Why Governments May Not Adore Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuck
September 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
When I was in grade school, my family lived in Campinas, Brazil. Today, Campinas is a quasi suburb of São Paulo. In the 1950s, not too many non-Brazilians called the small city home. I remember messages painted on the stucco walls surrounding our house. Most of them were saying, “Yanqui, vá para casa.” We had a few caricatures of Uncle Sam too. My father arranged for the walls to be repainted every two weeks, but the message was clear. Whatever the US was up to in the 1950s, some of the residents of Campinas were not too happy my family had arrived.
Two self-important young professionals find themselves excluded from a party with many important people in attendance. Neither can understand why the people throwing the party from Australia, Brazil, and the UK did not invite them. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
What do American companies do to engender such negative responses. There may be some clues
Flash forward to today, the sentiment of some Brazilians is unchanged. In fact, a group of Brazilian judges effectively kicked Mr. Elon Musk’s companies out of the country. The decision was adjusted to enable Mr. Musk to pay some fines. I don’t think he will be trying to hit the beach in Guaruja for some time. I learned that Mr. Musk is unhappy with Australia. “Elon Musk Outraged by Australia’s Proposed Misinformation Law” reports:
Musk dubs the Australian government ‘fascist’ for proposing a law that would require all social media platforms to comply with stricter content moderation rules.
My thought is that Mr. Musk may find that some Australians in positions of authority in the government may determine that Mr. Musk is a person who perceives himself as above the law in the country. My few experiences with the Australian government left me with the understanding that one should not kick a sleeping kangaroo.
But it is not just Mr. Musk taking actions which create pushback for the US.
Consider Mark Zuckerberg or in my lingo Mr. Zuck.
Smart software and disinformation are of concern in many countries. In some countries, one can end up in a very unpleasant rehabilitation program or just dead for creating unauthorized or off-the-reservation disinformation. “Meta Hides ‘AI Info’ Labels for Edited Content on Facebook, Instagram” reports:
Meta is reducing the visibility of "AI Info" labels on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Starting next week, for content modified or edited using AI tools, the label will be found in the post’s menu, the company announced in an updated blog post on Thursday. This means the labels won’t be quite as visible as before. The revised policy only applies to AI-edited content, the company says. For content generated using an AI tool, Meta will continue to display the "AI Info" label under the username and share whether media is labeled "because of industry-shared signals or because someone self-disclosed." Once the update rolls out, to check whether the content was altered using AI, users will have to tap the menu button at the top right of a post and pick "AI Info."
My thought is that this policy is likely to be scrutinized by governments in a number of other countries. Even thought Mr. Zuck is in active dialog with the EU and the UK, this policy may raise some eyebrows. In nation states assumed to be allies of the US, social disorder is evident. Thus, a service which might spark more unrest is not likely to be viewed as a net positive social good. But Mr. Zuck has his own vision, and it does not linger too long on some rules or what I would call common sense actions.
What do these two high-technology leaders think about other countries’ laws?
I would suggest that these two example illustrate behaviors which are likely to be viewed as contentious. Let’s assume the citizens of the countries with annoyed regulators rebel and protest? The answer is some strong sentiment for and against the US, its ability to control commercial enterprises operating in America may increase the likelihood of anti-US feelings.
Net net: One will have to present some solid evidence that taking actions which either directly or indirectly go against the laws in many countries is a good thing. I do know that if these behaviors escalate, the sale of spray paint will go up and America will not be among the most popular countries in some nation states. Do Mr. Musk or Mr. Zuck care? I don’t think so, but that is just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024
Great Moments in Leadership: Drive an Uber
September 18, 2024
I was zipping through my newsfeed and spotted this item: “Ex-Sony Boss Tells Laid-Off Employees to Drive an Uber and Find a Cheap Place to Live.” In the article, the ex-Sony boss is quoted as allegedly saying:
I think it’s probably very painful for the managers, but I don’t think that having skill in this area is going to be a lifetime of poverty or limitation. It’s still where the action is, and it’s like the pandemic but now you’re going to have to take a few…figure out how to get through it, drive an Uber or whatever, go off to find a cheap place to live and go to the beach for a year.
