Google and Its Embarrassing Document: Sounds Like Normal Google Talk to Me
October 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “DOJ Finally Posted That Embarrassing Court Doc Google Wanted to Hide.” I was surprised that the anti-trust trial exhibit made its way to this link. My initial reaction was that the judge was acting in a non-Googley way. I am not sure some of the people I know want Google’s activities to be impaired in any way.
The senior technology executive who seems to look like a gecko lizard is explaining how a business process for an addictive service operates. Those attending the meeting believe that a “lock in” approach is just the ticket to big bucks in the zippy world of digital trank. Hey, MidJourney, nice lizard. Know any?
That geo-fencing capability is quite helpful to some professionals. The second thing that surprised me was… no wait. Let me quote the Ars Technica article first. The write up says:
The document in question contains meeting notes that Google’s vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, “created for a course on communications,” Bloomberg reported. In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google’s search advertising “is one of the world’s greatest business models ever created” with economics that only certain “illicit businesses” selling “cigarettes or drugs” “could rival.” At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn’t recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students “things I don’t believe as part of the presentation.” He also claimed that the notes were “full of hyperbole and exaggeration” and did not reflect his true beliefs, “because there was no business purpose associated with it.”
Gee, I believe this. Sincere, open comment about one’s ability to “recall” is in line with other Google professionals’ commentary; for example, Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer, but we will provide your office with that information. (Note: I am paraphrasing something I may have heard or hallucinated with Bard, or I may not “recall” where and when I heard that type of statement.)
Ars Technica is doing the he said thing in this statement:
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak’s statements “don’t reflect the company’s opinion” and “were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing.” The spokesman also noted that Roszak “testified he didn’t believe the statements to be true.” According to Bloomberg, Google lawyer Edward Bennett told the court that Roszak’s notes suggest that the senior executive’s plan for his presentation was essentially “cosplaying Gordon Gekko”—a movie villain who symbolizes corporate greed from 1987’s Wall Street.
I think the Gordon Gekko comparison is unfair. The lingo strikes me as normal Silicon Valley sell-it-with-sizzle lingo.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2023
What Is the US High-Tech Service Hosing Bad Info? X Marks the Spot for the EU
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-7.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I do my little, inconsequential blog posts to pass my time. I am a dinobaby, not an entitled and over-confident Millennial or troubled GenX or GenY grouser. The Twitter thing did not seem useful to me as a career builder, personal megaphone, and individualized hype machine. Sure, we once had a script to post headlines of my blog posts, but I don’t think that I had a single constructive outcome from that automated effort. However, Twitter or X did provide me with examples of bad actors, general scams, and assorted craziness for my lectures. But Twitter or X did not mark the spot for me.
Exactly who is the happy humanoid lost in space? Is it an EU regulator? Is it a certain Silicon Valley wizard? Is it journalist who wants to be famous on the X Twitter thing? Thanks, MidJourney. Your gradient descent is accelerating.
But the EU is a different beastie. I am a dinobaby; the EU is chock full of educated regulators, policy makers, and big thinkers. “The EU Says Twitter/X Is the Worst Platform for Disinformation” explains that X (the spot marker) is making it tough to report election misinformation just as the EU wants it to be easier to report the allegedly bad stuff. The article states:
The European Union has identified X, formerly Twitter, as the social media platform with the highest ratio of misinformation/disinformation posts. The news came just as X disabled a feature that allows users to report misinformation related to elections.
The article adds:
It was found that X, which is no longer under the voluntary Code, is the worst social media platform when it comes to this practice. It was also discovered that those spreading disinformation had a lot more followers than those who did not and they tend to have joined the platform more recently. The Code has 44 signatories, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, TikTok, and LinkedIn. Musk’s platform pulled out of the Code in May, a move that followed EU warnings that a lack of moderation could be inadvertently helping Vladimir Putin as Russian propaganda relating to the war in Ukraine isn’t being removed.
