Un-Aliving Violates TOS and Some Linguistic Boundaries
December 18, 2025
Ah, lawyers.
Depression is a dark emotionally state and sometimes makes people take their lives. Before people unalive themselves, they usually investigate the act and/or reach out to trusted sources. These days the “trusted sources” are the host of AI chatbots that populate the Internet. Ars Technica shares the story about how one teenager committed suicide after using a chatbot: “OpenAI Says Dead Teen Violated TOS When He Used ChatGPT To Plan Suicide.”
OpenAI is facing a total of five lawsuits about wrongful deaths associated with ChatGPT. The first lawsuit came to court and OpenAI defended itself by claiming that the teen in question, Adam Raine, violated the terms of service because they prohibited self-harm and suicide. While pursuing the world’s “most engaging chatbot,” OpenAI relaxed their safety measures for ChatGPT which became Raine’s suicide coach.
OpenAI’s lawyers argued that Raine’s parents selected the most damaging chat logs. They also claim that the logs show that Raine had had suicidal ideations since age eleven and that his medication increased his un-aliving desires.
Along with the usual allegations about shifting the blame onto the parents and others, OpenAI says that people use the chatbot at their own risk. It’s a way to avoid any accountability.
“To overcome the Raine case, OpenAI is leaning on its usage policies, emphasizing that Raine should never have been allowed to use ChatGPT without parental consent and shifting the blame onto Raine and his loved ones. ‘ChatGPT users acknowledge their use of ChatGPT is ‘at your sole risk and you will not rely on output as a sole source of truth or factual information,’ the filing said, and users also “must agree to ‘protect people’ and ‘cannot use [the] services for,’ among other things, ‘suicide, self-harm,’ sexual violence, terrorism or violence.’”
OpenAI employees were also alarmed by the amount of “liberties” used to make the chatbot more engaging.
How far will OpenAI go with ChatGPT to make it intuitive, human-like, and intelligent? Raines already had underlying conditions that caused his death, but ChatGPT did exasperate them. Remember the terms of service.
Whitney Grace, December 18, 2025
Meta: An AI Management Issue Maybe?
December 17, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I really try not to think about Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg, his yachts, and Llamas. I mean the large language model, not the creatures I associate with Peru. (I have been there, and I did not encounter any reptilian snakes. Cuy chactado, si. Vibora, no.)
I read in the pay-walled orange newspaper online “Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Turbulent Bet on AI.” Hmm. Turbulent. I was thinking about synonyms I would have suggested; for example, unjustifiable, really big, wild and crazy, and a couple of others. I am not a real journalist so I will happily accept turbulent. The word means, however, “relating to or denoting flow of a fluid in which the velocity at any point fluctuates irregularly and there is continual mixing rather than a steady or laminar flow pattern” according to the Google’s opaque system. I think the idea is that Meta is operating in a chaotic way. What about “juiced running fast and breaking things”? Yep. Chaos, a modern management method that is supposed to just work.
A young executive with oodles of money hears an older person, probably a blue chip consultant, asking one of those probing questions about a top dog’s management method. Will this top dog listen or just fume and keep doing what worked for more than a decade? Thanks, Qwen. Good enough.
What does the write up present? Please, sign up for the FT and read the original article. I want to highlight two snippets.
The first is:
Investors are also increasingly skittish. Meta’s 2025 capital expenditures are expected to hit at least $70bn, up from $39bn the previous year, and the company has started undertaking complex financial maneuverings to help pay for the cost of new data centers and chips, tapping corporate bond markets and private creditors.
Not RIFed employees, not users, not advertisers, and not government regulators. The FT focuses on investors who are skittish. The point is that when investors get skittish, an already unsettled condition is sufficiently significant to increase anxiety. Investors do not want to be anxious. Has Mr. Zuckerberg mismanaged the investors that help keep his massive investments in to be technology chugging along. First, there was the metaverse. That may arrive in some form, but for Meta I perceive it as a dumpster fire for cash.
