IBM AI Study: Would The Research Report Get an A in Statistics 202?
May 9, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
IBM, reinvigorated with its easy-to-use, backwards-compatible, AI-capable mainframe released a research report about AI. Will these findings cause the new IBM AI-capable mainframe to sell like Jeopardy / Watson “I won” T shirts?
Perhaps.
The report is “Five Mindshifts to Supercharge Business Growth.” It runs a mere 40 pages and requires no more time than configuring your new LinuxONE Emperor 5 mainframe. Well, the report can be absorbed in less time, but the Emperor 5 is a piece of cake as IBM mainframes go.
Here are a few of the findings revealed by IBM in its IBM research report;
AI can improve customer “experience”. I think this means that customer service becomes better with AI in it. Study says, “72 percent of those in the sample agree.”
Turbulence becomes opportunity. 100 percent of the IBM marketers assembling the report agree. I am not sure how many CEOs are into this concept; for example, Hollywood motion picture firms or Georgia Pacific which closed a factory and told workers not to come in tomorrow.
Here’s a graphic from the IBM study. Do you know what’s missing? I will give you five seconds as Arvin Haddad, the LA real estate influencer says in his entertaining YouTube videos:
The answer is, “Increasing revenues, boosting revenues, and keeping stakeholders thrilled with their payoffs.” The items listed by IBM really don’t count, do they?
“Embrace AI-fueled creative destruction.” Yep, another 100 percenter from the IBM team. No supporting data, no verification, and not even a hint of proof that AI-fueled creative destruction is doing much more than making lots of venture outfits and some of the US AI leaders is improving their lives. That cash burn could set the forest on fire, couldn’t it? Answer: Of course not.
I must admit I was baffled by this table of data:
Accelerate growth and efficiency goes down with generative AI. (Is Dr. Gary Marcus right?). Enhanced decision making goes up with generative AI. Are the decisions based on verifiable facts or hallucinated outputs? Maybe busy executives in the sample choose to believe what AI outputs because a computer like the Emperor 5 was involved. Maybe “easy” is better than old-fashioned problem solving which is expensive, slow, and contentious. “Just let AI tell me” is a more modern, streamlined approach to decision making in a time of uncertainty. And the dotted lines? Hmmm.
On page 40 of the report, I spotted this factoid. It is tiny and hard to read.
The text says, “50 percent say their organization has disconnected technology due to the pace of recent investments.” I am not exactly sure what this means. Operative words are “disconnected” and “pace of … investments.” I would hazard an interpretation: “Hey, this AI costs too much and the payoff is just not obvious.”
I wish to offer some observations:
- IBM spent some serious money designing this report
- The pagination is in terms of double page spreads, so the “study” plus rah rah consumes about 80 pages if one were to print it out. On my laser printer the pages are illegible for a human, but for the designers, the approach showcases the weird ice cubes, the dotted lines, and allows important factoids to be overlooked
- The combination of data (which strike me as less of a home run for the AI fan and more of a report about AI friction) and flat out marketing razzle dazzle is intriguing. I would have enjoyed sitting in the meetings which locked into this approach. My hunch is that when someone thought about the allegedly valid results and said, “You know these data are sort of anti-AI,” then the others in the meeting said, “We have to convert the study into marketing diamonds.” The result? The double truck, design-infused, data tinged report.
Good work, IBM. The study will definitely sell truckloads of those Emperor 5 mainframes.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2025
Google: Making Users Cross Their Eyes in Confusion
May 9, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
I read “Don’t Make It Like Google.” The article points out that Google’s “control” extends globally. The company’s approach to software and design are ubiquitous. People just make software like Google because it seems “right.”
The author of the essay says:
Developers frequently aim to make things “like Google” because it feels familiar and, seemingly, the right way to do things. In the past, this was an implicit influence, but now it’s direct: Google became the platform for web applications (Chrome) and mobile applications (Android). It also created a framework for human-machine interaction: Material Design. Now, “doing it like Google” isn’t just desirable; it’s necessary.
