Microsoft Demonstrates a Combo: PR and HR Management Skill in One Decision
June 2, 2025
How skilled are modern managers? I spotted an example of managerial excellence in action. “Microsoft fires Employee Who Interrupted CEO’s Speech to Protest AI Tech for Israel” reports something that is allegedly spot on; to wit:
“Microsoft has fired an employee who interrupted a speech by CEO Satya Nadella to protest the company’s work supplying the Israeli military with technology used for the war in Gaza.”
Microsoft investigated similar accusations and learned that its technology was not used to harm citizens / residents / enemies in Gaza. I believe that a person investigating himself or herself does a very good job. Law enforcement is usually not needed to investigate a suspected bad actor when the alleged malefactor says: “Yo, I did not commit that crime.” I think most law enforcement professionals smile, shake the hand of the alleged malefactor, and say, “Thank you so much for your rigorous investigation.”
Isn’t that enough? Obviously it is. More than enough. Therefore, to output fabrications and unsupported allegations against a large, ethical, and well informed company, management of that company has a right and a duty to choke off doubt.
The write up says:
“Microsoft has previously fired employees who protested company events over its work in Israel, including at its 50th anniversary party in April [2025].”
The statement is evidence of consistency before this most recent HR / PR home run in my opinion. I note this statement in the cited article:
“The advocacy group No Azure for Apartheid, led by employees and ex-employees, says Lopez received a termination letter after his Monday protest but couldn’t open it. The group also says the company has blocked internal emails that mention words including “Palestine” and “Gaza.””
Company of the year nominee for sure.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2025
Publishers Are Not Googley about AI
June 2, 2025
“Google’s AI Mode Is the Definition of Theft, Publishers Say, Opt-Out Was Considered” reports that Google is a criminal and stealing content from its rightful owners. This is not a Googley statement. Criticism of the Google is likely to be filtered from search results because it is false statement and likely to cause harm. If this were not enough, the article states:
“The AI takeover of Search is in full swing, especially as Google’s new AI Mode is going live for all US users. But for publishers, this continues the existential crisis around how Google Search is changing, with a new statement calling AI Mode “the definition of theft” while legal documents reveal that Google did consider opt out controls that ultimately weren’t implemented.”
Quick question: Is this a surprise action by the Google? Answer: Yes, if one ignores Google’s approach to information. No, if one pays a modicum of attention to how the company has approached “publishing” in the last 20 years. Google is a publisher, probably the largest generator of outputs in history. It protects its information, and others should too. If those others are non-Googley, that information is to Google what Jurassic Park’s velociraptors were to soft, juicy humanoids — lunch.
The write up says:
“As it stands today, publishers are unable to opt out of Google’s AI tools without effectively opting out of Search as a whole.”
I am a dinobaby, old, dumb, but smart enough to understand the value of a de facto monopoly. Most of the open source intelligence industry is built on Google dorks. Publishers may be the original “dorks” when it comes to understanding what happens when one controls access, distribution, and monetization of online.
“Giving publishers the ability to opt out of AI products while still benefiting from Search would ultimately make Google’s flashy new tools useless if enough sites made the switch. It was very much a move in the interest of building a better product.”
I think this means that Google cares about the users and search quality. There is not hint of revenue, copyright issues, or raw power. Google just … cares.
The article and by extension the publisher “9 to 5 Google” gently suggests that Google is just being Google:
“Google’s tools continue to serve the company and its users (mostly) well, but as they continue to bleed publishers dry, those publishers are on the verge of vanishing or, arguably worse, turning to cheap and poorly produced content just to get enough views to survive. This is a problem Google needs to address, as it’s making the internet as a whole worse for everyone.”
Yep, continuing to serve the company, its users, and fresh double talk. Enjoy.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2025
News Flash: US Losing AI Development Talent (Duh?)
June 2, 2025
The United States is leading country in technology development. It’s been at the cutting edge of AI since its inception, but according to Semafor that is changing: “Reports: US Losing Edge In AI Talent Pool.” Semafor’s article summarizes the current industry relating to AI development. Apparently the top brass companies want to concentrate on mobile and monetization, while the US government is cutting federal science funding (among other things) and doing some performative activity.
Meanwhile in China:
“China’s ascendency has played a role. A recent paper from the Hoover Institution, a policy think tank, flags that some of the industry’s most exciting recent advancements — namely DeepSeek — were built by Chinese researchers who stayed put. In fact, more than half of the researchers listed on DeepSeek’s papers never left China for school or work — evidence that the country doesn’t need Western influence to develop some of the smartest AI minds, the report says.”
India is bolstering its own tech talent as its people and businesses are consuming AI. Also they’re not exporting their top tech talent due to the US crackdowns. The Gulf countries and Europe are also expanding talent retention and expanding their own AI projects. London is the center for AI safety with Google DeepMind. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are developing their own AI infrastructure and energy sector to support it.
