AI and Stupid Users: A Glimpse of What Is to Come

March 29, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

When smart software does not deliver, who is responsible? I don’t have a dog in the AI fight. I am thinking about deployment of smart software in professional environments. When the outputs are wonky or do not deliver the bang of a  competing system, what is the customer supposed to do. Is the vendor responsible? Is the customer responsible? Is the person who tried to validate the outputs guilty of putting a finger on the scale of a system which its developers cannot explain exactly how an output was determined? Viewed from one angle, this is the Achilles’ heel of artificial intelligence. Viewed from another angle determining responsibility is an issue which, in my opinion, will be decided by legal processes. In the meantime, the issue of a system’s not working can have significant consequences. How about those automated systems on aircraft which dive suddenly or vessels which can jam a ship channel?

I read a write up which provides a peek at what large outfits pushing smart software will do when challenged about quality, accuracy, or other subjective factors related to AI-imbued systems. Let’s take a quick look at “Customers Complain That Copilot Isn’t As Good as ChatGPT, Microsoft Blames Misunderstanding and Misuse.”

The main idea in the write up strikes me as:

Microsoft is doing absolutely everything it can to force people into using its Copilot AI tools, whether they want to or not. According to a new report, several customers have reported a problem: it doesn’t perform as well as ChatGPT. But Microsoft believes the issue lies with people who aren’t using Copilot correctly or don’t understand the differences between the two products.

Yep, the user is the problem. I can imagine the adjudicator (illustrated as a mother) listening to a large company’s sales professional and a professional certified developer arguing about how the customer went off the rails. Is the original programmer the problem? Is the new manager in charge of AI responsible? Is it the user or users?

image

Illustration by MSFT Copilot. Good enough, MSFT.

The write up continues:

One complaint that has repeatedly been raised by customers is that Copilot doesn’t compare to ChatGPT. Microsoft says this is because customers don’t understand the differences between the two products: Copilot for Microsoft 365 is built on the Azure OpenAI model, combining OpenAI’s large language models with user data in the Microsoft Graph and the Microsoft 365 apps. Microsoft says this means its tools have more restrictions than ChatGPT, including only temporarily accessing internal data before deleting it after each query.

Here’s another snippet from the cited article:

In addition to blaming customers’ apparent ignorance, Microsoft employees say many users are just bad at writing prompts. “If you don’t ask the right question, it will still do its best to give you the right answer and it can assume things,” one worker said. “It’s a copilot, not an autopilot. You have to work with it,” they added, which sounds like a slogan Microsoft should adopt in its marketing for Copilot. The employee added that Microsoft has hired partner BrainStorm, which offers training for Microsoft 365, to help create instructional videos to help customers create better Copilot prompts.

I will be interested in watching how these “blame games” unfold.

Stephen E Arnold, March 29, 2024

How to Fool a Dinobaby Online

March 29, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Marketers take note. Forget about gaming the soon-to-be-on-life-support Google Web search. Embrace fakery. And who, you may ask, will teach me? The answer is The Daily Beast. To begin your life-changing journey, navigate to “Facebook Is Filled With AI-Generated Garbage—and Older Adults Are Being Tricked.”

image

Two government regulators wonder where the Deep Fakes have gone? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep on updating, please.

The write up explains:

So far, the few experiments to analyze seniors’ AI perception seem to align with the Facebook phenomenon…. The team found that the older participants were more likely to believe that AI-generated images were made by humans.

Okay, that’s step one: Identify your target market.

What’s next? The write up points out:

scammers have wielded increasingly sophisticated generative AI tools to go after older adults. They can use deepfake audio and images sourced from social media to pretend to be a grandchild calling from jail for bail money, or even falsify a relative’s appearance on a video call.

That’s step two: Weave in a family or social tug on the heart strings.

Then what? The article helpfully notes:

As of last week, there are more than 50 bills across 30 states aimed to clamp down on deepfake risks. And since the beginning of 2024, Congress has introduced a flurry of bills to address deepfakes.

