The EU Cafeteria Wants to Serve Grilled Google
December 10, 2024
This write up was created by an actual 80-year-old dinobaby. If there is art, assume that smart software was involved. Just a tip.
How does one cook a kraken (a Norwegian octopus)? Here’s the recipe from Garlic & Zest:
- Clean the octopus, remove the beak(s) and place them in a large, heavy pot or Dutch oven.
- Add the vegetables, wine and corks.
- Bring to a boil, reduce heat to a simmer and cook for 45 minutes to one hour.
The hapless octopus awaits its fate. The goal is to serve up tasty individual dishes and follow up with a refreshing takoyaki. Thanks, MidJourney. Looks tasty.
I want to point out that the creature dies in this process. Now to the write up:
“Google Split Still on the Table, New EU Antitrust Chief Says” reports:
A potential split of Google’s business is still under consideration, according to Teresa Ribera, the European Union’s new competition chief, who also pledged to build bridges with incoming US President Donald Trump.
That’s the intent to grill the delectable sea monster, according to some children’s books.
The person setting the menu and supervising the chefs who will chop off the tentacles, remove its beak (ouch!), tenderize the helpless creature, and plop it on the barbie is Teresa Ribera.
For those who don’t follow Spain’s emergent leaders, Ms. Ribera is a socialist who will find some philosophical points of difference between her new kitchen team and the Wild West chuckwagon approach taken toward Google in the US of A.
The cited news story says the new EU Antitrust chef (sorry, I meant chief) allegedly said:
“It’s [chopping up Google] something that is of course on the table, and we try to work together with other relevant competition authorities worldwide, including the US competition authorities,” she said. ‘It is important to take into consideration this potential division, divestment of some of these businesses. We will be assessing case-by-case.”
The question is, “When will the main course be served?” Restaurant kitchens — like Brussels, the French and German governments — can be chaotic places.
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2024
Google and 2025: AI Scurrying and Lawsuits. Lots of Lawsuits
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I think there are 193 nations which are members of the UN. Two entities which one can count but are what one might call specialty equipment organizations: The Holy See aka Vatican City and the State of Palestine. The other 193 are “recognized,” mostly pay their UN dues, and have legal systems of varying quality and diligence.
I read “Google Earns Fresh Competition Scrutiny from Two Nations on a Single Day.” The write said:
In India – the most populous nation on Earth – the Competition Commission ordered [PDF] a probe after a developer called WinZo – which promotes itself with the chance to “Play Mobile Games & Win Cash” – complained that Google Play won’t host games that offer real money as prizes, only allowing sideloading onto Android devices.
Then it added:
Advertising is the reason for the other Google probe announced Thursday, by the Competition Bureau of Canada – the world’s second-largest country by area. The Bureau announced its investigations found Google’s ads biz “abused its dominant position through conduct intended to ensure that it would maintain and entrench its market power” and “engaged in conduct that reduces the competitiveness of rival ad tech tools and the likelihood of new entrants in the market.” The Bureau thinks the situation can be addressed if Google sells two of its ads tools – but the filing in which the identity of those two products will be revealed is yet to appear on the site of the Competition Tribunal.
Whether Google is good or evil is, in my opinion, irrelevant. With the US, the EU, Canada, and India chasing Google for its alleged misbehavior, other nations are going to pay attention.
Does that mean that another 100 or more nations will launch their own investigations and initiate legal action related to the lovable Google’s approach to business? In practical terms what does this mean?
- Google will be hiring lawyers and retaining firms. This is definitely good for legal eagles.
- Google will win some, delay some, and lose some cases. The losses, however, will result in consequences. Some of these will require Google to write checks for penalties. These can add up.
- Conflicting decisions are likely to result in delays. Those delays means that Google will be more Googley. The number of ads in YouTube will increase. The mysterious revenue payments will become more quirky. Commissions on various user-customer-Google touch points will increase.
Net net: We have a good example of what a failure to regulate high technology companies for a couple of decades creates. Kicking the can down the road has done what exactly?
