How Does One Impede US AI Progress? Have a Government Meeting?
November 1, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Washington Post may be sparking a litigation hoedown. How can a newspaper give legal eagles an opportunity to buy a private island and not worry about the cost of LexisNexis searches? The answer may be in “AI Researchers Uncover Ethical, Legal Risks to Using Popular Data Sets.” The UK’s efforts to get a group to corral smart software are interesting. Lawyers may be the foot that slows AI traffic on the new Information Superhighway.
The Washington Post reports:
The advent of chatbots that can answer questions and mimic human speech has kicked off a race to build bigger and better generative AI models. It has also triggered questions around copyright and fair use of text taken off the internet, a key component of the massive corpus of data required to train large AI systems. But without proper licensing, developers are in the dark about potential copyright restrictions, limitations on commercial use or requirements to credit a data set’s creators.
There is nothing like jumping in a lake with the local Polar Bears Club to spark investor concern about paying big fines. The chills and thrills of the cold water create a heightened state of awareness.
The article continues:
But without proper licensing, developers are in the dark about potential copyright restrictions, limitations on commercial use or requirements to credit a data set’s creators.
How’s the water this morning?
Several observations:
- A collision between the compunction to innovate in AI and the risk of legal liability seems likely
- Innovators will forge ahead and investors will have to figure out the risks by looking for legal eagles and big sharks lurking below the surface
- Whatever happens in North America and Western Europe will not slow the pace of investment into AI in the Middle East and China.
- Are there unpopular data sets perhaps generated by biased smart software?
Uncertainty and risk. Thanks, AI innovators.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2023
Google Pays Apple to Be More Secure? Petulant, Parental, or Indifferent?
October 31, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I am fascinated by the allegedly “real” information in this Fortune Magazine write up: “Google CEO Sundar Pichai Swears Under Oath That $26 Billion Payment to Device Makers Was Partly to Nudge Them to Make Security Upgrades and Other Improvements.”
As I read the article, this passage pokes me in the nose:
Pichai, the star witness in Google’s defense, testified Monday that Google’s payments to phone manufacturers and wireless phone companies were partly meant to nudge them into making costly security upgrades and other improvements to their devices, not just to ensure Google was the first search engine users encounter when they open their smartphones or computers. Google makes money when users click on advertisements that pop up in its searches and shares the revenue with Apple and other companies that make Google their default search engine.
First, I like the “star witness” characterization. It is good to know where the buck stops at the Alphabet Google YouTube et al enterprise fruit basket.
The driver and passengers shout to the kids, “Use this money to improve your security. If you need more, just call 1 800 P A Y O F F S. Thanks, MidJourney, you do money reasonably well. By the way, where did the cash come from?
Second, I like the notion of paying billions to nudge someone to do something. I know that getting action from DC lobbyists, hiring people from competitors, pushing out people who disagree with Google management, and buying clicks costs less than billions. In some cases, the fees are considerably lower. Some non US law enforcement entities collection several thousand dollars from wives who want to have their husbands killed by an Albanian or Mexican hit man. Billions does more than nudge. Billions means business.
Third, I liked the reminder that no ruling will result in 2023. Then once a ruling is revealed, “another trial will determine how to rein in its [the Google construct’s] market power.”
Several questions popped into my mind:
- Is the “nudge” thing serious? My dinobaby mind interprets the statement as either a bit of insider humor, a disconnect between the Googley world and most people’s everyday reality, or a bit dismissive. I can hear one of my high school science club member’s saying to a teacher perceived as dull normal, “You would not understand the real reason so I am pointing the finger at Plato’s philosophy.”
- The “billions” is the giveaway. That is more than the average pay-to-play shyster of Fiverr.com charges. Why such a premium For billions, I can think of several lobbying outfits who would do some pretty wild and crazy things for a couple of hundred million in cash.
