformed about the hidden dependencies within what is code as convoluted as Google’s search plumbing. “New” just breaks the old or the change is something that seems “new” to an intern or an older Softie who just does not care. Good enough is the high bar to clear.
- Details are not Microsoft’s core competency. Indeed, unlike Google, Microsoft has many revenue streams, and the attention goes to cooking up new big-money services like a version of Copilot which is not exposed to the Internet for its government customers. The cloud, not Windows, is the future.
- Microsoft whether it knows it or not is on the path to virtualize desktop and mobile software. The idea means that Microsoft does not have to put up with developers who make changes Microsoft does not want to work. Putting Windows in the cloud might give Microsoft the total control it desires.
- Windows is a security challenge. The thinking may be: “Let’s put Windows in the cloud and lock down security, updates, domain look ups, etc. I would suggest that creating one giant target might introduce some new challenges to the Softie vision.
Speculation aside, Microsoft may be at a point when users become increasingly unhappy. The mobile model, virtualization, and smart interfaces might create tasty options for users in the near future. Microsoft cannot make up its mind about AI. It has the OpenAI deal; it has the Mistral deal; it has its own internal development; and it has Inflection and probably others I don’t know about.
Microsoft cannot make up its mind. Now Microsoft is doing an about face and saying, “Security is Job One.” But there’s the need to make the Azure Cloud grow. Okay, okay, which is it? The answer, I think, is, “We want to do it all. We want everything.”
This might be difficult. Users might just pile up and remain out of phase, orthogonal, and confused. Perhaps I could add angry? Just like LiveWriter: Tossed into the bit trash can.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9. 2024
AI May Help Real Journalists Explain Being Smart. May, Not Will
May 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I found the link between social media and stupid people interesting. I am not sure I embrace the causal chain as presented in “As IQ Scores Decline in the US, Experts Blame the Rise of Tech — How Stupid Is Your State?” The “real” news story has a snappy headline, but social media and IQ? Let’s take a look. The write up states:
Here’s the first sentence of the write up. Note the novel coinage, dumbening. I assume the use of dumb as a gerund open the door to such statements as “I dumb” or “We dumbed together at Harvard’s lecture about ethics” or “My boss dumbed again, like he did last summer.”
Do all Americans go through a process of dumbening?
A tour group has a low IQ when it comes to understanding ancient rock painting. Should we blame technology and social media? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Earning extra money because you do great security?
The write up explains that IQ scores are going down after a “rise” which began in 1905. What causes this decline? Is it broken homes? Lousy teachers? A lack of consequences for inattentiveness? Skipping school? Crappy pre-schools? Bus rides? School starting too early or too late? Dropping courses in art, music, and PE? Chemical-infused food? Television? Not learning cursive?
The answer is, “Technology.” More specifically, the culprit is social media. The article quotes a professor, who opines:
The professor [Hetty Roessingh, professor emerita of education at the University of Calgary] said that time spent with devices like phones and iPads means less time for more effective methods of increasing one’s intelligence level.
Several observations:
- Wow.
- Technology is an umbrella term. Social media is an umbrella term. What exactly is causing people to be dumb?
- What about an IQ test being mismatched to those who take it? My IQ was pretty low when I lived in Campinas, Brazil. It was tough to answer questions I could not read until I learned Portuguese.
Net net: Dumbening. You got it.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2024
Researchers Reveal Vulnerabilities Across Pinyin Keyboard Apps
May 9, 2024
Conventional keyboards were designed for languages based on the Roman alphabet. Fortunately, apps exist to adapt them to script-based languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Unfortunately, such tools can pave the way for bad actors to capture sensitive information. Researchers at the Citizen Lab have found vulnerabilities in many pinyin keyboard apps, which romanize Chinese languages. Gee, how could those have gotten there? The post, “The Not-So-Silent Type,” presents their results. Writers Jeffrey Knockel, Mona Wang, and Zoë Reichert summarize the key findings:
- “We analyzed the security of cloud-based pinyin keyboard apps from nine vendors — Baidu, Honor, Huawei, iFlytek, OPPO, Samsung, Tencent, Vivo, and Xiaomi — and examined their transmission of users’ keystrokes for vulnerabilities.