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Batting Google and Whiffing the Chance
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I read “The AI War Was Never Just about AI.” Okay, AI war. We have a handful of mostly unregulated technology companies, a few nation states, and some unknown wizards working in their family garage. The situation is that a very tiny number of companies are fighting to become de facto reality definers for the next few years, maybe a decade or two. Against that background, does a single country’s judiciary think it can “regulate” an online company. One pragmatic approach has been to ban a service, the approach taken by Australia, China, Iran, and Russia among others. A less popular approach would be to force the organization out of business by arresting key executives, seizing assets, and imposing penalties on that organization’s partners. Does that sound a bit over the top?
The cited article does not go to the pit in the apricot. Google has been allowed to create an interlocking group of services which permeate the fabric of global online activity. There is no entertainment for some people in Armenia except YouTube. There are few choices to promote a product online without bumping into the Disney style people herders who push those who want to sell toward Google’s advertising systems. There is no getting from Point A to Point B without Google’s finding services whether dolled up in an AI wrapper, a digital version of a map, or a helpful message on the sign of a lawn service truck for Google Local.
The write up says:
The government wants to break up Google’s monopoly over the search market, but its proposed remedies may in fact do more to shape the future of AI. Google owns 15 products that serve at least half a billion people and businesses each—a sprawling ecosystem of gadgets, search and advertising, personal applications, and enterprise software. An AI assistant that shows up in (or works well with) those products will be the one that those people are most likely to use. And Google has already woven its flagship Gemini AI models into Search, Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, the Play Store, and YouTube, all of which have at least 2 billion users each. AI doesn’t have to be life-changing to be successful; it just has to be frictionless.
Okay. With a new administration taking the stage, how will this goal of leveling the playing field work. The legal processes at Google’s disposal mean that whatever the US government does can be appealed. Appeals take time. Who lasts longer? A government lawyer working under the thumb of DOGE and budget cutting or a giant outfit like Google? My view is that Google has more lawyers and more continuity.
Second, breaking up Google may face some headwinds from government entities quite dependent on its activities. The entire OSINT sector looks to Google for nuggets of information. It is possible some government agencies have embedded Google personnel on site. The “advertising” industry depends on distribution via the online stores of Apple and Google. Why is this important? The data brokers repackage the app data into data streams consumed by some government agencies and their contractors.
The write up says:
This is why it’s relevant that the DOJ’s proposed antitrust remedy takes aim at Google’s broader ecosystem. Federal and state attorneys asked the court to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser; cease preferencing its search products in the Android mobile operating system; prevent it from paying other companies, including Apple and Samsung, to make Google the default search engine; and allow rivals to syndicate Google’s search results and use its search index to build their own products. All of these and the DOJ’s other requests, under the auspices of search, are really shots at Google’s expansive empire.
So after more than 20 years of non regulation and hand slapping, the current legal decision is going to take apart an entity which is more like a cancer than a telephone company like AT&T. IBM was mostly untouched by the US government as was Microsoft. Now I am to to believe that a vastly different type of commercial enterprise which is for some functions more robust and effective than a government can have its wings clipped.
Is the Department of Justice concerned about AI? Come on. The DoJ personnel are thinking about the Department of Government Efficiency, presidential retribution, and enhancing LinkedIn profiles.
We are not in Kansas any longer where there is no AI war.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Googlers Face Another Ka-Ching Moment in the United Kingdom
December 5, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
Mr. Harold Carlin, my high school history teacher, made us learn about the phrase “The sun never sets on the British empire.” It has, and Mr. Carlin like many old-school teachers forced our class to read about protectionism, subjugation of people who did not enjoy beef Wellington, or assorted monopolies.
Two intelligent entities discuss how to resolve legal problems. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Now Google may want to think about the phrase, “The sun never sets on Google legal matters related to its alleged behavior in the datasphere.”
“Google Must Face £7B UK Class Action over Search Engine Dominance” reported:
The complaint centers around Google shutting out competition for mobile search, resulting in higher prices for advertisers, which were allegedly passed on to consumers. According to consumer rights campaigner Nikki Stopford, who is bringing the claim on behalf of UK consumers, Android device makers that wanted access to Google’s Play Store had to accept its search service. The ad slinger also paid Apple billions to have Google Search as the default for the Safari browser in iOS.