- Why is the already glacier-like legal process moving slowly with the prospect of yet another trial to come? With a substantial footprint in search and online advertising, are some billions being used to create the world’s most effective brake on a legal process?
- Why is so much of the information redacted and otherwise difficult or almost impossible to review? I thought the idea of a public trial involving a publicly traded company in a democratic society was supposed to be done in the sunshine?
Fortune Magazine sees nothing amiss. I wonder if I am the only dinobaby wondering what’s beneath the surface of what seems to be a trial which is showing some indications of being quite Googley. I am not sure if that is a positive thing.
I also wonder why a large outfit like Apple needs to be nudged with Google billions? That strikes me as something worth thinking about. The fake Albanian and Mexican hitmen may learn something new by answering that question. Hey, Fortune Magazine, why not take another shot at covering this story?
Stephen E Arnold, October 31, 2023
Google Loves Up Search Engine Optimization
October 31, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Alphabet, Google, YouTube is definitely a believer in search engine optimization or SEO. How do I know? Consider the reports that relay this allegedly accurate number: $26 billion. Yep, $26 billion paid out to other companies to buy click love.
“Google Paid a Whopping $26.3 Billion in 2021 to Be the Default Search Engine Everywhere” asserts:
Google obviously agrees and has paid a staggering amount to make sure it is the default: testimony in the trial revealed that Google spent a total of $26.3 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine in multiple browsers, phones, and platforms.
The article shares some napkin math and says:
Just to put that $26.3 billion in context: Alphabet, Google’s parent company, announced in its recent earnings report that Google Search ad business brought in about $44 billion over the last three months and about $165 billion in the last year. Its entire ad business — which also includes YouTube ads — made a bit under $90 billion in profit. This is all back-of-the-napkin math, but essentially, Google is giving up about 16 percent of its search revenue and about 29 percent of its profit to those distribution deals.
It appears that Google does its own big money SEO. It pays to be the search system and, therefore, is artificially boosted to be the winner. Yes, SEO, but not the penny ante silliness of an art history major working at a Google optimization company. The billions deliver the big school of fish: Advertisers.
Is this good or bad? From my point of view, Google is doing what good optimization wizards do: Maximize return and reduce risk. Big money deals facilitated some important milestones in the American economy; for example, the steel monopoly, the railroad that made Stanford the exemplar of integrity, and everyone’s friend with the jingle Luckies taste better.
Maybe money can buy happiness or $150 billion in revenue for those offering free online search? Thanks, Microsoft Bing.
Google is little more than a clever construct. What’s fascinating is that the baloney about Google search being better has a shelf life of more than 25 years. What’s troubling is that it has taken Google, the US legal system, and users a long time to think about the company’s mechanisms of control.
Perhaps it is helpful to think about Google’s entanglement with certain government activities? Perhaps some thinking about the data collection, retention, and mining capabilities of the company? Perhaps some analysis abut the use of YouTube to shape thinking or distort thinking about certain issues?
I love the Google. I have a Christmas card from a long gone Googler. That shows something. Nevertheless, the gravitational “force” of an outfit like Google seems so right. The company is the environment of online.
But 25 years of Google love? That’s a bit much. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 showed more awareness than the governmental officials beavering away in Washington, DC, today. Oh, I forgot. Many of those tireless workers have Google mouse pads and a Google T shirt to wear to a frisbee session at the reflecting pool.
Stephen E Arnold, October 31, 2023
Does a UK Facial Recognition Case Spell Trouble for AI Regulation?
October 30, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I noted this Politico article in my feed today (October 30, 2023). I am a dinobaby and no legal eagle. Consequently I may be thinking incorrectly about the information in “An AI Firm Harvested Billions of Photos without Consent. Britain Is Powerless to Act.” The British government has been talking about smart software. French government officials seem to be less chatty. The US government has ideas as well. What’s the Politico write up say that has me thinking that AI regulation, AI industry cooperation, and AI investors will not be immediately productive?
