Google Claims It Fixed Gemini’s “Degenerate” People
September 2, 2024
History revision is a problem. It’s been a problem for…well…since the start of recorded history. The Internet and mass media are infamous for being incorrect about historical facts, but image generating AI, like Google’s Gemini, is even worse. Tech Crunch explains what Google did to correct its inaccurate algorithm: “Google Says It’s Fixed Gemini’s People-Generating Feature.”
Google released Gemini in early 2023, then over a year later paused the chatbot for being too “woke,”“politically incorrect,” and “historically inaccurate.” The worst of Gemini’s offending actions was when it (for example) was asked to depict a Roman legion as ethnically diverse which fit the woke DEI agenda, while when it was asked to make an equally ethnically diverse Zulu warrior army Gemini only returned brown-skinned people. The latter is historically accurate, because Google doesn’t want to offend western ethnic minorities and, of course, Europe (where light skinned pink people originate) was ethnically diverse centuries ago.
Everything was A OK, until someone invoked Godwin’s Law by asking Gemini to generate (degenerate [sic]) an image of Nazis. Gemini returned an ethnically diverse picture with all types of Nazis, not the historically accurate light-skinned Germans-native to Europe.
Google claims it fixed Gemini and it took way longer than planned. The people generative feature is only available to paid Gemini plans. How does Google plan to make its AI people less degenerative? Here’s how:
“According to the company, Imagen 3, the latest image-generating model built into Gemini, contains mitigations to make the people images Gemini produces more “fair.” For example, Imagen 3 was trained on AI-generated captions designed to ‘improve the variety and diversity of concepts associated with images in [its] training data,’ according to a technical paper shared with TechCrunch. And the model’s training data was filtered for “safety,” plus ‘review[ed] … with consideration to fairness issues,’ claims Google…;We’ve significantly reduced the potential for undesirable responses through extensive internal and external red-teaming testing, collaborating with independent experts to ensure ongoing improvement,” the spokesperson continued. ‘Our focus has been on rigorously testing people generation before turning it back on.’”
Google will eventually make it work and the company is smart to limit Gemini’s usage to paid subscriptions. Limiting the user pool means Google can better control the chatbot and (if need be) turn it off. It will work until bad actors learn how to abuse the chatbot again for their own sheets and giggles.
Whitney Grace, September 2, 2024
Yelp Google Legal Matter: A Glimpse of What Is to Come
August 29, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Yelp.com is one of the surviving re-inventions of the Yellow Pages. The online guide includes snapshots of a business, user reviews, and conveniences like classifications of business types. The company has asserted that Google has made the finding services’ life difficult. “Yelp Sues Google in Wake of Landmark Antitrust Ruling on Search” reports:
Yelp has spoken out about what it considers to be Google’s anticompetitive conduct for well over a decade. But the timing of Yelp’s lawsuit, filed just weeks after a Washington federal judge ruled that Google illegally monopolized the search market through exclusive deals, suggests that more companies may be emboldened to take action against the search leader in the coming months.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Yelp, like other efforts to build a business in the shadow of Google’s monolith has pointed out that the online advertising giant has acted in a way that inhibited Yelp’s business. In the years prior to Judge Mehta’s ruling that Google was — hang on now, gentle reader — a monopoly, Yelp’s objections went nowhere. However, since Google learned that Judge Mehta decided against Google’s arguments that it was a mom and pop business too, Yelp is making another run at Googzilla.
The write up points out:
In its complaint, Yelp recounts how Google at first sought to move users off its search page and out onto the web as quickly as possible, giving rise to a thriving ecosystem of sites like Yelp that sought to provide the information consumers were seeking. But when Google saw just how lucrative it could be to help users find which plumber to hire or which pizza to order, it decided to enter the market itself, Yelp alleges.
What’s an example of Google’s behavior toward Yelp and presumably other competitors? The write up says:
In its complaint, Yelp recounts how Google at first sought to move users off its search page and out onto the web as quickly as possible, giving rise to a thriving ecosystem of sites like Yelp that sought to provide the information consumers were seeking. But when Google saw just how lucrative it could be to help users find which plumber to hire or which pizza to order, it decided to enter the market itself, Yelp alleges.