The write up noted:
According to Stopford [a UK official], Google used its position to up prices paid by advertisers, resulting in higher costs to consumers. “What we’re trying to achieve with this claim is essentially compensate consumers,” she said.
Google has moved some of its smart software activities to the UK. One would think that with Google’s cash resources, its attorneys, and its smart software — mere government officials would have zero chance of winning this now repetitive allegation that dear Google has behaved in an untoward way.
If I were a government litigator, I would just drop the suit, Jack Smith style.
Will the sun set on these allegations against the “do no evil” outfit?
Nope, not as long as the opportunity for a payout exists. Google may have been too successful in its decades long rampage through traditional business practices. The good news is that Google has an almost limitless supply of money. The bad news is that countries have an almost limitless supply of regulators. But Google has smart software. Remember the film “The Terminator”? Winner: Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2024
Another Google AI PR Push from a British Googler
November 27, 2024
This write up is the work of a humanoid who admits he is a dinobaby; that is, deadwood too old to employ. By the way, the “dinobaby” lingo allegedly emerged from IBM during its housecleaning event years ago. The art, however, is from MidJourney and definitely AI fakery.
With the US Department of Justice suggesting a haircut for the Google, the company is ramping up its AI PR. As you may recall, a Googler suggested that Google should not be constrained because Google has to be Google to do Google AI. With AI a wonderful benefit to customer service cost reductions and delivering advertising to those who use Google search, Google wants to get the word out.
The “art” was output by OpenAI, and I am not sure if it is quantumly supreme. The reason, “OpenAI is not Google.”
Examples include:
- “Demis Hassabis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry: We Will Need a Handful of Breakthroughs Before We Reach Artificial General Intelligence” in El Pais
- Fast Company’s “The Future According to Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis”
- “Google DeepMind AI Can Expertly Fix Errors in Quantum Computers” in New Scientist
The articles share several themes:
- Google’s AI is great and the company is working hard to make it greater
- Google’s research is pretty darn close to making AI smarter
- Google is doing good and wants to do more to make life even gooder.
From the razzmatazz world quantum computers to the practical applications for Bill and Betty Average, Google is the driving force for smart software.
It has the transformer expertise. It has a Nobel prize winner. It has a building in London’s Knowledge Quarter.
What the write ups do not talk about is the suggestion that the Google needs a haircut, specifically, its Chrome browser has to chopped off. The PR push has another goal in my opinion. Google must be seen as a prime mover in the technology that everyone absolutely must have: Googley AI.
With investors wondering if the money pumped into smart software will pay off, Google is doing what it can from what some might call its monopoly position to advance the agenda of Google’s technology. Microsoft, Amazon, and some Chinese outfits are spending billions to make sure they are part of the next big thing. Meta is chugging along with its open source approach. Apple is letting its AI fruit ripen which takes time.
Copyright hassles, electric power demands, and the alleged diminishing returns from high flier OpenAI mean that someone has to stand up and say, “AI is wonderful. Google is more wonderful.”
What’s interesting is that in each of the cited stories, notes of skepticism are evident; to wit:
El Pais says, “The CEO of Google DeepMind cools expectations about the progress of AGI…” Okay. Not exactly a rah rah statement.
Fast Company says, “That Google has had to apologize for glitches discovered by users underlines the urgency with which it’s been shipping features in the post-ChatGPT age.” Translation: Ooops.
New Scientist says, “That Google has had to apologize for glitches discovered by users underlines the urgency with which it’s been shipping features in the post-ChatGPT age.” Okay. Six percent. One method produces 100 error fixes. Google can fix 106 errors. Progress? Yep. Revolutionary? To some, sure. To others, not so much.
Each of these AI PR waves are little more than marketing. What’s interesting is that Google may be able to prevent significant changes to its operations if it can make Google the pivot point for the next big thing. I wonder if those involved in prosecuting the different cases about Google’s business behavior are convinced.
That chatter about selling Google’s browser is the background radiation against which these PR emissions are output. Will they be heard?