“Where did my horse go?” asks the farmer. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. The image is not of a horse out of a barn, but it is good enough… just like most technology today. Good enough is excellence.
Here’s the statement which concerns the facial recognition company Clearview, and its harvesting of image data. Those data are used to assist enforcement agencies in their work. The passage I circled was:
The judgment, issued by the three-member tribunal at the First-tier Tribunal, agreed with Clearview’s assertion that the ICO lacked jurisdiction in the case because the data processing in question was carried out on behalf of foreign government agencies. The ICO failed “not because this isn’t monitoring and not because in other circumstances, this might not be in breach of U.K. GDPR, but because it’s foreign law enforcement. It’s outside of the scope of European Union law so it doesn’t apply,” said James Moss, privacy and data protection partner at the law firm Bird & Bird.
Could AI regulation in the EU find itself caught in the same thicket? Furthermore, efforts in the US to curb or slow down the pace of AI innovation may collide with the reality of other countries’ efforts to expand business and military use of AI. Common sense suggests that nation states like China are unlikely to inhibit their interests in AI. What will Britain and US do?
My thought is that much effort will be expended in meetings, writing drafts, discussing the ideas, and promulgating guidelines. The plain fact is that both commercial and investor interests will find a way to push forward. Innovations like AI and the downstream applications have considerable potential for law enforcement and military professionals.
Net net: AI, despite its flaws and boundary breaking, is now out of the barn. Time travel is an interesting idea, but the arrow of time is here and now like the lawyers and bureaucrats.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2023
Will New EU Privacy Oversight Members Be Googley?
October 27, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The European Union has tried to protect individual privacy and tries to keep US technology companies in line. Unlike some other government constructs, EU countries have agencies to enforce privacy regulations and Tech Crunch reports how Ireland’s DPC “Major Big Tech Privacy Watchdog In EU Set To Get Two More Commissioners Soon.” As an EU member, Ireland has the Data Protection Commission (DPC) to ensure big tech companies comply with laws. The DPC recently posted job ads for two more commissioners.
Ireland’s DPC is a major player in enforcing Europe’s privacy laws as part of the pan-EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Many tech companies have a branch on Irish soil. The DPC changed its structure in July 2022 to increase its monitoring capabilities as the GDPR’s caseload increases. The DPC monitors Apple, X, Meta, Google, TikTok, and soon will watch AI-based companies like OpenAI.
Whoever joins the DPC will have an F-150 load of responsibility parked in their driveway. Part of their job will involve battling with privacy advocates and politicians. The DPC is also dealing with lots of criticism, particularly in how slow the organization moves. The DPC has rallied for more help since its founding in 2018 and how it handles enforcing the GDPR:
“The European Commission itself has been forced to dial up its monitoring of how regulators including the DPC are enforcing the GDPR, following complaints lodged with its ombudsman which stemmed from criticism of the DPC. This summer the EU’s executive also came out with a proposal for reforming procedural rules around GDPR enforcement with the aim of making the handling of cross-border cases ‘more efficient and harmonized across the EU.’”
The DPC is enforcing laws on big tech companies that have the funds and time to waste in litigation. The DPC can also raise fines on big tech companies and penalize them for not obeying EU laws. Who will win? Our bet is that the US outfits have the money and motivation to prevail. Governments! Pesky things.
Whitney Grace, October 27, 2023
Autonomy: More Legal Activity
October 25, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Though the UK legal system seems to have lost interest, the US is still determined to throw the book at Autonomy’s founder for his alleged deceit of HP. Now, The Telegraph reports, “Mike Lynch Files Legal Challenge to Have Fraud Case Thrown Out by US Courts.” While their client languishes in San Francisco under self-funded house arrest, Lynch’s lawyers insist the US has no jurisdiction to prosecute. Reporter James Titcomb writes:
“The filing states: ‘At all times between 2009 and 2011, Autonomy was fundamentally a UK-centric business. Autonomy listed its shares on the London Stock Exchange. All major decisions about the strategic direction of the company, its revenue-generating operations, and its compliance with financial reporting obligations were made in England. ‘The “means and methods” identified in the [indictment] – revenue recognition issues, allegedly fraudulent entries in Autonomy’s books, allegedly false and misleading quarterly and annual reports – all comprise conduct that occurred in another country.’ Mr Lynch has long maintained that any case against him should be heard in Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office dropped its investigation into the matter in 2015.”