Now investors are anxious and the care and feeding of these entities is more important. The fact that the investors are anxious suggests that Mr. Zuckerberg has not managed this important category of professionals in a way that calms them down. I don’t think the FT’s article will do much to alleviate their concern.
The second snippet is:
But the [Meta] model performed worse than those by rivals such as OpenAI and Google on jobs including coding tasks and complex problem solving.
This suggests to me that Mr. Zuckerberg did not manage the process in an optimal way. Some wizards left for greener pastures. Others just groused about management methods. Regardless of the signals one receives about Meta, the message I receive is that management itself is the disruptive factor. Mismanagement is, I think, part of the method at Meta.
Several observations:
- Meta like the other AI outfits with money to toss in the smart software dumpster fire are in the midst of realizing “if we think it, it will become reality” is not working. Meta’s spinning off chunks of flaming money bundles and some staff don’t want to get burned.
- Meta is a technology follower, and it may have been aced by its message and social media competitor Telegram. If Telegram’s approach is workable, Meta may be behind another AI eight ball.
- Mr. Zuckerberg is a wonder of American business. He began as a boy wonder. Now as an adult wonder, the question is, “Why are investors wondering about his current wonder-fulness?”
Net net: Meta faces a management challenge. The AI tech is embedded in that. Some of its competitors lack management finesse, but some of them are plugging along and not yet finding their companies presented in the Financial Times as outfits making “increasingly skittish.” Perhaps in the future, but right now, the laser focus of the Financial Times is on Meta. The company is an easy target in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2025
The Google Has a New Sheep Herder: An AI Boss to Nip at the Heels of the AI Beasties
December 17, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Staffing turmoil appears to be the end-of-year trend in some Silicon Valley outfits. Apple is spitting out executives. Meta is thrashing. OpenAI is doing the Code Red alert thing amidst unsettled wizards. And, today I learned that Google has a chief technologist for AI infrastructure. I think that means data centers, but it could extend some oversight to the new material science lab in the UK that will use AI (of course) to invent new materials. “Exclusive / Google Names New Chief of AI Infrastructure Buildout” reports:
Amin Vahdat, who joined Google from academia roughly 15 years ago, will be named chief technologist for AI infrastructure, according to the memo, and become one of 15 to 20 people reporting directly to CEO Sundar Pichai. Google estimates it will have spent more than $90 billion on capital expenditures by the end of 2025, most of it going into the part of the company Vahdat will now oversee.
The sheep dog attempts to herd the little data center doggies away from environmental issues, infrastructure inconsistencies, and roll-your-own engineering. Woof. Thanks, Venice.ai. Close enough for horseshoes.
I read this as making clear the following:
- Google spent “more than $90 billion” on infrastructure in 2025
- No one was paying attention to this investment
- For 2025, a former academic steeped in Googliness will herd the sheep in 2026.
I assume that is part of the McKinsey way, Fire, Aim, Ready! Dinobabies like me with some blue chip consulting experience feel slightly more comfortable with the old school Ready, Aim, Fire! But the world today is different from the one I traveled through decades ago. Nostalgia does not cut it in the “we have to win AI” business environment today.
Here’s a quote making clear that planning and organizing were not part of the 2025 check writing. I quote:
“This change establishes AI Infrastructure as a key focus area for the company,” wrote Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian in the Wednesday memo congratulating Vahdat.
The cited article puts this sheep herder in context:
In August, Google disclosed in a paper co-authored by Vahdat that the amount of energy used to run the median prompt on its AI models was equivalent to watching less than nine seconds of television and consuming five drops of water. The numbers were far less than what some critics had feared and competitors had likely hoped for. There’s no single answer for how to best run an AI data center. It’s small, coordinated efforts across disparate teams that span the globe. The job of coordinating it all now has an official title.
See and understand. The power consumption for the Google AI data centers is trivial. The Google can plug these puppies into the local power grid, nip at the heels of the people who complain about rising electricity prices and brown outs, and nuzzle the folks who:
- Promise small, local nuclear power generation facilities. No problems with licensing, component engineering, and nuclear waste. Trivialities.