Stephen E Arnold, November 27, 2024
Google Chrome Generating Attention. A Lot of Attention
November 26, 2024
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) took the first step in breaking up Google’s Big Tech monopoly by forcing Alphabet Inc. to sell its popular Web browser, Chrome. Alphabet Inc. is responding like all past companies who had their market dominance broken up by the government: it is throwing a major temper tantrum. The BBC reports on Google’s meltdown in: “Google Reacts Angrily To Report It Will Have To Sell Chrome.”
Google claimed it had a right to retain its monopoly on search because it was the best in the world. Not so, the Judge Amit Mehta of the DOJ replied, especially since the word “Google” is now a verb and there’s no fair competition. Instead of facing their fate with dignity, Google is saying it will harm consumers and businesses if it’s forced to sell Chrome. While that could be interpreted as a threat, Google probably meant it to sound like it was worried about its users. We think it sounds like a disguised threat.
Google doesn’t want to lose its 90% hold on the global search market augmented by Chrome as the world’s most used Web browser at 64.61%. Chrome is the default browser on many PCs and mobile devices. Judge Mehta wants to end that dominance:
Judge Mehta said in his ruling in August that the default search engine was "extremely valuable real estate" for Google.
‘Even if a new entrant were positioned from a quality standpoint to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a firm could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners upwards of billions of dollars in revenue share’ he wrote.
The DOJ had been expected to provide its final proposed remedies to the court by Wednesday.
It said in an October filing documenting initial proposals it would be considering seeking a break-up of Google.
Potential remedies "that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play [its app store], and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products" were among its considerations, it said then.”
Google replied:
“In response to the DOJ’s filing in October, Google said "splitting off" parts of its business like Chrome or Android would "break them".
‘Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store,’ the company said.
It also said it would make it harder to keep Chrome secure.”
Those sounds like inflated arguments, especially when the only thing that will break is Google’s record profits. Investors will also be harmed, but that’s why it’s good to have a diverse portfolio. Wah Wah!
Whitney Grace, November 26, 2024
More Googley Human Resource Goodness
November 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The New York Post reported that a Googler has departed. “Google News Executive Shailesh Prakash Resigns As Tensions with Publishers Mount: Report” states:
Shailesh Prakash had served as a vice president and general manager for Google News. A source confirmed that he is no longer with the company… The circumstances behind Prakash’s resignation were not immediately clear. Google declined to comment.
Google tapped a professional who allegedly rode in the Bezos bulldozer when the world’s second or third richest man in the world acquired the Washington Post. (How has that been going? Yeah.)
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Google has been cheerfully indexing content and selling advertising for decades. After a number of years of talking and allegedly providing some support to outfits collecting, massaging, and making “real” news available, the Google is facing some headwinds.
The article reports:
The Big Tech giant rankled online publishers last May after it introduced a feature called “AI Overviews” – which places an auto-generated summary at the top of its search results while burying links to other sites. News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers, including The Post, said the feature would be “catastrophic to our traffic” and has called on the feds to intervene.
News flash from rural Kentucky: The good old days of newspaper publishing are unlikely to make a comeback. What’s the evidence for this statement? Video and outfits like Telegram and WhatsApp deliver content to cohorts who don’t think too much about a print anything.
The article pointed out:
Last month, The Post exclusively reported on emails that revealed how Google leveraged its access to the Office of the US Trade Representative as it sought to undermine overseas regulations — including Canada’s Online News Act, which required Google to pay for the right to display news content.
You can read that report “Google Emails with US Trade Reps Reveal Cozy Ties As Tech Giant Pushed to Hijack Policy” if you have time.
Let’s think about why a member of Google leadership like Shailesh Prakash would bail out. Among the options are:
- He wanted to spend more time with his family
- Another outfit wanted to hire him to manage something in the world of publishing
- He failed in making publishers happy.
The larger question is, “Why would Google think that one fellow could make a multi-decade problem go away?” The fact that I can ask this question reveals how Google’s consulting infused leaders think about an entire business sector. It also provides some insight into the confidence of a professional like Mr. Prakash.
