TikTok: An App for Mind Control?
March 29, 2023
I read “TikTok Is Part of China’s Cognitive Warfare Campaign.” The write up is an opinion. Before I suggest that the write is missing the big picture, let me highlight what I think sums up the argument:
While a TikTok ban may take out the first and fattest mole, it fails to contend with the wider shift to cognitive warfare as the sixth domain of military operations under way, which includes China’s influence campaigns on TikTok, a mass collection of personal and biometric data from American citizens and their race to develop weapons that could one day directly assault or disable human minds.
The problem for me is that I think the “mind control” angle is just one weapon in a specific application environment. The Middle Kingdom is working like Type A citizen farmers in these strike zones:
- Financial. The objective is to get on the renminbi bus and off the donkey cart dollar.
- Physical. The efficacy of certain pathogens is familiar to anyone who had an opportunity to wear a mask and stay home for a year or two.
- Political. The “deal” between two outstanding nation states in the Middle East is a signal I noted.
- Technological. The Huawei superwatch, the steady progress in microprocessor engineering, and those phone-home electric vehicles are significant developments.
- Social. Western democracies may not be embracing China-style methods, but some countries like India are definitely feeling the vibe for total control of the Internet.
The Guardian — may the digital overlords smile on the “real” news organization’s JavaScript which reminds how many Guardian articles I read since the “bug” was placed on my computer — gets part of the story correct. Hopefully the editors will cover the other aspects of the Chinese initiative.
TikTok, not the main event. Plus, it does connect to WiFi, Congressperson.
Stephen E Arnold, March 29, 2023
Are Libraries Next in the Target Zone?
March 28, 2023
I don’t have much to add to “Internet Archive Violated Publisher Copyrights by Lending eBooks, Court Rules.” The write up points out:
A federal judge has ruled against the Internet Archive in its high-profile case against a group of four US publishers led by Hachette Book Group…. The lawsuit originated from the Internet Archive’s decision to launch the “National Emergency Library” during the early days of the pandemic. The program saw the organization offer more than 1.4 million free ebooks, including copyrighted works, in response to libraries worldwide closing their doors due to coronavirus lockdown measures.
My question? Are libraries another evil scourge which must be subjugated to publishers?
Heck, yes. Libraries? Who needs them?
Special libraries? Who needs them?
Medical libraries? Who need them?
Bookmobiles? Who needs them?
The answer is, “No one.” My hunch is that when a bad decision is made because reference materials were not available, a few may say, “I think libraries and accurate information could be helpful.”
How stupid. Use smart software whose content and thresholds are set by engineers and computer scientists.
Books are for losers. By the way, hopefully my new monograph “The Shadow Web” will be finished before the Fall. Which “fall”? That’s a good question. If you want to be informed, pay up now!
Lending books? During a pandemic? Never!
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2023
Microsoft: You Cannot Learn from Our Outputs
March 28, 2023
![Vea[4]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Vea4.gif "Vea[4]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “Microsoft Reportedly Doesn’t Want Other AI Chatbots to Use Its Bing Search Data.” I don’t know much about smart software or smart anything for that matter. The main point of the article is that Microsoft Bing’s outputs must not be used to training other smart software. For me, that’s like a teacher saying to me in the fifth grade, “Don’t copy from the people in class who get D’s and F’s.” Don’t worry. I knew from whom to copy, right, Linda Mae?
The article reports:
…Microsoft has told them [two unnamed smart software outfits] if they use its Bing API to power their own chatbots, they may cancel their contracts and pull their Bing search support.
Some search engines give user the impression that their services are doing primary Web crawling. Does this sound familiar DuckDuckGo and Neeva? As these search vendors scramble to come up with a solution to their hunger for actual cash money (Does this sound familiar, Kagi?), the vendors want to surf on Microsoft’s index. Why not? Microsoft prior to ChatGPT did not have what I would call a Google scale index. Sure, I could find information about that icon of family togetherness Alex Murdaugh, but less popular subjects were often a bit shallow.