- Our analysis revealed critical vulnerabilities in keyboard apps from eight out of the nine vendors in which we could exploit that vulnerability to completely reveal the contents of users’ keystrokes in transit. Most of the vulnerable apps can be exploited by an entirely passive network eavesdropper.
- Combining the vulnerabilities discovered in this and our previous report analyzing Sogou’s keyboard apps, we estimate that up to one billion users are affected by these vulnerabilities. Given the scope of these vulnerabilities, the sensitivity of what users type on their devices, the ease with which these vulnerabilities may have been discovered, and that the Five Eyes have previously exploited similar vulnerabilities in Chinese apps for surveillance, it is possible that such users’ keystrokes may have also been under mass surveillance.
- We reported these vulnerabilities to all nine vendors. Most vendors responded, took the issue seriously, and fixed the reported vulnerabilities, although some keyboard apps remain vulnerable.”
See the article for all the details. It describes the study’s methodology, gives specific findings for each of those app vendors, and discusses the ramifications of the findings. Some readers may want to skip to the very detailed Summary of Recommendations. It offers suggestions to fellow researchers, international standards bodies, developers, app store operators, device manufacturers, and, finally, keyboard users.
The interdisciplinary Citizen Lab is based at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto. Its researchers study the intersection of information and communication technologies, human rights, and global security.
Cynthia Murrell, May 9, 2024
Which Came First? Cliffs Notes or Info Short Cuts
May 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The first online index I learned about was the Stanford Research Institute’s Online System. I think I was a sophomore in college working on a project for Dr. William Gillis. He wanted me to figure out how to index poems for a grant he had. The SRI system opened my eyes to what online indexes could do.
Later I learned that SRI was taking ideas from people like Valerius Maximus (30 CE) and letting a big, expensive, mostly hot group of machines do what a scribe would do in a room filled with rolled up papyri. My hunch is that other workers in similar “documents” figures out that some type of labeling and grouping system made sense. Sure, anyone could grab a roll, untie the string keeping it together, and check out its contents. “Hey,” someone said, “Put a label on it and make a list of the labels. Alphabetize the list while you are at it.”
An old-fashioned teacher struggles to get students to produce acceptable work. She cannot write TL;DR. The parents will find their scrolling adepts above such criticism. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s the security work coming?
I thought about the common sense approach to keeping track of and finding information when I read “The Defensive Arrogance of TL;DR.” The essay or probably more accurately the polemic calls attention to the précis, abstract, or summary often included with a long online essay. The inclusion of what is now dubbed TL;DR is presented as meaning, “I did not read this long document. I think it is about this subject.”
On one hand, I agree with this statement:
We’re at a rolling boil, and there’s a lot of pressure to turn our work and the work we consume to steam. The steam analogy is worthwhile: a thirsty person can’t subsist on steam. And while there’s a lot of it, you’re unlikely to collect enough as a creator to produce much value.
The idea is that content is often hot air. The essay includes a chart called “The Rise of Dopamine Culture, created by Ted Gioia. Notice that the world of Valerius Maximus is not in the chart. The graphic begins with “slow traditional culture” and zips forward to the razz-ma-tazz datasphere in which we try to survive.
I would suggest that the march from bits of grass, animal skins, clay tablets, and pieces of tree bark to such examples of “slow traditional culture” like film and TV, albums, and newspapers ignores the following:
- Indexing and summarizing remained unchanged for centuries until the SRI demonstration
- In the last 61 years, manual access to content has been pushed aside by machine-centric methods
- Human inputs are less useful
As a result, the TL;DR tells us a number of important things:
- The person using the tag and the “bullets” referenced in the essay reveal that the perceived quality of the document is low or poor. I think of this TL;DR as a reverse Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We have a user assigned “Seal of Disapproval.” That’s useful.