I admit that I find the advice reasonably practical. However, it costs money to summon an Uber. The other titbit is that a person without a job should find a “cheap place to live.” Ah, ha, van life or moving in with a friend. Possibly one could become a homeless person dwelling near a beach. What if the terminated individual has a family? I suppose there are community food services.
From an employee’s point of view, this is “tough love” management. How effective is this approach? I have worked for a number of firms in my 50 plus year career prior to my retiring in 2013. I can honestly say that this Uber and move to a cheaper place to live is remarkable. It is novel. Possibly a breakthrough in management methods.
I look forward to a TED talk from this leader. When will the Harvard Business Review present a more in-depth look at the former Sony president’s ideas? Oh, right. “Former” is the operative word. Yep, former.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024
Surveillance: Who Watches What, When, and Who?
September 18, 2024
Here is an interesting resource: Surveillance Watch compiles information about surveillance tech firms, organizations that fund them, and the regions in which they are said to operate. The lists, compiled from contributions by visitors to the site, are not comprehensive. But they are full of useful information. The About page states:
“Surveillance technology and spyware are being used to target and suppress journalists, dissidents, and human rights advocates everywhere. Surveillance Watch is an interactive map that documents the hidden connections within the opaque surveillance industry. Founded by privacy advocates, most of whom were personally harmed by surveillance tech, our mission is to shed light on the companies profiting from this exploitation with significant risk to our lives. By mapping out the intricate web of surveillance companies, their subsidiaries, partners, and financial backers, we hope to expose the enablers fueling this industry’s extensive rights violations, ensuring they cannot evade accountability for being complicit in this abuse. Surveillance Watch is a community-driven initiative, and we rely on submissions from individuals passionate about protecting privacy and human rights.”
Yes, the site makes it easy to contribute information to its roundup. Anonymously, if one desires. The site’s information is divided into three alphabetical lists: Surveilling Entities, Known Targets, and Funding Organizations. As an example, here is what the service says about safeXai (formerly Banjo):
“safeXai is the entity that has quietly resumed the operations of Banjo, a digital surveillance company whose founder, Damien Patton, was a former Ku Klux Klan member who’d participated in a 1990 drive-by shooting of a synagogue near Nashville, Tennessee. Banjo developed real-time surveillance technology that monitored social media, traffic cameras, satellites, and other sources to detect and report on events as they unfolded. In Utah, Banjo’s technology was used by law enforcement agencies.”
We notice there are no substantive links which could have been included, like ones to footage of the safeXai surveillance video service or the firm’s remarkable body of patents. In our view, these patents represent an X-ray look at what most firms call artificial intelligence.
A few other names we recognize are IBM, Palantir, and Pegasus owner NSO Group. See the site for many more. The Known Targets page lists countries that, when clicked, list surveilling entities known or believed to be operating there. Entries on the Funding Organizations page include a brief description of each organization with a clickable list of surveillance apps it is known or believed to fund at the bottom. It is not clear how the site vets its entries, but the submission form does include boxes for supporting URL(s) and any files to upload. It also asks whether one consents to be contacted for more information.
Cynthia Murrell, September 18, 2024
The EU Has a Small Sense of Humor: X.com Is Under Endowed?
September 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Elon Musk has a big rocket. Elon Musk has a big car company. Elon Musk has a big hole making machine. But Elon Musk has a high-technology social media outfit which is too small.
I think European regulators have a sense of humor. Furthermore, calling attention to Mr. Musk’s fascination with “big,” the characterization is likely to evoke eye rolls and some nudges among those in the know. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, a bit like a Tesla.
I read “Musk’s X Deemed Too Small for EU Crackdown on Big Tech Power.” Small, yes. The “real news” report says:
X will dodge the DMA’s raft of dos and don’ts because it isn’t a powerful enough service for business users and doesn’t meet certain revenue thresholds, according to the people, who spoke under condition of anonymity.
Okay, small and impotent.