True or false? That depends, of course.
What’s interesting is that the X.com Twitter thing charts its own course on its poly-dimensional business road map. How will this work out? Probably in ways beyond the ken of a dinobaby. No wonder so many regulators are uncomfortable with US high-tech type companies.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
What Is for Lunch? A Digital Hot Dog or Burger?
September 28, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-5.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “EU Warns Elon Musk after Twitter Found to Have Highest Rate of Disinformation.” My hunch is that the European Union did not plan on getting into the swamps of epistemological thought. But there the EU is. Knee deep. The write up includes a pointer too research about “disinformation.”
“Do I want a digital hot dog or a digital burger?” The young decider must choose when grazing online. He believes he likes both hot dogs and burgers. But what is the right choice? Mom will tell him. Thanks, MidJourney, you gradient descent master.
The cited article states:
On Twitter, she [European commissioner V?ra Jourová] said “disinformation actors were found to have significantly more followers than their non-disinformation counterparts and tend to have joined the platform more recently than non-disinformation users”.
The challenge in my mind is one that occupied Henri Bergson. Now the EU wants to codify what information is “okay” and what information is “not okay.” The point of view becomes important. The actual “disinformation” is “information.” Therefore, the EU wants to have the power to make the determination.
Is it possible the EU wants to become the gatekeeper? Is information blocked or deleted “gone”? What about those who believe the “disinformation”? Pretty exciting and probably a bit problematic if the majority of a population believe the “disinformation” to be accurate. How does one resolve this challenge?
Another committee meeting to neutralize “disinformation” and the technologies facilitating dissemination? Sounds like a good next step? What’s for lunch?
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2023
Getty and Its Licensed Smart Software Art
September 26, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. (Yep, the dinobaby is back from France. Thanks to those who made the trip professionally and personally enjoyable.)
The illustration shows a very, very happy image rights troll. The cloud of uncertainty from AI generated images has passed. Now the rights software bots, controlled by cheerful copyright trolls, can scour the Web for unauthorized image use. Forget the humanoids. The action will be from tireless AI generators and equally robust bots designed to charge a fee for the image created by zeros and ones. Yes!
A quite joyful copyright troll displays his killer moves. Thanks, MidJourney. The gradient descent continues, right into the legal eagles’ nests.
“Getty Made an AI Generator That Only Trained on Its Licensed Images” reports:
Generative AI by Getty Images (yes, it’s an unwieldy name) is trained only on the vast Getty Images library, including premium content, giving users full copyright indemnification. This means anyone using the tool and publishing the image it created commercially will be legally protected, promises Getty. Getty worked with Nvidia to use its Edify model, available on Nvidia’s generative AI model library Picasso.
This is exciting. Will the images include a tough-to-discern watermark? Will the images include a license plate, a social security number, or a just a nifty sting of harmless digits?
The article does reveal the money angle:
The company said any photos created with the tool will not be included in the Getty Images and iStock content libraries. Getty will pay creators if it uses their AI-generated image to train the current and future versions of the model. It will share revenues generated from the tool, “allocating both a pro rata share in respect of every file and a share based on traditional licensing revenue.”
Who will be happy? Getty, the trolls, or the designers who have a way to be more productive with a helping hand from the Getty robot? I think the world will be happier because monetization, smart software, and lawyers are a business model with legs… or claws.
Stephen E Arnold, September 26, 2023
If It Looks Like a Library, It Must Be Bad
September 25, 2023
The Internet Archive is the best digital archive that preserves the Internet’s past as well as the old media, out of print books, and more. The Internet Archive (IA) has been the subject of various legal battles regarding copyright infringement, especially in its project to scan and lend library books. Publishers Weekly details the results of the recent court battle: “Judgment Entered In Publishers, Internet Copyright Case.”