Yep, the flag has been dropped. The race with few or no rules is underway. But what about government rules and regulations? Yeah, those will be chugging around after the race cars have disappeared from view.

Thanks for the guidelines.

Stephen E Arnold, March 29, 2024

AI and Jobs: Under Estimating Perhaps?

March 28, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I am interested in the impact of smart software on jobs. I spotted “1.5M UK Jobs Now at Risk from AI, Report Finds.” But the snappier assertion appears in the subtitle to the write up:

The number could rise to 7.9M in the future

The UK has about 68 million people (maybe more, maybe fewer but close enough). The estimate of 7.9 million job losses translates to seven million people out of work. Now these types of “future impact” estimates are diaphanous. But the message seems clear. Despite the nascent stage of smart software’s development, the number one use may be dumping humans and learning to love software. Will the software make today’s systems work more efficiently. In my experience, computerizing processes does very little to improve the outputs. Some tasks are completed quickly. However, get the process wrong, and one has a darned interesting project for a blue-chip consulting firm.

image

The smart software is alone in an empty office building. Does the smart software look lonely or unhappy? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough illustration.

The write up notes:

Back-office, entry-level, and part-time jobs are the ones mostly exposed, with employees on medium and low wages being at the greatest risk.

If this statement is accurate, life will be exciting for parents whose progeny camp out in the family room or who turn to other, possibly less socially acceptable, methods of generating cash. Crime comes to my mind, but you may see volunteers working to pick up trash in lovely Plymouth or Blackpool.

The write up notes:

Experts have argued that AI can be a force for good in the labor market — as long as it goes hand in hand with rebuilding workforce skills.

Academics, wizards, elected officials, consultants can find the silver lining in the cloud that spawned the tornado.

Several observations, if I may:

  1. The acceleration of tools to add AI to processes is evident in the continuous stream of “new” projects appearing in GitHub, Product Watch, and AI newsletters. The availability of tools means that applications will flow into job-reducing opportunities; that is, outfits which will pay cash to cut payroll.
  2. AI functions are now being embedded in mobile devices. Smart software will be a crutch and most users will not realize that their own skills are being transformed. Welcoming AI is an important first step in using AI to replace an expensive, unreliable humanoid.
  3. The floundering of government and non-governmental organizations is amusing to watch. Each day documents about managing the AI “risk” appear in my feedreader. Yet zero meaningful action is taking place as certain large companies work to consolidate their control of essential and mostly proprietary technologies and know how.

Net net: The job loss estimate is interesting. My hunch is that it underestimates the impact of smart software on traditional work. This is good for smart software and possibly not so good for humanoids.

Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2024

Backpressure: A Bit of a Problem in Enterprise Search in 2024

March 27, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I have noticed numerous references to search and retrieval in the last few months. Most of these articles and podcasts focus on making an organization’s data accessible. That’s the same old story told since the days of STAIRS III and other dinobaby artifacts. The gist of the flow of search-related articles is that information is locked up or silo-ized. Using a combination of “artificial intelligence,” “open source” software, and powerful computing resources — problem solved.

image

A modern enterprise search content processing system struggles to keep pace with the changes to already processed content (the deltas) and the flow of new content in a wide range of file types and formats. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You have learned from your experience with Fast Search & Transfer file indexing it seems.

The 2019 essay “Backpressure Explained — The Resisted Flow of Data Through Software” is pertinent in 2024. The essay, written by Jay Phelps, states:

The purpose of software is to take input data and turn it into some desired output data. That output data might be JSON from an API, it might be HTML for a webpage, or the pixels displayed on your monitor. Backpressure is when the progress of turning that input to output is resisted in some way. In most cases that resistance is computational speed — trouble computing the output as fast as the input comes in — so that’s by far the easiest way to look at it.

Mr. Phelps identifies several types of backpressure. These are:

  1. More info to be processed than a system can handle
  2. Reading and writing file speeds are not up to the demand for reading and writing
  3. Communication “pipes” between and among servers are too small, slow, or unstable
  4. A group of hardware and software components cannot move data where it is needed fast enough.