What flees sinking ships? Certainly not the lawyers that Google will throw at this “problem.” Google has money and that may be enough to buy time and perhaps prevail. If there aren’t any publishers grousing, the problem gets resolved. Efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2024
Europe Wants Its Own Search System: Filtering, Trees, and More
November 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am not going to recount the history of search companies and government entities building an alternative to Google. One can toss in Bing, but Google is the Big Dog. Yandex is useful for Russian content. But there is a void even though Swisscows.com is providing anonymity (allegedly) and no tracking (allegedly).
Now a new European solution may become available. If you remember Pertimm, you probably know that Qwant absorbed some of that earlier search system’s goodness. And there is Ecosia, a search system which plants trees. The union of these two systems will be an alternative to Google. I think Exalead.com tried this before, but who remembers European search history in rural Kentucky?
“Two Upstart Search Engines Are Teaming Up to Take on Google” report:
The for-profit joint venture, dubbed European Search Perspective and located in Paris, could allow the small companies and any others that decide to join up to reduce their reliance on Google and Bing and serve results that are better tailored to their companies’ missions and Europeans’ tastes.
A possible name or temporary handle for the new search system is EUSP or European Search Perspective. What’s interesting is that the plumbing will be provided by a service provider named OVH. Four years ago, OVHcloud became a strategic partner of … wait for it … Google. Apparently that deal does not prohibit OVH from providing services to a European alternative to Google.
Also, you may recall that Eric Schmidt, former adult in the room at Google, suggested that Qwant kept him awake at night. Yes, Qwant has been a threat to Google for 13 years. How has that worked out? The original Qwant was interesting with a novel way of showing results from different types of sources. Now Qwant is actually okay. The problem with any search system, including Bing, is that the cost of maintaining an index containing new content and refreshing or updating previously indexed content is a big job. Toss in some AI goodness and cash burning furiously.
“Google” is now the word for search whether it works or does not. Perhaps regulatory actions will alter the fact that in Denmark, 99 percent of user queries flow to Google. Yep, Denmark. But one can’t go wrong with a ballpark figure like 95 percent of search queries outside of China and a handful of other countries are part of the Google market share.
How will the new team tackle the Google? I hope in a way that delivers more progress than Cogito. Remember that? Okay, no problem.
PS. Is a 13-year-old company an upstart? Sigh.
Stephen E Arnold, November 20, 2024
Bring Back Bell Labs…Wait, Google Did…
November 12, 2024
Bell Labs was once a magical, inventing wonderland and it established the foundation for modern communication, including the Internet. Everything was great at Bell Labs until projects got deadlines and creativity was stifled. Hackaday examines the history of the mythical place and discusses if there could ever be a new Bell Labs in, “What Would It Take To Recreate Bell Labs?”
Bell Labs employees were allowed to tinker on their projects for years as long as they focused on something to benefit the larger company. These fields ranges from metallurgy, optics, semiconductors, and more. Bell Labs worked with Western Electric and AT&T. These partnerships resulted in transistor, laser, photovoltaic cell, charge-coupled cell (CCD), Unix operating system, and more.
What made Bell Labs special was that inventors were allowed to let their creativity marinate and explore their ideas. This came to screeching halt in 1982 when the US courts ordered AT&T to breakup. Western Electric became Lucent Technologies and took Bell Labs with it. The creativity and gift of time disappeared too. Could Bell Labs exist today? No, not as it was. It would need to be updated:
The short answer to the original question of whether Bell Labs could be recreated today is thus a likely ‘no’, while the long answer would be ‘No, but we can create a Bell Labs suitable for today’s technology landscape’. Ultimately the idea of giving researchers leeway to tinker is one that is not only likely to get big returns, but passionate researchers will go out of their way to circumvent the system to work on this one thing that they are interested in.”
Google did have a new incarnation of Bell Labs. Did Google invent the Google Glass and billions in revenue from actions explained in the novel 1984?
Whitney Grace, November 12, 2024
Google: The Intellectual Oakland Because There Is No There There, Just Ads
November 7, 2024
The post is the work of a humanoid who happens to be a dinobaby. GenX, Y, and Z, read at your own risk. If art is included, smart software produces these banal images.
I read a clever essay titled “I Attended Google’s Creator Conversation Event, And It Turned Into A Funeral.” Be aware that the text can disappear as a big gray box covers the essay. Just read quickly.