- Repurposed jet engines from a sort of real supersonic jet source. Noise? No problem. Heat? No problem. Emission control? No problem.
- Brand spanking new pressurized water reactors built by the old school nuclear crowd. No problem. Time? No problem. The new folks are accelerationists.
- Recommissioning turned off (deactivated) nuclear power stations. No problem. Costs? No problem. Components? No problem. Environmental concerns? Absolutely no problem.
Google is tops in strategic planning and technology. It should be. It crafted its expertise selling advertising. AI infrastructure is a piece of cake. I think sheep dogs herding AI can do the job which apparently was not done for more than a year. When a problem becomes to big to ignore, restructure. Grrr or Woof, not Yipe, little herder.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2025
Tech Whiz Wants to Go Fishing (No, Not Phishing), Hook, Link, Sinker Stuff
December 17, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
My deeply flawed service that feeds me links produced a rare gem. “I Work in Tech But I Hate Everything Big Tech Has Become” is interesting because it states clearly what I have heard from other Silicon Valley types recently. I urge you to read the essay because the discomfort the author feels jumps off the screen or printed page if you are a dinobaby. If the essay has a rhetorical weakness, it is no resolution. My hunch is that the author has found himself in a digital construct with No Exit signs on the door.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The essay states:
We try to build products that help people. We try to solve mostly problems we ourselves face using tech. We are nerds, misfits, borderline insane people driven by a passion to build. we could probably get a job in big tech if we tried as hard as we try building our own startup. but we don’t want to. in fact we can’t. we’d have to kill a little (actually a lot) of ourselves to do that.
This is an interesting comment. I interpreted it to mean that the tech workers and leadership who build “products that help people” are have probably “killed” some of their inner selves. I never thought of the luminaries who head the outfits pushing AI or deploying systems that governments have to ban for users under a certain age as being dead inside. Is it true? I am not sure. Thought provoking notion? Yes.
The essay states:
I hate everything big tech stands for today. Facebook openly admitting they earn millions from scam ads. VCs funding straight up brain rot or gambling. Big tech is not even pretending to be good these days.
The word “hate” provides a glimpse of how the author is responding to the current business set up in certain sectors of the technology industry. Instead of focusing on what might be called by some dinobaby like me as “ethical behavior” is viewed as abnormal by many people. My personal view is that this idea of doing whatever to reach a goal operates across many demographics. Is this a-ethical behavior now the norm.
The essay states:
If tech loses people like us, all it’ll have left are psychopaths. Look I’m not trying to take a holier-than-thou stance here. I’m just saying objectively it seems insane what’s happening in mainstream tech these days.
I noted a number of highly charged words. These make sense in the context of the author’s personal situation. I noted “psychopaths” and “insane.” When many instances of a-ethical behavior bubble up from technical, financial, and political sectors, a-ethics mean one cannot trust, rely, or believe words. Actions alone must be scrutinized.
The author wants to “keep fighting,” but against who or what system? Deception, trickery, double dealing, criminal activity can be identified in most business interactions.
The author mentions going fishing. The caution I would offer is to make sure you are not charged a dynamic price based on your purchasing profile. Shop around if any fishing stores are open. If not, Amazon will deliver what you need.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2025
Australia: Kangaroos and Putting Kids in a Secure Pouch
December 17, 2025
Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media for kids under sixteen. They did it in a bid to protect the younger sect from addictive behaviors, online bullies, and predators. CNN details the ban in, “Millions Of Australian Children Just Lost Access To Social Media. What’s Happening And Will It Work?”
The ten platforms that are banned for under sixteen kids are, X, Twitch, Reddit, Kick, TikTok, Snapchat, Threats, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram.