Let’s look at the “too small” judgment compared to Brazil’s approach. The EU pushes the little bitty X thingy idea; Brazil kicked X.com out of the country. The Brazilian action reacted to X.com as if it were a big outfit with an outsized reach, from the beach in Rio to the sky above Cristo Redentor. Brazil relaxed its freeze on X.com’s bank account so the big X.com fine could be paid.
Observations:
- X.com is too small. Ouch. Intentional or not, this has to remind someone of crude jokes in the high school boys’ locker room.
- The EU wants to make it crystal clear that its actions will be directed at the really big US high-technology outfits which violate assorted EU rules and regulations, write checks for fines, and keep on doing what the companies choose to do.
- Slapping a label on a company which presents itself as a global blockbuster illustrates some disdain.
Net net: Brazil went big. The EU goes small. Very small, X.com, tinier than a Telegram.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024
CrowdStrike: Whiffing Security As a Management Precept
September 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Not many cyber security outfits can make headlines like NSO Group. But no longer. A new buzz champion has crowned: CrowdStrike. I learned a bit more about the company’s commitment to rigorous engineering and exemplary security practices. “CrowdStrike Ex-Employees: Quality Control Was Not Part of Our Process.” NSO Group’s rise to stardom was propelled by its leadership and belief in the superiority of Israeli security-related engineering. CrowdStrike skipped that and perfected a type of software that could strand passengers, curtail surgeries, and force Microsoft to rethink its own wonky decisions about kernel access.
A trained falcon tells an onlooker to go away. The falcon, a stubborn bird, has fallen in love with a limestone gargoyle. Its executive function resists inputs. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
The write up says:
Software engineers at the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike complained about rushed deadlines, excessive workloads, and increasing technical problems to higher-ups for more than a year before a catastrophic failure of its software paralyzed airlines and knocked banking and other services offline for hours.
Let’s assume this statement is semi-close to the truth pin on the cyber security golf course. In fact, the company insists that it did not cheat like a James Bond villain playing a round of golf. The article reports:
CrowdStrike disputed much of Semafor’s reporting and said the information came from “disgruntled former employees, some of whom were terminated for clear violations of company policy.” The company told Semafor: “CrowdStrike is committed to ensuring the resiliency of our products through rigorous testing and quality control, and categorically rejects any claim to the contrary.”
I think someone at CrowdStrike has channeled a mediocre law school graduate and a former PR professional from a mid-tier publicity firm in Manhattan, lower Manhattan, maybe in Alphabet City.
The article runs through a litany of short cuts. You can read the original article and sort them out.
The company’s flagship product is called “Falcon.” The idea is that the outstanding software can, like a falcon, spot its prey (a computer virus). Then it can solve trajectory calculations and snatch the careless gopher. One gets a plump Falcon and one gopher filling in for a burrito at a convenience store on the Information Superhighway.
The killer paragraph in the story, in my opinion, is:
Ex-employees cited increased workloads as one reason they didn’t improve upon old code. Several said they were given more work following staff reductions and reorganizations; CrowdStrike declined to comment on layoffs and said the company has “consistently grown its headcount year over year.” It added that R&D expenses increased from $371.3 million to $768.5 million from fiscal years 2022 to 2024, “the majority of which is attributable to increased headcount.”
I buy the complaining former employee argument. But the article cites a number of CloudStrikers who are taking their expertise and work ethic elsewhere. As a result, I think the fault is indeed a management problem.
What does one do with a bad Falcon? I would put a hood on the bird and let it scroll TikToks. Bewits and bells would alert me when one of these birds were getting close to me.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
Smart Software: More Novel and Exciting Than a Mere Human
September 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Idea people: What a quaint notion. Why pay for expensive blue-chip consultants or wonder youth from fancy universities? Just use smart software to generate new, novel, unique ideas. Does that sound over the top? Not according to “AIs Generate More Novel and Exciting Research Ideas Than Human Experts.” Wow, I forgot exciting. AI outputs can be exciting to the few humans left to examine the outputs.
