FOGINT: Telegram Game Surfs on an Implied Link: Musk, X, Crypto Game
October 29, 2024
Written by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.
The FOGINT team spotted a report from Decrypt.com. The article is “Why ‘X Empire’ Telegram Players Are Complaining to Elon Musk About the Airdrop.” If you don’t recognize the Crypto and Telegram jargon, the information in the Decrypt article will not make much sense.
For crypto folks, the X Empire Telegram game is news. According to the cited article:
Telegram tap-to-earn game X Empire will launch its X token on The Open Network (TON) on Thursday, but its reveal of airdrop allocations has drawn complaints from players who say they were deemed ineligible for a share of the rewards. And some of them are telling Elon Musk about it.
From the point of view of Telegram, X Empire is another entrepreneur leveraging the Telegram platform. With each popular egame, Telegram edges closer to its objective of becoming a very important player in what may be viewed as a Web3 service provider. In fact, when the potential payoff from its crypto interests, the craziness of some of the Group and Channel controversies becomes less important to the company. In fact, the hope for a Telegram initial public offering pay day is more important than refusing to cooperate with law enforcement. Telegram is working to appease France. Pavel Durov wants to get back to the 2024 and beyond opportunity with the Telegram crypto activities.
What is interesting to the FOGINT team are these considerations:
- Telegram’s bots and crypto linkages provide an interesting way to move funds and befuddle investigators
- Telegram has traction among crypto entities in Southeast Asia, and innovators operating without minimal regulatory oversight can use Telegram to extend their often illegal interests quickly and in a novel way
- Telegram’s bots or automated software embody a form of workflow automation which does not require getting involved with high profile, closely monitored organizations.
FOGINT wants to point out that Elon Musk is not involved in the X Empire play. However, Decrypt’s article suggests that some game players are complaining directly to him about the “earned” token policy. This is not a deep fake play. X Empire is an example of identity or entity surfing.
Investigators can make sense of some blockchain centric criminal activities. But the emergence of in game tokens, Telegram’s own STAR token, and their integration within the Telegram platform creates a one-stop shop for online crypto activities. Cyber investigators face another challenge: The non-US, largely unregulated Telegram operating as a virtual company with an address in Dubai. France took a bold step in detaining Pavel Durov. How will he adapt? It is unlikely he will be able to resist the lure of a big payoff from the innovations embodied in the Telegram platform.
Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2024
Apple: Challenges Little and Bigly
October 28, 2024
Another post from a dinobaby. No smart software required except for the illustration.
At lunch yesterday (October 23, 2024), one of the people in the group had a text message with a long string of data. That person wanted to move the data from the text message into an email. The idea was copy a bit of ascii, put it in an email, and email the data to his office email account. Simple? He fiddled but could not get the iPhone to do the job. He showed me the sequence and when he went through the highlighting, the curly arrow, and the tap to copy, he was following the procedure. When he switched to email and pressed the text was not available. A couple of people tried to make this sequence of tapping and long pressing work. Someone handed the phone to me. I fooled around with it, asked the person to restart the phone, and went through the process. It took two tries but I got the snip of ASCII to appear in the email message. Yep, that’s the Apple iPhone. Everyone loves the way it works, except when it does not. The frustration the iPhone owner demonstrated illustrates the “good enough” approach to many functions in Apple’s and other firms’ software.
Will the normal course of events swamp this big time executive? Thanks, You.com. You were not creative, but you were good enough.
Why mention this?
Apple is a curious company. The firm has been a darling of cored fans, investors, and the MBA crowd. I have noted two actions related to Apple which suggest that the company may have a sleek exterior but the interior is different. Let’s look at these two recent developments.
The first item concerns what appear to be untoward behavior by Apple and those really good folks at Goldman Sachs. The Apple credit card received a statement showing that $89 million was due. The issue appears to be fumbling the ball with customers. For a well managed company, how does this happen? My view is that getting cute was not appreciated by some government authorities. A tiny mistake? Yes. The fine is miniscule compared to the revenue represented by the outstanding enterprises paying the fine. With small fines, have the Apple and Goldman Sachs professionals learned a lesson. Yes, get out of the credit card game. Other than that, I surmise that neither of the companies will veer from their game plans.
The second item is, from my point of view, a bit more interesting than credit cuteness. Apple, if the news report in the Washington Times, is close to the truth, is getting very comfortable with China. The basic idea is that Apple wants to invest in China. Is China the best friend forever of the US? I thought some American outfits were somewhat cautious with regard to their support of that nation state. Well, that does not appear to apply to China.