The Google has, it appears, used a relatively simple method of surfing on queries for Yelp content. The technique is “self preferencing”; that is, Google just lists its own results above Yelp hits.
Several observations:
- Yelp has acted quickly, using the information in Judge Mehta’s decision as a surfboard
- Other companies will monitor this Yelp Google matter. If Yelp prevails, other companies which perceive themselves as victims of Google’s business tactics may head to court as well
- Google finds itself in a number of similar legal dust ups which add operating friction to the online advertising vendor’s business processes.
Google, like Gulliver, may be pinned down, tied up, and neutralized the way Gulliver was in Lilliput. That was satirical fiction; Yelp is operating in actual life.
Stephen E Arnold, August 29, 2024
Google Microtransaction Enabler: Chrome Beefs Up Its Monetization Options
August 29, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
For its next trick, Google appears to be channeling rival Amazon. We learn from TechRadar that “Google Is Developing a New Web Monetization Feature for Chrome that Could Really Change the Way We Pay for Things Online.” Will this development distract anyone from the recent monopoly ruling?
Writer Kristina Terech explains how Web Monetization will work for commercial websites:
“In a new support document published on the Google Chrome Platform Status site, Google explains that Web Monetization is a new technology that will enable website owners ‘to receive micro payments from users as they interact with their content.’ Google states its intention is noble, writing that Web Monetization is designed to be a new option for webmasters and publishers to generate revenue in a direct manner that’s not reliant on ads or subscriptions. Google explains that with Web Monetization, users would pay for content while they consume it. It’s also added a new HTML link element for websites to add to their URL address to indicate to the Chrome browser that the website supports Web Monetization. If this is set correctly in the website’s URL, for websites that facilitate users setting up digital wallets on it, when a person visits that website, a new monetization session would be created (for that person) on the site. I’m immediately skeptical about monetizing people’s attention even further than it already is, but Google reassures us that visitors will have control over the whole process, like the choice of sites they want to reward in this way and how much money they want to spend.”
But like so many online “choices,” how many users will pay enough attention to make them? I share Terech’s distaste for attention monetization, but that ship has sailed. The danger here (or advantage, for merchants): Many users will increase their spending by barely noticeable amounts that add up to a hefty chunk in the end. On the other hand, the feature could reduce costly processing charges by eliminating per-payment fees for merchants. Whether end users see those savings, though, depends on whether vendors choose to pass them along.
Cynthia Murrell, August 29, 2024
Eric Schmidt, Truth Teller at Stanford University, Bastion of Ethical Behavior
August 26, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I spotted some of the quotes in assorted online posts about Eric Schmidt’s talk / interview at Stanford University. I wanted to share a transcript of the remarks. You can find the ASCII transcript on GitHub at this link. For those interested in how Silicon Valley concepts influence one’s view of appropriate behavior, this talk is a gem. Is it at the level of the Confessions of St. Augustine? Well, the content is darned close in my opinion. Students of Google’s decision making past and present may find some guideposts. Aspiring “leadership” type people may well find tips and tricks.
Stephen E Arnold, August 26, 2024
Google Leadership Versus Valued Googlers
August 23, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-2.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The summer in rural Kentucky lingers on. About 2,300 miles away from the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show’s nerve center, the Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind entity is also “cyclonic heating from chaotic employee motion.” What’s this mean? Unsteady waters? Heat stroke? Confusion? Hallucinations? My goodness.
The Google leadership faces another round of employee pushback. I read “Workers at Google DeepMind Push Company to Drop Military Contracts.”
How could the Google smart software fail to predict this pattern? My view is that smart software has some limitations when it comes to managing AI wizards. Furthermore, Google senior managers have not been able to extract full knowledge value from the tools at their disposal to deal with complexity. Time Magazine reports:
Nearly 200 workers inside Google DeepMind, the company’s AI division, signed a letter calling on the tech giant to drop its contracts with military organizations earlier this year, according to a copy of the document reviewed by TIME and five people with knowledge of the matter. The letter circulated amid growing concerns inside the AI lab that its technology is being sold to militaries engaged in warfare, in what the workers say is a violation of Google’s own AI rules.
