MBAs Gone Wild: Assertions, Animation & Antics
August 5, 2024
Author’s note: Poor WordPress in the Safari browser is having a very bad day. Quotes from the cited McKinsey document appear against a weird blue background. My cheerful little dinosaur disappeared. And I could not figure out how to claim that AI did not help me with this essay. Just a heads up.
Holed up in rural Illinois, I had time to read the mid-July McKinsey & Company document “McKinsey Technology Trends Outlook 2024.” Imagine a group of well-groomed, top-flight, smooth talking “experts” with degrees from fancy schools filming one of those MBA group brainstorming sessions. Take the transcript, add motion graphics, and give audio sweetening to hot buzzwords. I think this would go viral among would-be consultants, clients facing the cloud of unknowing about the future. and those who manifest the Peter Principle. Viral winner! From my point of view, smart software is going to be integrated into most technologies and is, therefore, the trend. People may lose money, but applied AI is going to be with most companies for a long, long time.
The report boils down the current business climate to a few factors. Yes, when faced with exceptionally complex problems, boil those suckers down. Render them so only the tasty sales part remains. Thus, today’s businesss challenges become:
Generative AI (gen AI) has been a standout trend since 2022, with the extraordinary uptick in interest and investment in this technology unlocking innovative possibilities across interconnected trends such as robotics and immersive reality. While the macroeconomic environment with elevated interest rates has affected equity capital investment and hiring, underlying indicators—including optimism, innovation, and longer-term talent needs—reflect a positive long-term trajectory in the 15 technology trends we analyzed.
The data for the report come from inputs from about 100 people, not counting the people who converted the inputs into the live-action report. Move your mouse from one of the 15 “trends” to another. You will see the graphic display colored balls of different sizes. Yep, tiny and tinier balls and a few big balls tossed in.
I don’t have the energy to take each trend and offer a comment. Please, navigate to the original document and review it at your leisure. I can, however, select three trends and offer an observation or two about this very tiny ball selection.
Before sharing those three trends, I want to provide some context. First, the data gathered appear to be subjective and similar to the dorm outputs of MBA students working on a group project. Second, there is no reference to the thought process itself which when applied to a real world problem like boosting sales for opioids. It is the thought process that leads to revenues from consulting that counts.
Third, McKinsey’s pool of 100 thought leaders seems fixated on two things:
gen AI and electrification and renewables.
But is that statement comprised of three things? [1] AI, [2] electrification, and [3] renewables? Because AI is a greedy consumer of electricity, I think I can see some connection between AI and renewable, but the “electrification” I think about is President Roosevelt’s creating in 1935 the Rural Electrification Administration. Dinobabies can be such nit pickers.
Let’s tackle the electrification point before I get to the real subject of the report, AI in assorted forms and applications. When McKinsey talks about electrification and renewables, McKinsey means:
The electrification and renewables trend encompasses the entire energy production, storage, and distribution value chain. Technologies include renewable sources, such as solar and wind power; clean firm-energy sources, such as nuclear and hydrogen, sustainable fuels, and bioenergy; and energy storage and distribution solutions such as long-duration battery systems and smart grids.In 2019, the interest score for Electrification and renewables was 0.52 on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is low and 1 is high. The innovation score was 0.29 on the same scale. The adoption rate was scored at 3. The investment in 2019 was 160 on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 defined as “frontier innovation” and 5 defined as “fully scaled.” The investment was 160 billion dollars. By 2023, the interest score for Electrification and renewables was 0.73. The innovation score was 0.36. The investment was 183 billion dollars. Job postings within this trend changed by 1 percent from 2022 to 2023.
Stop burning fossil fuels? Well, not quite. But the “save the whales” meme is embedded in the verbiage. Confused? That may be the point. What’s the fix? Hire McKinsey to help clarify your thinking.