With the weird software, the credit card judgment, and the China love fest, we have three examples of a company operating in what I would describe as a fog of pragmatism. The copy paste issue makes clear that simplicity and attention to a common task on a widely used device is not important. The message for the iPhone is, “Figure out our way. Don’t even think about a meaningful, user centric change. Just upgrade and get the vapor of smart software.”
The message from the credit card judgment is, “Hey, we will do what we want. If there is a problem, send us a bill. We will continue to do what we want.” That shows me that Apple buys into the behavior pattern which makes Silicon Valley behavior the gold standard in management excellence.
My interpretation of the China-Apple BFF activity is that the policy of the US government is of little interest. Apple, like other large technology outfits, is effectively operating as a nation state. The company will do what it wants and let lawyer and PR people make the activity palatable.
I find it amusing that Apple appears to be reducing orders for its next big iPhone release. The market may be reaching a saturation point or the economic conditions in certain markets make lower cost devices more appealing. My own view is that the AI vapor spewed by Apple and other US companies is dissipating. Another utility function which does not work in a reliable way may not be enough.
Why not make copy paste more usable or is that a challenge beneath your vast aspirations?
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2024
Boring Technology Ruins Innovation: Go, Chaos!
October 25, 2024
Jonathan E. Magen is an experienced computer scientist and he writes a blog called Yonkeltron. He recently posted, “Boring Tech Is Stifling Improvement.” After a brief anecdote about highway repair that wasn’t hindered because of bureaucracy and the repair crew a new material to speed up the job, Magen got to thinking about the current state of tech.
He thinks it is boring.
Magen supports tech teams being allocated budgets to adopt old technology. The montage of “don’t fix what’s not broken” comes to mind, but sometimes newer is definitely better. He relates that it is problematic if tech teams have too much technology or solution, but there’s also the problem if the one-size-fits all solution no longer works. It’s like having a document that can only be opened by Microsoft Office and you don’t have the software. It’s called a monoculture with a single point of failure. Tech nerds and philosophers have names for everything!
Magen bemoans that a boring tech environment is a buzzkill. He then shares this “happy thoughts”:
“A second negative effect is the chilling of innovation. Creating a better way of doing things definitionally requires deviation from existing practices. If that is too heavily disincentivized by “engineering standards”, then people don’t feel they have enough freedom to color outside the lines here and there. Therefore, it chills innovation in company environments where good ideas could, conceivably, come from anywhere. Put differently, use caution so as not to silence your pioneers.
Another negative effect is the potential to cause stagnation. In this case, devotion to boring tech leads to overlooking better ways of doing things. Trading actual improvement and progress for “the devil you know” seems a poor deal. One of the main arguments in favor of boring tech is operability in the polycontext composed of predictability and repairability. Despite the emergence of Site Reliability Engineering (SRE), I think that this highlights a troubling industry trope where we continually underemphasize, and underinvest in, production operations.”
Necessity is the mother of invention, but boring is the killer of innovation. Bring on chaos.
Whitney Grace, October 25, 2024
OpenAI: An Illustration of Modern Management Acumen
October 23, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
The Hollywood Reporter (!) published “What the Heck Is Going On At OpenAI? As executives flee with Warnings of Danger, the Company Says It Will Plow Ahead.” When I compare the Hollywood Reporter with some of the poohbah “real” news discussion of a company on track to lose an ballpark figure of $5 billion in 2024, the write up does a good job of capturing the managerial expertise on display at the company.
The wanna-be lion of AI is throwing a party. Will there be staff to attend? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I worked through the write up and noted a couple of interesting passages. Let’s take a look at them and then ponder the caption in the smart software generated for my blog post. Full disclosure: I used the Microsoft Copilot version of OpenAI’s applications to create the art. Is it derivative? Heck, who knows when OpenAI is involved in crafting information with a click?
The first passage I circled is the one about the OpenAI chief technology officer bailing out of the high-flying outfit:
she left because she’d given up on trying to reform or slow down the company from within. Murati was joined in her departure from the high-flying firm by two top science minds, chief research officer Bob McGrew and researcher Barret Zoph (who helped develop ChatGPT). All are leaving for no immediately known opportunity.
That suggests stability in the virtual executive suite. I suppose the the prompt used to aid these wizards in their decision to find their future elsewhere was something like “Hello, ChatGTP 4o1, I want to work in a technical field which protects intellectual property, helps save the whales, and contributes to the welfare of those without deep knowledge of multi-layer neural networks. In order to find self-fulfillment not possible with YouTube TikTok videos, what do you suggest for a group of smart software experts? Please, provide examples of potential work paths and provide sources for the information. Also, do not include low probability job opportunities like sanitation worker in the Mission District, contract work for Microsoft, or negotiator for the countries involved in a special operation, war, or regional conflict. Thanks!”