The write up says:
Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have excited researchers about the potential to revolutionize scientific discovery, with models like ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude showing an ability to autonomously generate and validate new research ideas. This, of course, was one of the many things most people assumed AIs could never take over from humans; the ability to generate new knowledge and make new scientific discoveries, as opposed to stitching together existing knowledge from their training data.
Aside from having no job and embracing couch surfing or returning to one’s parental domicile, what are the implications of this bold statement? It means that smart software is better, faster, and cheaper at producing novel and “exciting” research ideas. There is even a chart to prove that the study’s findings are allegedly reproducible. The graph has whisker lines too. I am a believer… sort of.
The magic of a Bonferroni correction which allegedly copes with data from multiple dependent or independent statistical tests are performed in one meta-calculation. Does it work? Sure, a fancy average is usually close enough for horseshoes I have heard.
Just keep in mind that human judgments are tossed into the results. That adds some of that delightful subjective spice. The proof of the “novelty” creation process, according to the write up comes from Google. The article says:
…we can’t understate AI’s potential to radically accelerate progress in certain areas – as evidenced by Deepmind’s GNoME system, which knocked off about 800 years’ worth of materials discovery in a matter of months, and spat out recipes for about 380,000 new inorganic crystals that could have revolutionary potential in all sorts of areas. This is the fastest-developing technology humanity has ever seen; it’s reasonable to expect that many of its flaws will be patched up and painted over within the next few years. Many AI researchers believe we’re approaching general superintelligence – the point at which generalist AIs will overtake expert knowledge in more or less all fields.
Flaws? Hallucinations? Hey, not to worry. These will be resolved as the AI sector moves with the arrow of technology. Too bad if some humanoids are pierced by the arrow and die on the shoulder of the uncaring Information Superhighway. What about those who say AI will not take jobs? Have those people talked with an accountants responsible for cost control?
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024
A Moment to Remember: Google Explains Its Competitive Posture
September 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
What happens when those with insight into the Google talk in a bar to friends? Answer: Complete indifference. Question: What happens when a former Google employee’s comments are captured in a form which can be discovered by the prosecution in a trial? Answer: A peak inside Googzilla’s kimono.
An observer is horrified by the site revealed when an ex-Google professional talks about what’s inside the Googzilla kimono. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
“Ex-Google Exec Said Goal Was to Crush Competition, Trial Evidence Shows” reports that Google wanted to “crush” the competition. Google wanted a “monopoly.” Here’s what the Reuters’ article reports via its “trust” filter:
“We’ll be able to crush the other networks and that’s our goal,” David Rosenblatt, Google’s former president of display advertising, said of the company’s strategy in late 2008 or early 2009, according to notes shown in court…. “We’re both Goldman and NYSE,” he said, he said, according to the notes, referring to one of the world’s biggest stock exchanges at the time and one of its biggest market makers. “Google has created what’s comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we’ll do to display what Google did to search,” Rosenblatt said.
On the surface, Mr. Rosenblatt is articulating what some folks have been asserting for years. Several observations:
- Google has been running free for a long time. Why?
- If true, the statement makes the outcome of EU litigation almost certain. Google will have to pay and change in ways which may be resisted by the nation-state of Google
- The comment reflects the machismo of the high tech US company and its hubris. Pride and vanity are believed by some to be a fundamental sin.
So what?
- Deconstructing what Google has built over the years may be quite difficult, maybe impossible. Well, that ends one line of retribution.
- If one breaks up Google and severs advertising, who can afford to buy it. Maybe the US should punt and nationalize the outfit. Why not let GSA run it? That would be exciting in my opinion.
- Google apologizes and keeps on doing what it has been doing for the last 25 years by filing appeals, lobbying, and waiting out government lawyers who often come and go as Google says, “I was neither / Living nor dead, and I knew nothing.”
Net net: The Google is gonna Google no matter what.
Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024
Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:
Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.
Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.
An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.
What does the decision suggest?
- Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
- Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
- The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.
There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.
With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.