AI plays the big gorilla in the monograph. The first expensive, hairy, yet promising aspect of smart software is replacing humans. The McKinsey report asserts:
Generative AI describes algorithms (such as ChatGPT) that take unstructured data as input (for example, natural language and images) to create new content, including audio, code, images, text, simulations, and videos. It can automate, augment, and accelerate work by tapping into unstructured mixed-modality data sets to generate new content in various forms.
Yep, smart software can produce reports like this one: Faster, cheaper, and good enough. Just think of the reports the team can do.
The third trend I want to address is digital trust and cyber security. Now the cyber crime world is a relatively specialized one. We know from the CrowdStrike misstep that experts in cyber security can wreck havoc on a global scale. Furthermore, we know that there are hundreds of cyber security outfits offering smart software, threat intelligence, and very specialized technical services to protect their clients. But McKinsey appears to imply that its band of 100 trend identifiers are hip to this. Here’s what the dorm-room btrainstormers output:
The digital trust and cybersecurity trend encompasses the technologies behind trust architectures and digital identity, cybersecurity, and Web3. These technologies enable organizations to build, scale, and maintain the trust of stakeholders.
Okay.
I want to mention that other trends range from blasting into space to software development appear in the list. What strikes me as a bit of an oversight is that smart software is going to be woven into the fabric of the other trends. What? Well, software is going to surf on AI outputs. And big boy rockets, not the duds like the Seattle outfit produces, use assorted smart algorithms to keep the system from burning up or exploding… most of the time. Not perfect, but better, faster, and cheaper than CalTech grads solving equations and rigging cybernetics with wire and a soldering iron.
Net net: This trend report is a sales document. Its purpose is to cause an organization familiar with McKinsey and the organization’s own shortcomings to hire McKinsey to help out with these big problems. The data source is the dorm room. The analysts are cherry picked. The tone is quasi-authoritative. I have no problem with marketing material. In fact, I don’t have a problem with the McKinsey-generated list of trends. That’s what McKinsey does. What the firm does not do is to think about the downstream consequences of their recommendations. How do I know this? Returning from a lunch with some friends in rural Illinois, I spotted two opioid addicts doing the droop.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2024
The Big Battle: Another WWF Show Piece for AI
August 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Zuck believes in open source. It is like Linux. Boom. Market share. OpenAI believes in closed source (for now). Snap. You have to pay to get the good stuff. The argument about proprietary versus open source has been plodding along like Russia’s special operation for a long time. A typical response, in my opinion, is that open source is great because it allows a corporate interest to get cheap traction. Then with a surgical or not-so-surgical move, the big outfit co-opts the open source project. Boom. Semi-open source with a price tag becomes a competitive advantage. Proprietary software can be given away, licensed, or made available by subscription. Open source creates opportunities for training, special services, and feeling good about the community. But in the modern world of high-technology feeling good comes with sustainable flows of revenue and opportunities to raise prices faster than the local grocery store.
Where does open source software come from? Many students demonstrate their value by coding something useful to another. Thanks, Open AI. Good enough.
I read “Consider the Llama: Are Closed Source AI Models Doomed?” The write up is good. It contains a passage which struck me as interesting; to wit:
OpenAI, Anthropic and the like—companies that sell access to AI models. These companies inherently require their products to be much better than open source in order to up-charge. They also don’t have some other product they sell that gets improved with better AI overall.
In my opinion, in the present business climate, the hope that a high-technology product gets better is an interesting one. The idea of continual improvement, however, is not part of the business culture of high-technology companies engaged in smart software. At this time, cooking up a model which can be used to streamline or otherwise enhance an existing activity is Job One. The first outfit to generate substantial revenue from artificial intelligence will have an advantage. That doesn’t mean the outfit won’t fail, but if one considers the requirements to play with a reasonable probability of winning the AI game, smart software costs money.
In the world of online, a company or open source foundation which delivers a product or service which attracts large numbers of users has an advantage. One “play” can shift the playing field, not just win the game. What’s going on at this time, in my opinion, is that those who understand the advantage of winning in the equivalent of a WWF (World Wide Wrestling) show piece is that it allows the “winner take all” or at least the “winner takes two-thirds” of the market.