Judge John G. Koeltl issued a summary judgment decision that the Internet Archive did violate copyright and infringed on the holders’ rights. The IA and the plaintiffs reached an semi-agreement about distributing digital copies of copyrighted material but the details are not finalized. The IA plans to appeal the judge’s decision. A large continent of record labels are also suing the IA for violating music copyright.
The IA has a noble mission but it should respect copyright holders. The Subreddit DataHoarder has a swan song for the archive: “The Internet Archive Will Die-Any Serious Attempts At Archiving It?” User mikemikehindpart laments about the IA’s demise and blames the IA’s leadership for the potential shutdown. His biggest concern is about preserving the archive:
“I can’t really figure out any non-conspiratorial explanation as to why the IA people have not organized a grand archiving of the IA itself while there is still time. Is there any such initiative going on that one could join?”
User mikemikehindpart lambasts the IA leaders and claims they will go down in as self-proclaimed martyrs while dutifully handing over their hard drives if authorities come knocking. This user wants to preserve the archive especially defunct software, old Web sites, and other media that is not preserved anywhere else:
“fear is that the courts will soon order the site to be suspended while the trial is ongoing, so as to not cause further harm to the rights holders. Like turning off a switch, poof.
Eventually the entire archive will be ordered destroyed, not just the books and music. And piracy of popular books and music will continue like nothing happened, but all those website snapshots, blogs and lost software will simply disappear, like so many Yahoo! groups did.”
The comments vary on efforts how to start efforts to preserve the IA, to non-helpful non-sequiturs, and a few realistic posts that the IA may continue. The realistic posts agree the IA could continue if it stop sharing the copyrighted material and a consensus might be reached among IA and its “enemies.”
There are also comments that point to a serious truth: no one else is documenting the Internet, especially free stuff. One poster suggested that the Library of Congress should partner with the IA. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.
Whitney Grace, September 21, 2023
Those 78s Will Sell Big Again?
September 21, 2023
The Internet Archive (IA) is a wonderful repository of digital informational, but it is a controversial organization about respecting copyright laws. After battling a landmark case against book publishers, the IA is now facing another lawsuit as reported in the post, “Internet Archive Responds To Recording Industry Lawsuit Targeting Obsolete Media.” Sony, Universal Music Group, and other large record labels are suing the IA and others for the Great 78 Project.
The Great 78 Project’s goal is to preserve, research, discover, and share 78 rpm records that are 70-120 years old. Librarians, archivists, and sound engineers combined their resources to preserve the archaic, analog medium and provide free public access. The preserved recordings are used for researching teaching at museums, universities, and more:
“Statement from Brewster Kahle, digital librarian of the Internet Archive: ‘When people want to listen to music they go to Spotify. When people want to study 78rpm sound recordings as they were originally created, they go to libraries like the Internet Archive. Both are needed. There shouldn’t be conflict here.’”
Preserving an old yet appreciated medium is worthwhile and a labor of love. IA’s blog post fails to explain the details behind the lawsuit or defend the Great 78 Project other than restating its purpose. The IA should share the details about how the record companies are concerned about copyrighted material but many of the recordings are now in the public domain. The Great 78 Project should continue but the record companies should work with the preservation team instead of fighting them in court.
Whitney Grace, September 21, 2023
Google: Privacy Is Number One?
September 19, 2023
Big tech companies like Google do not respect users’ privacy rights. Yes, these companies have privacy statements and other legal documents that state they respect individuals’ privacy but it is all smoke and mirrors. The Verge has the lowdown on a privacy lawsuit filed against Google and a judge’s recent decision: “$5 Billion Google Lawsuit Over ‘Incognito Mode’ Tracking Moves A Step Closer To Trial.”
Chasom Brown, Willian Byatt, Jeremy Davis, Christopher Castillo, and Monique Trujillo filed a class action lawsuit against Google for collecting user information while in “incognito mode.” Publicly known as Chasom Brown, et. Al v. Google, the plaintiffs seek $5 billion in damages. Google requested a summary judgment, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of California denied it.