- The tag makes it possible to either NOT out the content with a TL;DR tag or group documents by the author so tagged for review. It is possible an error has been made or the document is an aberration which provides useful information about the author.
- The person using the tag TL;DR creates a set of content which can be either processed by smart software or a human to learn about the tagger. An index term is a useful data point when creating a profile.
I think the speed with which electronic content has ripped through culture has caused a number of jarring effects. I won’t go into them in this brief post. Part of the “information problem” is that the old-fashioned processes of finding, reading, and writing about something took a long time. Now Amazon presents machine-generated books whipped up in a day or two, maybe less.
TL;DR may have more utility in today’s digital environment.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2024
Google Trial: An Interesting Comment Amid the Yada Yada
May 8, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “Google’s Antitrust Trial Spotlights Search Ads on the Final Day of Closing Arguments.” After decades of just collecting Google tchotchkes, US regulators appear to be making some progress. It is very difficult to determine if a company is a monopoly. It was much easier to count barrels of oil, billets of steel, and railroad cars than digital nothingness, wasn’t it?
A giant whose name is Googzilla has most of the toys. He is reminding those who want the toys about his true nature. I believe Googzilla. Do you? Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. Good enough.
One of the many reports of the Google monopoly legal activity finally provided to me a quite useful, clear statement. Here’s the passage which caught my eye:
a coalition of state attorneys said Google’s search advertising business has trapped advertisers into its ecosystem while higher ad prices haven’t led to higher returns.
I want to consider this assertion. Please, read the original write up on Digiday to get the “real” news report. I am not a journalist; I am a dinobaby, and I have some thoughts to capture.
First, the Google has been doing Googley things for about a quarter of a century. A bit longer if one counts the Backrub service in an estimable Stanford computer building. From my point of view, Google has been doing “clever.” That means to just apologize, not ask permission. That means seek inspiration from others; for example, the IBM Clever system, the Yahoo-Overture advertising system, and the use of free to gain access to certain content like books, and pretty much doing what it wants. After figuring out that Google had to make money, it “innovated” with advertising, paid a fine, and acquired people and technology to match ads to queries. Yep, Oingo (Applied Semantics) helped out. The current antitrust matter will be winding down in 2024 and probably drag through 2025. Appeals for a company with lots of money can go slowly. Meanwhile Google’s activity can go faster.
Second, the data about Google monopoly are not difficult to identify. There is the state of the search market. Well, Eric Schmidt said years ago, Qwant kept him awake at night. I am not sure that was a credible statement. If Mr. Schmidt were awake at night, it might be the result of thinking about serious matters like money. His money. When Google became widely available, there were other Web search engines. I posted a list on my Web site which had a couple of hundred entries. Now the hot new search engines just recycle Bing and open source indexes, tossing in a handful of “special” sources like my mother jazzing up potato salad. There is Google search. And because of the reach of Google search, Google can sell ads.
Third, the ads are not just for search. Any click on a Google service is a click. Due to cute tricks like Chrome and ubiquitous services like maps, Google can slap ads many place. Other outfits cannot unless they are Google “partners.” Those partners are Google’s sales force. SEO customers become buyers of Google ads because that’s the most effective way to get traffic. Does a small business owner expect a Web site to be “found” without Google Local and maybe some advertising juice. Nope. No one but OSINT experts can get Google search to deliver useful results. Google Dorks exists for a reason. Google search quality drives ad sales. And YouTube ads? Lots of ads. Want an alternative? Good luck with Facebook, TikTok, ok.ru, or some other service.
Where’s the trial now? Google has asserted that it does not understand its own technology. The judge says he is circling down the drain of the marketing funnel. But the US government depends on the Google. That may be a factor or just the shadow of Googzilla.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2024
A Look at Several Cyber Busts of 2023
May 8, 2024
Curious about cybercrime and punishment? Darknet data firm DarkOwl gives us a good run down of selective take downs in its blog post, “Cybercriminal Arrests and Disruptions: 2023 Look Back.” The post asserts law enforcement is getting more proactive about finding and disrupting hackers. (Whether that improvement is keeping pace with the growth of hacking is another matter.) We are given seven high-profile examples.
