Yep, Making the AI Hype Real Will Be Expensive. Hundreds of Billions, Probably More, Says Microsoft
December 26, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I really don’t want to write another “if you think it, it will become real.” But here goes. I read “Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman Says It Will Cost Hundreds of Billions to Keep Up with Frontier AI in the Next Decade.”
What’s the pitch? The write up says:
Artificial general intelligence, or AGI, refers to AI systems that can match human intelligence across most tasks. Superintelligence goes a step further — systems that surpass human abilities.
So what’s the cost? Allegedly Mr. AI at Microsoft (aka Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman) asserts:
it’s going to cost “hundreds of billions of dollars” to compete at the frontier of AI over the next five to 10 years….Not to mention the prices that we’re paying for individual researchers or members of technical staff.
Microsoft seems to have some “we must win” DNA. The company appears to be willing to ignore users requests for less of that Copilot goodness.
The vice president of AI finance seems shocked by an AI wizard’s request for additional funds… right now. Thanks, Qwen. Good enough.
Several observations:
- The assumption is that more money will produce results. When? Who knows?
- The mental orientation is that outfits like Microsoft are smart enough to convert dreams into reality. That is a certain type of confidence. A failure is a stepping stone, a learning experience. No big deal.
- The hype has triggered some non-AI consequences. The lack of entry level jobs that AI will do is likely to derail careers. Remember the baloney that online learning was better than sitting in a classroom. Real world engagement is work. Short circuiting that work in my opinion is a problem not easily corrected.
Let’s step back. What’s Microsoft doing? First, the company caught Google by surprise in 2022. Now Google is allegedly as good or better than OpenAI’s technology. Microsoft, therefore, is the follower instead of the pace setter. The result is mild concern with a chance of fear tomorrow. the company’s “leadership” is not stabilizing the company, its messages, and its technology offerings. Wobble wobble. Not good.
Second, Microsoft has demonstrated its “certain blindness” to two corporate activities. The first is the amount of money Microsoft has spent and apparently will continue to spend. With inputs from the financially adept Mr. Suleyman, the bean counters don’t have a change. Sure, Microsoft can back out of some data center deals and it can turn some knobs and dials to keep the company’s finances sparkling in the sun… for a while. How long? Who knows?
Third, even Microsoft fan boys are criticizing the idea of shifting from software that a users uses for a purpose to an intelligent operating system that users its users. My hunch is that this bulldozing of user requests, preferences, and needs may be what some folks call a “moment.” Google’s Waymo killed a cat in the Mission District. Microsoft may be running over its customers. Is this risky? Who knows.
Fourth, can Microsoft deliver AI that is not like AI from other services; namely, the open source solutions that are available and the customer-facing apps built on Qwen, for example. AI is a utility and not without errors. Some reports suggest that smart software is wrong two thirds of the time. It doesn’t matter what the “real” percentage is. People now associate smart software with mistakes, not a rock solid tool like a digital tire pressure gauge.
Net net: Mr. Suleyman will have an opportunity to deliver. For how long? Who knows?
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2025
Forget AI AI AI. Think Enron Enron Enron
December 25, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Happy holidays AI industry. The Financial Times seems to be suggesting that lignite coal may be in your imitative socks hanging on your mantels. In the nightmare before Christmas edition of the orange newspaper, the story “Tech Groups Shift $120bn of AI Data Centre Debt Off Balance Sheets” says:
Creative financing helps insulate Big Tech while binding Wall Street to a future boom or bust.
What’s this mean? The short answer in my opinion is, “Enron Enron Enron.” That was the online oil information short cake that was inedible, choking a big accounting firm and lots of normal employees and investors. Some died. Houston and Wall Street had a problem. for years after the event, the smell of burning credibility could be detected by those with sensitive noses.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The FT, however, is not into Enron Enron Enron. The FT is into AI AI AI.
The write up says:
Financial institutions including Pimco, BlackRock, Apollo, Blue Owl Capital and US banks such as JPMorgan have supplied at least $120bn in debt and equity for these tech groups’ computing infrastructure, according to a Financial Times analysis.
So what? The FT says:
That money is channeled through special purpose holding companies known as SPVs. The rush of financings, which do not show up on the tech companies’ balance sheets, may be obscuring the risks that these groups are running — and who will be on the hook if AI demand disappoints. SPV structures also increase the danger that financial stress for AI operators in the future could cascade across Wall Street in unpredictable ways.