Judge Gonzalez noted that statements in the Chrome privacy nonie, Privacy Policy, Incognito Splash Screen, and Search & Browse Privately Help page explains how Incognito mode limits information and how people can control what information is shared. The judge wants the court to decide if these notices act as a binding agreement between Google and users that the former would not collect users’ data when they browsed privately.
Google disputes the claims and state that every time a new incognito tab is opened, Web sites might collect user information. There are other issues the plaintiffs and judge want to discuss:
“Another issue going against Google’s arguments that the judge mentioned is that the plaintiffs have evidence Google ‘stores users’ regular and private browsing data in the same logs; it uses those mixed logs to send users personalized ads; and, even if the individual data points gathered are anonymous by themselves, when aggregated, Google can use them to ‘uniquely identify a user with a high probability of success.’’
She also responded to a Google argument that the plaintiffs didn’t suffer economic injury, writing that ‘Plaintiffs have shown that there is a market for their browsing data and Google’s alleged surreptitious collection of the data inhibited plaintiffs’ ability to participate in that market…Finally, given the nature of Google’s data collection, the Court is satisfied that money damages alone are not an adequate remedy. Injunctive relief is necessary to address Google’s ongoing collection of users’ private browsing data.’”
Will Chasom Brown, et. Al v. Google go anywhere beyond the California court? Will the rest of the United States and other countries that have a large Google market, the European Union, do anything?
Whitney Grace, September 19, 2023
Can Smart Software Get Copyright? Wrong?
September 15, 2023
It is official: copyrights are for humans, not machines. JD Supra brings us up to date on AI and official copyright guidelines in, “Using AI to Create a Work – Copyright Protection and Infringement.” The basic principle goes both ways. Creators cannot copyright AI-generated material unless they have manipulated it enough to render it a creative work. On the other hand, it is a violation to publish AI-generated content that resembles a copyright-protected work. As for feeding algorithms a diet of human-made media, that is not officially against the rules. Yet. We learn:
“To obtain copyright protection for a work containing AI-generated material, the work must have sufficient human input, such as sufficient modification of the AI output or the human selection or arrangement of the AI content. However, copyright protection would be limited to those ‘human-made’ elements. Past, pending, and future copyright applications need to identify explicitly the human element and disclaim the AI-created content if it is more than minor. For existing registrations, a supplementary registration may be necessary. Works created using AI are subject to the same copyright infringement analysis applicable to any work. The issue with using AI to create works is that the sources of the original works may not be identified, so an infringement analysis cannot be conducted until the cease-and-desist letter is received. No court has yet adopted the theory that merely using an AI database means the resulting work is automatically an infringing derivative work if it is not substantially similar to the protectable elements in the copyrighted work.”
The article cites the Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (March 16, 2023). It notes those guidelines were informed by a decision handed down in February, Zarya v Dawn, which involved a comic book with AI-generated content. the Copyright Office sliced and diced elements, specifying:
“… The selection and arrangement of the images and the text were the result of human authorship and thus copyrightable, but the AI-generated images resulting from human prompts were not. The prompts ‘influenced,’ but did not ‘dictate,’ the resulting image, so the applicant was not the ‘mastermind’ and therefore not the author of the images. Further, the applicant’s edits to the images were too minor to be deemed copyrightable.”
Ah, the fine art of splitting hairs. As for training databases packed with protected content, the article points to pending lawsuits by artists against Stability AI, MidJourney, and Deviant Art. We are told those cases may be dismissed on technical grounds, but are advised to watch for similar cases in the future. Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, September 15, 2023
Apple and Microsoft: Gatekeeping Is Not for Us. We Are Too Small. That Is Correct. Small.
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “Apple and Microsoft Say Flagship Services Not Popular Enough to Be Gatekeepers.” Pretty amazing. Apple wanted to be a gatekeeper and mobile phone image cop and Microsoft Edge Bing thing routinely polices what its smart software outputs.