I have simplified his more elegantly expressed points. Please, consult the original 2019 document for the information I have hip hopped over.

My point is that in the chatter about enterprise search and retrieval, there are a number of situations (use cases to those non-dinobabies) which create some interesting issues. Let me highlight these and then wrap up this short essay.

In an enterprise, the following situations exist and are often ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. When people pooh pooh my observations, it is clear to me that these people have [a] never been subject to a legal discovery process associated with enterprise search fraud and [b] are entitled whiz kids who don’t do too much in the quite dirty, messy, “real” world. (I do like the variety in T shirts and lumberjack shirts, however.)

First, in an enterprise, content changes. These “deltas” are a giant problem. I know that none of the systems I have examined, tested, installed, or advised which have a procedure to identify a change made to a PowerPoint, presented to a client, and converted to an email confirming a deal, price, or technical feature in anything close to real time. In fact, no one may know until the president’s laptop is examined by an investigator who discovers the “forgotten” information. Even more exciting is the opposing legal team’s review of a laptop dump as part of a discovery process “finds” the sequence of messages and connects the dots. Exciting, right. But “deltas” pose another problem. These modified content objects proliferate like gerbils. One can talk about information governance, but it is just that — talk, meaningless jabber.

Second, the content which an employees needs to answer a business question in a timely manner can reside in am employee’s laptop or a mobile phone, a digital notebook, in a Vimeo video or one of those nifty “private” YouTube videos, or behind the locked doors and specialized security systems loved by some pharma company’s research units, a Word document in something other than English, etc. Now the content is changed. The enterprise search fast talkers ignore identifying and indexing these documents with metadata that pinpoints the time of the change and who made it. Is this important? Some contract issues require this level of information access. Who asks for this stuff? How about a COTR for a billion dollar government contract?

Third, I have heard and read that modern enterprise search systems “use”, “apply,” “operate within” industry standard authentication systems. Sure they do within very narrowly defined situations. If the authorization system does not work, then quite problematic things happen. Examples range from an employee’s failure to find the information needed and makes a really bad decision. Alternatively the employee goes on an Easter egg hunt which may or may not work, but if the egg found is good enough, then that’s used. What happens? Bad things can happen? Have you ridden in an old Pinto? Access control is a tough problem, and it costs money to solve. Enterprise search solutions, even the whiz bang cloud centric distributed systems, implement something, which is often not the “right” thing.

Fourth, and I am going to stop here, the problem of end-to-end encrypted messaging systems. If you think employees do not use these, I suggest you do a bit of Eastern egg hunting. What about the content in those systems? You can tell me, “Our company does not use these.” I say, “Fine. I am a dinobaby, and I don’t have time to talk with you because you are so much more informed than I am.”

Why did I romp though this rather unpleasant issue in enterprise search and retrieval? The answer is, “Enterprise search remains a problematic concept.” I believe there is some litigation underway about how the problem of search can morph into a fantasy of a huge business because we have a solution.”

Sorry. Not yet. Marketing and closing deals are different from solving findability issues in an enterprise.

Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024

A Single, Glittering Google Gem for 27 March 2024

March 27, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

So many choices. But one gem outshines the others. Google’s search generative experience is generating publicity. The old chestnut may be true. Any publicity is good publicity. I would add a footnote. Any publicity about Google’s flawed smart software is probably good for Microsoft and other AI competitors. Google definitely looks as though it has some behaviors that are — how shall I phrase it? — questionable. No, maybe, ill-considered. No, let’s go with bungling. That word has a nice ring to it. Bungling.

! google gems

I learned about this gem in “Google’s New AI Search Results Promotes Sites Pushing Malware, Scams.” The write up asserts:

Google’s new AI-powered ‘Search Generative Experience’ algorithms recommend scam sites that redirect visitors to unwanted Chrome extensions, fake iPhone giveaways, browser spam subscriptions, and tech support scams.

The technique which gets the user from the quantumly supreme Google to the bad actor goodies is redirects. Some user notification functions to pump even more inducements toward the befuddled user. (See, bungling and befuddled. Alliteration.)