Why are AI Googlers grousing about military work? My personal view is that the recent hagiography of Palantir’s Alex Karp and the tie up between Microsoft and Palantir for Impact Level 5 services means that the US government is gearing up to spend some big bucks for warfighting technology. Google wants — really needs — this revenue. Penalties for its frisky behavior as what Judge Mehta describes and “monopolistic” could put a hit in the git along of Google ad revenue. Therefore, Google’s smart software can meet the hunger militaries have for intelligent software to perform a wide variety of functions. As the Russian special operation makes clear, “meat based” warfare is somewhat inefficient. Ukrainian garage-built drones with some AI bolted on perform better than a wave of 18 year olds with rifles and a handful of bullets. The example which sticks in my mind is a Ukrainian drone spotting a Russian soldier in the field partially obscured by bushes. The individual is attending to nature’s call.l The drone spots the “shape” and explodes near the Russian infantry man.
A former consultant faces an interpersonal Waterloo. How did that work out for Napoleon? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Are you guys working on the IPv6 issue? Busy weekend ahead?
Those who study warfare probably have their own ah-ha moment.
The Time Magazine write up adds:
Those principles state the company [Google/DeepMind] will not pursue applications of AI that are likely to cause “overall harm,” contribute to weapons or other technologies whose “principal purpose or implementation” is to cause injury, or build technologies “whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”) The letter says its signatories are concerned with “ensuring that Google’s AI Principles are upheld,” and adds: “We believe [DeepMind’s] leadership shares our concerns.”
I love it when wizards “believe” something.
Will the Sundar & Prabhakar brain trust do believing or banking revenue from government agencies eager to gain access to advantage artificial intelligence services and systems? My view is that the “believers” underestimate the uncertainty arising from potential sanctions, fines, or corporate deconstruction the decision of Judge Mehta presents.
The article adds this bit of color about the Sundar & Prabhakar response time to Googlers’ concern about warfighting applications:
The [objecting employees’] letter calls on DeepMind’s leaders to investigate allegations that militaries and weapons manufacturers are Google Cloud users; terminate access to DeepMind technology for military users; and set up a new governance body responsible for preventing DeepMind technology from being used by military clients in the future. Three months on from the letter’s circulation, Google has done none of those things, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. “We have received no meaningful response from leadership,” one said, “and we are growing increasingly frustrated.”
“No meaningful response” suggests that the Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind rhetoric is not satisfactory.
The write up concludes with this paragraph:
At a DeepMind town hall event in June, executives were asked to respond to the letter, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. DeepMind’s chief operating officer Lila Ibrahim answered the question. She told employees that DeepMind would not design or deploy any AI applications for weaponry or mass surveillance, and that Google Cloud customers were legally bound by the company’s terms of service and acceptable use policy, according to a set of notes taken during the meeting that were reviewed by TIME. Ibrahim added that she was proud of Google’s track record of advancing safe and responsible AI, and that it was the reason she chose to join, and stay at, the company.
With Microsoft and Palantir, among others, poised to capture some end-of-fiscal-year money from certain US government budgets, the comedy act’s headquarters’ planners want a piece of the action. How will the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act handle the situation? Why procrastinate? Perhaps the comedy act hopes the issue will just go away. The complaining employees have short attention spans, rely on TikTok-type services for information, and can be terminated like other Googlers who grouse, picket, boycott the Foosball table, or quiet quit while working on a personal start up.
The approach worked reasonably well before Judge Mehta labeled Google a monopoly operation. It worked when ad dollars flowed like latte at Philz Coffee. But today is different, and the unsettled personnel are not a joke and add to the uncertainty some have about the Google we know and love.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2024
Threat. What Threat? Google Does Not Behave Improperly. No No No.
August 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Amazing write up from a true poohbah publication: “Google Threatened Tech Influencers Unless They Preferred the Pixel.” Even more amazing is the Googley response: “We missed the mark?”
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Let’s think about this.
The poohbah publication reports:
A Pixel 9 review agreement required influencers to showcase the Pixel over competitors or have their relationship terminated. Google now says the language ‘missed the mark.’
What?
I thought Google was working overtime to build relationships and develop trust. I thought Google was characterized unfairly as a monopolist. I thought Google had some of that good old “Do no evil” DNA.