The ban will be implemented using age-verification technology, but the platforms don’t believe it will make kids safer. The Australian prime minister believes differently:
“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it was a “proud day” for Australia. ‘This is the day when Australian families are taking back power from these big tech companies. They are asserting the right of kids to be kids and for parents to have greater peace of mind,’ Albanese told the public broadcaster ABC Wednesday. But he conceded ‘it won’t be simple.’”
The platforms will use age-verification technology such as video selfies, email addresses, or official documents. The video selfies use facial data points to estimate age.
There are workarounds such as parents creating accounts for their kids and backup social media companies. People are saying it’s a game of whack-a-mole that the Australian government won’t win. There aren’t any punishments for parents who do make accounts for kids.
A follow up from The Nightly says, “Australian Under-16s Social Media Ban: Kids Claim Ban Didn’t Work As They Troll Anthony Albanese On TikTok.” The younger sect took to TikTok and did what kids do best: make fun of the incident. They’re trolling the Prime Minister with memes, videos, comments, and anything else to prove the ban isn’t working.
There are kinks to still work out, but maybe the ban will work. Some youngsters have good technical know how. Work arounds are inevitable. Even baby roos leave the pouch.
Whitney Grace, December 17, 2025
Google: Trying Hard Not to Be Noticed in a Crypto Club
December 16, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Google continues to creep into crypto. Google has interacted with ANT Financial. Google has invested in some interesting compute services. And now Google will, if “Exclusive: YouTube Launches Option for U.S. Creators to Receive Stablecoin Payouts through PayPal” is on the money, give crypto a whirl among its creators.
A friendly creature warms up in a yoga studio. Few notice the suave green beast. But one person spots a subtle touch: Pink gym shoes purchased with PayPal crypto. Such a deal. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The Fortune article reports as actual factual:
A spokesperson for Google, which owns YouTube, confirmed the video site has added payouts for creators in PayPal’s stablecoin but declined to comment further. YouTube is already an existing customer of PayPal’s and uses the fintech giant’s payouts service, which helps large enterprises pay gig workers and contractors.
How does this work?
Based on the research we did for our crypto lectures, a YouTuber in the US would have to have a PayPal account. Google puts the payment in PayPal’s crypto in the account. The YouTuber would then use PayPal to convert PayPal crypto into US dollars. Then the YouTuber could move the US dollars to his or her US bank account. Allegedly there would be no gas fee slapped on the transactions, but there is an opportunity to add service charges at some point. (I mean what self respecting MBA angling for a promotion wouldn’t propose that money making idea?)
Several observations:
- In my new monograph “The Telegram Labyrinth” available only to law enforcement officials, we identified Google as one of the firms moving in what we call the “Telegram direction.” The Google crypto creeps plus PayPal reinforce that observation. Why? Money and information.
- Information about how Google’s activities in crypto will conform to assorted money related rules and regulations are not clear to me. Furthermore as we completed our “The Telegram Labyrinth” research in early September 2025, not too many people were thinking about Google as a crypto player. But that GOOGcoin does seem like something even the lowest level wizard at Alphabet could envision, doesn’t it?
- Google has a track record of doing what it wants. Therefore, in my opinion, more little tests, baby steps, and semi-low profile moves probably are in the wild. Hopefully someone will start looking.
Net net: Google does do pretty much what it wants to do. From gaining new training data from its mobile-to-ear-bud translation service to expanding its AI capabilities with its new silicon, the Google is a giant creature doing some low impact exercises. When the Google shifts to lifting big iron, a number of interesting challenges will arise. Are regulators ready? Are online fraud investigators ready? Is Microsoft ready?
What’s your answer?
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2025
Ka-Ching: The EU Cash Registers Tolls for the Google
December 16, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Thomson Reuters, the trust outfit because they say the company is, published another ka-ching story titled “Exclusive: Google Faces Fines Over Google Play if It Doesn’t Make More Concessions, Sources Say.” The story reports:
Alphabet’s Google is set to be hit with a potentially large EU fine early next year if it does not do more to ensure that its app store complies with EU rules aimed at ensuring fair access and competition, people with direct knowledge of the matter said.