Why do users fall for these bad actor gift traps? It seems that Google SGE conversational recommendations sound so darned wonderful, Google users just believe that the GOOG cares about the information it presents to those who “trust” the company. k

The write up points out that the DeepMinded Google provided this information about the bumbling SGE:

"We continue to update our advanced spam-fighting systems to keep spam out of Search, and we utilize these anti-spam protections to safeguard SGE," Google told BleepingComputer. "We’ve taken action under our policies to remove the examples shared, which were showing up for uncommon queries."

Isn’t that reassuring? I wonder if the anecdote about this most recent demonstration of the Google’s wizardry will become part of the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act?

This is a gem. It combines Google’s management process, word salad frippery, and smart software into one delightful bouquet. There you have it: Bungling, befuddled, bumbling, and bouquet. I am adding blundering. I do like butterfingered, however.

Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024

IBM and AI: A Spur to Other Ageing Companies?

March 27, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I love IBM. Well, I used to. Years ago I had three IBM PC 704 servers. Each was equipped with its expansion SCSI storage device. My love disappeared as we worked daily to keep the estimable ServeRAID softwware in tip top shape. For those unfamiliar with the thrill of ServeRAID, “tip top” means preventing the outstanding code from trashing data.

image

IBM is a winner. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are those server vulnerabilities today?

I was, therefore, not surprised to read “IBM Stock Nears an All-Time High—And It May Have Something to Do with its CEO Replacing As Many Workers with AI As Possible.” Instead of creating the first and best example of dinobaby substitution, Big Blue is now using smart software to reduce headcount. The write up says:

[IBM] used AI to reduce the number of employees working on relatively manual HR-related work to about 50 from 700 previously, which allowed them to focus on other things, he [Big Dog at IBM] wrote in an April commentary piece for Fortune. And in its January fourth quarter earnings, the company said it would cut costs in 2024 by $3 billion, up from $2 billion previously, in part by laying off thousands of workers—some of which it later chalked up to AI influence.

Is this development important? Yep. Here are the reasons:

  1. Despite its interesting track record in smart software, IBM has figured out it can add sizzle to the ageing giant by using smart software to reduce costs. Forget that cancer curing stuff. Go with straight humanoid replacement.
  2. The company has significant influence. Some Gen Y and Gen Z wizards don’t think about IBM. That’s fine, but banks, government agencies, Fortune 1000 firms, and family fund management firms do. What IBM does influences these bright entities’ thinking.
  3. The targeted workers are what one might call “expendable.” That’s a great way to motivate some of Big Blue’s war horses.

Net net: The future of AI is coming into focus for some outfits who may have a touch of arthritis.

Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024

Xoogler Predicts the Future: China Bad, Xoogler Good

March 26, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Did you know China, when viewed from the vantage point of a former Google executive, is bad? That is a stunning comment. Google tried valiantly to convert China into a money stream. That worked until it didn’t. Now a former Googler or Xoogler in some circles has changed his tune.

image

Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Working on security I presume?

Eric Schmidt’s China Alarm” includes some interesting observations. None of which address Google’s attempt to build a China-acceptable search engine. Oh, well, anyone can forget minor initiatives like that. Let’s look at a couple of comments from the article:

How about this comment about responding to China:

"We have to do whatever it takes."

I wonder if Mr. Schmidt has been watching Dr. Strangelove on YouTube. Someone might pull that viewing history to clarify “whatever it takes.”

Another comment I found interesting is:

China has already become a peer of the U.S. and has a clear plan for how it wants to dominate critical fields, from semiconductors to AI, and clean energy to biotech.

That’s interesting. My thought is that the “clear plan” seems to embrace education; that is, producing more engineers than some other countries, leveraging open source technology, and erecting interesting barriers to prevent US companies from selling some products in the Middle Kingdom. How long has this “clear plan” been chugging along? I spotted portions of the plan in Wuhan in 2007. But I guess now it’s a more significant issue after decades of being front and center.