These misconceptions demonstrate how out of touch a dinobaby like me can be.
The write up points out:
The Verge has independently confirmed screenshots of the clause in this year’s Team Pixel agreement for the new Pixel phones, which various influencers began posting on X and Threads last night. The agreement tells participants they’re “expected to feature the Google Pixel device in place of any competitor mobile devices.” It also notes that “if it appears other brands are being preferred over the Pixel, we will need to cease the relationship between the brand and the creator.” The link to the form appears to have since been shut down.
Does that sound like a threat? As a dinobaby and non-influencer, I think the Google is just trying to prevent miscreants like those people posting information about Russia’s special operation from misinterpreting the Pixel gadgets. Look. Google was caught off guard and flipped into Code Red or whatever. Now the Gemini smart software is making virtually everyone’s life online better.
I think the Google is trying to be “honest.” The term, like the word “ethical”, can house many means. Consequently non-Googley phones, thoughts, ideas, and hallucinations are not permitted. Otherwise what? The write up explains:
Those terms certainly caused confusion online, with some assuming such terms apply to all product reviewers. However, that isn’t the case. Google’s official Pixel review program for publications like The Verge requires no such stipulations. (And, to be clear, The Verge would never accept such terms, in accordance with our ethics policy.)
The poohbah publication has ethics. That’s super.
Here’s the “last words” in the article about this issue that missed the mark:
Influencer is a broad term that encompasses all sorts of creators. Many influencers adhere to strict ethical standards, but many do not. The problem is there are no guidelines to follow and limited disclosure to help consumers if what they’re reading or watching was paid for in some way. The FTC is taking some steps to curtail fake and misleading reviews online, but as it stands right now, it can be hard for the average person to spot a genuine review from marketing. The Team Pixel program didn’t create this mess, but it is a sobering reflection of the murky state of online reviews.
Why would big outfits appear to threaten people? There are no consequences. And most people don’t care. Threats are enervating. There’s probably a course at Stanford University on the subject.
Net net: This is new behavior? Nope. It is characteristic of a largely unregulated outfit with lots of money which, at the present time, feels threatened. Why not do what’s necessary to remain wonderful, loved, and trusted. Or else!
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2024
Telegram Rolled Over for Russia. Has Google YouTube Become a Circus Animal Too?
August 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Most of the people with whom I interact do not know that Telegram apparently took steps to filter content which the Kremlin deemed unsuitable for Russian citizens. Information reaching me in late April 2024 asserted that Ukrainian government units were no longer able to use Telegram Messenger functions to disseminate information to Telegram users in Russia about Mr. Putin’s “special operation.” Telegram has made a big deal about its commitment to free speech, and it has taken a very, very light touch to censoring content and transactions on its basic and “secret” messaging service. Then, at the end of April 2024, Mr. Pavel Durov flipped, apparently in response to either a request or threat from someone in Russia. The change in direction for a messaging app with 900 million users is a peanut compared to Meta WhatsApp five million or so. But when free speech becomes obeisance I take note.
I have been tracking Russian YouTubers because I have found that some of the videos provide useful insights into the impact of the “special operation” on prices, the attitudes of young people, and imagery about the condition of housing, information day-to-day banking matters, and the demeanor of people in the background of some YouTube, TikTok, Rutube, and Kick videos.
I want to mention that Alphabet Google YouTube a couple of years ago took action to suspend Russian state channels from earning advertising revenue from the Google “we pay you” platform. Facebook and the “old” Twitter did this as well. I have heard that Google and YouTube leadership understood that Ukraine wanted those “propaganda channels” blocked. The online advertising giant complied. About 9,000 channels were demonetized or made difficult to find (to be fair, finding certain information on YouTube is not an easy task.) Now Russia has convinced Google to respond to its wishes.
So what? To most people, this is not important. Just block the “bad” content. Get on with life.
I watched a video called “Demonetized! Update and the Future.” The presenter is a former business manager who turned to YouTube to document his view of Russian political, business, and social events. The gentleman — allegedly named “Konstantin” — worked in the US. He returned to Russia and then moved to Uzbekistan. His YouTube channel is (was) titled Inside Russia.