Regulators in the European Union have not figured out how to respond to this type of alleged “monopoly.”
The author points out:
Most tech products now look indistinguishable, just a blobby primordial mess of colors.
Why? The author provides an answer:
Google’s actual UI & UX design is terrible. Whether mass-market or enterprise, web or mobile, its interfaces are chaotic and confusing. Every time I use Google Drive or the G Suite admin console, I feel lost. Neither experience nor intuition helps—I feel like an old man seeing a computer for the first time.
I quite like the reference to the author’s feeling like an “old man seeing a computer for the first time.” As a dinobaby, I find Google’s approach to making functions available — note, I am going to use a dinobaby term — stupid. Simple functions to me are sorting emails by sender and a keyword. I have not figured out how to do this in Gmail. I have given up on Google Maps. I have zero clue how to access the “old” street view with a basic map on a mobile device. Hey, am I the only person in an unfamiliar town trying to locate a San Jose-type office building in a tan office park? I assume I am.
The author points out:
Instead of prioritizing objectively good user experiences, the more profitable choice is often to mimic Google’s design. Not because developers are bad or lazy. Not because users enjoy clunky interfaces. But because it “makes sense” from the perspective of development costs and marketing. It’s tricky to praise Apple while criticizing Google because where Google has clumsy interfaces, Apple has bugs and arbitrary restrictions. But if we focus purely on interface design, Apple demonstrates how influence over users and developers can foster generations of well-designed products. On average, an app in Apple’s ecosystem is more polished and user-friendly than one in Google’s.
I am not sure that Apple is that much better than Google, but for me, the essay makes clear that giant US technology companies shape the user’s reality. The way information is presented and what expert users learn may not be appropriate for most people. I understand that these companies have to have a design motif or template. I understand that big companies have “experts” who determine what users do and want.
The author of the essay says:
We’ve become accustomed to the unintuitive interfaces of washing machines and microwaves. A new washing machine may be quieter, more efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing, yet its dials and icons still feel alien; or your washing machine now requires an app. Manufacturers have no incentive to improve this aspect—they just do it “like the Google of their industry.” And the “Google” of any industry inevitably gets worse over time.
I disagree. I think that making interfaces impossible is a great thing. Now here’s my reasoning: Who wants to expend energy figuring out a “better way.” The name of the game is to get eyeballs. Looking like Google or any of the big technology companies means that one just rolls over and takes what these firms offer as a default. Mind control and behavior conditioning is much easier and ultimately more profitable than approaching a problem from the user’s point of view. Why not define what a user gets, make it difficult or impossible to achieve a particular outcome, and force the individual to take what is presented as the one true way.
That makes business sense.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2025
Stanford University Students and Their Entrepreneurial Drive
May 9, 2025
Signal is useful for more than spreading state secrets. One enterprising resident of the San Francisco Bay Area used the encrypted messaging service for a different shady endeavor. SFGate reports, “Stanford Grad Sentenced for ‘DoorDash-Style’ Drug Trafficking Service.” 31-year old Natalie Marie Gonzalez was sentenced to over four years in federal prison for leading the operation. She and three co-conspirators were first indicted in 2023 after a raid turned up almost a kilogram of fentanyl, about seven kilograms of cocaine, some ketamine, methamphetamine masquerading as Adderall, and other illegal drugs. That is quite the selection. The service included creative measures designed to hide the fact that meetups were actually drug deals. Reporter Madilynne Medina describes the operation:
“The drug trafficking service operated from April to September, 2023. According to the attorney’s office, customers would place orders from ‘a menu of drugs for sale’ through the encrypted messaging system Signal. Orders required a $300 order minimum for the delivery, and Gonzalez paid her co-conspirators to work as drivers. Per the criminal complaint, an undercover agent first used the service to order cocaine and 2,000 fake Adderall pills that contained meth. Gonzalez instructed the agent to ‘hop in’ the car for a short ‘‘‘Uber” ride around the block’ to cover up the drug transaction when the driver arrived with the delivery on March 29, 2023. The agent then made multiple other purchases. During one of the sales in July 2023, the agent was even given the option to play with a dog to cover up the drug deal, the complaint shows. According to the agent, Gonzalez said her customers were ‘a lot of students and young professionals.’”