The American high school homecoming king and queen, both members of the science club, insist they are not popular. How, one may ask, did you get elected king and queen. The beaming royals said, “We are just small. You know, little itty bitty things. Do you like our outfits?” Thanks, MidJourney. Stay true to the gradient descent thing, please.
Both outfits have draconian procedures to prevent a person from doing much of anything unless one of the den mothers working for these companies gives a nod of approval.
The weird orange newspaper states:
Apple and Microsoft, the most valuable companies in the US, have argued some of their flagship services are insufficiently popular to be designated “gatekeepers” under landmark new EU legislation designed to curb the power of Big Tech. Brussels’ battle with Apple over its iMessage chat app and Microsoft’s search engine Bing comes ahead of Wednesday’s [September 6, 2023] publication of the first list of services that will be regulated by the Digital Markets Act.
The idea is a bit deeper in my opinion. Obviously neither of these outfits wants to pay fines; both want to collect money. But the real point is that this “aw, shucks” attitude is one facet of US high tech outfits’ ability to anger regulators in other countries. I have heard the words “arrogant,” “selfish,” “greedy,” and worse used to describe the smiling acolytes who represent these two firms in their different legal battles in Europe.
I want to look at this somewhat short-sighted effort by Apple and Microsoft from a different point of view. Google, in my opinion, is likely become the gatekeeper, the enforcer, the toll road collector, and the arbiter of framing “truth.” Why? Google is ready, willing, and able to fill the void.
One would assume that Apple and Microsoft would have a sit down with the Zuckbook to discuss the growing desire for content control and dissemination. Nope. The companies are sufficiently involved in their own alleged monopolistic ideas to think about a world in which Google becomes the decider.
Some countries view the US and its techno-business policies and procedures with some skepticism. What happens if the skepticism morphs into another notion? Will Teams and iPhones be enough to make these folks happy?
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
AI and the Legal Eagles
September 11, 2023
Lawyers and other legal professionals know that AI algorithms, NLP, machine learning, and robotic process automation can leverage their practices. They will increase their profits, process cases faster, and increase efficiency. The possibilities for AI in legal practice appear to be win-win situation, ReadWrite discusses how different AI processes can assist law firms and the hurdles for implementation in: “Artificial Intelligence In Legal Practice: A Comprehensive Guide.”
AI will benefit law firms in streamlining research and analytics processes. Machine learning and NLP can consume large datasets faster and more efficiently than humans. Contract management and review processes will greatly be improved, because AI offers more comprehensive analysis, detects discrepancies, and decreases repetitive tasks.
AI will also lighten legal firms workloads with document automation and case management. Legal documents, such as leases, deeds, wills, loan agreements, etc., will decrease errors and reduce review time. AI will lowers costs for due diligence procedures and e-discovery through automation and data analytics. These will benefit clients who want speedy results and low legal bills.
Law firms will benefit the most from NLP applications, predictive analytics, machine learning algorithms, and robotic process automation. Virtual assistants and chatbots also have their place in law firms as customer service representatives.
Despite all the potential improvements from AI, legal professionals need to adhere to data privacy and security procedures. They must also develop technology management plans that include, authentication protocols, backups, and identity management strategies. AI biases, such as diversity and sexism issues, must be evaluated and avoided in legal practices. Transparency and ethical concerns must also be addressed to be compliant with governmental regulations.
The biggest barriers, however, will be overcoming reluctant staff, costs, anticipating ROI, and compliancy with privacy and other regulations.
“With a shift from viewing AI as an expenditure to a strategic advantage across cutting-edge legal firm practices, embracing the power of artificial intelligence demonstrates significant potential for intense transformation within the industry itself.”
These challenges are not any different from past technology implementations, except AI could make lawyers more reliant on technology than their own knowledge. Cue the Jaws theme music.
Whitney Grace, September 11, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