Monopolies (real or imagined) with lots of money have an advantage. Open source smart software have to have money from somewhere; otherwise, the costs of producing a winning service drop. If a large outfit with cash goes open source, that is a bold chess move which other outfits cannot afford to take. The feel good, community aspect of a smart software solution that can be used in a large number of use cases is going to fade quickly when any money on the table is taken by users who neither contribute, pay for training, or hire great open source coders as consultants. Serious players just take the software, innovate, and lock up the benefits.
“Who would do this?” some might ask.
How about China, Russia, or some nation state not too interested in the Silicon Valley way? How about an entrepreneur in Armenia or one of the Stans who wants to create a novel product or service and charge for it? Sure, US-based services may host the product or service, but the actual big bucks flow to the outfit who keeps the technology “secret”?
At this time, US companies which make high-value software available for free to anyone who can connect to the Internet and download a file are not helping American business. You may disagree. But I know that there are quite a few organizations (commercial and governmental) who think the US approach to open source software is just plain dumb.
Wrapping up an important technology with do-goodism and mostly faux hand waving about the community creates two things:
- An advantage for commercial enterprises who want to thwart American technical influence
- Free intelligence for nation-states who would like nothing more than convert the US into a client republic.
I did a job for a bunch of venture people who were into the open source religion. The reality is that at this time an alleged monopoly like Google can use its money and control of information flows to cripple other outfits trying to train their systems. On the other hand, companies who just want AI to work may become captive to an enterprise software vendor who is also an alleged monopoly. The companies funded by this firm have little chance of producing sustainable revenue. The best exits will be gift wrapping the “innovation” and selling it to another group of smart software-hungry investors.
Does the world need dozens of smart software “big dogs”? The answer is, “No.” At this time, the US is encouraging companies to make great strides in smart software. These are taking place. However, the rest of the world is learning and may have little or no desire to follow the open source path to the big WWF face off in the US.
The smart software revolution is one example of how America’s technology policy does not operate in a way that will cause our adversaries to do anything but download, enhance, build on, and lock up increasingly smarter AI systems.
From my vantage point, it is too late to undo the damage the wildness of the last few years can be remediated. The big winners in open source are not the individual products. Like the WWF shows, the winner is the promoter. Very American and decidedly different from what those in other countries might expect or want. Money, control, and power are more important than the open source movement. Proprietary may be that group’s preferred approach. Open source is software created by computer science students to prove they can produce code that does something. The “real” smart software is quite different.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2024
Yep, the Old Internet Is Gone. Learn to Love the New Internet
August 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The market has given the Google the green light to restrict information. The information highway has a new on ramp. If you want content created by people who were not compensated, you have to use Google search. Toss in the advertising system and that good old free market is going to deliver bumper revenue to stakeholders.
Online search is a problem. Here’s an old timer like me who broke his leg. The young wizard who works at a large online services firm explains that I should not worry. By the time my leg heals, I will be dead. Happy thoughts from one of those Gen somethings. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How your security systems today?
What about users? The reality is that with Google the default search system in Apple iPhones, the brand that has redefined search and retrieval to mean “pay to play,” what’s the big deal?
Years ago I explained in numerous speeches and articles in publications like Online Magazine that online fosters the creation of centralized monopolistic information services. Some information professionals dismissed my observation as stupid. The general response was that online would generate benefits. I agree. But there were a few downsides. I usually pointed to the duopoly in online for fee legal information. I referenced the American Chemical Society’s online service Chemical Abstracts. I even pointed out that outfits like Predicasts and the New York Times would have a very, very tough time creating profitable information centric standalone businesses. The centralization or magnetic pull of certain online services would make generating profits very expensive.
