Google into Healing
December 9, 2021
How does one explain healing? For the Google the answer is with a Year in Search video. “Google Is All about Healing in its Year In Search Video for 2021” reports:
According to Google Trends, searches on climate change have hit a record high number in 2021. Google’s Year In Search video has captured that with the search of ‘how to help our planet.’ Other positive search examples like ‘ways to help your community’ and ‘how to be yourself’ have also captured the attention of Google and are included in the video with appropriate examples.
Okay, climate change. And Covid. Google even shares some of its user data, according to the write up:
The Year In Search video is accompanied by an interactive site where you can see all of the top global Google searches month-by-month in nine different categories. Of course, you can also check out Google Trends where you can see data for a specific country or region.
What about repairing that relationship with Dr. Timnit Gebru and others who raised questions about Google’s AI methods and motives?
Oh, that’s an unfair question. No healing there. Plus only the really important information is worthy of the Year in Search video.
Stephen E Arnold, December 9, 2021
Smart Software Is Innovative: Two Marketing Examples, You Doltish Humanoids
December 7, 2021
I zipped through the news releases, headlines, and emails which accumulate in my system. I spotted two stories. Each made the case that smart software — created by humans — is discerning information humans had not previously known or had revealed. This assertion has some interesting implications. There are issues associated with Kurt Gödel-type thinking and the Star Trek think which has launched billions of smart phones.
Here’s the first article. It’s called “AI Is Discovering Patterns in Pure Mathematics That Have Never Been Seen Before.” That’s a clickable title. The write up asserts:
In a newly published study, a research team used artificial intelligence systems developed by DeepMind, the same company that has been deploying AI to solve tricky biology problems and improve the accuracy of weather forecasts, to unknot some long-standing math problems.
DeepMind is pretty much Google. Google is a fan of Snorkel methods. These procedures use minimal training and then let math learn. The outputs are — well — Googley. You know solving the big problems of life like online advertising, reducing the costs of alternative methods of training smart software, and dealing with the legal hassles associated with the alleged “AI cabal” and Timnit Gebru.
The second article is “AI Generates Hypotheses Human Scientists Have Not Thought Of.” The write up says:
One of the benefits of machine learning systems is the way that they can look for patterns and scenarios that programmers didn’t specifically code them to look out for – they take their training data and apply the same principles to new situations. The research shows that this sort of high-speed, ultra-reliable, large-scale data processing can act as an extra tool working with mathematicians’ natural intuition. When you’re dealing with complex, lengthy equations, that can make a significant difference.
What’s interesting is that the write up does not link the researchers with DeepMind. But it appears that the mathematician András Juhász has worked with Googley DeepMind. See “DeepMind AI Collaborates with Humans on Two Mathematical Breakthroughs.”
The first item cited in this blog post appeared on December 4, 2021. The second appeared in October 2021.
My thought is that the Google is injecting rah rah messages about its Snorkel-type approach into highly regarded publications. My hope is that Dr. Timnit Gebru’s and her work gets equal coverage.
Why? The Google wants to be the big dog in certain smart software dog sled pulling. But inbreeding has its downsides; including, bias. PR firms and rah rah marketers are not sensitive to such mathematical oddities as “drift” in my experience. From peer reviewed articles to the open market for “great ideas”, information marches forward on the wheels of propaganda and factual reformation it does, it does.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2021
What Company Is the Leader in Search Powered by Artificial Intelligence? One Answer May Surprise You. It Did Me.
November 30, 2021
Give up? The answer is Lucidworks, “the leader in AI-powered search.” You can get the gull story from Unite.ai and the article “Will Hayes, CEO of Lucidworks – Interview Series.” What’s “AI”? I don’t know, and the answer is not provided from @IAmWillHayes’ comments. What’s “search”? I don’t know because no specific definition is provided. (Search is a blanket word, covering everything from the open source Lucene in policeware solutions to whiz-bang, patented real time methods for time series data from Trendalyze. And we must not forget the generous offerings of “search” for eDiscovery, product supplier data, chemical structures, streaming video files, code libraries, and mysterious content like the interesting information in encrypted Signal and Telegram interactions. Search at Lucidworks is different it seems.
I noted this statement:
Lucidworks takes mission-critical business problems and solves them with search.
I assume that Lucidworks is disconnected from Dassault Systèmes search based applications approach. There is a 2011 book titled “Search Based Applications: At the Confluence of Search and Database Technologies.” The author is Dr. Gregory Grefenstette with assistance from Laura Wilber. The Lucidworks’ assertion struck me as one more example of marketing hoo hah disconnected from what came before. At least, the Dassault technology was original, not a recycling of open source software.