Ah, modern technology. Four years in prison is no fun but, as Medina reports, the maximum penalty Gonzalaz faced was 20 years and a $1 million fine. Let us hope she finds more above-board uses for her innovation once released. Stanford University is an interesting institution: Synthetic data and synthetic contraband. Will the individual get to rub shoulders with the former Stanford president who resigned due to research irregularities. Pacesetters indeed.
Cynthia Murrell, May 9, 2025
European Union: Academics and Researchers, Come On Over to Freedom
May 8, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
Is the European Union actively advertising employment opportunities in Western Europe? Do canines sniff? I think the answer is, “Yes.”
I spotted an official European Commission announcement with the title or one of the titles: “Choose Europe. Advance Your Research Career in the EU.” Another title in the official online statement is, “Choose Groundbreaking Research.” The document says,
As a world-leading centre for research and innovation with freedom of science, the European Union offers an ideal environment to advance your career. With a wealth of stable and predictable funding opportunities and cutting-edge facilities, the EU enables researchers to work on projects where they can truly make a difference. You’ll join a dynamic and international community of top talent, all dedicated to finding solutions to the world’s biggest challenges. Europe offers an excellent quality of life, including affordable healthcare and education, excellent working conditions and strong social security for you and your family. You’ll also enjoy freedoms and protections based on our values.
I found the word choice quite interesting; for example:
affordable healthcare and education
dynamic and international community
excellent working conditions
freedom and freedoms (bang, bang!)
ideal environment
protections
quality of life
strong social security
top talent
values
world-leading
The word choice reveals what the EU thinks will appeal to some American academics and researchers as well as to others in different countries. One might think that this employment advertisement is identifying specific issues associated with certain non-EU countries.
To make the opportunity more concrete, the write up presents these data:
If I were young again, this type of lingo might appeal to me. I, however, am a dinobaby. Becoming a big-time academic researcher is a non-starter for me. For some, however, the EU’s inducement might be compelling. I have done projects and spent a reasonable amount of time in London and Paris. My son attended two universities in France, and I am not sure he wanted to return to the US, but the French government had other ideas for a 20 something.
Interesting. Opportunity with a possible message for some working in less salubrious situations. Crafty message and straight ahead marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2025
Knowledge Management: Hog Wash or Lipstick on a Pig?
May 8, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
I no longer work at a blue chip consulting company. Heck, I no longer work anywhere. Years ago, I bailed out to work for a company in fly-over country. The zoom-zoom life of the big city tuckered me out. I know, however, when a consulting pitch is released to the world. I spotted one of these “pay us and we will save you” approaches today (April 25, 2025, 5 42 am US Eastern time).
How pretty can the farmer make these pigs? Thanks, OpenAI, good enough, and I know you have no clue about the preparation for a Poland China at a state fair. It does not look like this.
“How Knowledge Mismanagement is Costing Your Company Millions” is an argument presented to spark the sale of professional services. What’s interesting is that instead of beating the big AI/ML (artificial intelligence and machine learning drum set), the authors from an outfit called Bloomfire made “knowledge management” the pointy end of the spear. I was never sure what knowledge management. One of my colleagues did a lot of knowledge management work, but it looked to me like creating an inventory of content, a directory of who in the organization was a go-to source for certain information, and enterprise search.
This marketing essay asserts:
Executives are laser-focused on optimizing their most valuable assets – people, intellectual property, and proprietary technology. But many overlook one asset that has the power to drive revenue, productivity, and innovation: enterprise knowledge.
To me, the idea that one can place a value on knowledge is an important process. My own views of what is called “knowledge value” have been shaped by the work of Taichi Sakaya. This book was published 40 years ago, and it is a useful analysis of how to make money from knowing “stuff”.