I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
Trust AI? Obvious to Those Who Do Not Want to Think Too Much
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who wants to evaluate information? The answer: Not too many people. In my lectures, I show a diagram of the six processes an analyst or investigator should execute. The reality is that several of the processes are difficult which means time and money are required to complete the processes in a thorough manner. Who has time? The answer: Not too many people or organizations.
What’s the solution? The Engineer’s article “Study Shows Alarming Level of Trust in AI for Life and Death Decisions” reports:
A US study that simulated life and death decisions has shown that humans place excessive trust in artificial intelligence when guiding their choices.
Interesting. Perhaps China is the poster child for putting “trust” in smart software hooked up to nuclear weapons? Fortune reported on September 10, 2024, that China has refused to sign an agreement to ban smart software from controlling nuclear weapons.
Yep, I trust AI, don’t you? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I trusted you to do a great job. What did you deliver? A good enough cartoon.
The study reported in The Engineer might be of interest to some in China. Specifically, the write up stated:
Despite being informed of the fallibility of the AI systems in the study, two-thirds of subjects allowed their decisions to be influenced by the AI. The work, conducted by scientists at the University of California – Merced.
Are these results on point? My experience suggests that not only do people accept the outputs of a computer as “correct.” Many people when shown facts that contradict the computer output defend the computer as more reliable and accurate.
I am not quite such a goose. Machines and software generate errors. The systems have for decades. But I think the reason is that the humans with whom I have interacted pursue convenience. Verifying, analyzing, and thinking are hot processes. Humans want to kick back in cool, low humidity environments and pursue the least effort path in many situations.
The illusion of computer accuracy allows people to skip reviewing their Visa statement and doubting the validity of an output displayed in a spreadsheet. The fact that the smart software hallucinates is ignored. I hear “I know when the system needs checking.” Yeah, sure you do.
Those involved in preparing the study are quoted as saying:
“Our project was about high-risk decisions made under uncertainty when the AI is unreliable,” said Holbrook. “We should have a healthy skepticism about AI, especially in life-or-death decisions. “We see AI doing extraordinary things and we think that because it’s amazing in this domain, it will be amazing in another. We can’t assume that. These are still devices with limited abilities.”
These folks are not going to be hired to advise the Chinese government I surmise.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
The UK Says, “Okay, Google, Get Out Your Checkbook”
September 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “British Competition Regulator Objects to Google’s Ad Tech Practices.” The UK is expressing some direct discontent with the Google. The country is making clear that it is not thrilled with the “let ‘em do what they want, pardner” approach of US regulatory agencies. Not surprisingly, like the Netherlands, the government officials are putting the pedal to the metal. The write up reports:
In a statement, the Competition and Markets Authority alleged that the U.S. internet search titan “has harmed competition by using its dominance in online display advertising to favor its own ad tech services.”
I suppose to some the assertion that Google favors itself is not exactly a surprise. The write up continues:
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of Google Ads, said that the company disagreed with the CMA’s view and “will respond accordingly.” “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Taylor said in an emailed statement. “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.”
Good enough illustration, MSFT Copilot.
The explanation from a Googler sounds familiar. Will the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority be convinced? My hunch is that the CMA will not be satisfied with Google’s posture on this hard metal chair. (Does that chair have electrodes attached to its frame and arm rests?)
The write up offers this statement:
In the CMA’s decision Friday, the watchdog said that, since 2015, Google has abused its dominant position as the operator of both ad buying tools “Google Ads” and “DV360,” and of a publisher ad server known as “DoubleClick For Publishers,” in order to strengthen the market position of its advertising exchange, AdX.
Oh, not quite a decade.
Why are European entities ramping up their legal actions? My opinions are:
- Google can produce cash. Ka-ching.
- The recent ruling that Google is a monopoly is essentially interpreted as a green light for other nation states to give the Google a go.
- Non-US regulators are fed up with Google’s largely unchecked behavior and have mustered up courage to try and stop a rolling underground car by standing in front of the massive conveyance and pushing with their bare hands to stop the momentum. (Good luck, folks.)
Net net: More Google pushback may be needed once the bold defiers of mass time velocity are pushed aside.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