I find it interesting that a company which sucks in content generated by humans like moi, the dinobaby, is used without asking, paying, or even thinking about me keyboarding in rural Kentucky. Now that same outstanding company wants to prevent others from using the Microsoft derivative system for a non-authorized use.
I love it when Silicon Valley think reaches logical conclusions of MBA think seasoned with paranoia.
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2023
The image is from https://gifer.com/en/Vea.
Smart Software: Reproducibility Is Not Part of the Game Plan, Thank You
March 24, 2023
Note: The essay below has been crafted by a real, still-alive dinobaby. No smart software required, thank you.
I love it when outfits suggest one thing and do another. I was tempted to write about some companies’ enthusiastic support for saving whales and their even more intense interest in blocking the ban on “forever chemicals.” But whales are one thing and smart software is another.
Specifically, the once open OpenAI is allegedly embracing the proprietary and trade secret approach to technology. “OpenAI’s Policies hinder Reproducible Research on Language Models” reports:
On Monday [March 20. 2023], OpenAI announced that it would discontinue support for Codex by Thursday. Hundreds of academic papers would no longer be reproducible: independent researchers would not be able to assess their validity and build on their results. And developers building applications using OpenAI’s models wouldn’t be able to ensure their applications continue working as expected.
The article elaborates on this main idea.
Several points:
- Reproducibility means that specific recipes have to be known and then tested. Who in Silicon Valley wants this “knowledge seeping” to take place when demand for the know how is — as some may say — doing the hockey stick chart thing.
- Good intentions are secondary to money, power, and control. The person or persons who set thresholds, design filters, orchestrate what content and when is fed into a smart system, and similar useful things want their fingers on the buttons. Outsiders in academe or another outfit eager to pirate expertise? Nope.
- Reproducibility creates opportunities for those not in the leadership outfit to find themselves criticized for bias, manipulation, and propagandizing. Who wants that other than a public relations firm?
Net net: One cannot reproduce much flowing from today’s esteemed research outfits. Should I mention the president of Stanford University as the poster person for intellectual pogo stick hopping? Oh, I just did.
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2023
Google and Its High School Management: An HR Example
March 22, 2023
I read “Google Won’t Honor Medical Leave During Its Layoffs, Outraging Employees.” Interesting explanation of some of Google’s management methods. These specific actions strike me as similar to those made by my high school science club in 1959. We were struggling with the issue of requiring a specific academic threshold for admission. As I recall, one had to have straight A’s in math and science or no Science Club for that person. (We did admit one student who published an article in the Journal of Astronomy with his brother as co-author. He had an incomplete in calculus because he was in Hawaii fooling around with a telescope and missed the final exam. We decided to let him in. Because, well, we were the Science Club for goodness sakes!)
Scribbled Diffusion’s rendition of a Google manager (looks a bit like a clown, doesn’t it?) telling an employee he is fired and that his medical insurance has been terminated.
The article reports:
While employees’ severance packages might come with a few more months of health insurance, being fired means instantly losing access to Google’s facilities. If that’s where a laid-off Googler’s primary care doctor works, that person is out of luck, and some employees told CNBC they lost access to their doctors the second the layoff email arrived. Employees on leave also have a lot to deal with. One former Googler, Kate Howells, said she was let go by Google from her hospital bed shortly after giving birth. She worked at the company for nine years.
The highlight of the write up, however, is the Comment Section. Herewith are several items I found noteworthy:
- Gsgrego writes, “Employees, aka expendable garbage.”
- Chanman819 offers, “I’ve mentioned it before in one of the other layoff threads, but companies shouldn’t burn bridges when doing layoffs… departing employees usually end up at competitors, regulators, customers, vendors, or partners in the same industry. Many times, they boomerang back a few years in the future. Making sure they have an axe to grind during negotiations or when on the other side of a working relationship is exceptionally ill-advised.
- Ajmas says, “Termination by accounting.”
- Asvarduil offers, “Twitter and Google are companies that I now consider radioactive to work for. Even if they don’t fail soon, they’re very clearly poorly-managed. If I had to work for someone else, they’re both companies I’d avoid.