The output must have been convincing because the write up says: “All are leaving for no immediately known opportunity.” Interesting.
The second passage warranting a blue underline is a statement attributed to another former OpenAI wizard, William Saunders. He apparently told a gathering of esteemed Congressional leaders:
“AGI [artificial general intelligence or a machine smarter than every humanoid] would cause significant changes to society, including radical changes to the economy and employment. AGI could also cause the risk of catastrophic harm via systems autonomously conducting cyberattacks, or assisting in the creation of novel biological weapons,” he told lawmakers. “No one knows how to ensure that AGI systems will be safe and controlled … OpenAI will say that they are improving. I and other employees who resigned doubt they will be ready in time.”
I wonder if he asked the OpenAI smart software for tips about testifying before a Senate Committee. If he did, he seems to be voicing the idea that smart software will help some people to develop “novel biological weapons.” Yep, we could all die in a sequel Covid 2.0: The Invisible Global Killer. (Does that sound like a motion picture suitable for Amazon, Apple, or Netflix? I have a hunch some people in Hollywood will do some tests in Peoria or Omaha wherever the “middle” of America is now.
The final snippet I underlined is:
OpenAI has something of a history of releasing products before the industry thinks they’re ready.
No kidding. But the object of the technology game is to become the first mover, obtain market share, and kill off any pretenders like a lion in Africa goes for the old, lame, young, and dumb. OpenAI wants to be the king of the AI jungle. The one challenge may be that the AI lion at the company is getting staff to attend his next party. I see empty cubicles.
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2024
Money and Open Source: Unpleasant Taste?
October 23, 2024
Open-source veteran and blogger Armin Ronacher ponders “The Inevitability of Mixing Open Source and Money.” It is lovely when developers work on open-source projects for free out of the goodness of their hearts. However, the truth is these folks can only afford to spend so much time working for free. (A major reason open source documentation is a mess, by the way.)
For his part, Ronacher helped launch Sentry’s Open Source Pledge. That initiative asks companies to pledge funding to open source projects they actively use. It is particularly focused on small projects, like xz, that have a tougher time attracting funds than the big names. He acknowledges the perils of mixing open source and money, as described by Word Press’s David Heinemeier Hansson. But he insists the blend is already baked in. He considers:
“At face value, this suggests that Open Source and money shouldn’t mix, and that the absence of monetary rewards fosters a unique creative process. There’s certainly truth to this, but in reality, Open Source and money often mix quickly. If you look under the cover of many successful Open Source projects you will find companies with their own commercial interests supporting them (eg: Linux via contributors), companies outright leading projects they are also commercializing (eg: MariaDB, redis) or companies funding Open Source projects primarily for marketing / up-sell purposes (uv, next.js, pydantic, …). Even when money doesn’t directly fund an Open Source project, others may still profit from it, yet often those are not the original creators. These dynamics create stresses and moral dilemmas.”
For example, the conflict between Hansson and WP Engine. The tension can also personal stress. Ronacher shares doubts that have plagued him: to monetize or not to monetize? Would a certain project have taken off had he poured his own money into it? He has watched colleagues wrestle with similar questions that affected their health and careers. See his post for more on those issues. The write-up concludes:
“I firmly believe that the current state of Open Source and money is inadequate, and we should strive for a better one. Will the Pledge help? I hope for some projects, but WordPress has shown that we need to drive forward that conversation of money and Open Source regardless of the size of the project.”
Clearly, further discussion is warranted. New ideas from open-source enthusiasts are also needed. Can a balance be found?
Cynthia Murrell, October 23, 2024
When Wizards Squabble the Digital World Bleats, “AI Yi AI”
October 21, 2024
No smart software but we may use image generators to add some modern spice to the dinobaby’s output.
The world is abuzz with New York Times “real” news story. From my point of view, the write up reminds me of a script from “The Guiding Light.” The “to be continued” is implicit in the drama presented in the pitch for a new story line. AI wizard and bureaucratic marvel squabble about smart software.
According to “Microsoft and OpenAI’s Close Partnership Shows Signs of Fraying”:
At an A.I. conference in Seattle this month, Microsoft didn’t spend much time discussing OpenAI. Asha Sharma, an executive working on Microsoft’s A.I. products, emphasized the independence and variety of the tech giant’s offerings. “We definitely believe in offering choice,” Ms. Sharma said.
Two wizards squabble over the AI goblet. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, good enough which for you is top notch.