First was the FBI’s takedown of New York State’s Conor Fitzpatrick, admin of the dark web trading post BreachForums. Unfortunately, the site was back up and running in no time under Fitzpatrick’s partner. The FBI seems to have had more success disrupting the Hive Ransomware group, seizing assets and delivering decryption keys to victims. Europol similarly disrupted the Ragnar Locker Ransomware group and even arrested two key individuals. Then there were a couple of kids from the Lapsus$ Gang. Literally, these hackers were UK teenagers responsible for millions of dollars worth of damage and leaked data. See the write-up for more details on these and three other 2023 cases. The post concludes:
“Only some of the law enforcement action that took place in 2023 are described in this blog. Law enforcement are becoming more and more successful in their operations against cybercriminals both in terms of arrests and seizure of infrastructure – including on the dark web. However, events this year (2024) have already shown that some law enforcement action is not enough to take down groups, particularly ransomware groups. Notable activity against BlackCat/ALPHV and LockBit have shown to only take the groups out for a matter of days, when no arrests take place. BlackCat are reported to have recently conducted an exit scam after a high-profile ransomware was paid, and Lockbit seem intent on revenge after their recent skirmish with the law. It is unlikely that law enforcement will be able to eradicate cybercrime and the game whack-a-mole will continue. However, the events of 2023 show that the law enforcement bodies globally are taking action and standing up to the criminals creating dire consequences for some, which will hopefully deter future threat actors.”
One can hope.
Cynthia Murrell, May 8, 2024
Google Stomps into the Threat Intelligence Sector: AI and More
May 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Before commenting on Google’s threat services news. I want to remind you of the link to the list of Google initiatives which did not survive. You can find the list at Killed by Google. I want to mention this resource because Google’s product innovation and management methods are interesting to say the least. Operating in Code Red or Yellow Alert or whatever the Google crisis buzzword is, generating sustainable revenue beyond online advertising has proven to be a bit of a challenge. Google is more comfortable using such methods as [a] buying and trying to scale it, [b] imitating another firm’s innovation, and [c] dumping big money into secret projects in the hopes that what comes out will not result in the firm’s getting its “glass” kicked to the curb.
Google makes a big entrance at the RSA Conference. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Have you considerate purchasing Google’s threat intelligence service?
With that as background, Google has introduced an “unmatched” cyber security service. The information was described at the RSA security conference and in a quite Googley blog post “Introducing Google Threat Intelligence: Actionable threat intelligence at Google Scale.” Please, note the operative word “scale.” If the service does not make money, Google will “not put wood behind” the effort. People won’t work on the project, and it will be left to dangle in the wind or just shot like Cricket, a now famous example of animal husbandry. (Google’s Cricket was the Google Appliance. Remember that? Take over the enterprise search market. Nope. Bang, hasta la vista.)
Google’s new service aims squarely at the comparatively well-established and now maturing cyber security market. I have to check to see who owns what. Venture firms and others with money have been buying promising cyber security firms. Google owned a piece of Recorded Future. Now Recorded Future is owned by a third party outfit called Insight. Darktrace has been or will be purchased by Thoma Bravo. Consolidation is underway. Thus, it makes sense to Google to enter the threat intelligence market, using its Mandiant unit as a springboard, one of those home diving boards, not the cliff in Acapulco diving platform.
The write up says:
we are announcing Google Threat Intelligence, a new offering that combines the unmatched depth of our Mandiant frontline expertise, the global reach of the VirusTotal community, and the breadth of visibility only Google can deliver, based on billions of signals across devices and emails. Google Threat Intelligence includes Gemini in Threat Intelligence, our AI-powered agent that provides conversational search across our vast repository of threat intelligence, enabling customers to gain insights and protect themselves from threats faster than ever before.