- MisterJim adds, “Two thoughts: 1. Stay classy Google! 2. Google has employees? Anyone who’s tried to contact them might assume otherwise.
High school science club lives on in the world of non-founder management.
Stephen E Arnold, March 22, 2023
Are the Image Rights Trolls Unhappy?
March 21, 2023
Imagine the money. Art aggregators like Getty Images, Alamy, and others suck up images from old books, open source repositories, and probably from kindergarteners. Then when some blog boob uses an image, the image rights trolls leap into action. Threatening letters flood the “infringers” and a reminder than money must be paid. Who authorizes this? The law and the publishers who tell the “enforcer”, “Sure, get some money and will split it with you.” A great business indeed. Many “pigeons” are defeathered.
But there is a road block which some image rights trolls will endeavor to remove. “AI-Generated Images from Text Can’t Be Copyrighted, US Government Rules” states:
Any images that are produced by giving a text prompt to current generative AI models, such as Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, cannot be copyrighted in the US. That’s according to the US Copyright Office (USCO), which has equated such prompts to a buyer giving directions to a commissioned artist.
There is hope. The article points out:
The US Copyright Office left open the door for protecting works with AI-generated elements.
I can hear the sighs of relief from Mr. Pigeon’s office in London to the professionals exhaling at the Higbee law firm. Hope lives! The article adds:
However, the office has left the door open to granting copyright protections to work with AI-generated elements. “The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work,” it said. “This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry. If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it.” Last month, the USCO determined that images generated by Midjourney and used in a graphic novel were not copyrightable. However, it said the text and layout of Kris Kashtanova’s Zarya of the Dawn could be afforded copyright protection.
Will blog boobs who use machine generated images be able to illustrate their war veteran blogs, the church bulletins, and the individuals who wanted to celebrate flower arranging be free to create with smart software?
Maybe. I have confidence that legal eagles in the image trolling game will find a way. Where there is money to be had, creativity blooms. (Sorry flower person.)
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2023
Rights Issues: How Can Money Be Extracted from Content?
March 20, 2023
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I gave up on “real” publishers when the outfits with which I was working in Sweden and the UK went to the big printing press in the multiverse. Yep, failure. I am mindful about image rights too, but that doesn’t mean my Craiyon.com images or the clip art I have in my files from the years of CD-ROMs with illustrations that were “free to use.” Ho ho ho on that marketing blather.
I want to call attention to two news items and then offer a comment or two not presented by other dinobabies watching the wide, wild, wonderful world of digital information.
The first item is the Italian government’s conclusion that the illustration by Leonardo d Vinci is not in the public domain. I used to have a T shirt I bought in Florence with the image on the overpriced, made-in-China garment. I wonder if that shop on the bridge near the secret passage some big wheel used in the 16th century? I would assume that the Italian government has hoovered these and converted them to recycling fodder. You can read about this in the article “Italy Decides That Leonardo da Vinci’s 500 Year Old Works Are Not In The Public Domain.” The subtitle of the write up is “from the locking-up-in-the-public-domain department.” The story reports:
According to the Italian Cultural Heritage Code and relevant case law, faithful digital reproductions of works of cultural heritage — including works in the Public Domain — can only be used for commercial purposes against authorization and payment of a fee. Importantly though, the decision to require authorization and claim payment is left to the discretion of each cultural institution (see articles 107 and 108). In practice, this means that cultural institutions have the option to allow users to reproduce and reuse faithful digital reproductions of Public Domain works for free, including for commercial uses. This flexibility is fundamental for institutions to support open access to cultural heritage.
The operative word is “fee.”
The second item is about Internet Archive, a controversial outfit from the point of view of some publishers. The idea is that Internet Archive offers electronic books for free. Free, not fee, is an important concept. Publishers, writers, agents, book cover artists, and probably a French bulldog or two want to get a piece of the money generated by charging for electronic books. Look Amazon does it, and publishers are not thrilled. But there is some money paid out which is going the right direction.