This essay makes the argument that an organization that does not know how to get its information act together will not extract the appropriate value from its information. I learned:
Many organizations regard knowledge as an afterthought rather than a business asset that drives financial performance. Knowledge often remains unaccounted for on balance sheets, hidden in siloed systems, and mismanaged to the point of becoming a liability. Redundant, trivial, conflicting, and outdated information can cloud decision making that fails to deliver key results.
The only problem is that “knowledge” loses value when it moves to a system or an individual where it should not be. Let me offer three examples of the fallacy of silo breaking, financial systems, and “mismanaged” paper or digital information.
- A government contract labeled secret by the agency hiring the commercial enterprise. Forget the sharing. Locking up the “information” is essential for protecting national security and for getting paid. The knowledge management is that only authorized personnel know their part of a project. Sharing is not acceptable.
- Financial data, particularly numbers and information about a legal matter or acquisition/divestiture is definitely high value information. The organization should know that talking or leaking these data will result in problems, some little, some medium, and some big time.
- Mismanaged information is a very bad and probably high risk thing. Organizations simply do not have the management bandwidth to establish specific guidelines for data acquisition, manipulation, storage and deletion, access controls that work, and computer expertise to use dumb and smart software to keep those data ponies and information critters under control. The reasons are many and range from accountants who are CEOs to activist investor sock puppets, available money and people, and understanding exactly what has to be done to button up an operation.
Not surprisingly, coming up with a phrase like “enterprise intelligence” may sell some consulting work, but the reality of the datasphere is that whatever an organization does in an engagement running several months or a year will not be permanent. The information system in an organization any size is unstable. How does one make knowledge value from an inherently volatile information environment. Predicting the weather is difficult. Predicting the data ecosystem in an organization is the reason knowledge management as a discipline never went anywhere. Whether it was Harvey Poppel’s paperless office in the 1970s or the wackiness of the system which built a database of people so one could search by what each employee knew, the knowledge management solutions had one winning characteristic: The consultants made money until they didn’t.
The “winners” in knowledge management are big fuzzy outfits; for example, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and a few others. Are these companies into knowledge management? I would say, “Sure because no one knows exactly what it means. When the cost of getting digital information under control is presented, the thirst for knowledge management decreases just a tad. Well, maybe I should say, “Craters.”
None of these outfits “solve” the problem of knowledge management. They sell software and services. Despite the technology available today, a Microsoft Azure SharePoint and custom Web page system leaked secure knowledge from the Israeli military. I would agree that this is indeed knowledge mismanagement, but the problem is related to system complexity, poor staff training, and the security posture of the vendor, which in this case is Microsoft.
The essay concludes with this statement in the form of a question:
The question is: Where does your company’s knowledge fall on the balance sheet?
Will the sales pitch work? Will CEOs ask, “Where is my company’s knowledge value?” Probably. The essay throws around a lot of numbers. It evokes uncertainty, risk, and may fear. It has some clever jargon like knowledge mismanagement.
Net net: Well done. Suitable for praise from a business school faculty member. Is knowledge mismanagement going to delivery knowledge value? Unlikely. Is knowledge (managed or mismanaged) hog wash? It depends on one’s experience with Poland Chinas. Is knowledge (managed or mismanaged lipstick on a pig)? Again it depends on one’s sense of what’s right for the critters. But the goal is to sell consulting, not clean hogs or pretty up pigs.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2025
US Brain Drain Droplet May Presage a Beefier Outflow
May 8, 2025
Believe it or not, no smart software. Just a dumb and skeptical dinobaby.
When I was working on my PhD at the University of Illinois, I noticed that the number of foreign students on campus seemed to go up each year. One year in the luxurious Florida Avenue Residence Hall, most of the students were from farms. The next year, FAR was a mini-United Nations. I did not pay any attention because I was on my way to an actual “real” job at Halliburton Nuclear in Washington, DC.