I noted this comment about artificial intelligence:

Schmidt also said Europe’s proposals on regulating artificial intelligence "need to be re-done," and in general says he is opposed to regulating AI and other advances to solve problems that have yet to appear.

The idea is an interesting one. The UN and numerous NGOs and governmental entities around the world are trying to regulate, tame, direct, or ameliorate the impact of smart software. How’s that going? My answer is, “Nowhere fast.”

The article makes clear that Mr. Schmidt is not just a Xoogler; he is a global statesperson. But in the back of my mind, once a Googler, always a Googler.

Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2024

AI Proofing Tools in Higher Education Limbo

March 26, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Where is the line between AI-assisted plagiarism and a mere proofreading tool? That is something universities really should have decided by now. Those that have not risk appearing hypocritical and unjust. For example, the University of North Georgia (UNG) specifically recommends students use Grammarly to help proofread their papers. And yet, as News Nation reports, a “Student Fights AI Cheating Allegations for Using Grammarly” at that school.

The trouble began when Marley Stevens’ professor ran her paper through plagiarism-detection software Turnitin, which flagged it for an AI violation. Apparently that (ironically) AI-powered tool did not know Grammarly was on the university’s “nice” list. But surely the charge of cheating was reversed once human administrators got involved, right? Nope. Writer Damita Memezes tells us:

“‘I’m on probation until February 16 of next year. And this started when he sent me the email. It was October. I didn’t think that now in March of 2024, that this would still be a big thing that was going on,’ Stevens said. Despite Grammarly being recommended on the University of North Georgia’s website, Stevens found herself embroiled in battle to clear her name. The tool, briefly removed from the school’s website, later resurfaced, adding to the confusion surrounding its acceptable usage despite the software’s utilization of generative AI. ‘I have a teacher this semester who told me in an email like “yes use Grammarly. It’s a great tool.” And they advertise it,’ Stevens said. … Despite Stevens’ appeal and subsequent GoFundMe campaign to rectify the situation, her options seem limited. The university’s stance, citing the absence of suspension or expulsion, has left her in a bureaucratic bind.”

Grammarly’s Jenny Maxwell defends the tool and emphasizes her company’s transparency around its generative components. She suggests colleges and universities update their assessment methods to address evolving tech like Grammarly. For good measure, we would add Microsoft Word’s Copilot and Google Chrome’s "help me write" feature. Shouldn’t schools be training students in the responsible use of today’s technology? According to UNG, yes. And also, no.

This means that if you use Word and its smart software, you may be a cheater. No need to wait until you go to work at a blue chip consulting firm. You are working on your basic consulting skills.

Cynthia Murrell, March 26, 2024

AI Job Lawnmowers: Will Your Blooms Be Chopped Off and Put a Rat King in Your Future?

March 25, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I love “you will lose your job to AI” articles. I spotted an interesting one titled “The Job Sectors That Will Be Most Disrupted By AI, Ranked.” This is not so much an article as a billboard for an outfit named Voronoi, “where data tells the story.” That’s interesting because there is no data, no methodology, and no indication of the confidence level for each “nuked job.” Nevertheless, we have a ranking.

image

Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Will you be sparking human rat kings? I would wager that you will.

As I understand the analysis of 19,000 tasks, here’s that the most likely to be chopped down and converted to AI silage will be:

IT  / programmers: 73 percent of the job will experience a large impact

Finance / bean counters: 70 percent of the jobs will experience a large impact

Customer sales: 67 percent of the job will experience a large impact

Operations (well, that’s a fuzzy category, isn’t it?): 65 percent of the job will experience a large impact

Personnel / HR: 57 percent of the job will experience a large impact

Marketing: 56 percent of the job will experience a large impact

Legal eagles: 46 percent of the job will experience a large impact

Supply chain (another fuzzy wuzzy bucket): 43 percent of the job will experience a large impact

The kicker in the data is that the numbers date from September 2023. Six months in the faerie land of smart software is a long, long time. Let’s assume that the data meet 2024’s gold standard.