The report I read is “The Internet Archive Is a Library.” Libraries and publishers have a long history. On one hand, publishers love to sell books to libraries. On the other hand, libraries are not turning cartwheels because libraries loan eBooks and other digital artifacts to patrons. As long as the money streams flow, publishers and rights holders are semi-happy, a bit like a black sheep of the family getting a few bucks when Uncle Tom goes to the big printing shop in the sky where my defunct publishers hopefully work setting type by hand.
The article says:
Despite its incredible library collections, which serve the needs of millions of people, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons Inc., and Penguin Random House assert that the Internet Archive is not a real library.
If one is not a real library, that institution must pay for books. That seems clear to the publishers. I have wondered why the US Library of Congress was not moving in the same direction as the Internet Archive. Oh, well. What about the Special Library Association? Yeah, oh, well. And the American Library Association in concert with Harvard or Stanford? Oh, well.
So the Internet Archive is in jeopardy.
Several observations:
- Entities which could have assumed this job in concern with Internet Archive could have been more proactive. They weren’t, so here we are.
- Publishers are hungry for revenue, almost any type of revenue stream will do. Why not extract money from an outfit trying to perform a useful library-type function? Sorry, we want money and people can buy information from us summarizes the position of some publishers on earth and possibly in the big printing facility amidst the stars.
- Legal eagles love books. Plus those folks sometimes buy books to decorate their offices in the event a meeting is required in a suitably classy environment. Do lawyers read these books? Maybe, but I think professional publishers sell online content to them. Thus, in today’s world it makes sense for lawyers to determine what is a library and what is not, what content is free and which is not. I think I understand, but I am not going to call my attorney because I have to pay in 15 minute increments.
Net net: Libraries are for many negative spaces. Some books present information which is bad; therefore, ban or burn the books. Now we can defund regular libraries and shut down the online outfits. Publishers may be thrilled. Others may not care. I like libraries, but dinobabies don’t have influence. I am glad I am old.
Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2023
Amazon Sells What Sells: Magazines and Newspapers Apparently Do Not Sell Well
March 17, 2023
I read “Amazon Will Discontinue Newspaper and Magazine Subscriptions in September.” The write up reports that Amazon is “abandoning the Kindle for Periodicals … [a] the Kindle Newsstand.” But that’s not all:
Amazon is trying to convince publishers to submit their newspapers and magazines to Prime Reading or Kindle Unlimited, but it remains to be seen if this will happen.
My understanding is that publishers have to give up more content and get less money. The idea is not particularly new. In the early days of the full text online commercial databases, money went into a pool and the money was distributed based on the full text online prints. If a publisher’s content attracted no online prints of the full text, zero money for that publisher.
Also, the early days of selling subscriptions online experienced some user pushback. The reason was that magazine readers wanted a fungible copy. Times change. Now no one wants fragments of dead trees in their in box. (Remember the good old days when publishers of some magazines would give away current copies of their publications to those boarding the Eastern Airlines shuttles from New York to Boston and New to DC and the reverse trips.)
Magazines were a good business once. Now magazines and newspapers are a tough sell. Even new angles like the Monocle outfit are into conferences, swag, and audio programs in an effort to woo subscribers and keep the 20,000 or so the company has amassed.
What’s the Amazon decision suggest to me? Here are my reactions this rainy morning in rural Kentucky:
- How are the other magazine and newspaper resellers doing? Apple, Scribd, Zinio, and a few others are in the game and provide some options, maybe not attractive, but options nevertheless.
- Will the Monocle model or variations of it become the model for revenue best practices? The New York Times dabbles in swag, podcasts, and moving beyond news into what I call MBA type reports. I used to subscribe to the dead tree edition, but the home delivery was so terrible I cancelled. The online version stories in which I am interested is endlessly recycled in blogs and Twitter statements, I am okay with the crazy Lady ruining my breakfast with non-delivery.
- With many people struggling to figure out what information online is accurate and what is quasi-accurate, or what is weaponized, I think some knowledge problems await. Newspapers, like the one for which I worked, were organizations which had editorial policies, some guidelines, quite a few people who tried to deliver timely, accurate, informative news and reports.