Google to its credit did not trot out the “quantum supremacy” lingo, but the marketers did assert that the service offers “unmatched visibility in threats.” I like the “unmatched.” Not supreme, just unmatched. The graphic below illustrates the elements of the unmatchedness:
Credit to the Google 2024
But where is artificial intelligence in the diagram? Don’t worry. The blog explains that Gemini (Google’s AI “system”) delivers
AI-driven operationalization
But the foundation of the new service is Gemini, which does not appear in the diagram. That does not matter, the Code Red crowd explains:
Gemini 1.5 Pro offers the world’s longest context window, with support for up to 1 million tokens. It can dramatically simplify the technical and labor-intensive process of reverse engineering malware — one of the most advanced malware-analysis techniques available to cybersecurity professionals. In fact, it was able to process the entire decompiled code of the malware file for WannaCry in a single pass, taking 34 seconds to deliver its analysis and identify the kill switch. We also offer a Gemini-driven entity extraction tool to automate data fusion and enrichment. It can automatically crawl the web for relevant open source intelligence (OSINT), and classify online industry threat reporting. It then converts this information to knowledge collections, with corresponding hunting and response packs pulled from motivations, targets, tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), actors, toolkits, and Indicators of Compromise (IoCs). Google Threat Intelligence can distill more than a decade of threat reports to produce comprehensive, custom summaries in seconds.
I like the “indicators of compromise.”
Several observations:
- Will this service be another Google Appliance-type play for the enterprise market? It is too soon to tell, but with the pressure mounting from regulators, staff management issues, competitors, and savvy marketers in Redmond “indicators” of success will be known in the next six to 12 months
- Is this a business or just another item on a punch list? The answer to the question may be provided by what the established players in the threat intelligence market do and what actions Amazon and Microsoft take. Is a new round of big money acquisitions going to begin?
- Will enterprise customers “just buy Google”? Chief security officers have demonstrated that buying multiple security systems is a “safe” approach to a job which is difficult: Protecting their employers from deeply flawed software and years of ignoring online security.
Net net: In a maturing market, three factors may signal how the big, new Google service will develop. These are [a] price, [b] perceived efficacy, and [c] avoidance of a major issue like the SolarWinds’ matter. I am rooting for Googzilla, but I still wonder why Google shifted from Recorded Future to acquisitions and me-too methods. Oh, well. I am a dinobaby and cannot be expected to understand.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2024
Buffeting AI: A Dinobaby Is Nervous
May 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I am not sure the “go fast” folks are going to be thrilled with a dinobaby rich guy’s view of smart software. I read “Warren Buffett’s Warning about AI.” The write up included several interesting observations. The only problem is that smart software is out of the bag. Outfits like Meta are pushing the open source AI ball forward. Other outfits are pushing, but Meta has big bucks. Big bucks matter in AI Land.
Yes, dinobaby. You are on the right wavelength. Do you think anyone will listen? I don’t. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep up the good work on security.
Let’s look at a handful of statements from the write up and do some observing while some in the Commonwealth of Kentucky recover from the Derby.
First, the oracle of Omaha allegedly said:
“When you think about the potential for scamming people… Scamming has always been part of the American scene. If I was interested in investing in scamming— it’s gonna be the growth industry of all time.”
Mr. Buffet has nailed the scamming angle. I particularly liked the “always.” Imagine a country built upon scamming. That makes one feel warm and fuzzy about America. Imagine how those who are hostile to US interests interpret the comment. Ill will toward the US can now be based on the premise that “scamming has always been part of the American scene.” Trust us? Just ignore the oracle of Omaha? Unlikely.
Second, the wise, frugal icon allegedly communicated that:
the technology would affect “anything that’s labor sensitive” and that for workers it could “create an enormous amount of leisure time.”
What will those individuals do with that “leisure time”? Gobbling down social media? Working on volunteer projects like picking up trash from streets and highways?
The final item I will cite is his 2018 statement:
“Cyber is uncharted territory. It’s going to get worse, not better.”
Is that a bit negative?
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