Will the US lose AI talent, code, and some innovative oomph? Semafor seems to think that greener pastures lie just over the sea.
Whitney Grace, June 2, 2025
A SundAI Special: Who Will Get RIFed? Answer: News Presenters for Sure
June 1, 2025
Just a dinobaby and some AI: How horrible an approach?
Why would “real” news outfits dump humanoids for AI-generated personalities? For my money, there are three good reasons:
- Cost reduction
- Cost reduction
- Cost reduction.
The bean counter has donned his Ivy League super smart financial accoutrements: Meta smart glasses, an Open AI smart device, and an Apple iPhone with the vaunted AI inside (sorry, Intel, you missed this trend). Unfortunately the “good enough” approach, like a gradient descent does not deal in reality. Sum those near misses and what do you get: Dead organic things. The method applies to flora and fauna, including humanoids with automatable jobs. Thanks, You.com, you beat the pants off Venice.ai which simply does not follow prompts. A perfect solution for some applications, right?
My hunch is that many people (humanoids) will disagree. The counter arguments are:
- Human quantum behavior; that is, flubbing lines, getting into on air spats, displaying annoyance standing in a rain storm saying, “The wind velocity is picking up.”
- The cost of recruitment, training, health care, vacations, and pension plans (ho ho ho)
- The management hassle of having to attend meetings to talk about, become deciders, and — oh, no — accept responsibility for those decisions.
I read “The White-Collar Bloodbath’ Is All Part of the AI Hype Machine.” I am not sure how fear creates an appetite for smart software. The push for smart software boils down to generating revenues. To achieve revenues one can create a new product or service like the iPhone of the original Google search advertising machine. But how often do those inventions doddle down the Information Highway? Not too often because most of the innovative new new next big things are smashed by a Meta-type tractor trailer.
The write up explains that layoff fears are not operable in the CNN dataspace:
If the CEO of a soda company declared that soda-making technology is getting so good it’s going to ruin the global economy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that person is either lying or fully detached from reality. Yet when tech CEOs do the same thing, people tend to perk up. ICYMI: The 42-year-old billionaire Dario Amodei, who runs the AI firm Anthropic, told Axios this week that the technology he and other companies are building could wipe out half of all entry-level office jobs … sometime soon. Maybe in the next couple of years, he said.
First, the killing jobs angle is probably easily understood and accepted by individuals responsible for “cost reduction.” Second, the ICYMI reference means “in case you missed it,” a bit of short hand popular with those are not yet 80 year old dinobabies like me. Third, the source is a member of the AI leadership class. Listen up!
Several observations:
- AI hype is marketing. Money is at stake. Do stakeholders want their investments to sit mute and wait for the old “build it and they will come” pipedream to manifest?
- Smart software does not have to be perfect; it needs to be good enough. Once it is good enough cost reductionists take the stage and employees are ushered out of specific functions. One does not implement cost reductions at random. Consultants set priorities, develop scorecards, and make some charts with red numbers and arrows point up. Employees are expensive in general, so some work is needed to determine which can be replaced with good enough AI.
- News, journalism, and certain types of writing along with customer “support”, and some jobs suitable for automation like reviewing financial data for anomalies are likely to be among the first to be subject to a reduction in force or RIF.
So where does that leave the neutral observer? On one hand, the owners of the money dumpster fires are promoting like crazy. These wizards have to pull rabbit after rabbit out of a hat. How does that get handled? Think P.T. Barnum.
Some AI bean counters, CFOs, and financial advisors dream about dumpsters filled with money burning. This was supposed to be an icon, but Venice.ai happily ignores prompt instructions and includes fruit next to a burning something against a wooden wall. Perfect for the good enough approach to news, customer service, and MBA analyses.
On the other hand, you have the endangered species, the “real” news people and others in the “knowledge business but automatable knowledge business.” These folks are doing what they can to impede the hyperbole machine of smart software people.
Who or what will win? Keep in mind that I am a dinobaby. I am going extinct, so smart software has zero impact on me other than making devices less predictable and resistant to my approach to “work.” Here’s what I see happening:
- Increasing unemployment for those lower on the “knowledge word” food chain. Sorry, junior MBAs at blue chip consulting firms. Make sure you have lots of money, influential parents, or a former partner at a prestigious firm as a mom or dad. Too bad for those studying to purvey “real” news. Junior college graduates working in customer support. Yikes.
- “Good enough” will replace excellence in work. This means that the air traffic controller situation is a glimpse of what deteriorating systems will deliver. Smart software will probably come to the rescue, but those antacid gobblers will be history.
- Increasing social discontent will manifest itself. To get a glimpse of the future, take an Uber from Cape Town to the airport. Check out the low income housing.
Net net: The cited write up is essentially anti-AI marketing. Good luck with that until people realize the current path is unlikely to deliver the pot of gold for most AI implementations. But cost reduction only has to show payoffs. Balance sheets do not reflect a healthy, functioning datasphere.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