What? Microsoft offers a choice. What about pushing Edge relentlessly? What about the default install of an intelligence officer’s fondest wish: Historical data on a bad actor’s computer? What about users who want to stick with Windows 7 because existing applications run on it without choking? What about users who want to install Windows 11 but cannot because of arbitrary Microsoft restrictions? Choice?
Several observations:
- The tension between Sam AI-Man and Satya Nadella, the genius behind today’s wonderful Microsoft software is not secret. Sam AI-Man found some acceptance when he crafted a deal with Oracle.
- When wizards argue the drama is high because both of the parties to the dispute know that AI is a winner take all game, with losers destined to get only 65 percent of the winner’s size. Others get essentially nothing. Winners get control.
- The anti-MBA organization of OpenAI, Microsoft’s odd deal, and the staffing shenanigans of both Microsoft and OpenAI suggest that neither MSFT’s Nadella or OpenAI’s Sam AI-Man are big picture thinkers.
What will happen now? I think that the Googlers will add a new act to the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Tour. The two jokers will toss comments back and forth about how both the Softies and the AI-Men need to let another firm’s AI provide information about organizational planning.
I think the story will be better as a comedy routine. Scrap that “Guiding Light” idea. A soap opera is far to serious for the comedy now on stage.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2024
Can Prabhakar Do the Black Widow Thing to Technology at Google?
October 21, 2024
No smart software but we may use image generators to add some modern spice to the dinobaby’s output.
The reliable (mostly?) Wall Street Journal ran a story titled“Google Executive Overseeing Search and Advertising Leaves Role.” The executive in question is Prabhakar Raghavan, the other half of the Sundar and Prabhakar Comedy Team. The wizardly Prabhakar is the person Edward Zitron described as “The Man Who Killed Google Search.” I recommend reading that essay because it has more zip than the Murdoch approach to poohbah analysis.
I want to raise a question because I assume that Mr. Zitron is largely correct about the demise of Google Search. The sleek Prabhakar accelerated the decline. He was the agent of the McKinsey think infused in his comedy partner Sundar. The two still get laughs at their high school reunions amidst chums and more when classmates gather to explain their success to one another.
The Google approach: Who needs relevance? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Not quite excellent.
What is the question? Here it is:
Will Prabhakar do to Google’s technology what he did to search?
My view is that Google’s technology has demonstrated corporate ossification. The company “invented”, according to Google lore, the transformer. Then Google — because it was concerned about its invention — released some of it as open source and then watched as Microsoft marketed AI as the next big thing for the Softies. And what was the outfit making Microsoft’s marketing coup possible? It was Sam AI-Man.
Microsoft, however, has not been a technology leader for how many years?
Suddenly the Google announced a crisis and put everyone on making Google the leader in AI. I assume the McKinsey think did not give much thought to the idea that MSFT’s transformer would be used to make Google look darned silly. In fact, it was Prabhakar who stole the attention of the pundits with a laughable AI demonstration in Paris.
Flash forward from early 2023 to late 2024 what’s Google doing with technology? My perception is that Google is trying to create AI winners, capture the corporate market from Microsoft, and convince as many people as possible that if Google is broken apart, AI in America will flop.
Yes, the fate of the nation hangs on Google’s remaining a monopoly. That sounds like a punch line to a skit in the Sundar and Prabhakar Comedy Show.
Here’s my hypothesis: The death of search (the Edward Zitron view) is a job well done. The curtains fall on Act I of the Google drama. Act II is about the Google technology. The idea is that the technology of the online advertising monopoly defines the future of America.
Stay tuned because the story will be streamed on YouTube with advertising, lots of advertising, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2024
AI: The Key to Academic Fame and Fortune
October 17, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Why would professors use smart software to “help” them with their scholarly papers? The question may have been answered in the Phys.org article “Analysis of Approximately 75 Million Publications Finds Those Employing AI Are More Likely to Be a ‘Hit Paper’” reports:
A new Northwestern University study analyzing 74.6 million publications, 7.1 million patents and 4.2 million university course syllabi finds papers that employ AI exhibit a “citation impact premium.” However, the benefits of AI do not extend equitably to women and minority researchers, and, as AI plays more important roles in accelerating science, it may exacerbate existing disparities in science, with implications for building a diverse, equitable and inclusive research workforce.
Years ago some universities had an “honor code”? I think the University of Virginia was one of those dinosaurs. Today professors are using smart software to help them crank out academic hits.