The report explains that a small group of problematic content creators found their sites or other content effectively made invisible in Google search results. Boom. Videos disappear. Boom. Key words no longer retrieve a Web site. So Google did the politically correct thing and got a former conference organizer to round up some of the disaffected and come to a meeting to discuss content getting disappeared. No real reasons are given by Google, but the essay recounts the experience on one intrepid optimist who thought, “This time Google will be different.”
A very professional Googler evades a question. A person in the small group meeting asks it again. She is not happy with Google’s evasiveness. Well, too bad. Thanks, Midjourney. MSFT Copilot is still dead.
Nope.
The write up does a good job of capturing the nothingness of a Google office. If you have not been to one, try to set up a meeting. Good luck.
I want to focus on a couple of points in the essay and then offer a handful of observations.
I noted this statement:
During this small group discussion, I and others tried to get our Googlers to address the biggest problem facing our industry: Google giving big brands special treatment. Each time a site owner brought up the topic, we were quickly steered in another direction.
Google wants or assumes that it is control of everything most of the time. Losing control means one is not a true Googler. The people at this Google event learned that non-Googlers and their questions are simply not relevant. Google goes through certain theatrical events to check off a task.
Also, I circled this comment:
…we then asked the only question that mattered: Why has Google shadow banned our sites? Google’s Chief Search Scientist answered this question using a strategy based around gaslighting and said they hadn’t. Google doesn’t ever derank an entire site, only individual pages, he said. There is no site-wide classifier. He insisted it is only done at the page level.
This statement is accurate. A politically correct answer is one that does not reveal Google’s intent for anything. Individuals in charge of a project or program usually do not know what is going on with that program. Information is shared via the in house communications systems, email or text messages which are viewed as potential problems if released to those outside the Google, and meetings which are often ad hoc or without an agenda. The company sells advertising and reacts to what appear to be threats, legal actions, or ways to make money.
I noted this statement:
someone bluntly asked, since nothing is wrong with our sites, how do we recover? Google’s elderly Chief Search Scientist answered, without an ounce of pity or concern, that there would be updates but he didn’t know when they’d happen or what they’d do. Further questions on the subject were met with indifference as if he didn’t understand why we cared. He’d gotten the information he wanted. The conference was over. I don’t think he even said thanks.
This is accurate. Why should a member of leadership care about a “user”? Clicks produce data. The data and attendant content are processed to make more money. That’s why customer service is limited to big budget advertisers who spend real money on Google advertising.
Several observations:
- Google is big (150,000 or more employees). Google is chaotic. Individuals, groups, and entire divisions are not sure what is going on. How many messaging apps did Google have at one time? Lots. Why? No one knows or knew. The people coming to the meeting about finding themselves invisible in the Google finding systems assumed that a big company was not chaotic. Now the attendees know.
- People who create content have replaced people who used to get paid to create content. Now the “creators” work for the hope of Google advertising money. What’s the percentage paid to a “creator”? Try to find those data, gentle reader. Google does what it does: Individual Googlers or a couple of Googlers set up a system and go to play Foosball. That means 149,998 colleagues have zero idea what’s happening. Content “creators” expect someone to be responsible and to know how systems work. The author of the essay now knows only a couple of people may know the answer to the question. If those people quit, one will never know.
- The people who use Google to find relevant information are irrelevant as individuals. The person who wants to find a pizza in Cleveland may find only the pizza a person working on Google Local for Cleveland may like. If that pizza joint spends a couple of thousand per month on Google ads, that pizza may be findable. Most people do not understand the linkages between search engine optimization, Google advertising sales, and the Google mostly automated Google ad auctioning system. One search engineer working from home can have quite an impact on people who make content and assume that Google will make it findable. The author of the article knows this assumption about Google is a fairy tale.
Google has be labeled a monopoly. Google is suggesting that if the company is held accountable for its behaviors, the US will lose its foothold in artificial intelligence. Brilliant argument. Google has employees who have won a Nobel Prize. People not held accountable often lose sight of many things.
That’s why the big meeting was dumped into the task list of a person who ran search engine optimization conferences. One does not pray for that individual; one does not go to meetings managed by such a professional.
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