Net net: Amazon can sell cheap stuff like Temu.com. The company does not seem to have the magic touch when it comes to magazines and newspapers. Remarkable but not surprising. The cloud of unknowing is expanding.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17. 2023
The Gray Lady: Calling the Winner of the AI Race
March 17, 2023
Editor’s Note: Written by a genuine dinobaby with some editorial inputs from Stephen E Arnold’s tech elves.
I love it when “real journalists” predict winners. Does anyone remember the Dewey thing? No, that’s okay. I read “How Siri, Alexa and Google Assistant Lost the AI Race.” The title reminds me of English 101 “How to” essays. (A publisher once told me that “how to” books were the most popular non fiction book type. Today the TikTok video may do the trick.)
The write up makes a case for OpenAI and ChatGPT winning the smart software race. Here’s a quote I circled:
The excitement around chatbots illustrates how Siri, Alexa and other voice assistants — which once elicited similar enthusiasm — have squandered their lead in the A.I. race.
Squandering a lead is not exactly losing a race, at least here in Kentucky. Races can be subject to skepticism, but in the races I have watched, a horse wins, gets a ribbon, the owner receives hugs and handshakes, and publicity. Yep, publicity. Good stuff.
The write up reports or opines:
Many of the big tech companies are now racing to come up with responses to ChatGPT.
Is this me-too innovation? My thought is that the article is not a how-to; it’s an editorial opinion.
My reaction to the story is that the “winner” is the use of OpenAI type technology with a dialogue-type interface. The companies criticized for squandering a lead are not dead in their stable stall. Furthermore, smart software is not new. The methods have been known for years. What’s new is that computational resources are more readily available. Content is available without briar patches like negotiating permissions and licenses to recycle someone else’s data. Code libraries are available. Engineers and programmers are interested in doing something with the AI Lego blocks. People with money want to jump on the high speed train even if the reliability and the destination are not yet known.
I would suggest that the Gray Lady’s analysis is an somewhat skewed way to point out that some big tech outfits have bungled and stumbled.
The race, at least here in Harrod’s Creek, is not yet over. I am not sure the nags are out of their horse carriers yet. Why not criticize in the context of detailed, quite specific technical, financial, and tactical factors? I will answer my own question, “The Gray Lady has not gotten over how technology disrupted the era of big newspapers as gatekeepers.”
How quickly will the Gray Lady replace “real journalists” (often with agendas) with cheaper, faster software.
I will answer my own question, “Faster than some of the horses running in the Kentucky Derby this year.”
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2023
The Google: Is Thinking Clearly a Core Competency at the Company
March 16, 2023
Editor’s Note: This short write up is the work of a real, semi-alive dinobaby, not smart software.
The essay “The Nightmare of AI-Powered Gmail Has Arrived.” The main point of the article is that Google is busy putting smart software in a number of its services. I noted this paragraph:
Google is retrofitting its product line with AI. Last month, it demonstrated its take on a chatty version of its search engine. Yesterday, it shared more details about AI-assisted Gmail and Google Docs. In Gmail, there are tools that will attempt to compose entire emails or edit them for tone as well as tools for ingesting and summarizing long threads.
Nope. Not interested.
The image of three managers with their hair on fire was generated by https://scribblediffusion.com/. My hunch is that a copyright troll will claim the image as their clients’ original work. I sticking with the smart software as the artist.
I underlined this statement as well:
Most interesting are the ways in which these features seem to be in conflict with one another.
What’s up?
- A Code Red at Google and suggestions from senior management to get in gear with smart software
- Big boy Microsoft continued to out market the Google (not too tough to do in my opinion)
- The ChatGPT juggernaut continued to operate like a large electro-magnet, pulling users from folks who has previously accrued significant experience with large language models.
The write up makes one point in my opinion. Google’s wizards are not able to think clearly. As the article concludes:
For example, in offices already burdened by inefficient communication and processes, it’s easy to see how reducing the cost of creating content might produce weird consequences and externalities. Tim can now send four times as many emails as he used to. Does he have four times as much to say?
Net net: Wow, the Google. The many and possibly overlapping smart services remind me of the outputs from a high school science club struggling to get as many Science Fair project done in the final days before the judging starts. Wow, the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