An elected EU official introduces the new and permanent member of the parliament. Thanks, Venice.ai. Not exactly what I specified, but saving money on compute cycles is the name of the game today. Good enough.
I can hear the “Sorry. We’re really, really sorry” statement now. I can even anticipate the sequence of events; hence and herewith:
- Google says, “We believe we have complied.”
- The EU says, “Pay up.”
- Google says, “Let’s go to trial.”
- The EU says, “Fine with us.”
- The Google says, “We are innocent and have complied.”
- The EU says, “You are guilty and owe $X millions of dollars. (Note: The EU generates more revenue by fining US big tech companies than it does from certain tax streams I have heard.)
- The Google says, “Let’s negotiate.”
- The EU says, “Fine with us.”
- Google negotiates and says, “We have a deal plus we did nothing wrong.”
- The EU says, “Pay X millions less the Y millions we agree to deduct based on our fruitful negotiations.”
The actual factual article says:
DMA fines can be as much as 10% of a company’s global annual revenue. The Commission has also charged Google with favoring its associated search services in Google Search, and is investigating its use of online content for its artificial intelligence tools and services and its spam policy.
My interpretation of this snippet is that the EU has on deck another case of Google’s alleged law breaking. This is predictable, and the approach does generate revenue from companies with lots of cash.
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2025
The EU – Google Soap Opera Titled “What? Train AI?”
December 16, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Ka-ching. That’s the sound of the EU ringing up another fine for one of its favorite US big tech outfits. Once again it is Googzilla in the headlights of a restored 2CV. Here’s the pattern:
- EU fines
- Googzilla goes to court
- EU finds Googzilla guilty
- Googzilla appeals
- EU finds Googzilla guilty
- Googzilla negotiates and says, “We don’t agree but we will pay”
- Go back to item 1.
This version of the EU soap opera is called training Gemini on whatever content Google has.
The formal announcement of Googzilla’s re-run of a fan favorite is “Commission Opens Investigation into Possible Anticompetitive Conduct by Google in the Use of Online Content for AI Purposes.” I note the hedge word “possible,” but as soap opera fans we know the arc of this story. Can you hear the cackle of the legal eagles anticipating the billings? I can.
The mythical creature Googzilla apologizes to an august body for a mistake. Googzilla is very, very sincere. Thanks, MidJourney. Actually pretty good this morning. Too bad you not consistent.
The cited show runner document says:
The European Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Google has breached EU competition rules by using the content of web publishers, as well as content uploaded on the online video-sharing platform YouTube, for artificial intelligence (‘AI’) purposes. The investigation will notably examine whether Google is distorting competition by imposing unfair terms and conditions on publishers and content creators, or by granting itself privileged access to such content, thereby placing developers of rival AI models at a disadvantage.
The EU is trying via legal process to alter the DNA of Googzilla. I am fond of pointing out that beavers do what beavers do. Similarly Googzillas do exactly what the one and unique Googzilla does; that is, anything it wants to do. Why? Googzilla is now entering its prime. It has a small would on its knee. If examined closely, it is a scar that seems to be the word “monopoly”.
News flash: Filing legal motions against Googzilla will not change its DNA. The outfit is purpose built to keep control of its billions of users and keep the snoops from do gooder and regulatory outfits clueless about what happens to the [a] parsed and tagged data, [b] the metrics thereof, [c] the email, the messages, and the voice data, [d] the YouTube data, and [e] whatever data flows into the Googzilla’s maw from advertisers, ad systems, and ad clickers.
The EU does not get the message. I wrote three books about Google, and it was pretty evident in the first one (The Google Legacy) that baby Google was the equivalent of a young Maradona or Messi was going to wear a jersey with Googzilla 10 emblazoned on its comely yet spikey back.
