• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

 Subscribe

Mathematics Is Going to Be Quite Effective, Citizen

This blog post is the work of a real-live dinobaby. No smart software involved.

The future of AI is becoming more clear: Get enough people doing something, gather data, and predict what humans will do. What if an individual does not want to go with the behavior of the aggregate? The answer is obvious, “Too bad.”

How do I know that as a handful of organizations will use their AI in this manner? I read “Spanish Running of the Bulls’ Festival Reveals Crowd Movements Can Be Predictable, Above a Certain Density.” If the data in the report are close to the pin, AI will be used to predict and then those predictions can be shaped by weaponized information flows. I got a glimpse of how this number stuff works when I worked at Halliburton Nuclear with Dr. Jim Terwilliger. He and a fellow named Julian Steyn were only too happy to explain that the mathematics used for figuring out certain nuclear processes would work for other applications as well. I won’t bore you with comments about the Monte Carl method or the even older Bayesian statistics procedures. But if it made certain nuclear functions manageable, the approach was okay mostly.

Let’s look at what the Phys.org write up says about bovines:

Denis Bartolo and colleagues tracked the crowds of an estimated 5,000 people over four instances of the San Fermín festival in Pamplona, Spain, using cameras placed in two observation spots in the plaza, which is 50 meters long and 20 meters wide. Through their footage and a mathematical model—where people are so packed that crowds can be treated as a continuum, like a fluid—the authors found that the density of the crowds changed from two people per square meter in the hour before the festival began to six people per square meter during the event. They also found that the crowds could reach a maximum density of 9 people per square meter. When this upper threshold density was met, the authors observed pockets of several hundred people spontaneously behaving like one fluid that oscillated in a predictable time interval of 18 seconds with no external stimuli (such as pushing).

I think that’s an important point. But here’s the comment that presages how AI data will be used to control human behavior. Remember. This is emergent behavior similar to the hoo-hah cranked out by the Santa Fe Institute crowd:

The authors note that these findings could offer insights into how to anticipate the behavior of large crowds in confined spaces.

Once probabilities allow one to “anticipate”, it follows that flows of information can be used to take or cause action. Personally I am going to make a note in my calendar and check in one year to see how my observation turns out. In the meantime, I will try to keep an eye on the Sundars, Zucks, and their ilk for signals about their actions and their intent, which is definitely concerned with individuals like me. Right?

Stephen E Arnold, March 5, 2025

Speed Up Your Loss of Critical Thinking. Use AI

While the human brain isn’t a muscle, its neurology does need to be exercised to maintain plasticity. When a human brain is rigid, it’s can’t function in a healthy manner. AI is harming brains by making them not think good says 404 Media: “Microsoft Study Finds AI Makes Human Cognition “Atrophied and Unprepared.” You can read the complete Microsoft research report at this link. (My hunch is that this type of document would have gone the way of Timnit Gebru and the flying stochastic parrot, but that’s just my opinion, Hank, Advait, Lev, Ian, Sean, Dick, and Nick.)

Carnegie Mellon University and Microsoft researchers released a paper that says the more humans rely on generative AI the “result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved.”

Really? You don’t say! What else does this remind you of? How about watching too much television or playing too many videogames? These passive activities (arguable with videogames) stunt the development of brain gray matter and in a flight of Mary Shelley rhetoric make a brain rot! What else did the researchers discover when they studied 319 knowledge workers who self-reported their experiences with generative AI:

“ ‘The data shows a shift in cognitive effort as knowledge workers increasingly move from task execution to oversight when using GenAI,’ the researchers wrote. ‘Surprisingly, while AI can improve efficiency, it may also reduce critical engagement, particularly in routine or lower-stakes tasks in which users simply rely on AI, raising concerns about long-term reliance and diminished independent problem-solving.’”

By the way, we definitely love and absolutely believe data based on self reporting. Think of the mothers who asked their teens, “Where did you go?” The response, “Out.” The mothers ask, “What did you do?” The answer, “Nothing.” Yep, self reporting.

Does this mean generative AI is a bad thing? Yes and no. It’ll stunt the growth of some parts of the brain, but other parts will grow in tandem with the use of new technology. Humans adapt to their environments. As AI becomes more ingrained into society it will change the way humans think but will only make them sort of dumber [sic]. The paper adds:

“ ‘GenAI tools could incorporate features that facilitate user learning, such as providing explanations of AI reasoning, suggesting areas for user refinement, or offering guided critiques,’ the researchers wrote. ‘The tool could help develop specific critical thinking skills, such as analyzing arguments, or cross-referencing facts against authoritative sources. This would align with the motivation enhancing approach of positioning AI as a partner in skill development.’”