The video “Demonetized! Update and the Future” caught my attention. Please, note, that the video may be unavailable when you read this blog post. “Demonetization” is Google speak for cutting of advertising revenue itself and to the creator.
Several other Russian vloggers producing English language content about Russia, the Land of Putin on the Fritz, have expressed concern about their vlogging since Russia slowed down YouTube bandwidth making some content unwatchable. Others have taken steps to avoid problems; for example, creators Svetlana, Niki, and Nfkrz have left Russia. Others are keeping a low profile.
This raises questions about the management approach in a large and mostly unregulated American high-technology company. According to Inside Russia’s owner Konstantin, YouTube offered no explanation for the demonetization of the channel. Konstantin asserts that YouTube is not providing information to him about its unilateral action. My hunch is that he does not want to come out and say, “The Kremlin pressured an American company to cut off my information about the impact of the ‘special operation’ on Russia.”
Several observations:
- I have heard but not verified that Apple has cooperated with the Kremlin’s wish for certain content to be blocked so that it does not quickly reach Russian citizens. It is unclear what has caused the US companies to knuckle under. My initial thought was, “Money.” These outfits want to obtain revenues from Russia and its federation, hoping to avoid a permanent ban when the “special operation” ends. The inducements (and I am speculating) might also have a kinetic component. That occurs when a person falls out of a third story window and then impacts the ground. Yes, falling out of windows can happen.
- I surmise that the vloggers who are “demonetized” are probably on a list. These individuals and their families are likely to have a tough time getting a Russian government job, a visa, or a passport. The list may have the address for the individual who is generating unacceptable-to-the-Kremlin content. (There is a Google Map for Uzbekistan’s suburb where Konstantin may be living.)
- It is possible that YouTube is doing nothing other than letting its “algorithm” make decisions. Demonetizing Russian YouTubers is nothing more than an unintended consequence of no material significance.
- Does YouTube deserve some attention because its mostly anything-goes approach to content seems to be malleable? For example, I can find information about how to steal a commercial software program owned by a German company via the YouTube search box. Why is this crime not filtered? Is a fellow talking about the “special operation” subject to a different set of rules?
Screen shot of suggested terms for the prompt “Magix Vegas Pro 21 crack” taken on August 16, 2024, at 224 pm US Eastern.
I have seen some interesting corporate actions in my 80 years. But the idea that a country, not particularly friendly to the U.S. at this time, can cause an American company to take what appears to be an specific step designed to curtail information flow is remarkable. Perhaps when Alphabet executives explain to Congress the filtering of certain American news related to events linked to the current presidential campaign more information will be made available?
If Konstantin’s allegations about demonetization are accurate, what’s next on Alphabet, Google, and YouTube’s to-do list for information snuffing or information cleansing?
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2024
AI Research: A New and Slippery Cost Center for the Google
August 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
A week or so ago, I read “Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizers.” The write up made crystal clear that Google’s DeepMind can cook up a test, throw bodies at it, and generate a bit of “gray” literature. The objective, in my opinion, was three-fold. [1] The paper makes clear that DeepMind is thinking about its smart software’s weaknesses and wants to figure out what to do about them. And [2] DeepMind wants to keep up the flow of PR – Marketing which says, “We are really the Big Dogs in this stuff. Good luck catching up with the DeepMind deep researchers.” Note: The third item appears after the numbers.
I think the paper reveals a third and unintended consequence. This issue is made more tangible by an entity named 152334H and captured in “Calculating the Cost of a Google DeepMind Paper.” (Oh, 152334 is a deep blue black color if anyone cares.)
That write up presents calculations supporting this assertion:
How to burn US$10,000,000 on an arXiv preprint
The write up included this table presenting the costs to replicate what the xx Googlers and DeepMinders did to produce the ArXiv gray paper:
Notice, please, that the estimate is nearly $13 million. Anyone want to verify the Google results? What am I hearing? Crickets.
The gray paper’s 11 authors had to run the draft by review leadership and a lawyer or two. Once okayed, the document was converted to the arXiv format, and we the findings to improve our understanding of how much work goes into the achievements of the quantumly supreme Google.