Here’s another statement offered as an original insight:
Lucidworks offers products and applications for commerce, customer service, and the workplace that use AI and machine learning to solve search. Fusion, our flagship product, uses AI extensively through every stage of enriching data—during ingest and at query time, for understanding user intent, and personalizing results that match that intent.
I want to point out that the Paris-based firm Polyspot used almost the exact same language (both French and English) to describe the company’s approach to information access. Here’s what Bloomberg says about the now repositioned company:
PolySpot SAS develops and publishes enterprise software. The Company’s products offer search and information access solutions designed to improve business and ensure that companies can access the data they need, regardless of their structure, format or origin. PolySpot markets its products internationally.
Dis Yogi Berra or Yogi Bear say: “It’s déjà vu all over again.” I go with the cartoon bear. The aphorism applies to Lucidworks in my opinion.
Lucidworks also does chatbots, fits into the connected experience cloud (CXC), and compounds “value.” Okay. The company, according to @IAmWillHayes, is “leader in next-generation search solutions and we have an exciting roadmap of cloud products coming in the near future.”
I wonder what outfits like Algolia, Coveo, Sphinx Search, and even the heroic X1 think about this assertion. What will Google’s revolving door search experts make of Lucidworks’ bold assertion? What about the crafty laborers in AWS search vineyards who watch the competitors gun for the Bezos bulldozer? What about the innovators working on the somewhat frightening IBM search solution? Maybe Microsoft will just pull a “Fast Search” and buy Lucidworks to beef up its incredible array of finding systems?
My hunch is that Lucidworks has to deal with its backers who want their money back plus some upside. Mix in the harsh market realities of many options, some free or low cost, and others bundled with purpose built solutions like Voyager Labs’ software and what do you get?
I am not sure about your answer. My answer is, “Recycling marketing lingo, ideas, and assertions which are decades old?” Will AI, machine learning, and CXC pull a rabbit from the search magician’s hat?
Maybe. But the investors who have injected more than $200 million into the company may want more than a magic show. And what is “search” and “AI” anyway? Solr with a new outfit from Amazon?
Stephen E Arnold, November 30, 2021
Gartner Revs Its Prediction Engine: The Global AI Market
November 29, 2021
My hunch is that smart software is going to be pervasive: Financial outfits, wonderful health care institutions, and exemplary high technology outfits engaged in an American favorite activity nudging.
You can read about this prediction in “Global AI Software Market to Hit $62 Billion in 2022.” My first reaction was, “Just $62 billion.” Oh, well, I don’t work at a mid tier consulting firm eager to populate its conferences with true believers. (This write up may be disappeared. If you can’t locate it, give the mid tier folks a jingle. My hunch is that you can buy a report right from the distributed organization itself.)
The write up says:
Global artificial intelligence (AI) software revenue is forecast to reach $62.5 billion in 2022, an increase of 21.3 per cent from 2021, according to Gartner. The top five use cases for AI software spending in 2022 will be knowledge management, virtual assistants, autonomous vehicles, digital workplace and crowdsourced data.
I am not sure what a digital workplace is and I am puzzled by crowdsourced data. Maybe Gartner is talking about smart surveillance of mobile device users? I don’t know.
Nevertheless, pretty modest growth and just $62 billion.
Stephen E Arnold, November 29, 2021
Frisky Israeli Cyber Innovators Locked Down and Confined to Quarters
November 26, 2021
Before the NSO Group demonstrated remarkable PR powers, cyber centric companies in Israel were able to market to a large number of prospects. Conference organizers could count on NSO Group to provide speakers, purchase trade show space, and maybe sponsor a tchotchke for attendees. Governments and even some commercial enterprises knew about NSO Group’s technological capabilities and the firm’s ability to provide a network which eliminated quite a bit of the muss and fuss associated with mobile device surveillance, data analysis, and related activities.
How did that work out?
The PR sparked “real journalists” to use their powers of collecting information, analyzing those items, and making warranted conclusions about NSO Group’s enabling activities. Sure, pesky Canadian researchers were writing about NSO Group, but there wasn’t a “real news” story. Then… bingo. A certain individual associated with a “real news” organization was terminated and the arrows of data and supposition pointed to NSO Group’s capabilities and what one of the firm’s alleged customers was able to do with the system.
The journalistic horses raced out of the gate, and the NSO Group became a “thing.”
Vendors of specialized software are not accustomed to the spotlight. Making sales, collecting fees, and enjoying pats on the backs from colleagues who try hard to keep a low, low profile are more typical activities. But, oh, those spotlights.
The consequences have been ones to which cyber innovators like to avoid. Former superiors send email asking, “What are you doing?” Then government committees, consisting of people who don’t know much about next generation technologies, have to be briefed. And those explanations are painful because the nuances of cyber centric firms are different from explaining how to plug in a Tesla in Tel Aviv. Oh, painful.