The key is to not become overly reliant AI but also be aware that the tool won’t go away. Oh, when my mother asked me, “What did you do, Whitney?” I responded in the best self reporting manner, “Nothing, mom, nothing at all.”

Whitney Grace, February 19, 2025

More Data about What Is Obvious to People Interacting with Teens

This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.

Here’s another one of those surveys which provide some data about a very obvious trend. “Nearly Half of US Teens Are Online Constantly, Pew Report Finds” states:

Nearly half of American teenagers say they are online “constantly” despite concerns about the effects of social media and smartphones on their mental health…

No kidding. Who knew?

There were some points in the cited article which seemed interesting if the data are reliable, the sample is reliable, and the analysis is reliable. But, just for yucks, let’s assume the findings are reasonably representative of what the future leaders of America are up to when their noses are pressed against an iPhone or (gasp!) and Android device.

First, YouTube is the “single most popular platform teenagers use. However, in a previous Pew study YouTube captured 90 percent of the sample, not the quite stunning 95 percent previously documented by the estimable survey outfit.

Second, the write up says:

There was a slight downward trend in several popular apps teens used. For instance, 63% of teens said they used TikTok, down from 67% and Snapchat slipped to 55% from 59%.

Improvement? Sure.

And, finally, I noted what might be semi-bad news for parents and semi-good news for Meta / Zuck:

X saw the biggest decline among teenage users. Only 17% of teenagers said they use X, down from 23% in 2022, the year Elon Musk bought the platform. Reddit held steady at 14%. About 6% of teenagers said they use Threads, Meta’s answer to X that launched in 2023. Meta’s messaging service WhatsApp was a rare exception in that it saw the number of teenage users increase, to 23% from 17% in 2022.

I do have a comment. Lots of numbers which suggest reading, writing, and arithmetic are not likely to be priorities for tomorrow’s leaders of the free world. But whatever they decide and do, those actions will be on video and shared on social media. Outstanding!

Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2024

Smart Software Project Road Blocks: An Up-to-the-Minute Report

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I worked through a 22-page report by SQREAM, a next-gen data services outfit with GPUs. (You can learn more about the company at this buzzword dense link.) The title of the report is:

2024 State of Big Data Analytics: Constant Compromising Is Leading to Suboptimal Results Survey Report, June 2024

The report is a marketing document, but it contains some thought provoking content. The “report” was “administered online by Global Surveyz [sic] Research, an independent global research firm.” The explanation of the methodology was brief, but I don’t want to drag anyone through the basics of Statistics 101. As I recall, few cared and were often good customers for my class notes.

Here are three highlights:

• Smart software and services cause sticker shock.
• Cloud spending by the survey sample is going up.
• And the killer statement: 98 percent of the machine learning projects fail.

Let’s take a closer look at the astounding assertion about the 98 percent failure rate.

The stage is set in the section “Top Challenges Pertaining to Machine Learning / Data Analytics.” The report says:

It is therefore no surprise that companies consider the high costs involved in ML experimentation to be the primary disadvantage of ML/data analytics today (41%), followed by the unsatisfactory speed of this process (32%), too much time required by teams (14%) and poor data quality (13%).

The conclusion the authors of the report draw is that companies should hire SQREAM. That’s okay, no surprise because SQREAM ginned up the study and hired a firm to create an objective report, of course.

So money is the Number One issue.

Why do machine learning projects fail? We know the answer: Resources or money. The write up presents as fact:

The top contributing factor to ML project failures in 2023 was insufficient budget (29%), which is consistent with previous findings – including the fact that “budget” is the top challenge in handling and analyzing data at scale, that more than two-thirds of companies experience “bill shock” around their data analytics processes at least quarterly if not more frequently, that that the total cost of analytics is the aspect companies are most dissatisfied with when it comes to their data stack (Figure 4), and that companies consider the high costs involved in ML experimentation to be the primary disadvantage of ML/data analytics today.

I appreciated the inclusion of the costs of data “transformation.” Glib smart software wizards push aside the hassle of normalizing data so the “real” work can get done. Unfortunately, the costs of fixing up source data are often another cause of “sticker shock.”  The report says:

Data is typically inaccessible and not ‘workable’ unless it goes through a certain level of transformation. In fact, since different departments within an organization have different needs, it is not uncommon for the same data to be prepared in various ways. Data preparation pipelines are therefore the foundation of data analytics and ML….

In the final pages of the report a number of graphs appear. Here’s one that stopped me in my tracks:

The sample contained 62 percent user of Amazon Web Services. Number 2 was users of Google Cloud at 23 percent. And in third place, quite surprisingly, was Microsoft Azure at 14 percent, tied with Oracle. A question which occurred to me is: “Perhaps the focus on sticker shock is a reflection of Amazon’s pricing, not just people and overhead functions?”

I will have to wait until more data becomes available to me to determine if the AWS skew and the report findings are normal or outliers.

Stephen E Arnold, October 1, 2024

Podcasts 2024: The Long Tail Is a Killer

This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

One of my Laws of Online is that the big get bigger. Those who are small go nowhere.

My laws have not been popular since I started promulgating them in the early 1980s. But they are useful to me. The write up “Golden Spike: Podcasting Saw A 22% Rise In Ad Spending In Q2 [2024].” The information in the article, if on the money, appear to support the Arnold Law articulated in the first sentence of this blog post.

The long tail can be a killer. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s life these days? Oh, that’s too bad.

The write up contains an item of information which not surprising to those who paid attention in a good middle school or in a second year economics class. (I know. Snooze time for many students.) The main idea is that a small number of items account for a large proportion of the total occurrences.

Here’s what the article reports:

Unsurprisingly, podcasts in the top 500 attracted the majority of ad spend, with these shows garnering an average of $252,000 per month each. However, the profits made by series down the list don’t have much to complain about – podcasts ranked 501 to 3000 earned about $30,000 monthly. Magellan found seven out of the top ten advertisers from the first quarter continued their heavy investment in the second quarter, with one new entrant making its way onto the list.

This means that of the estimated three to four million podcasts, the power law nails where the advertising revenue goes.

I mention this because when I go to the gym I listen to some of the podcasts on the Leo Laporte TWIT network. At one time, the vision was to create the CNN of the technology industry. Now the podcasts seem to be the voice of the podcasts which cannot generate sufficient money from advertising to pay the bills. Therefore, hasta la vista staff, dedicated studio, and presumably some other expenses associated with a permanent studio.

Other podcasts will be hit by the stinging long tail. The question becomes, “How do these 2.9 million podcasts make money?”

Here’s what I have noticed in the last few months:

1. Podcasters (video and voice) just quit. I assume they get a job or move in with friends. Van life is too expensive due to the cost of fuel, food, and maintenance now that advertising is chasing the winners in the long tail game.
2. Some beg for subscribers.
3. Some point people to their Buy Me a Coffee or Patreon page, among other similar community support services.
4. Some sell T shirts. One popular technology podcaster sells a $60 screwdriver. (I need that.)
5. Some just whine. (No, I won’t single out the winning whiner.)

If I were teaching math, this podcast advertising data would make an interesting example of the power law. Too bad most will be impotent to change its impact on podcasting.

Stephen E Arnold, August 9, 2024

If Math Is Running Out of Problems, Will AI Help Out the Humans?

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

I read “Math Is Running Out of Problems.” The write up appeared in Medium and when I clicked I was not asked to join, pay, or turn a cartwheel. (Does Medium think 80-year-old dinobabies can turn cartwheels? The answer is, “Hey, doofus, if you want to read Medium articles pay up.)

Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, just like smart security software.

I worked through the free essay, which is a reprise of an earlier essay on the topic of running out of math problems. These reason that few cared about the topic is that most people cannot make change. Thinking about a world without math problems is an intellectual task which takes time from scamming the elderly, doom scrolling, generating synthetic information, or watching reruns of I Love Lucy.

The main point of the essay in my opinion is:

…take a look at any undergraduate text in mathematics. How many of them will mention recent research in mathematics from the last couple decades? I’ve never seen it.

New and math problems is an oxymoron.

I think the author is correct. As specialization becomes more desirable to a person, leaving the rest of the world behind is a consequence. But the issue arises in other disciplines. Consider artificial intelligence. That jazzy phrase embraces a number of mathematical premises, but it boils down to a few chestnuts, roasted, seasoned, and mixed with some interesting ethanols. (How about that wild and crazy Sir Thomas Bayes?)

My view is that as the apparent pace of information flow erodes social and cultural structures, the quest for “new” pushes a frantic individual to come up with a novelty. The problem with a novelty is that it takes one’s eye off the ball and ultimately the game itself. The present state of affairs in math was evident decades ago.

What’s interesting is that this issue is not new. In the early 1980s, Dialog Information Services hosted a mathematics database called xxx. The person representing the MATHFILE database (now called MathSciNet) told me in 1981:

We are having a difficult time finding people to review increasingly narrow and highly specialized papers about an almost unknown area of mathematics.

Flash forward to 2024. Now this problem is getting attention in 2024 and no one seems to care?

Several observations:

1. Like smart software, maybe humans are running out of high-value information? Chasing ever smaller mathematical “insights” may be a reminder that humans and their vaunted creativity has limits, hard limits.
2. If the premise of the paper is correct, the issue should be evident in other fields as well. I would suggest the creation of a “me too” index. The idea is that for a period of history, one can calculate how many knock off ideas grab the coat tails of an innovation. My hunch is that the state of most modern technical insight is high on the me too index. No, I am not counting “original” TikTok-type information objects.
3. The fragmentation which seems apparent to me in mathematics and that interesting field of mathematical physics mirrors the fragmentation of certain cultural precepts; for example, ethical behavior. Why is everything “so bad”? The answer is, “Specialization.”

Net net: The pursuit of the ever more specialized insight hastens the erosion of larger ideas and cultural knowledge. We have come a long way in four decades. The direction is clear. It is not just a math problem. It is a now problem and it is pervasive. I want a hat that says, “I’m glad I’m old.”

Stephen E Arnold, July 26, 2024

A Discernment Challenge for Those Who Are Dull Normal

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness. 

Techradar, an online information service, published “Ahead of GPT-5 Launch, Another Test Shows That People Cannot Distinguish ChatGPT from a Human in a Conversation Test — Is It a Watershed Moment for AI?”  The headline implies “change everything” rhetoric, but that is routine AI jargon-hype.

Once again, academics who are unable to land a job in a “real” smart software company studied the work of their former colleagues who make a lot more money than those teaching do. Well, what do academic researchers do when they are not sitting in the student union or the snack area in the lab whilst waiting for a graduate student to finish a task? In my experience, some think about their CVs or résumés. Others ponder the flaws in a commercial or allegedly commercial product or service.

A young shopper explains that the outputs of egg laying chickens share a similarity. Insightful observation from a dumb carp. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s that Recall project coming along?

The write up reports:

The Department of Cognitive Science at UC San Diego decided to see how modern AI systems fared and evaluated ELIZA (a simple rules-based chatbot from the 1960’s included as a baseline in the experiment), GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 in a controlled Turing Test. Participants had a five-minute conversation with either a human or an AI and then had to decide whether their conversation partner was human.

Here’s the research set up:

In the study, 500 participants were assigned to one of five groups. They engaged in a conversation with either a human or one of the three AI systems. The game interface resembled a typical messaging app. After five minutes, participants judged whether they believed their conversation partner was human or AI and provided reasons for their decisions.

And what did the intrepid academics find? Factoids that will get them a job at a Perplexity-type of company? Information that will put smart software into focus for the elected officials writing draft rules and laws to prevent AI from making The Terminator come true?

The results were interesting. GPT-4 was identified as human 54% of the time, ahead of GPT-3.5 (50%), with both significantly outperforming ELIZA (22%) but lagging behind actual humans (67%). Participants were no better than chance at identifying GPT-4 as AI, indicating that current AI systems can deceive people into believing they are human.

What does this mean for those labeled dull normal, a nifty term applied to some lucky people taking IQ tests. I wanted to be a dull normal, but I was able to score in the lowest possible quartile. I think it was called dumb carp. Yes!

Several observations to disrupt your clear thinking about smart software and research into how the hot dogs are made:

1. The smart software seems to have stalled. Our tests of You.com which allows one to select which object models parrots information, it is tough to differentiate the outputs. Cut from the same transformer cloth maybe?
2. Those judging, differentiating, and testing smart software outputs can discern differences if they are way above dull normal or my classification dumb carp. This means that indexing systems, people, and “new” models will be bamboozled into thinking what’s incorrect is a-okay. So much for the informed citizen.
3. Will the next innovation in smart software revolutionize something? Yep, some lucky investors.

Net net: Confusion ahead for those like me: Dumb carp. Dull normals may be flummoxed. But those super-brainy folks have a chance to rule the world. Bust out the party hats and little horns.

Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2024

Think You Know Which Gen Z Is What?

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

I had to look this up? A Gen Z was born when? A Gen Z was born between 1981 and 1996. In 2024, a person aged 28 to 43 is, therefore, a Gen Z. Who knew? The definition is important. I read “Shocking Survey: Nearly Half of Gen Z Live a Double Life Online.” What do you know? A nice suburb, lots of Gen Zs, and half of these folks are living another life online. Go to one of those hip new churches with kick-back names and half of the Gen Zs heads bowed in prayer are living a double life. For whom do those folks pray? Hit the golf club and look at the polo shirt clad, self-satisfied 28 to 43 year olds. Which self is which? The chat room Dark Web person or a happy golfer enjoying the 19th hole?

Someone who is older is jumping to conclusions. Those vans probably contain office supplies, toxic waste, or surplus government equipment. No one would take Gen Zs out of the flow, would they? Thanks, MSFT. Do you have Gen Zs working on your superlative security systems?

The write up reports:

A survey of 2,000 Americans, split evenly by generation, found that 46% of Gen Z respondents feel their personality online vastly differs from how they present themselves in the real world.

Only eight percent of the baby boomers are different online. New flash: If you ever meet me, I am the same person writing these blog posts. As an 80-year-old dinobaby, I don’t need another persona to baffle the brats in the social media sewer. I just avoid the sewer and remain true to my ageing self.

The write up also provides this glimpse into the hearts and souls of those 28 to 43:

Specifically, 31% of Gen Z respondents admitted their online world is a secret from family

That’s good. These Gen Zs can keep a secret. But why? What are they trying to hide from their family, friends, and co-workers? I can guess but won’t.

If you work with a Gen Z, here’s an allegedly valid factoid from the survey:

53% of Gen Zers said it’s easier to express themselves online than offline.

Want another? Too bad. Here’s a winner insight:

68 percent of Gen Zs sometimes feel a disconnect between who they are online and offline.

I think I took a psychology class when I was a freshman in college. I recall learning about a mental disorder with inconsistent or contradictory elements. Are Gen Zs schizophrenic? That’s probably the wrong term, but I think I am heading in the right direction. Mental disorder signals flashing. Just the Gen Z I want to avoid if possible.

One aspect of the write up in the article is that the “author” — maybe human, maybe AI, maybe Gen X with a grudge, who knows? — is that some explanation of who paid the bill to obtain data from 2,000 people. Okay, who paid the bill? Answer: Lenovo. What company conducted the study? Answer: OnePoll. (I never heard of the outfit, and I am too much of a dinobaby to care much.)

Net net: The Gen Zs seem to be a prime source of persons of interest for those investigating certain types of online crime. There you go.

Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2024

Which Came First? Cliffs Notes or Info Short Cuts

This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

The first online index I learned about was the Stanford Research Institute’s Online System. I think I was a sophomore in college working on a project for Dr. William Gillis. He wanted me to figure out how to index poems for a grant he had. The SRI system opened my eyes to what online indexes could do.

Later I learned that SRI was taking ideas from people like Valerius Maximus (30 CE) and letting a big, expensive, mostly hot group of machines do what a scribe would do in a room filled with rolled up papyri. My hunch is that other workers in similar “documents” figures out that some type of labeling and grouping system made sense. Sure, anyone could grab a roll, untie the string keeping it together, and check out its contents. “Hey,” someone said, “Put a label on it and make a list of the labels. Alphabetize the list while you are at it.”

An old-fashioned teacher struggles to get students to produce acceptable work. She cannot write TL;DR. The parents will find their scrolling adepts above such criticism. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s the security work coming?

I thought about the common sense approach to keeping track of and finding information when I read “The Defensive Arrogance of TL;DR.” The essay or probably more accurately the polemic calls attention to the précis, abstract, or summary often included with a long online essay. The inclusion of what is now dubbed TL;DR is presented as meaning, “I did not read this long document. I think it is about this subject.”

On one hand, I agree with this statement:

We’re at a rolling boil, and there’s a lot of pressure to turn our work and the work we consume to steam. The steam analogy is worthwhile: a thirsty person can’t subsist on steam. And while there’s a lot of it, you’re unlikely to collect enough as a creator to produce much value.

The idea is that content is often hot air. The essay includes a chart called “The Rise of Dopamine Culture, created by Ted Gioia. Notice that the world of Valerius Maximus is not in the chart. The graphic begins with “slow traditional culture” and zips forward to the razz-ma-tazz datasphere in which we try to survive.

I would suggest that the march from bits of grass, animal skins, clay tablets, and pieces of tree bark to such examples of “slow traditional culture” like film and TV, albums, and newspapers ignores the following:

1. Indexing and summarizing remained unchanged for centuries until the SRI demonstration
2. In the last 61 years, manual access to content has been pushed aside by machine-centric methods
3. Human inputs are less useful

As a result, the TL;DR tells us a number of important things:

1. The person using the tag and the “bullets” referenced in the essay reveal that the perceived quality of the document is low or poor. I think of this TL;DR as a reverse Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We have a user assigned “Seal of Disapproval.” That’s useful.
2. The tag makes it possible to either NOT out the content with a TL;DR tag or group documents by the author so tagged for review. It is possible an error has been  made or the document is an aberration which provides useful information about the author.
3. The person using the tag TL;DR creates a set of content which can be either processed by smart software or a human to learn about the tagger. An index term is a useful data point when creating a profile.

I think the speed with which electronic content has ripped through culture has caused a number of jarring effects. I won’t go into them in this brief post. Part of the “information problem” is that the old-fashioned processes of finding, reading, and writing about something took a long time. Now Amazon presents machine-generated books whipped up in a day or two, maybe less.

TL;DR may have more utility in today’s digital environment.

Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2024

Social Scoring Is a Thing and in Use in the US and EU Now

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Social scoring is a thing.

The EU AI regulations are not too keen on slapping an acceptability number on people or a social score. That’s a quaint idea because the mechanisms for doing exactly that are available. Furthermore, these are not controlled by the EU, and they are not constrained in a meaningful way in the US. The availability of mechanisms for scoring a person’s behaviors chug along within the zippy world of marketing. For those who pay attention to policeware and intelware, many of the mechanisms are implemented in specialized software.

Will the two match up? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

There’s a good rundown of the social scoring tools in “The Role of Sentiment Analysis in Marketing.” The content is focused on uses “emotional” and behavioral signals to sell stuff. However, the software and data sets yield high value information for other purposes. For example, an individual with access to data about the video viewing and Web site browsing about a person or a cluster of persons can make some interesting observations about that person or group.

Let me highlight some of the software mentioned in the write up. There is an explanation of the discipline of “sentiment analysis.” A person engaged in business intelligence, investigations, or planning a disinformation campaign will have to mentally transcode the lingo into a more practical vocabulary, but that’s no big deal. The write up then explains how “sentiment analysis” makes it possible to push a person’s buttons. The information makes clear that a service with a TikTok-type recommendation system or feed of “you will probably like this” can exert control over an individual’s ideas, behavior, and perception of what’s true or false.

The guts of the write up is a series of brief profiles of eight applications available to a marketer, PR team, or intelligence agency’s software developers. The products described are:

• Sprout Social. Yep, it’s wonderful. The company wrote the essay I am writing about.
• Reputation. Hello, social scoring for “trust” or “influence”
• Monkeylearn. What’s the sentiment of content? Monkeylearn can tell you.
• Lexalytics. This is an old-timer in sentiment analysis.
• Talkwalker. A content scraper with analysis and filter tools. The company is not “into” over-the-transom inquiries

If you have been thinking about the EU’s AI regulations, you might formulate an idea that existing software may irritate some regulators. My team and I think that AI regulations may bump into companies and government groups already using these tools. Working out the regulatory interactions between AI regulations and what has been a reasonably robust software and data niche will be interesting.

In the meantime, ask yourself, “How many intelware and policeware systems implement either these tools or similar tools?” In my AI presentation at the April 2024 US National Cyber Crime Conference, I will provide a glimpse of the future by describing a European company which includes some of these functions. Regulations do not control technology nor innovation.

Stephen E Arnold, April 9, 2024

Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • Encryption: Not the UK Way but Apple Is A-Okay
  • Attention, New MBAs in Finance: AI-gony Arrives
  • Lawyers and High School Students Cut Corners
  • Sergey Says: Work Like It Was 1975 at McKinsey or Booz, Allen
  • Shocker! Students Use AI and Engage in Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org