Thijs number of $12 million and change brings me to item [3]. The paper illustrates why Google has a tough time controlling its costs. The paper is not “marketing,” because it is R&D. Some of the expense can be shuffled around. But in my book, the research is overhead, but it is not counted like the costs of cubicles for administrative assistants. It is science; it is a cost of doing business. Suck it up, you buttercups, in accounting.
The write up illustrates why Google needs as much money as it can possibly grab. These costs which are not really nice, tidy costs have to be covered. With more than 150,000 people working on projects, the costs of “gray” papers is a trigger for more costs. The compute time has to be paid for. Hello, cloud customers. The “thinking time” has to be paid for because coming up with great research is open ended and may take weeks, months, or years. One could not rush Einstein. One cannot rush Google wizards in the AI realm either.
The point of this blog post is to create a bit of sympathy for the professionals in Google’s accounting department. Those folks have a tough job figuring out how to cut costs. One cannot prevent 11 people from burning through computer time. The costs just hockey stick. Consequently the quantumly supreme professionals involved in Google cost control look for simpler, more comprehensible ways to generate sufficient cash to cover what are essentially “surprise” costs. These tools include magic wand behavior over payments to creators, smart commission tables to compensate advertising partners, and demands for more efficiency from Googlers who are not thinking big thoughts about big AI topics.
Net net: Have some awareness of how tough it is to be quantumly supreme. One has to keep the PR and Marketing messaging on track. One has to notch breakthroughs, insights, and innovations. What about that glue on the pizza thing? Answer: What?
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2024
Google and Its Smart Software: The Emotion Directed Use Case
July 31, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
How different are the Googlers from those smack in the middle of a normal curve? Some evidence is provided to answer this question in the Ars Technica article “Outsourcing Emotion: The Horror of Google’s “Dear Sydney” AI Ad.” I did not see the advertisement. The volume of messages flooding through my channels each days has allowed me to develop what I call “ad blindness.” I don’t notice them; I don’t watch them; and I don’t care about the crazy content presentation which I struggle to understand.
A young person has to write a sympathy card. The smart software is encouraging to use the word “feel.” This is a word foreign to the individual who wants to work for big tech someday. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Do you have your hands full with security issues today?
Ars Technica watches TV and the Olympics. The write up reports:
In it, a proud father seeks help writing a letter on behalf of his daughter, who is an aspiring runner and superfan of world-record-holding hurdler Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone. “I’m pretty good with words, but this has to be just right,” the father intones before asking Gemini to “Help my daughter write a letter telling Sydney how inspiring she is…” Gemini dutifully responds with a draft letter in which the LLM tells the runner, on behalf of the daughter, that she wants to be “just like you.”
What’s going on? The father wants to write something personal to his progeny. A Hallmark card may never be delivered from the US to France. The solution is an emessage. That makes sense. Essential services like delivering snail mail are like most major systems not working particularly well.
Ars Technica points out:
But I think the most offensive thing about the ad is what it implies about the kinds of human tasks Google sees AI replacing. Rather than using LLMs to automate tedious busywork or difficult research questions, “Dear Sydney” presents a world where Gemini can help us offload a heartwarming shared moment of connection with our children.
I find the article’s negative reaction to a Mad Ave-type of message play somewhat insensitive. Let’s look at this use of smart software from the point of view of a person who is at the right hand tail end of the normal distribution. The factors in this curve are compensation, cleverness as measured in a Google interview, and intelligence as determined by either what school a person attended, achievements when a person was in his or her teens, or solving one of the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences brain teasers. (These are shared at cocktail parties or over coffee. If you can’t answer, you pay the bill and never get invited back.)
Let’s run down the use of AI from this hypothetical right of loser viewpoint:
- What’s with this assumption that a Google-type person has experience with human interaction. Why not send a text even though your co-worker is at the next desk? Why waste time and brain cycles trying to emulate a Hallmark greeting card contractor’s phraseology. The use of AI is simply logical.
- Why criticize an alleged Googler or Googler-by-the-gig for using the company’s outstanding, quantumly supreme AI system? This outfit spends millions on running AI tests which allow the firm’s smart software to perform in an optimal manner in the messaging department. This is “eating the dog food one has prepared.” Think of it as quality testing.