I heard the phrase “brain drain” over the years. The idea was that people who wanted to work in technical fields would come to the US, get degrees, and then stay to work in US universities or dolphin-loving, humanity-centric outfits like the nuclear industry. The idea was that the US was a magnet: Good schools, many opportunities to work or start a company.
I am not sure that golden age exists any longer. I read about universities becoming research labs for giant companies. I see podcasts with foaming-at-the-mouth academics complaining about [a] the quality of the students, [b] squabbles between different ideological groups, and [c] the lack of tenure opportunities which once seemed to be a sinecure for life just like the US government’s senior executive service.
Now the world works in ever more mysterious ways. As a confused dinobaby, I read news items (unverified, of course) with headlines like this:
Top US Scientist leaves Department Of Energy To Join Sichuan University Amid Rising China Tensions.
The write up reports a “real” news:
Amid escalating US-China tensions, senior scientist Yi Shouliang, formerly with the US Department of Energy, has left the U.S. to assume a new academic role at Sichuan University in China…. Shouliang served as a principal scientist and project leader at the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), where he focused on the Water-Energy Program.
Let’s assume that this academic who had some business interests just missed his family. No big deal.
But what if a certain “home” country was starting to contact certain people and explaining that their future was back in the good old homeland? Could that country systematically explain the facts of life in a way that made the “home” country look more appealing than a big house in Squirrel Hill?
For a few months, I have been writing “China smart, US dumb” blog posts when I spot some news about how wonderfully bright many young Chinese men and women are.
As a dinobaby, my first thought is that China wants its smart people back in the Middle Kingdom. Hopefully more information about this 2025 brain drain from the US to other countries will become publicly available. Plus, one isolated person going against the “You can’t go home again” idea means nothing. Or does it mean something is afoot?
PS. No, I never went back to Chambana to turn in my thesis. I liked working at Halliburton Nuclear more than I liked indexing poetry for the now departed Dr. William Gillis. Sorry, Dr. Gillis, the truth is now out.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2025
Ask Siri: How Does Apple Avoid a Tariff Catastrophe
May 7, 2025
Visualize Tim Apple. He asks Siri, “Siri, how do I guarantee Apple’s dominance in the mobile device sector?”
Siri answers, “Just ignore reality.”
The only problem is that Siri is one example of Apple’s outstanding technology, management decision making, and financial wizardry. Too bad the outputs are incorrect.
Let’s look at one good example:
Apple’s immense success is underpinned by the global supply chain it has spent decades cultivating. Now, President Trump may have turned that asset into a liability with the stroke of a pen. The BBC explains, “Designed in US, Made in China: Why Apple is Stuck.” Though the president backtracked a bit and exempted smartphones and computers from the tariffs, those final products are just the last step of Apple’s production infrastructure. Reporter Annabelle Liang writes:
“While the sleek rectangle that runs many of our lives is indeed designed in the United States, it is likely to have come to life thousands of miles away in China: the country hit hardest by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, now rising to 245% on some Chinese imports. Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year and by most estimates, nine in 10 are made in China. From the glossy screens to the battery packs, it’s here that many of the components in an Apple product are made, sourced and assembled into iPhones, iPads or Macbooks. Most are shipped to the US, Apple’s largest market. Luckily for the firm, Trump suddenly exempted smartphones, computers and some other electronic devices from his tariffs last week. But the comfort is short-lived. The president has since suggested that more tariffs are coming: ‘NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook’,’ he wrote on Truth Social, as his administration investigated ‘semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN’.”
Such as stable genius. Meanwhile, Apple is vulnerable to competition from Chinese firms that benefit from the infrastructure Apple fostered. We learn:
“‘Now that ‘Apple has cultivated China’s electronic manufacturing capabilities, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo and others can reuse Apple’s mature supply chain,’ according to Mr. Lin. Last year, Apple lost its place as China’s biggest smartphone seller to Huawei and Vivo.”