Technology, finance, sales, marketing, and lawyering may shatter the future of employees of less value in terms of compensation, cost to the organization, or whatever management legerdemain the top dogs and their consultants whip up. Imagine eliminate the overhead for humans like office space, health care, retirement baloney, and vacations makes smart software into an attractive “play.”

And what about the fuzzy buckets? My thought is that many people will be trimmed because a chatbot can close a sale for a product without the hassle which humans drag into the office; for example, sexual harassment, mental, drug, and alcohol “issues,” and the unfortunate workplace shooting. I think that a person sitting in a field office to troubleshoot issues related to a state or county contract might fall into the “operations” category even though the employee sees the job as something smart software cannot perform. Ho  ho ho.

Several observations:

  • A trivial cost analysis of human versus software over a five-year period means humans lose
  • AI systems, which may suck initially, will be improved over time. These initial failures may cause the once alert to replacement employee into a false sense of security
  • Once displaced, former employees will have to scramble to produce cash. With lots of individuals chasing available work and money plays, life is unlikely to revert back to the good old days of the Organization Man. (The world will be Organization AI. No suit and white shirt required.)

Net net: I am glad I am old and not quite as enthralled by efficiency.

Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2024

Getting Old in the Age of AI? Yeah, Too Bad

March 25, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read an interesting essay called “’Gen X Has Had to Learn or Die: Mid-Career Workers Are Facing Ageism in the Job Market.” The title assumes that the reader knows the difference between Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, and whatever other demographic slices marketers and “social” scientists cook up. I recognize one time slice: Dinobabies like me and a category I have labeled “Other.”

image

Two Gen X dinobabies find themselves out of sync with the younger reptiles’ version of Burning Man. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough.

The write up, which I think is a work product of a person who realizes that the stranger in a photograph is the younger version of today’s self. “How can that be?” the author of the essay asks. “In my Gen X, Y, or Z mind I am the same. I am exactly the way I was when I was younger.” The write up states:

Gen Xers, largely defined as people in the 44-to-59 age group, are struggling to get jobs.

The write up quotes an expert, Christina Matz, associate professor at the Boston College School of Social Work, and director of the Center on Aging and Work. I believe this individual has a job for now. The essay quotes her observation:

older workers are sometimes perceived as “doddering but dear”. Matz says, “They’re labelled as slower and set in their ways, well-meaning on one hand and incompetent on the other. People of a certain age are considered out-of-touch, and not seen as progressive and innovative.”

I like to think of myself as doddering. I am not sure anyone, regardless of age, will label me “dear.”

But back to the BBC’s essay. I read:

We’re all getting older.

Now that’s an insight!

I noted that the acronym “AI” appears once in the essay. One source is quoted as offering:

… we had to learn the internet, then Web 2.0, and now AI. Gen X has had to learn or die,

Hmmm. Learn of die.

Several observations:

  1. The write up does not tackle the characteristic of work that strikes me as important; namely, if one is in the Top Tier of people in a particular discipline, jobs will be hard to find. Artificial intelligence will elevate those just below the “must hire” level and allow organizations to replace what once was called “the organization man” with software.
  2. The discovery that just because a person can use a mobile phone does not give them intellectual super powers. The kryptonite to those hunting for a “job” is that their “package” does not have “value” to an organization seeking full time equivalents. People slap a price tag on themselves and, like people running a yard sale, realize that no one will pay very much for that stack of old time post cards grandma collected.
  3. The notion of entitlement does not appear in the write up. In my experience, a number of people believe that a company or other type of entity “owes them a living.” Those accustomed to receiving “Also Participated” trophies and “easy” A’s have found themselves on the wrong side of paradise.

My hunch is that these “ageism” write ups are reactions to the gradual adoption of ever more capable “smart” software. I am not sure if the author agrees with me. I am asserting that the examples and comments in the write up are a reaction to the existential threat AI, bots, and embedded machine intelligence finding their way into “systems” today. Probably not.

Now let’s think about the “learn” plank of the essay. A person can learn, adapt, and thrive, right? My personal view is that this is a shibboleth. Oh, oh.

Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2024

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta