AI Will Kill, and People Will Grow Accustomed to That … Smile
October 30, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I spotted a story in SFGate, which I think was or is part of a dead tree newspaper. What struck me was the photograph (allegedly not a deep fake) of two people looking not just happy. I sensed a bit of self satisfaction and confidence. Regardless, both people gracing “Society Will Accept a Death Caused by a Robotaxi, Waymo Co-CEO Says.” Death, as far back as I can recall as an 81-year-old dinobaby, has never made me happy, but I just accepted the way life works. Part of me says that my vibrating waves will continue. I think Blaise Pascal suggested that one should believe in God because what’s the downside. Go, Blaise, a guy who did not get to experience an an accident involving a self-driving smart vehicle.
A traffic jam in a major metro area. The cause? A self-driving smart vehicle struck a school bus. But everyone is accustomed to this type of trivial problem. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough like some high-tech outfits’ smart software.
But Waymo is a Google confection dating from 2010 if my memory is on the money. Google is a reasonably big company. It brokers, sells, and creates a market for its online advertising business. The cash spun from that revolving door is used to fund great ideas and moon shots. Messrs. Brin, Page, and assorted wizards had some time to kill as they sat in their automobiles creeping up and down Highway 101. The idea of a self-driving car that would allow a very intelligent, multi-tasking driver to do something productive than become a semi-sentient meat blob sparked an idea. We can rig a car to creep along Highway 101. Cool. That insight spawned what is now known as Waymo.
An estimable Google Waymo expert found himself involved in litigation related to Google’s intellectual property. I had ignored Waymo until the Anthony Levandowski founded a company, sold it to Uber, and then ended up in a legal matter that last from 2017 to 2019. Publicity, I have heard, whether positive or negative, is good. I knew about Waymo: A Google project, intellectual property, and litigation. Way to go, Waymo.
For me, Waymo appears in some social media posts (allegedly actual factual) when Waymo vehicles get trapped in a dead end in Cow Town. Sometimes the Waymos don’t get out of the way of traffic barriers and sit purring and beeping. I have heard that some residents of San Francisco have [a] kicked, [b] sprayed graffiti on Waymos, and/or [c] put traffic cones in certain roads to befuddle the smart Google software-powered vehicles. From a distance, these look a bit like something from a Mad Max motion picture.
My personal view is that I would never stand in front of a rolling Waymo. I know that [a] Google search results are not particularly useful, [b] Google’s AI outputs crazy information like glue cheese on pizza, and [c] Waymo’s have been involved in traffic incidents which cause me to stay away from Waymos.
The cited article says that the Googler said in response to a question about a Waymo hypothetical killing of a person:
“I think that society will,” Mawakana answered, slowly, before positioning the question as an industry wide issue. “I think the challenge for us is making sure that society has a high enough bar on safety that companies are held to.” She said that companies should be transparent about their records by publishing data about how many crashes they’re involved in, and she pointed to the “hub” of safety information on Waymo’s website. Self-driving cars will dramatically reduce crashes, Mawakana said, but not by 100%: “We have to be in this open and honest dialogue about the fact that we know it’s not perfection.” [Emphasis added by Beyond Search]
My reactions to this allegedly true and accurate statement from a Googler are:
- I am not confident that Google can be “transparent.” Google, according to one US court is a monopoly. Google has been fined by the European Union for saying one thing and doing another. The only reason I know about these court decisions is because legal processes released information. Google did not provide the information as part of its commitment to transparency.
- Waymos create problems because the Google smart software cannot handle the demands of driving in the real world. The software is good enough, but not good enough to figure out dead ends, actions by human drivers, and potentially dangerous situations. I am aware of fender benders and collisions with fixed objects that have surfaced in Waymo’s 15 year history.
- Self driving cars specifically Waymo will injure or kill people. But Waymo cars are safe. So some level of killing humans is okay with Google, regulators, and the society in general. What about the family of the person who is killed by good enough Google software? The answer: The lawyers will blame something other than Google. Then fight in court because Google has oodles of cash from its estimable online advertising business.
The cited article quotes the Waymo Googler as saying:
“If you are not being transparent, then it is my view that you are not doing what is necessary in order to actually earn the right to make the roads safer,” Mawakana said. [Emphasis added by Beyond Search]
Of course, I believe everything Google says. Why not believe that Waymos will make self driving vehicle caused deaths acceptable? Why not believe Google is transparent? Why not believe that Google will make roads safer? Why not?
But I like the idea that people will accept an AI vehicle killing people. Stuff happens, right?
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2025
Google Needs Help from a Higher Power
October 17, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In my opinion, there should be one digital online service. This means one search system, one place to get apps, one place to obtain real time “real” news, and one place to buy and sell advertising. Wouldn’t that make life much easier for the company who owned the “one place.” If the information in “US Supreme Court Allows Order Forcing Google to Make App Store Reforms” is accurate, Google’s dream of becoming that “one place” has been interrupted.
The write up from a trusted source reports:
The declined on Monday [October 6, 2025] to halt key parts of a judge’s order requiring Alphabet’s, Google to make major changes to its app store Play, as the company prepares to appeal a decision in a lawsuit brought by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. The justices turned down Google’s request to temporarily freeze parts of the injunction won by Epic in its lawsuit accusing the tech giant of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps.
Imagine the nerve of this outfit. These highly trained, respected legal professionals did not agree with Google’s rock-solid, diamond-hard arguments. Imagine a maker of electronic games screwing up one of the modules in the Google money and data machine. The nerve.
Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
The write up adds:
Google in its Supreme Court filing said the changes would have enormous consequences for more than 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. Google said it plans to file a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, which could allow the justices to take up the case during their nine-month term that began on Monday.
The fact that the government is shut down will not halt, impair, derail, or otherwise inhibit Google’s quest for the justice it deserves. If the case can be extended, it is possible the government legal eagles will seek new opportunities in commercial enterprises or just resign due to the intellectual demands of their jobs.
The news story points out:
Google faces other lawsuits from government, consumer and commercial plaintiffs challenging its search and advertising business practices.
It is difficult to believe that a firm with such a rock solid approach to business can find itself swatting knowledge gnats. Onward to the “one service.” Is that on a Google T shirt yet?
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2025
Who Is Afraid of the Big Bad AI Wolf? Mr. Beast Perhaps?
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The story “MrBeast Warns of ‘Scary Times’ as AI Threatens YouTube Creators” is apparently about You Tube creators. Mr. Beast, a notable YouTube personality, is the source of the information. Is the article about YouTube creators? Yep, but it is also about Mr. Beast.
The write up says:
MrBeast may not personally face the threat of being replaced by AI as his brand thrives on large-scale, real-world stunts that rely on authenticity and human emotion. But his concern runs deeper than self-preservation. It’s about the millions of smaller creators who depend on platforms like YouTube to make a living. As one of the most influential figures on the internet, his words carry weight. The 27-year-old recently topped Forbes’ 2025 list of highest-earning creators, earning roughly $85 million and building a following of over 630 million across platforms.
Okay, Mr. Beast’s fame depended on YouTube. He is still in the YouTube fold. However, he has other business enterprises. He recognizes that smart software could create problems for creators.
I think smart software is another software tool. It is becoming a utility like a PDF editor.
The problem with Mr. Beast’s analysis is that it appears to be focused on other creators. I am not so sure. I think the comments presented in the write up reveal more about Mr. Beast than they do about the “other” creators. One example is:
“When AI videos are just as good as normal videos, I wonder what that will do to YouTube and how it will impact the millions of creators currently making content for a living… scary times,” MrBeast — whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson — wrote on X.
I am no expert on human psychology, but I see the use of the word “impact” and “scary” as a glimpse of what Mr. Beast is thinking. His production costs allegedly rival those of traditional commercial video outfits. The ideas and tropes have become increasingly strained and bizarre. YouTube acts in a unilateral way and outputs smarm to the creators desperate to know why the flow of their money has been reduced if not cut off. Those disappearing van life videos are just one example of how video magnets can melt down and be crushed under the wheels of the Google bus.
My thought is that Google will use AI to create alterative Mr. Beast-type videos with AI. Then squeeze the Mr. Beast type creators and let the traffic flow to Mother Google. No royalties required, so Google wins. Mr. Beast-type creators can find their future and money elsewhere. Simple.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2025
At Google Innovation Never Stops or Gee a G
October 10, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Google’s Gradient G Icon Design Is Going Company Wide.” Usually Deepseek, the YouTube leadership, or a rando in advertising announces a quantumly supreme achievement. The stunning Google news for September 29, 2025, is presented this way:
Google used “brighter hues and gradient design” to “symbolize the surge of AI-driven innovation and creative energy across our products and technology.” The aim was to stay “true to Google’s iconic four colors,” with the last design refresh taking place 10 years ago.
The article includes the old G and the new forward leaning, innovative, quantumly supreme G. Here’s what I saw in the cited write up:
This is the old, backward leaning, non-innovative, un-quantumly supreme G.
Now here’s is the new forward leaning, innovative, quantumly supreme G:
That is revolutionary, boundary stretching, Leonardo DaVinci grade art.
I am impressed. Imagine the achievement amidst some staff concern about layoffs, and the financial headaches resulting from those data center initiatives, crypto services, and advertising sales efforts.
What’s next from the Google? Gee, this new G will be difficult to galvanize more grandiose game changers.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2025
Antitrust: Can Google Dodge Guilt Again?
October 9, 2025
The US Department of Justice brought an antitrust case against Google and Alphabet Inc. got away with a slap on the wrist. John Polonis via Medium shared the details and his opinion in, “Google’s Antitrust Escape And Tech’s Uncertain Future.” The Department of Justice can’t claim a victory in this case, because none of the suggestions to curtail Google’s power will be implemented.
Some restrictions were passed that ban exclusivity deals and require data sharing, but that’s all. It’s also nothing like the antitrust outcome of the Microsoft case in the 2000s. The judge behind the decision was Amit Mehta and he did want to deliver a dose of humility to Google:
“Judge Mehta also exercised humility when forcing Google to share data. Google will need to share parts of its search index with competitors, but it isn’t required to share other data related to those results (e.g., the quality of web pages). The reason for so much humility? Artificial intelligence. The judge emphasized Google’s new reality; how much harder it must fight to keep up with competitors who are seizing search queries that Google previously monopolized across smartphones and browsers.
Google can no longer use its financial clout like it did when it was the 900 pound gorilla of search. It’s amazing how much can change between the filing of an antitrust case and adjudication (generative AI didn’t even exist!).”
Google is now free to go hog wild with its AI projects without regulation. Google hasn’t lost any competitive edge, unlike Microsoft in its antitrust litigation. They’re now free to do whatever they want as well.
Polonis makes a very accurate point:
“The message is clear. Unless the government uncovers smoking gun evidence of deliberate anticompetitive intent — the kind of internal emails and memos that doomed Microsoft in the late 1990s (“cut off Netscape’s air supply”) — judges are reluctant to impose the most extreme remedies. Courts want narrow, targeted fixes that minimize unnecessary disruption. And the remedies should be directly tied to the anticompetitive conduct (which is why Judge Mehta focused so heavily on exclusivity agreements).”
Big Tech has a barrier free sandbox to experiment and conduct AI business deals. Judge Mehta’s decision has shaped society in ways we can’t predict, even AI doesn’t know the future yet. What will the US judicial process deliver in Google’s advertising legal dust up? We know Google can write checks to make problems go away. Will this work again for this estimable firm?
Whitney Grace, October 8, 2025
Google Bricks Up Its Walled Garden
October 8, 2025
Google is adding bricks to its garden wall, insisting Android-app developers must pay up or stay out. Neowin declares, “Google’s Shocking Developer Decree Struggles to Justify the Urgent Threat to F-Droid.” The new edict requires anyone developing an app for Android to register with Google, whether or not they sell through its Play Store. Registration requires paying a fee, uploading personal IDs, and agreeing to Google’s fine print.
The measure will have a large impact on alternative app stores like F-Droid. That open-source publisher, with its focus on privacy, is particularly concerned about the requirements. In fact, it would rather shutter its project than force developers to register with Google. That would mean thousands of verified apps will vanish from the Web, never to be downloaded or updated again. F-Droid suspects Google’s motives are far from pure. Writer Paul Hill tells us:
“F-Droid has questioned whether forced registration will really solve anything because lots of malware apps have been found in the Google Play Store over the years, demonstrating that corporate gatekeeping doesn’t mean users are protected. F-Droid also points out that Google already defends users against malicious third-party apps with the Play Protect services which scan and disable malware apps, regardless of their origin. While not true for all alternative app stores, F-Droid already has strong security because the apps it includes are all open source that anyone can audit, the build logs are public, and builds are reproducible. When you submit an app to F-Droid, the maintainers help set up your repository properly so that when you publish an update to your code, F-Droid’s servers manually build the executable, this prevents the addition of any malware not in the source code.”
Sounds at least as secure as the Play Store to us. So what is really going on? The write-up states:
“The F-Droid project has said that it doesn’t believe that the developer registration is motivated by security. Instead, it thinks that Google is trying to consolidate power by tightening control over a formerly open ecosystem. It said that by tying application identifiers to personal ID checks and fees, it creates a choke point that restricts competition and limits user freedom.”
F-Droid is responding with a call for regulators to scrutinize this and other Googley moves for monopolistic tendencies. It also wants safeguards for app stores that wish to protect developers’ privacy. Who will win this struggle between independent app stores and the tech giant?
Cynthia Murrell, October 8, 2025
Google Gets the Crypto Telegram
October 7, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Not too many people cared that Google cut a deal with Alibaba’s ANT financial services outfit. My view is that at some point down the information highway, the agreement will capture more attention. Today (September 27, 2025), I want to highlight another example of Google’s getting a telegram about crypto.
Finding inspiration? Yep. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Navigate to what seems to be just another crypto mining news announcement: “Cipher Mining Signs 168 MW, 10-Year AI Hosting Agreement with Fluidstack.”
So what’s a Cipher Mining? This is a publicly traded outfit engaged in crypto mining. My understanding is that the company’s primary source of revenue is bitcoin mining. Some may disagree, pointing to its business as “owner, developer and operator of industrial-scale data centers.”
The news release says:
[Cipher Mining] announces a 10-year high-performance computing (HPC) colocation agreement with Fluidstack, a premier AI cloud platform that builds and operates HPC clusters for some of the world’s largest companies.
So what?
The news release also offers this information:
Google will backstop $1.4 billion of Fluidstack’s lease obligations to support project-related debt financing and will receive warrants to acquire approximately 24 million shares of Cipher common stock, equating to an approximately 5.4% pro forma equity ownership stake, subject to adjustment and a potential cash settlement under certain circumstances. Cipher plans to retain 100% ownership of the project and access the capital markets as necessary to fund a portion of the project.
Okay, three outfits: crypto, data centers, and billions of dollars. That’s quite an information cocktail.
Several observations:
- Like the Alibaba / ANT relationship, the move is aligned with facilitating crypto activities on a large scale
- In the best tradition of moving money, Google seems to be involved but not the big dog. I think that Google may indeed be the big dog. Puzzle pieces that fit together? Seems like it to me.
- Crypto and financial services could — note I say “could” — be the hedge against future advertising revenue potholes.
Net net: Worth watching and asking, “What’s the next Google message received from Telegram?” Does this question seem cryptic? It isn’t. Like Meta, Google is following a path trod by a certain outfit now operating in Dubai. Is the path intentional or accidental? Where Google is concerned, everything is original, AI, and quantumly supreme.
Stephen E Arnold, October 7, 2025
Hey, No Gain without Pain. Very Googley
October 6, 2025
AI firms are forging ahead with their projects despite predictions, sometimes by their own leaders, that artificial intelligence could destroy humanity. Some citizens have had enough. The Telegraph reports, “Anti-AI Doom Prophets Launch Hunger Strike Outside Google.” The article points to hunger strikes at both Google DeepMind’s London headquarters and a separate protest in San Francisco. Writer Matthew Field observes:
“Tech leaders, including Sir Demis of DeepMind, have repeatedly stated that in the near future powerful AI tools could pose potential risks to mankind if misused or in the wrong hands. There are even fears in some circles that a self-improving, runaway superintelligence could choose to eliminate humanity of its own accord. Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, AI leaders have actively encouraged these fears. The DeepMind boss and Sam Altman, the founder of ChatGPT developer OpenAI, both signed a statement in 2023 warning that rogue AI could pose a ‘risk of extinction’. Yet they have simultaneously moved to invest hundreds of billions in new AI models, adding trillions of dollars to the value of their companies and prompting fears of a seismic tech bubble.”
Does this mean these tech leaders are actively courting death and destruction? Some believe so, including San Francisco hunger-striker Guido Reichstadter. He asserts simply, “In reality, they’re trying to kill you and your family.” He and his counterparts in London, Michaël Trazzi and Denys Sheremet, believe previous protests have not gone far enough. They are willing to endure hunger to bring attention to the issue.
But will AI really wipe us out? Experts are skeptical. However, there is no doubt that AI systems perpetuate some real harms. Like opaque biases, job losses, turbocharged cybercrime, mass surveillance, deepfakes, and damage to our critical thinking skills, to name a few. Perhaps those are the real issues that should inspire protests against AI firms.
Cynthia Murrell, October 6, 2025
Google and Its End Game
October 1, 2025
No smart software involved. Just a dinobaby’s work.
I read “In Court Filing, Google Concedes the Open Web Is in Rapid Decline.” The write up reveals that change is causing the information highway to morph into a stop light choked Dixie Highway. The article states:
Google says that forcing it to divest its AdX marketplace would hasten the demise of wide swaths of the web that are dependent on advertising revenue. This is one of several reasons Google asks the court to deny the government’s request.
Yes, so much depends on the Google just like William Carlos Williams observed in his poem “The Red Wheelbarrow.” I have modified the original to reflect the Googley era which is now emerging for everyone, including Ars Technica, to see:
so much depends upon the Google, glazed with data beside the chicken regulators.
The cited article notes:
As users become increasingly frustrated with AI search products, Google often claims people actually love AI search and are sending as many clicks to the web as ever. Now that its golden goose is on the line, the open web is suddenly “in rapid decline.” It’s right there on page five of the company’s September 5 filing…
Not only does Google say this, the company has been actively building the infrastructure for Google to become the “Internet.” No way, you say.
Sorry, way. Here’s what’s been going on since the initial public offering:
-
- Attract traffic and monetize via ads access to the traffic
- Increased data collection for marketing and “mining” for nuggets; that is, user behavior and related information
- Little by little, force “creators,” Web site developers, partners, and users to just let Google provide access to the “information” Google provides.
Smart software, like recreating certain Web site content, is just one more technology to allow Google to extend its control over its users, its advertisers, and partners.
Courts in the US have essentially hit pause on traffic lights controlling the flows of Google activity. Okay, Google has to share some information. How long will it take for “information” to be defined, adjudicated, and resolved.
The European Union is printing out invoices for Google to pay for assorted violations. Guess what? That’s the cost of doing business.
Net net: The Google will find a way to monetize its properties, slap taxes at key junctions, and shape information is ways that its competitors wish they could.
Yes, there is a new Web or Internet. It’s Googley. Adapt and accept. Feel free to get Google out of your digital life. Have fun.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2025
Google Deletes Political History. No, Google Determines Political History
September 30, 2025
I read “Google Just Erased 7 Yers of Our Political History.” I want to point out that “our” refers to Ireland and the European Union. I don’t know if the US data about political advertising existed. Those data may lurk within the recesses of Google. They may be accessible via Google Dorks or some open source intelligence investigator’s machinations.
The author of the write up interprets Google’s making some data unavailable as a bad thing. I have a different point of view, but let’s see what has over-boiled one Irish person’s potatoes. The write up says:
Google appears to have deleted its political ad archive for the EU; so the last 7 years of ads, of political spending, of messaging, of targeting – on YouTube, on Search and for display ads – for countless elections across 27 countries – is all gone.
What was the utility of this separate collection of allegedly accurate data? The write up answers this question:
The political ad archive – now deleted? – allowed people like me (and many others) to understand what happened in elections, like this longer piece I was able to write during the European & Local elections last year on the use of YouTube by a far right party, Sinn Féin’s big push on search result ads, and the growth of attacks ads in Ireland. Now you need the specific name of an advertiser, and when I looked for, for example, “Sinn Fein”, it (a) only gave me the option of searching for their website, and (b) showed zero results. This is despite Sinn Fein spending upwards of €10k a day during some of the elections last year.
The write up concludes:
But the ad archives were introduced 7 years ago for a reason – in no small part because of the chaos of the Brexit and Trump 2016 votes, and our own advocacy here in Ireland about interference in the 2018 8th amendment referendum. They were introduced to allow for scrutiny of campaigns, and also to provide a historical record so we could go back and look at what had been promised, and what had been spent, and to see if this lined up with what happened later. This erasure of our political past feels dangerous, for scrutiny, for accountability, for shared memory, for enforcement of our rules – for our democracy.
I think I understand. However, I have a different angle on this alleged deletion:
- Google may just clean up, remove a pointer, or move a service. To a user, the information has disappeared. My experience with the Google is that the data remain within the walled garden. A user has to find a way into that garden. Therefore, try those OSINT investigator tricks or hire Bellingcat to help you out
- Google is a large and extremely well-managed outfit. However, it is within the realm of possibility that a team leader allowed an intern or contract worker to be a “decider.” When news of the possible and usually inadvertent or inexplicable deletion floats upward to leadership, the data may reappear. Google may not post a notice to this effect unless it has a significant impact on advertising revenue. There is a small possibility that a big political advertiser complained about the data about political advertising. In that case, there is a teenie tiny possibility that someone just killed the pages with the data to make a sale. I am not saying this happened. I just want to suggest there are some processes that may occur and not be known to the estimable leadership of the outstanding firm.
- Criticizing Google is a good way to never be considered truly Googley. Proof of Googliness may be needed if one or one’s children wish to be employed, hired, or otherwise engaged in a substantive manner with the Google. Grousing about the Google is proof one is not Googley. End of story.
My personal take on this is that Google does not delete history. Google wants to control history. How many Googlers do you know who can recount the anecdote about Yahoo taking the estimable Google to court over the advertising technology Yahoo alleged Google emulated? Yeah, ask that question of Google leadership and see how much of an answer your receive. Believe me this is a good bit of color for Google’s business methods. Too bad it has disappeared to some degree.
If something is not in Google, that something doesn’t exist. That’s the purpose of history.
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