The write up continues by quoting a couple of the study’s authors (presumably without using smart software) as saying:
“These advances raise the possibility that, as AI continues to improve in accuracy, robustness and reach, it may bring even more meaningful benefits to science, propelling scientific progress across a wide range of research areas while significantly augmenting researchers’ innovation capabilities…”
What are the payoffs for the professors who probably take a dim view of their own children using AI to make life easier, faster, and smoother? Let’s look at a handful my team and I discussed:
- More money in the form of pay raises
- Better shot at grants for research
- Fame at conferences
- Groupies. I know it is hard to imagine but it happens. A lot.
- Awards
- Better committee assignments
- Consulting work.
When one considers the benefits from babes to bucks, the chit chat about doing better research is of little interest to professors who see virtue in smart software.
The president of Stanford cheated. The head of the Harvard Ethics department appears to have done it. The professors in the study sample did it. The conclusion: Smart software use is normative behavior.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2024
Forget Surveillance Capitalism. Think Parasite Culture
October 15, 2024
Ted Gioia touts himself as The Honest Broker on his blog and he recently posted about the current state of the economy: “Are We Now Living In A Parasite Culture?” In the opening he provides examples of natural parasites before moving to his experience working with parasite strategies.
Gioia said that when he consulted fortune 500 companies, he and others used parasite strategies as thought exercises. Here’s what a parasite strategy is:
1. “You allow (or convince) someone else to make big investments in developing a market—so they cover the cost of innovation, or advertising, or lobbying the government, or setting up distribution, or educating customers, or whatever. But…
2. You invest your energy instead on some way of cutting off these dutiful folks at the last moment—at the point of sale, for example. Hence…
3. You reap the benefits of an opportunity that you did nothing to create.”
On first reading, it doesn’t seem that our economy is like that until he provides true examples: Facebook, Spotify, TikTok, and Google. All of these platforms are nothing more than a central location for people to post and share their content or they aggregate content from the Internet. These platforms thrive off the creativity of their users and their executive boards reap the benefits, while the creators struggle to rub two cents together.
Smart influencers know to diversify their income streams through sponsorship, branding, merchandise, and more. Gioia points out that the Forbes lists of billionaires includes people who used parasitical business strategies to get rich. He continues by saying that these parasites will continue to guzzle off their hosts’ lifeblood with a chance of killing said host.
Its happening now in the creative economy with Big Tech’s investment in AI and how, despite lawsuits and laws, these companies are illegally training AI on creative pursuits. He finishes with the obvious statement that politicians should be protecting people, but that they’re probably part of the problem. No duh.
Whitney Grace, October 15, 2024
An Emergent Behavior: The Big Tech DNA Proves It
October 14, 2024
Writer Mike Masnick at TechDirt makes quite the allegation: “Big Tech’s Promise Never to Block Access to Politically Embarrassing Content Apparently Only Applies to Democrats.” He contends:
“It probably will not shock you to find out that big tech’s promises to never again suppress embarrassing leaked content about a political figure came with a catch. Apparently, it only applies when that political figure is a Democrat. If it’s a Republican, then of course the content will be suppressed, and the GOP officials who demanded that big tech never ever again suppress such content will look the other way.”
The basis for Masnick’s charge of hypocrisy lies in a tale of two information leaks. Tech execs and members of Congress responded to each data breach very differently. Recently, representatives from both Meta and Google pledged to Senator Tom Cotton at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to never again “suppress” news as they supposedly did in 2020 with Hunter Biden laptop story. At the time, those platforms were leery of circulating that story until it could be confirmed.
Less than two weeks after that hearing, Journalist Ken Klippenstein published the Trump campaign’s internal vetting dossier on JD Vance, a document believed to have been hacked by Iran. That sounds like just the sort of newsworthy, if embarrassing, story that conservatives believe should never be suppressed, right? Not so fast—Trump mega-supporter Elon Musk immediately banned Ken’s X account and blocked all links to Klippenstein’s Substack. Similarly, Meta blocked links to the dossier across its platforms. That goes further than the company ever did with the Biden laptop story, the post reminds us. Finally, Google now prohibits users from storing the dossier on Google Drive. See the article for more of Masnick’s reasoning. He concludes:
“Of course, the hypocrisy will stand, because the GOP, which has spent years pointing to the Hunter Biden laptop story as their shining proof of ‘big tech bias’ (even though it was nothing of the sort), will immediately, and without any hint of shame or acknowledgment, insist that of course the Vance dossier must be blocked and it’s ludicrous to think otherwise. And thus, we see the real takeaway from all that working of the refs over the years: embarrassing stuff about Republicans must be suppressed, because it’s doxing or hacking or foreign interference. However, embarrassing stuff about Democrats must be shared, because any attempt to block it is election interference.”
Interesting. But not surprising.
Cynthia Murrell, October 14, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