So where are we now? I read “Reddit, Google, and the Real Cost of the AI Data Rush.” The article is representative of “real” journalists’, pundits’, and some regulators’ understanding of online information. The write up says:
Google, like Reddit, owes its existence and success to the principles and practices of the open web, but exclusive arrangements like these mark the end of that long and incredibly fruitful era. They’re also a sign of things to come. The web was already in rough shape, reduced over the last 15 years by the rise of walled-off platforms, battered by advertising consolidation, and polluted by a glut of content from the AI products that used it for training. The rise of AI scraping threatens to finish the job, collapsing a flawed but enormously successful, decades-long experiment in open networking and human communication to a set of antagonistic contracts between warring tech firms.
I want to point out that Google bought rights to Reddit. If you want to search Reddit, you use Google. Because Reddit is a high traffic site, users have to use Google. Guess what? Most online users do not care. Search means Google. Information access means Google. Finding a restaurant means Google. Period.
Google has become a center of gravity in the online universe. One can argue that Google is the Internet. In my monograph Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator that is exactly what some Googlers envisioned for the firm. Once a user accesses Google, Google controls the information world. One can argue that Meta and TikTok are going to prevent that. Some folks suggest that one of the AI start ups will neutralize Google’s centralized gravitational force. Google is a distributed outfit. Think of it as like the background radiation in our universe. It is just there. Live with it.
Google has converted content created by people who were not compensated into zeros and ones that will enhance its magnetic pull on users.
Several observations:
- Users were so enamored of a service which could show useful results from the quite large and very disorganized pools of digital information that it sucked the life out of its competitors.
- Once a funding source got the message through to the Backrub boys that they had to monetize, the company obtained inspiration from the Yahoo pay to play model which Yahoo acquired from Overture.com, formerly GoTo.com. That pay to play thing produces lots of money when there is traffic. Google was getting traffic.
- Regulators ignored Google’s slow but steady march to information dominance. In fact, some regulatory professionals with whom I spoke thought Google was the cat’s pajamas and asked me if I could get them Google T shirts for their kids. Google was not evil; it was fund; it was success.
- Almost the entire world’s intelligence professionals relay on Google for OSINT. If you don’t know what that means, forget the term. Knowing the control Google can exert by filtering information on a topic will probably give you a tummy ache.
The future is going to look exactly like the world of online in the year 1980. Google and maybe a couple of smaller also rans will control access to digital information. To get advertising free and to have a shot at bias free answers to online queries, users will have to pay. The currency will be watching advertising or subscribing to a premium service. The business model of Dialog Information Services, SDC, DataStar, and Dialcom is coming back. The prices will inflate. Control of information will be easy. And shaping or weaponizing content flow from these next generation online services will be too profitable to resist. Learn to love Google. It is more powerful than a single country’s government. If a country gets too frisky for Google’s liking, the company has ways to evade issues that make it uncomfortable.
The cartoon in this blog post summarizes my view of the situation. A fix will take a long time. I will be pushing up petunias before the problems of online search and the Information Superhighway are remediated.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2024
Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining: Cyber Security Software from Israel
August 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I wonder if those lucky Delta passengers have made it to their destinations yet? The Crowdstrike misstep caused a bit of a problem for some systems and for humans too. I saw a notice that CrowdStrike, founded by a Russian I believe, offered $10 to each person troubled by the teenie tiny mistake. Isn’t that too much for something which cannot be blamed on any one person, just on an elusive machine-centric process that had a bad hair day? Why pay anything?
And there is a silver lining to the CrowdStrike cloud! I read “CrowdStrike’s Troubles Open New Doors for Israeli Cyber Companies.” [Note that this source document may be paywalled. Just a heads up, gentle reader.] The write up asserts:
For the Israeli cyber sector, CrowdStrike’s troubles are an opportunity.
Yep, opportunity.
The write up adds:
Friday’s [July 26, 2024] drop in CrowdStrike shares reflects investor frustration and the expectation that potential customers will now turn to competitors, strengthening the position of Israeli companies. This situation may renew interest in smaller startups and local procurement in Israel, given how many institutions were affected by the CrowdStrike debacle.