Way to kick a billionaire when he is down. It seems Tim Cook may now face Apple sauce, not Apple success. Did he not kiss the ring sufficiently? The firm now plans to invest $500 billion in the US, but we doubt even that sum will relocate much of Apple’s entrenched network to these shores. Or do much to placate the tariffer-in-chief. I want to write about ignoring the court decision regarding its online store. That’s another example of Ask Siri wisdom.
Cynthia Murrell, May 7, 2025
One Argument for Google to Retain Chrome
May 5, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
“Don’t Make Google Sell Chrome” argues that Google’s browser is important for the Web. Two thoughts: [a] The browser is definitely good for Google. It is a data hoovering wonder. And [b] the idea that Google is keeping the Web afloat means that any injury to Google imperils the World Wide Web. The author argues:
We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web’s corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web’s capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in — and it did! But the vitality of that free and open application platform depends on constant development. If the web stagnates, other platforms will gain. But with Team Chrome pushing the web forward in a million ways — be it import maps, nested CSS, web push, etc. — is therefore essential.
This series of assertions underscores argument [b] above.
The essay concludes with this call to action for legal eagles:
Google should not get away with rigging the online ad market, but forcing it to sell Chrome will do great damage to the web.
But what about argument [a] “The browser is definitely good for Google.” Let me offer several observations:
First, I am not sure “browser” captures what Google has been laboring for years to achieve. Chrome was supposed to mash Microsoft’s Windows operating system into the dirt. If Chrome becomes the de facto “web”, the Google may pull off a monopoly displacement. Windows moves to the margin, and Chrome dominates the center.
Second, someone told me there was science fiction story about a series of vending machines. The beverage machine made you want a snack. The snack from the snack machine made you want something salty. The salty product vending machine made you want a beverage. The customer is addicted. That’s what the trifecta of Web search online advertising, and Chrome does — actually, possibly has done — to users. I am using the term “user” in the sense that it is tough to break the cycle. Think drug or some other addiction and how the process works.
Third, the argument that only big technology companies can operate their products. Okay, maybe. My approach to this is, “Hey, let’s break up these interlocked cycling systems and see what happens. I can hear, “Wow, you dinobabies are crazy.” Maybe so. Maybe so.
Net net: These pro-Google arguments strike me as content marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2025
Outsourced AI Works Very Well, Thank You
May 2, 2025
Tech experts predict that AI will automate all jobs and make humanity obsolete. If that’s the case then why was so-called AI outsourced? Engadget reports how one “Tech Founder Charged With Fraud For ‘AI’ That Was Secretly Overseas Contract Workers.”
The tech founder in question is Albert Sangier and the US Department of Justice indicated him on misleading clients with Nate, his financial technology platform. Sangier founded Nate in 2018, he raised $40 million from investors, and he claimed that it could give shoppers a universal checkout application powered by AI. The transactions were actually completed by human contractors located in Romania, the Philippines, and bots.
Sangier deception was first noted in 2022:
“ ‘This case follows reporting by The Information in 2022 that cast light on Nate’s use of human labor rather than AI. Sources told the publication that during 2021, “the share of transactions Nate handled manually rather than automatically ranged between 60 percent and 100 percent.’”
Sangier isn’t the only “tech leader” who duplicitously pretends that human workers are actually an AI algorithm or chatbot. More bad actors will do this scam and they’ll get more creative hiding their steps.
Whitney Grace, May 2, 2025
Another Grousing Googler: These Wizards Need Time to Ponder Ethical Issues
May 1, 2025
No AI. This old dinobaby just plods along, delighted he is old and this craziness will soon be left behind. What about you?
My view of the Google is narrow. Sure, I got money to write about some reports about the outfit’s technology. I just did my job and moved on to more interesting things than explaining the end of relevance and how flows of shaped information destroys social structures.
This Googzilla is weeping because one of the anointed is not happy with the direction the powerful creature is headed. Googzilla asks itself, “How can we replace weak and mentally weak humans with smart software more quickly?” Thanks, OpenAI. Good enough like much of technology these days.
