Can Clarity Confuse? No, It Is Just Zeitgeist
August 1, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
In my newsreader this morning, popped this article “Why Navigating Ongoing Uncertainty Requires Living in the Now, Near, and Next.” I was not familiar with Clarity Global. I think it is a public relations firm. The CEO of the firm is a former actress. I have minimal knowledge of PR and even less about acting.
I plunged into the essay. The purpose of the write up, in my opinion, was to present some key points from a conference called “TNW2025.” Conference often touch upon many subjects. One event at which I spoke this year had a program listing on six pages the speakers. I think 90 percent of the people attending the conference were speakers.
The first ideas in the write up touch upon innovation, technology adoption, funding, and the zeitgeist. Yep, zeitgeist.
As if these topics were not of sufficient scope, the write up identifies three themes. These are:
- “Regulation is a core business competency”
- “Partnership is the engine of progress”
- “Culture is critical”.
Notably absent was making money and generating a profit.
What about the near, now, and next?
The near means having enough cash on hand to pay the bills at the end of the month. The now means having enough credit or money to cover the costs of being in business. Recently a former CIA operative invited me to lunch. When the bill arrived, he said, “Oh, I left my billfold at home.” I paid the bill and decided to delete him from my memory bank. He stiffed me for $11, and he told me quite a bit about his “now.” And the next means that without funding there is a greatly reduced chance of having a meaningful future. I wondered, “Was this ‘professional’ careless, dumb, or unprofessional?” (Maybe all three?)
Now what about these themes. First, regulation means following the rules. I am not sure this is a competency. To me, it is what one does. Second, partnership is a nice word, not as slick as zeitgeist but good. The idea of doing something alone seems untoward. Partnerships have a legal meaning. I am not sure that a pharmaceutical company with a new drug is going to partner up. The company is going to keep a low profile, file paperwork, and get the product out. Paying people and companies to help is not a partnership. It is a fee-for-service relationship. These are good. Partnerships can be “interesting.” And culture is critical. In a market, one has to identify a market. Each market has a profile. It is common sense to match the product or service to each market’s profile. Apple cannot sell an iPhone to a person who cannot afford to pay for connectivity, buy apps or music, or plug the gizmo in. (I am aware that some iPhone users steal them and just pretend, but those are potential customers, not “real” customers.)
Where does technology fit into this conference? It is the problem organizations face. It is also the 10th word in the essay. I learned “… the technology landscape continues to evolve at an accelerating page.” Where’s smart software? Where’s non-democratic innovation? Where’s informed resolution of conflict?
What about smart software, AI, or artificial intelligence? Two mentions: One expert at the conference invests in AI and in this sentence:
As AI, regulation and societal expectations evolve, the winners will be those who anticipate change and act with conviction.
I am not sure regulation, partnership, and coping with culture can do the job. As for AI, I think funding and pushing out products and services capture the zeitgeist.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: Is There Any Doubt?
August 1, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I have been identifying some of the “China smart, US dumb” information that I see. I noticed a write up from The Register titled “China Proves That Open Models Are More Effective Than All the GPUs in the World.” My Google-style Red Alert buzzer buzzed and the bubble gum machine lights flashed.
There is was. The “all.” A categorical affirmative. China is doing something that is more than “all the GPUs in the world.” Not only that “open models are more effective” too. I have to hit the off button.
The point of the write up for me is that OpenAI is a loser. I noted this statement:
OpenAI was supposed to make good on its name and release its first open-weights model since GPT-2 this week. Unfortunately, what could have been the US’s first half-decent open model of the year has been held up by a safety review…
But it is not just OpenAI muffing the bunny. The write up points out:
the best open model America has managed so far this year is Meta’s Llama 4, which enjoyed a less than stellar reception and was marred with controversy. Just this week, it was reported that Meta had apparently taken its two-trillion-parameter Behemoth out behind the barn after it failed to live up to expectations.
Do you want to say, “Losers”? Go ahead.
But what outfit is pushing out innovative smart software as open source? Okay, you can shout, “China. The Middle Kingdom. The rightful rulers of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia.
That’s the “right” answer if you accept the “all” type of reasoning in the write up.
China has tallied a number of open source wins; specifically, Deepseek, Qwen, M1, Ernie, and the big winner Kimi.
Do you still have doubts about China’s AI prowess? Something is definitely wrong with you, pilgrim.
Several observations:
- The write up is a very good example of the China smart, US dumb messaging which has made its way from the South China Morning Post to YouTube and now to the Register. One has to say, “Good work to the Chinese strategists.”
- The push for open source is interesting. I am not 100 percent convinced that making these models available is intended to benefit non-Middle Kingdom people. I think that the push, like the shift to crypto currency in non traditional finance, is part of an effort to undermine what might be called “America’s hegemony.”
- The obviousness of overt criticism of OpenAI and Meta (Facebook) illustrates a growing confidence in China that Western European information channels can be exploited.
Does this matter? I think it does. Open source software has some issues. These include its use as a vector for malware. Developers often abandon projects, leaving users high and dry with some reaching for their wallet to buy commercial solutions. Open source projects for smart software may have baked in biases and functions that are not easily spotted. Many people are aware of NSO Group’s ability to penetrate communications on a device by device basis. What happens if the phone home ability is baked into some open source software.
Remember that “all.” The logical fallacy illustrates that some additional thinking may be necessary when it comes to embedding and using software from some countries with very big ambitions. What is China proving? Could it be China smart, US dumb?
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