Now, if the information in the Calcalist’s article “The Ministry of Defense Has Cut by Two-Thirds the Number of Countries That Cyber Companies Can Sell To” is accurate, the Israeli government has put a shock collar on NSO Group’s ankle and clamped the devices on other firm’s well-formed, powerful legs as well. The message is clear: Stay in bounds or you will be zapped. (I leave it to you to figure out what “zap” connotes.)
The publication’s story says:
The [Israeli] Ministry of Defense has cut by two-thirds the number of countries that cyber companies can sell to The previous list included 102 countries to which cyber exports are allowed, and now it includes only 37 countries. The latest list from the beginning of November does not include countries such as Morocco, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Who’s at fault? The Calcalist offers this statement:
It is implied that Israel used in a very permissive manner the special certificates that it may grant and was in any case aware of where the Israeli society is known. It is important to note that the new list includes companies to which cyber can now be exported and it is possible that in the past lists there were other countries to which systems could be exported without fear.
My knowledge of Hebrew is lousy and Google translate is not helping me much. The main idea is that up and down the chain of command, the “chain” was not managed well. Hence, the PR gaffes, the alleged terminations, and the large number of high intensity lights directed at companies which once thrived in the shadows.
Some observations:
- Countries unable to acquire the technology associated with NSO Group are likely to buy from non-Israeli firms. Gee, I wonder if China and Russia have specialized software vendors who will recognize a sales opportunity and not do the PR thing in which NSO Group specialized?
- The publicity directed at NSO Group has been a more successful college class than the dump of information from the Hacking Team. A better class may translate to more capable coders who can duplicate and possibly go beyond the Israeli firms’ capabilities. This is a new state of affairs in my opinion.
- Cyber technologies are the lubricant for modern warfare. Israel had a lead in this software sector. It is now highly likely that the slick system of government specialists moving into the private sector with “support” from certain entities may be changed. Bummer for some entrepreneurs? Yep.
Net net: The NSO Group’s PR excesses — combined with its marketing know how — has affected a large number of companies. Keeping secrets is known to be a wise practice for some activities. Blending secrecy with market dynamics is less wise in my experience. This NSO Group case is more impactful than the Theranos Silicon Valley matter.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2021
Quantum Supremacy Questioned
November 25, 2021
IBM is the quantum supremacist. Google was the previous quantum cage match PR champ. What’s up with quantum supremacy other than buzzwords, public relations hoo hah, and worry lines that encryption will die?
An interesting take on the Google quantum thing appears in “Math May Have Caught Up with Google’s Quantum-Supremacy Claims.” The article is a gilding of a tidy green sward with a couple of Swiss Fleckvieh contributions steaming in the morning sun.
The write up reports:
Google chose a very specific method of computing the expected behavior of its processor, but there are other ways of doing equivalent computations. Over the intervening time, a few options have been explored that do perform better. Now, Feng Pan, Keyang Chen, and Pan Zhang are describing a specific method that allows a GPU-based cluster to produce an equivalent output in only 15 hours. Run it on a leading supercomputer, and they estimate that it would outperform the Sycamore quantum processor.
Parse this and then summarize: Google pulled a high school science club method from its hip pocket.
I also noted this statement in the write up:
In our chat with Darío Gil, head of IBM research, he dismissed the idea of quantum supremacy and instead focused on getting to what he termed quantum advantage: where quantum computers consistently outperform classical ones on problems that are useful for companies. So, unless someone else wants to pay IBM to reserve the time needed to perform Google’s computations on IBM’s hardware, this is likely to get fairly academic.
One tiny problem: IBM seems to imply that it’s the big dog in quantum computing if I understand the information in “First Quantum Computer to Pack 100 Qubits Enters Crowded Race.”
Yep, got it.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2021
Gmail: Is It a Go To Platform for Bad Actors?
November 22, 2021
“91% of All Bait Attacks Conducted over Gmail” is a report. Like many other cyber security related studies, the information is shaped to send a shiver of fear through the reader. Now is the assertion “all” accurate? Categorical affirmatives appear to make the writer appear confident in the data presented. The phrase “bait attack” sounds like insider speak. What’s the write up present? Here’s a passage I found interesting:
Researchers from Barracuda analyzed bait attack patterns in September 2021 from 10,500 organizations.
Where are the findings; specifically, the information about “bait attacks”?
The answer is, “Not in the article.” The write up points the reader to a link for a study conducted by Barracuda. If you want to read that report in its marketing home, navigate here. Then accept cookies. You will see that the examples are indeed email. The connection to Google is that the service is popular. It makes sense that bad actors would use a large email system as a convenient method of reaching individuals, obtaining information about valid and invalid email accounts, and other sorts of mischief.