I still enjoy reading about the “real” Google written by a “real” Googlers and Xooglers (these are former Googlers who now work at wonderfully positive outfits like emulating the Google playbook).
The article in front of me this morning (Sunday, April20, 2025) is titled “I’ve Worked at Google for Decades. I’m Sickened by What It’s Doing.” The subtitle tells me a bit about the ethical spine of the author, but you may find it enervating. As a dinobaby, I am not in tune with the intellectual, ethical, and emotional journeys of Googlers and Xooglers. Here’s the subtitle:
For the first time, I feel driven to speak publicly, because our company is now powering state violence across the globe.
Let’s take a look at what this Googler asserts about the estimable online advertising outfit. Keep in mind that the fun-loving Googzilla has been growing for more than two decades, and the creature is quite spritely despite some legal knocks and Timnit Gebru-type pains. Please, read the full “Sacramentum Paenitentiae.” (I think this is a full cycle of paenitentia, but as a dinobaby, I don’t have the crystalline intelligence of a Googler or Xoogler.)
Here’s statement one I noted. The author contrasts the good old days of St. Paul Buchheit’s “Don’t be evil” enjoinder to the present day’s Sundar & Prabhakar’s Comedy Show this way:
But if my overwhelming feeling back then was pride, my feeling now is a very different one: heartbreak. That’s thanks to years of deeply troubling leadership decisions, from Google’s initial foray into military contracting with Project Maven, to the corporation’s more recent profit-driven partnerships like Project Nimbus, Google and Amazon’s joint $1.2 billion AI and cloud computing contract with the Israeli military that has powered Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
Yeah, smart software that wants to glue cheese on pizzas running autonomous weapons strikes me as an interesting concept. At least the Ukrainian smart weapons are home grown and mostly have a human or two in the loop. The Google-type outfits are probably going to find the Ukrainian approach inefficient. The blue chip consulting firm mentality requires that these individuals be allowed to find their future elsewhere.
Here’s another snip I circled with my trusty Retro51 ball point pen:
For years, I have organized internally against Google’s full turn toward war contracting. Along with other coworkers of conscience, we have followed official internal channels to raise concerns in attempts to steer the company in a better direction. Now, for the first time in my more than 20 years of working at Google, I feel driven to speak publicly, because our company is now powering state violence across the globe, and the severity of the harm being done is rapidly escalating.
I find it interesting that it takes decades to make a decision involving morality and ethicality. These are tricky topics and must be considered. St. Augustine of Hippo took about three years (church scholars are not exactly sure and, of course, have been known to hallucinate). But this Google-certified professional required 20 years to figure out some basic concepts. Is this judicious or just an indication of how tough intellectual amorality is to analyze?
Let me wrap up with one final snippet.
To my fellow Google workers, and tech workers at large: If we don’t act now, we will be conscripted into this administration’s fascist and cruel agenda: deporting immigrants and dissidents, stripping people of reproductive rights, rewriting the rules of our government and economy to favor Big Tech billionaires, and continuing to power the genocide of Palestinians. As tech workers, we have a moral responsibility to resist complicity and the militarization of our work before it’s too late.
The evil-that-men-do argument. Now that’s one that will resonate with the “leadership” of Alphabet, Google, Waymo, and whatever weirdly named units Googzilla possesses, controls, and partners. As that much-loved American thinker Ralph Waldo-Emerson allegedly said:
“What lies behind you and what lies in front of you, pales in comparison to what lies inside of you.”
I am not sure I want this Googler, Xoogler, or whatever on my quick recall team. Twenty years to figure out something generally about having an ethical compass and a morality meter seems like a generous amount of time. No wonder Googzilla is rushing to replace its humanoids with smart software. When that code runs on quantum computers, imagine the capabilities of the online advertising giant. It can brush aside criminal indictments. Ignore the mewing and bleating of employees. Manifest itself into one big … self, maybe sick, but is it the Googley destiny?
Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