The write up uses the term platformization, which is a marketing concept of the Palo Alto Networks cyber security firm. The idea is that a typical company is a rat’s nest of cyber security systems. No one is able to keep the features, functions, and flaws of several systems in mind. When something misfires or a tiny stumble occurs, Mr. Chaos, the friend of every cyber security professional, strolls in and asks, “Planning on a fun weekend, folks?”
The sales person makes reality look different. Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. Your marketing would never distort anything, right?
Platformization sounds great. I am not sure that any cyber security magic wand works. My econo-box automobile runs, but I would not say, “It works.” I can ponder this conundrum as I wait for the mobile repair fellow to arrive and riding in an Uber back to my office in rural Kentucky. The rides are evidence that “just works” is not exactly accurate. Your mileage may vary.
I want to point out that the write up is a bit of content marketing for Palo Alto Networks. Furthermore, I want to bring up a point which irritates some of my friends; namely, the Israeli cyber security systems, infrastructure, and smart software did not work in October 2023. Sure, there are lots of explanations. But which is more of a problem? CrowdStrike or the ineffectiveness of multiple systems?
Your call. The solution to cyber issues resides in informed professionals, adequate resources like money, and a commitment to security. Assumptions, marketing lingo, and fancy trade show booths simply prove that overpromising and under delivering is standard operating procedure at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2024
No Llama 3 for EU
July 31, 2024
Frustrated with European regulators, Meta is ready to take its AI ball and go home. Axios reveals, “Scoop: Meta Won’t Offer Future Multimodal AI Models in EU.” Reporter Ina Fried writes:
“Meta will withhold its next multimodal AI model — and future ones — from customers in the European Union because of what it says is a lack of clarity from regulators there, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The move sets up a showdown between Meta and EU regulators and highlights a growing willingness among U.S. tech giants to withhold products from European customers. State of play: ’We will release a multimodal Llama model over the coming months, but not in the EU due to the unpredictable nature of the European regulatory environment,’ Meta said in a statement to Axios.”
So there. And Meta is not the only firm petulant in the face of privacy regulations. Apple recently made a similar declaration. So governments may not be able to regulate AI, but AI outfits can try to regulate governments. Seems legit. The EU’s stance is that Llama 3 may not feed on European users’ Facebook and Instagram posts. Does Meta hope FOMO will make the EU back down? We learn:
“Meta plans to incorporate the new multimodal models, which are able to reason across video, audio, images and text, in a wide range of products, including smartphones and its Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses. Meta says its decision also means that European companies will not be able to use the multimodal models even though they are being released under an open license. It could also prevent companies outside of the EU from offering products and services in Europe that make use of the new multimodal models. The company is also planning to release a larger, text-only version of its Llama 3 model soon. That will be made available for customers and companies in the EU, Meta said.”
The company insists EU user data is crucial to be sure its European products accurately reflect the region’s terminology and culture. Sure That is almost a plausible excuse.
Cynthia Murrell, July 31, 2024
One Legal Stab at CrowdStrike Liability
July 30, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “CrowdStrike Will Be Liable for Damages in France, Based on the OVH Precedent.” OVH is a provider of hosting and what I call “enabling services” to organizations in France, Europe, and other countries. The write up focuses on a modest problem OVH experienced in 2021. A fire consumed four of OVH’s data centers. Needless to say the customers of one of the largest online services providers in Europe were not too happy for two reasons: Backups were not available and the affected organizations were knocked offline.
Two astronauts look down at earth from the soon to be decommissioned space station. The lights and power on earth just flicked off. Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. No security meetings today?
The article focuses on the French courts’ decision that OVH was liable for damages. A number of details about the legal logic appear in the write up. For those of you who still watch Perry Mason reruns on Sling, please, navigate to the cited article for the details. I boiled the OVH tale down to a single dot point from the excellent article:
The court ruled the OVH backup service was not operated to a reasonable standard and failed at its purpose.