What’s the fix? Put the onus on Goggle? Nah. Buy a Barracuda product? But if the cyber defense system worked, wouldn’t the method become less effective. Organizations would license the solution in droves. Has that happened?
Well, the attacks are widespread, according to the research. Google apparently is not able to manage the messages. The user remains an unwitting target.
So what’s the fix?
My thought is that Gmail accounts have to be verified. Cyber security companies should publish reports that reveal significant payoffs from their methods. Users should be smarter, more willing to keep their email address under wraps, and better at security.
Right now, none of these actions and attitudes are happening. What is happening is content marketing and jargon.
Some companies are quite good at talk. Cyber security solutions? That’s another story. I love that “all” approach too.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 20201
Quantum Supremacy Is a Thing and IBM Now Has It
November 18, 2021
I read “IBM Achieves Quantum Supremacy: Announces 127-qubit “Eagle” Quantum Processor at Quantum Summit 2021.” Maybe this is indeed accurate. I would like to ask IBM Watson, “Is this IBM marketing talk, or has Big Blue aced the Google and legions of Chinese quantum engineers?”
The write up reports:
IBM expects to achieve a 1,121-qubit quantum processor – and quantum advantage – by 2023.
This statement seems different from the headline. In fact, I expect to be named the next 77 year old analyst flying into space in 2023. The problem is that “expect” and “do” are quite different things to me.
Not to IBM, at least according to the article which quotes and IBM’er as saying:
“The arrival of the ‘Eagle’ processor is a major step towards the day when quantum computers can outperform classical computers at meaningful levels,” said Dr. Darío Gil, Senior Vice President, IBM and Director of Research. “Quantum computing has the power to transform nearly every sector and help us tackle the biggest problems of our time. This is why IBM continues to rapidly innovate quantum hardware design, build ways for quantum and classical workloads to empower each other, and create a global ecosystem that is imperative to the adoption of quantum computing.”
Yep, marketing talk based on some lab experiments. That means no quantum computer on your desk in the near future. Quantum supremacy is here at least in IBM’s view of its capabilities.
Okay, Google and Chinese engineers. Back to work. The amusing but somewhat bittersweet IBM news has been lost in the endless flow of content marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, November 18, 2021
Psychopathy: Do the Patients Referenced by Richard Kraft Ebing Gravitate to Work in High Tech?
November 12, 2021
First, who is Richard Kraft Ebing? He was an Austro-German psychiatrist with some interesting research. Wowza. He described selected human behaviors in a way which caught the attention of a couple of the Psychology Today professional when we were talking after I delivered a report. Yep, that was a memorable day. The big dog in overalls; the marketing wizard chatting intensely with an intern in gym clothes; and the sun sparkling on the beach behind the house in Del Mar, California. I recall there was some talk about the computer company providing hardware and software to the firm which owned Psychology Today, Intellectual Digest, and a few other high IQ publications. The main point was that the computer sales people lied. “Those guys cheated us. We were raped.” That’s when I referenced good old Richard Kraft Ebing?
Flash forward to “Science Reveals the Fascinating Link between Lying and Technology.” The story is paywalled, of course. One pays for the truth, Silicon Valley infused journalism, and the unvarnished truth about high technology in its assorted manifestation.
But before looking that the article itself, let me highlight two of the rules for high technology sales and and marketing effectuators.
Rule Number One; herewith:
Tell the prospect what he or she wants to hear.
Now for Rule Number Two:
Hyperbole and vaporware are not really falsehoods. Sell sizzle, not steak.
The article in Fast Company is quite like some of T George Harris’ faves. (T George, described as a visionary journalist, was a big wheel at the outfit which owned Psych Today and ID decades ago.)
The main point of the write up published online on November 12, 2021, struck me as:
The belief that lying is rampant in the digital age just doesn’t match the data.
There you go. Definitive evidence that truth reigns supreme. Example: when Verizon uses the word “unlimited.” Example: Charter Spectrum sells 200 megabit connectivity. Example: FAANG statements under oath.
Yep, truth, integrity, and the best of what’s good for “users.” Psychopathia whatever.
Stephen E Arnold, November 12, 2021
Meta: A Stroke of Genius or a Dropout Idea from a Dropout
November 10, 2021
I read an article called “Thoughts on Facebook Meta.” The main idea of the essay surprised me. Here’s the passage which caught my attention:
I think the metaverse will be massive not so much because gaming and VR will be big, but because gaming and VR will be the only avenue to thrive for the bottom 80% of people on the planet.
I also circled in red this passage:
Anyway, this is a smart move by Face-meta. It allows Zuckerberg to dodge the scrutiny bullets and become a quixotic futurist, and at the same time build the reality substrate for 80% of the planet.
Net net: The Zuck does it again. He likes old-school barbeque sauce, not New Coke. The question is, “What will government regulators like?”
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