Will this tactic work? The US DOJ filed charges in 2018 and 2019. Despite all efforts to block extradition, Lynch was moved to San Francisco in May 2023. The article states a judge will hear the request to throw out the case in November. Meanwhile, the trial remains scheduled for 2024.
The saga of Autonomy and HP continues. Who knew enterprise search could become a legal thriller? Netflix, perhaps a documentary?
Cynthia Murrell, October 25, 2023
The Google Experience: Personnel Management and Being Fair
October 23, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Google has been busy explaining to those who are not Googley that it is nothing more than a simple online search engine. Heck, anyone can use another Web search system with just a click. Google is just delivering a service and doing good.
I believe this because I believe everything a big high-technology outfit says about the Internet. But there is one facet of this company I find fascinating; namely, it’s brilliant management of people or humanoids of a particular stripe.
The Backstory
Google employees staged a walkout in 2018, demanding a safer and fairer workplace for women when information about sexual discrimination and pay discrepancies leaked. Google punished the walkout organizers and other employees, but they succeed in ending the forced arbitration policy that required employees to settle disputes privately. Wired’s article digs into the details: “This Exec Is Forcing Google Into Its First Trial over Sexist Pay Discrimination.”
Google’s first pay discrimination case will be argued in New York. Google cloud unit executive Ulku Rowe alleges she was hired at a lower salary than her male co-workers. When she complained, she claims Google denied her promotions and demoted her. Rowe’s case exposed Google’s executive underbelly.
The case is also a direct result of the walkout:
“The costs and uncertainty of a trial combined with a fear of airing dirty laundry cause companies to settle most pay discrimination lawsuits, says Alex Colvin, dean of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Last year, the US government outlawed forced arbitration in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, but half of US employers still mandate it for other disputes. Rowe would not be scheduled to have her day in court if the walkout had not forced Google to end the practice. “I think that’s a good illustration of why there’s still a push to extend that law to other kinds of cases, including other kinds of gender discrimination,” Colvin says.”
The Outcome
“Google Ordered to Pay $1 Million to Female Exec Who Sued over Gender Discrimination” reported:
A New York jury on Friday decided that Google did commit gender-based discrimination, and now owes Rowe a combined $1.15 million for punitive damages and the pain and suffering it caused. Rowe had 23 years of experience when she started at Google in 2017, and the lawsuit claims she was lowballed at hiring to place her at a level that paid significantly less than what men were being offered.
Observation
It appears that the Googley methods at the Google are neither understood nor appreciated by some people.
Whitney Grace, October 23, 2023
True or False: Does Google Cha-Cha with Search Results?
October 19, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t2-17.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Megan Gray is a former Federal Trade Commission employee, former DuckDuckGo executive, and is experienced fighting Google’s legal team. Her background provides key insights into Google’s current antitrust case and how Alphabet Inc. is trying to wring more money from consumers. Gray discusses her case observations in Wired’s article: “How Google Alters Search Queries To Get At Your Wallet.”
Google overhauled its SERP algorithm with “semantic matching” that returned results with synonyms and NLP text phrasing. The overhaul also added more commercial results to entice consumers to buy more stuff. Google’s ten organic links are a lie, because the search engine alters queries to be more shopping oriented. Google works their deviousness like this:
“Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all. It’s not possible for you to opt out of the substitution. If you don’t get the results you want, and you try to refine your query, you are wasting your time. This is a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape.”