This means that in France and probably the European Union those technology savvy CrowdStrike wizards will be writing checks. The firm’s lawyers will get big checks for a number of years. Then the falconers of cyber threats will be scratching out checks to the customers and probably some of the well-heeled downstream airport lounge sleepers, the patients’ families died because surgeries could not be performed, and a kettle of seething government agencies whose emergency call services were dead.
The write concludes with this statement:
Customers operating in regulated industries like healthcare, finance, aerospace, transportation, are actually required to test and stage and track changes. CrowdStrike claims to have a dozen certifications and standards which require them to follow particular development practices and carry out various level of testing, but they clearly did not. The simple fact that CrowdStrike does not do any of that and actively refuses to, puts them in breach of compliance, which puts customers themselves in breach of compliance by using CrowdStrike. All together, there may be sufficient grounds to unilaterally terminate any CrowdStrike contracts for any customer who wishes to.
The key phrase is “in breach of compliance”. That’s going to be an interesting bit of lingo for lawyers involved in the dead Falcon affair to sort out.
Several observations:
- Will someone in the post-Falcon mess raise the question, “Could this be a recipe for a bad actor to emulate?” Could friends of one of the founder who has some ties to Russia be asked questions?
- What about that outstanding security of the Microsoft servers? How will the smart software outfit fixated on putting ads for a browser in an operating system respond? Those blue screens are not what I associate with my Apple Mini servers. I think our Linux boxes display a somewhat ominous black screen. Blue is who?
- Will this incident be shoved around until absolutely no one knows who signed off on the code modules which contributed to this somewhat interesting global event? My hunch it could be a person working as a contractor from a yurt somewhere northeast of Armenia. What’s your best guess?
Net net: It is definite that a cyber attack aimed at the heart of Microsoft’s software can create global outages. How many computer science students in Bulgaria are thinking about this issue? Will bad actors’ technology wizards rethink what can be done with a simple pushed update?
Stephen E Arnold, July 30, 2024
Let Go of My Throat: The Academic Journal Grip of Death
July 30, 2024
There are several problems with the current system of academic publishing, like fake research and citation feedback loops. Then there is the nasty structure of the system itself. Publishers hold the very institutions that produce good research over a financial barrel when it comes to accessing and furthering that research. Some academics insist it is high time to ditch the exploitative (and science-squelching) model. The Guardian vows, “Academic Journals Are a Lucrative Scam—and We’re Determined to Change That.” Writer and political science professor Arash Abizadeh explains:
“The commercial stranglehold on academic publishing is doing considerable damage to our intellectual and scientific culture. As disinformation and propaganda spread freely online, genuine research and scholarship remains gated and prohibitively expensive. For the past couple of years, I worked as an editor of Philosophy & Public Affairs, one of the leading journals in political philosophy. It was founded in 1972, and it has published research from renowned philosophers such as John Rawls, Judith Jarvis Thomson and Peter Singer. Many of the most influential ideas in our field, on topics from abortion and democracy to famine and colonialism, started out in the pages of this journal. But earlier this year, my co-editors and I and our editorial board decided we’d had enough, and resigned en masse. We were sick of the academic publishing racket and had decided to try something different. We wanted to launch a journal that would be truly open access, ensuring anyone could read our articles. This will be published by the Open Library of Humanities, a not-for-profit publisher funded by a consortium of libraries and other institutions.”
Abizadeh explores how academic publishing got to the point where opening up access amounts to a rebellion of sorts. See the write-up for more details, but basically: Publishers snapped up university-press journals, hiked prices, and forced libraries to buy in unwanted bundles. But what about those free, “open-access” articles? Most are not free so much as prepaid—by the authors themselves. Or, more often, their universities. True, or “diamond,” open access is the goal of Abizadeh and his colleagues. Free to write, free to read, and funded by universities, libraries, and other organizations. Will more editors join the effort to wriggle out of academic journals’ stranglehold? And how will publishing behemoths fight back?