- The AI system, running in the Google Cloud on Google technology is faster than even a quantumly supreme Googler when it comes to generating feel-good platitudes. The technology works well. Evaluate this message in terms of the effectiveness of the messaging generated by Google leadership with regard to the Dr. Timnit Gebru matter. Upper quartile of performance which is far beyond the dead center of the bell curve humanoids.
My view is that there is one positive from this use of smart software to message a partially-developed and not completely educated younger person. The Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act has been recycling jokes and bits for months. Some find them repetitive. I do not. I am fascinated by the recycling. The S&P Show has its fans just as Jack Benny does decades after his demise. But others want new material.
By golly, I think the Google ad showing Google’s smart software generating a parental note is a hoot and a great demo. Plus look at the PR the spot has generated.
What’s not to like? Not much if you are Googley. If you are not Googley, sorry. There’s not much that can be done except shove ads at you whenever you encounter a Google product or service. The ad illustrates the mental orientation of Google. Learn to love it. Nothing is going to alter the trajectory of the Google for the foreseeable future. Why not use Google’s smart software to write a sympathy note to a friend when his or her parent dies? Why not use Google to write a note to the dean of a college arguing that your child should be admitted? Why not let Google think for you? At least that decision would be intentional.
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 2024
How
How
How
How
How
Which Outfit Will Win? The Google or Some Bunch of Busy Bodies
July 30, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
It may not be the shoot out at the OK Corral, but the dust up is likely to be a fan favorite. It is possible that some crypto outfit will find a way to issue an NFT and host pay-per-view broadcasts of the committee meetings, lawyer news conferences, and pundits recycling press releases. On the other hand, maybe the shoot out is a Hollywood deal. Everyone knows who is going to win before the real action begins.
“Third Party Cookies Have Got to Go” reports:
After reading Google’s announcement that they no longer plan to deprecate third-party cookies, we wanted to make our position clear. We have updated our TAG finding Third-party cookies must be removed to spell out our concerns.
A great debate is underway. Who or what wins? Experience suggests that money has an advantage in this type of disagreement. Thanks, MSFT. Good enough.
Who is making this draconian statement? A government regulator? A big-time legal eagle representing an NGO? Someone running for president of the United States? A member of the CCP? Nope, the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C. This group was set up by Tim Berners-Lee, who wanted to find and link documents at CERN. The outfit wants to cook up Web standards, much to the delight of online advertising interests and certain organizations monitoring Web traffic. Rules allow crafting ways to circumvent their intent and enable the magical world of the modern Internet. How is that working out? I thought the big technology companies set standards like no “soft 404s” or “sorry, Chrome created a problem. We are really, really sorry.”
The write up continues:
We aren’t the only ones who are worried. The updated RFC that defines cookies says that third-party cookies have “inherent privacy issues” and that therefore web “resources cannot rely upon third-party cookies being treated consistently by user agents for the foreseeable future.” We agree. Furthermore, tracking and subsequent data collection and brokerage can support micro-targeting of political messages, which can have a detrimental impact on society, as identified by Privacy International and other organizations. Regulatory authorities, such as the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office, have also called for the blocking of third-party cookies.
I understand, but the Google seems to be doing one of those “let’s just dump this loser” moves. Revenue is more important than the silly privacy thing. Users who want privacy should take control of their technology.
The W3C points out:
The unfortunate climb-down will also have secondary effects, as it is likely to delay cross-browser work on effective alternatives to third-party cookies. We fear it will have an overall detrimental impact on the cause of improving privacy on the web. We sincerely hope that Google reverses this decision and re-commits to a path towards removal of third-party cookies.
Now the big question: “Who is going to win this shoot out?”
Normal folks might compromise or test a number of options to determine which makes the most sense at a particularly interesting point in time. There is post-Covid weirdness, the threat of escalating armed conflict in what six, 27, or 95 countries, and financial brittleness. That anti-fragile handwaving is not getting much traction in my opinion.
At one end of the corral are the sleek, technology wizards. These norm core folks have phasers, AI, and money. At the other end of the corral are the opponents who look like a random selection of Café de Paris customers. Place you bets.
Stephen E Arnold, July 30, 2024
.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