All these alternations are to raise Google’s ad profit margins. Users and advertisers are harmed but they aren’t aware of it because Google’s manipulations are imperceptible. Google’s search query manipulations are black hat genius because it’s different from the usual Internet scams:
“Most scams follow an elementary bait-and-switch technique, where the scoundrel lures you in with attractive bait and then, at the right time, switches to a different option. But Google “innovated” by reversing the scam, first switching your query, then letting you believe you were getting the best search engine results. This is a magic trick that Google could only pull off after monopolizing the search engine market, giving consumers the false impression that it is incomparably great, only because you’ve grown so accustomed to it. “
This won’t be the end of Google lawsuits nor the end of query manipulation. For now, only Google knows what Google does.
Whitney Grace, October 19, 2023
New Website Brings Focus to State Courts and Constitutions
October 11, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t2-3.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Despite appearances, constitutional law is not all about the US Supreme Court. State courts and constitutions are integral to the maintenance (and elimination) of citizen rights. But the national media often underplays or overlooks key discussions and decisions on the state level. NYU Law’s Brennan Center‘s nonpartisan State Court Report is a new resource that seeks to address that imbalance. Its About page explains:
“What’s been missing is a forum where experts come together to analyze and discuss constitutional trends emerging from state high courts, as well as a place where noteworthy state cases and case materials are easy to find and access. State constitutions share many common provisions, and state courts across the country frequently grapple with similar questions about constitutional interpretation. Enter State Court Report, which is dedicated to covering legal news, trends, and cutting-edge scholarship, offering insights and commentary from a nationwide network of academics, journalists, judges, and practitioners with diverse perspectives and expertise. By providing original content and resources that are easily accessible, State Court Report fosters informed dialogue, research, and public understanding about an essential but chronically underappreciated source of law. Our newsletter offers a deep dive into legal developments across the states. Our case database highlights notable state constitutional decisions and cases to watch in state high courts. Our state pages provide information on high courts and constitutions in all 50 states. In addition, State Court Report supports and participates in symposia, conferences, educational training, and panels, and also partners with other organizations to disseminate and share information and research.”
The organization debuts with two high-profile guest essays, from former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and former Michigan Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack. One can browse articles by issue or state or, of course, search for any particulars. Not surprisingly, a subscription to the newsletter is one prominent click away. We hope the Brennan Center succeeds with this effort to bring attention to important constitutional issues before they wind their way to SCOTUS.
Cynthia Murrell, October 11, 2023
Blue Chip Consultancy Gets Cute and Caught
October 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I was not going to read “PwC Caught Hiding Terms of secret Review.” However, my eye spotted the delectable name “Ziggy Switkowski” and I had to devour the write up. Imagine a blue chip outfit and a blue chip consultant named Ziggy.
The story reports about PwC (once the esteemed Price Waterhouse Coopers firm) and how it conducted a “secret internal investigation” in a “tax affair.” To me, the fuzzy words suggest tax fraud, but I am a dinobaby and a resident of Harrods Creek, Kentucky.
The Ziggy affair warranted this comment by the Klaxon, an Australian online publication:
“There’s only one reason why you’re not releasing your terms of reference,” governance expert Dr Andy Schmulow told The Klaxon last night. “And that’s because you know you’ve set up a sham inquiry”.
Imagine that! A blue chip consulting firm and a professional named Ziggy. What’s not to believe?
The article adds a rhetorical flourish; to wit:
In an interim report called “PwC: A calculated breach of trust” the inquiry found PwC was continuing to obfuscate, with its actions indicating “poor corporate culture” and a lack of “governance and accountability”. “PwC does not appear to understand proper process, nor do they see the need for transparency and accountability,” the report states. “Given the extent of the breach and subsequent cover-up now revealed on the public record, when is PwC going to come clean and begin to do the right thing?”
My hunch is that blue chip consulting firms may have a different view of what’s appropriate and what’s not. Tax irregularities. Definitely not worth the partners’ time. But Ziggy?
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