Cynthia Murrell, July 30, 2024
Silicon Valley Streetbeefs
July 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
If you are not familiar with Streetbeefs, I suggest you watch the “Top 5 Boxing Knock Outs” on YouTube. Don’t forget to explore the articles about Streetbeefs at the about section of the Community page for the producer. Useful information appears on the main Web site too.
So what’s Streetbeefs do? The organization’s tag line explains:
Guns down. Gloves up.
If that is not sufficiently clear, the organization offers:
This org is for fighters and friends of STREETBEEFS! Everyone who fights for Streetbeefs does so to solve a dispute, or for pure sport… NOONE IS PAID TO FIGHT HERE… We also have many dedicated volunteers who help with reffing, security, etc..but if you’re joining the group looking for a paid position please know we’re not hiring. This is a brotherhood/sisterhood of like minded people who love fighting, fitness, and who hate gun violence. Our goal is to build a large community of people dedicated to stopping street violence and who can depend on each other like family. This organization is filled with tough people…but its also filled with the most giving people around..Streetbeefs members support each other to the fullest.
I read “Elon Musk Is Still Insisting He’s Down to Fight Mark Zuckerberg: ‘Any Place, Any Time, Any Rules.” This article makes clear that Mark (Senator, thank you for that question) Zuckerberg and Elon (over promise and under deliver) Musk want to fight one another. The article says (I cannot believe I read this by the way):
Elon Musk is impressed with Meta’s latest AI model, but he’s still raring for a bout in the ring with Mark Zuckerberg. “I’ll fight Zuckerberg any place, any time, any rules,” Musk told reporters in Washington on Wednesday [July 24, 2024].
My thought is that Mr. Musk should ring up Sunshine Trask, who is the group manager for fighter signups at Streetbeefs. Trask can coordinate the fight plus the undercard with the two testosterone charged big technology giants. With most fights held in make shift rings outside, Golden Gate Park might be a suitable venue for the event. Another possibility is to rope off the street near Philz coffee in Sunnyvale and hold the “beef” in Plaza de Sol.
Both Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuckerberg can meet with Scarface, the principal figure at Streetbeefs and get a sense of how the show will go down, what the rules are, and why videographers are in the ring with the fighter.
If these titans of technology want to fight, why not bring their idea of manly valor to a group with considerable experience handling individuals of diverse character.
Perhaps the “winner” would ask Scarface if he would go a few rounds to test his skills and valor against the victor of the truly bizarre dust up the most macho of the Sillycon Valley superstars. My hunch is that talking with Scarface and his colleagues might inform Messrs. Musk and Zuckerberg of the brilliance, maturity, and excitement of fighting for real.
On the other hand, Scarface might demonstrate his street and business acumen by saying, “You guys are adults?”
Stephen E Arnold, July 26, 2024
How Can Creatives Survive AI Disruptions?
July 26, 2024
What does the AI takeover mean for creative workers? No one really knows. But there is no shortage of opinions on how to prepare. Art and design magazine Creative Boom polled its readers and shares some of their insights in, “Where the Creative Industry Is Heading, and How to Survive the Next 15 Years.” Some point out creatives have had to adapt to disruptive technologies before, like digital photography, Photoshop, and Adobe Illustrator. But is generative AI in another ballpark? Perhaps.
Several creatives emphasize, well, creativity. They insist human creativity is something AI can never master (though I would not be so sure.) They advise fellow artists and designers to focus on what makes one human over mastering the tech. Writer Tom May states:
“It’s now less about your technical skills and more about your ideas in terms of concepts, branding and strategy. In other words, as technology automates more aspects of our creative work, our human-centric skills will become increasingly valuable. The ability to understand and connect with people on an emotional level, think critically, solve complex problems, and generate truly original ideas are skills that AI cannot easily replicate. ‘As a designer, I believe we need to think about the future regarding how we can be more human and design in a more human way,’ says designer Hugo Carvalho. ‘It’s like how Art Nouveau was a reaction to the loss of expression that came after the first industrial revolution. Similarly, this new era will be a reaction to AI and the loss of focus in human-to-human design, connections, and relationships.’”