The write up contains this statement from Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition:
A free and democratic society depends on diverse media, open access to information, and a vibrant creative landscape. These values are central to who we are as Europeans. AI is bringing remarkable innovation and many benefits for people and businesses across Europe, but this progress cannot come at the expense of the principles at the heart of our societies. This is why we are investigating whether Google may have imposed unfair terms and conditions on publishers and content creators, while placing rival AI models developers at a disadvantage, in breach of EU competition rules.
Interesting idea as the EU and the US stumble to the side of street where these ideas are not too popular.
Net net: Googzilla will not change for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, those who don’t understand this are unlikely to get a job at the company.
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2025
A Thought for the New Year: Be Techy
December 16, 2025
George Orwell wrote in 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” The Guardian published an article that embodies this quote entitled: “How Big Tech Is Creating Its Own Friendly Media Bubble To ‘Win The Narrative Battle Online’.”
Big Tech billionaire CEOs aren’t cast in the best light these days. In order to counteract the negative attitudes towards their leaders, Big Tech companies are giving their CEOs Walt Disney makeovers. If you didn’t know, Disney wasn’t the congenial uncle figure his company likes to portray him as. Walt was actually an OCD micromanager with a short temper and tendencies reminiscent of bipolar disorder. Big Tech CEOs are portraying themselves as nice guys in cozy interviews via news outlets they own or are copacetic.
Big Tech leaders are doing this because the public doesn’t trust them:
“The rise of tech’s new media is also part of a larger shift in how public figures are presenting themselves and the level of access they are willing to give journalists. The tech industry has a long history of being sensitive around media and closely guarded about their operations, a tendency that has intensified following scandals…”
The content they’re delivering isn’t that great though:
“The content that the tech industry is creating is frequently a reflection of how its elites see themselves and the world they want to build – one with less government regulation and fewer probing questions on how their companies are run. Even the most banal questions can also be a glimpse into the heads of people who exist primarily in guarded board rooms and gated compounds.”
The responses are typical of entitled, out-of-touch idiots. They’re smart in their corner of the world but can’t relate to the working individual. Happy New Year!
Whitney Grace, December 16, 2025
Do Not Mess with the Mouse, Google
December 15, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
“Google Removes AI Videos of Disney Characters After Cease and Desist Letter” made me visualize an image of Godzilla which I sometimes misspell as Googzilla frightened of a mouse; specifically, a quite angry Mickey. Why?
A mouse causes a fearsome creature to jump on the kitchen chair. Who knew a mouse could roar? Who knew the green beast would listen? Thanks, Qwen. Your mouse does not look like one of Disney’s characters. Good for you.
The write up says:
Google has removed dozens of AI-generated videos that depicted Disney-owned characters after receiving a cease and desist letter from the studio on Wednesday. Disney flagged the YouTube links to the videos in its letter, and demanded that Google remove them immediately.
What adds an interesting twist to this otherwise ho hum story about copyright viewed as an old-fashioned concept is that Walt Disney invested in OpenAI and worked out a deal for some OpenAI customers to output Disney-okayed images. (How this will work out at prompt wizards try to put Minnie, Snow White, and probably most of the seven dwarves in compromising situations I don’t know. (If I were 15 years old, I would probably experiment to find a way to generate an image involving Price Charming and the Lion King in a bus station facility violating one another and the law. But now? Nah, I don’t care what Disney, ChatGPT users, and AI do. Have at it.)
The write up says that Google said:
“We have a longstanding and mutually beneficial relationship with Disney, and will continue to engage with them,” the company said. “More generally, we use public data from the open web to build our AI and have built additional innovative copyright controls like Google-extended and Content ID for YouTube, which give sites and copyright holders control over their content.”
Yeah, how did that work out when YouTube TV subscribers lost access to some Disney content. Then, Google asked users who paid for content and did not get it to figure out how to sign up to get the refund. Yep, beneficial.
Something caused the Google to jump on a kitchen chair when the mouse said, “See you in court. Bring your checkbook.”
I thought Google was too big to obey any entity other than its own mental confections. I was wrong again. When will the EU find a mouse-type tactic?
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