How optimistic. The write-up advises perennial tactics like continuous learning, developing a strong personal style, networking, and taking risks. May also reminds readers not to sideline ethical considerations as they navigate AI upheaval. Accessibility, sustainability, cultural sensitivity, and social impact should remain priorities. Interesting. Is empathy the real factor that sets humans apart from algorithms?
Cynthia Murrell, July 26, 2024
The Simple Fix: Door Dash Some Diversity in AI
July 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “There’s a Simple Answer to the AI Bias Conundrum: More Diversity.” I have read some amazing online write ups in the last few days, but this essay really stopped me in my tracks. Let’s begin with an anecdote from 1973. A half century ago I worked at a nuclear consulting firm which became part of Halliburton Industries. You know Halliburton. Dick Cheney. Ringing a bell?
One of my first tasks for the senior vice president who hired me was to assist the firm in identifying minorities in American universities about to graduate with a PhD in nuclear engineering. I am a Type A, and I set about making telephone calls, doing site visits, and working with our special librarian Dominique Doré, who had had a similar job when she worked in France for a nuclear outfit in that country. I chugged along and identified two possibles. Each was at the US Naval Academy at different stages of their academic career. The individuals would not be available for a commercial job until each had completed military service. So I failed, right?
Not even the clever wolf can put on a simple costume and become something he is not. Is this a trope for a diversity issue? Thanks, OpenAI. Good enough because I got tired of being told, “Inappropriate prompt.”
Nope. The project was designed to train me to identify high-value individuals in PhD programs. I learned three things:
- Nuclear engineers with PhDs in the early 1970s comprised a small percentage of those with the pre-requisites to become nuclear engineers. (I won’t go into details, but you can think in terms of mathematics, physics, and something like biology because radiation can ruin one’s life in a jiffy.)
- The US Navy, the University of California-Berkeley, and a handful of other universities with PhD programs in nuclear engineering were scouting promising high school students in order to convince them to enter the universities’ or the US government’s programs.
- The demand for nuclear engineers (forget female, minority, or non-US citizen engineers) was high. The competition was intense. My now-deceased friend Dr. Jim Terwilliger from Virginia Tech told me that he received job offers every week, including one from an outfit in the then Soviet Union. The demand was worldwide, yet the pool of qualified individuals graduating with a PhD seemed to be limited to six to 10 in the US, 20 in France, and a dozen in what was then called “the Far East.”
Everyone wanted the PhDs in nuclear engineering. Diversity simply did not exist. The top dog at Halliburton 50 years ago, told me, “We need more nuclear engineers. It is just not simple.”
Now I read “There’s a Simple Answer to the AI Bias Conundrum: More Diversity.” Okay, easy to say. Why not try to deliver? Believe me if the US Navy, Halliburton, and a dumb pony like myself could not figure out how to equip a person with the skills and capabilities required to fool around with nuclear material, how will a group of technology wizards in Silicon Valley with oodles of cash just do what’s simple? The answer is, “It will take structural change, time, and an educational system that is similar to that which was provided a half century ago.”
The reality is that people without training, motivation, education, and incentives will not produce the content outputs at a scale needed to recalibrate those wondrous smart software knowledge spaces and probabilistic-centric smart software systems.
Here’s a passage from the write up which caught my attention:
Given the rapid race for profits and the tendrils of bias rooted in our digital libraries and lived experiences, it’s unlikely we’ll ever fully vanquish it from our AI innovation. But that can’t mean inaction or ignorance is acceptable. More diversity in STEM and more diversity of talent intimately involved in the AI process will undoubtedly mean more accurate, inclusive models — and that’s something we will all benefit from.
Okay, what’s the plan? Who is going to take the lead? What’s the timeline? Who will do the work to address the educational and psychological factors? Simple, right? Words, words, words.
Stephen E Arnold, July 25, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