These sentence struck me as a little to limp. First, everyone knows what happens if AI works and creates the Big Rock Candy Mountain the tech bros will own. That’s okay. Lots of money. No worries. Second, the more likely outcome is [a] rain pours over the sweet treat and it melts gradually or [b] a huge thundercloud perches over the fragile peak and it goes away in a short time. One day a mountain and the next a sticky mess.
How is this possible? The FT states:
Data center construction has become largely reliant on deep-pocketed private credit markets, a rapidly inflating $1.7tn industry that has itself prompted concerns due to steep rises in asset valuations, illiquidity and concentration of borrowers.
The FT does not mention the fact that there may be insufficient power, water, and people to pull off the data center boom. But that’s okay, the FT wants to make clear that “risky lending” seems to be the go-approach for some of the hopefuls in the AI AI AI hoped-for boom.
What can make the use of financial engineering to do Enron Enron Enron maneuvers more tricky? How about this play:
A number of tech bankers said they had even seen securitization deals on AI debt in recent months, where lenders pool loans and sell slices of them, known as asset-backed securities, to investors. Two bankers estimated these deals currently numbered in the single-digit billions of dollars. These deals spread the risk of the data center loans to a much wider pool of investors, including asset managers and pension funds.
When playing Enron Enron Enron games, the ideas for “special purpose vehicles” or SPVs reduce financial risk. Just create a separate legal entity with its own balance sheet. If the SPV burns up (salute to Enron), the parent company’s assets are in theory protected. Enron’s money people cooked up some chrome trim for their SPVs; for example, just fund the SPVs with Enron stock. What could go wrong? Nothing unless, the stock tanked. It did. Bingo, another big flame out. Great idea as long as the rain clouds did not park over Big Rock Candy Mountain. But the rains came and stayed.
The result is that the use of these financial fancy dance moves suggests that some AI AI AI outfits are learning the steps to the Enron Enron Enron boogie.
Several observations:
- The “think it and it will work” folks in the AI AI AI business have some doubters among their troops
- The push back about AI leads to wild and crazy policies like those promulgated by Einstein’s old school. See ETH’s AI Policies. These indicate no one is exactly what to do with AI.
- Companies like Microsoft are experiencing what might be called post-AI AI AI digital Covid. If the disease spreads, trouble looms until herd immunity kicks in. Time costs money. Sick AI AI AI could be fatal.
Net net: The FT has sent an interesting holiday greeting to the AI AI AI financial engineers. 2026 will be exciting and perhaps a bit stressful for some in my opinion. AI AI AI.
Stephen E Arnold, December 25, 2025
Telegram Notes: Manny, Snoop, and Millions in Minutes
December 24, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
In the mass of information my team and I gathered for my new study “The Telegram Labyrinth,” we saw several references to what may be an interesting intersection of Manuel (Manny) Stotz, a hookah company in the Middle East, Snoop Dog (the musical luminary), and Telegram.
At some point in Mr. Stotz’ financial career, he acquired an interest in a company doing business as Advanced Inhalation Rituals or AIR. This firm owned or had an interest in a hookah manufacturer doing business as Al Fakher. By chance, Mr. Stotz interacted with Mr. Snoop Dog. As the two professionals discussed modern business, Mr. Stotz suggested that Mr. Snoop Dog check out Telegram.
Thanks, Venice.ai. I needed smoke coming out of the passenger side window, but smoke existing through the roof is about right for smart software.
Telegram allowed Messenger users to create non fungible tokens. Mr. Snoop Dog thought this was a very interesting idea. In July 2025, Mr. Snoop Dogg
I found the anecdotal Manny Stotz information in social media and crypto centric online services suggestive but not particularly convincing and rarely verifiable.
One assertion did catch my attention. The Snoop Dogg NFT allegedly generated US$12 million in 30 minutes. Is the number in “Snoop Dogg Rakes in $12M in 30 Minutes with Telegram NFT Drop” on the money? I have zero clue. I don’t even know if the release of the NFT or drop took place. Let’s go to the write up:
Snoop Dogg is back in the web3 spotlight, this time partnering with Telegram to launch the messaging app’s first celebrity digital collectibles drop. According to Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, the launch generated $12 million in sales, with nearly 1 million items sold out in just 30 minutes. While the items aren’t minted yet, users purchased the collectibles internally on Telegram, with minting on The Open Network (TON) scheduled to go live later this month [July 2025].
Is this important? It depends on one’s point of view. As an 81 year old dinobaby, I find the comments online about this alleged NFT for a popular musician not too surprising. I have several other dinobaby observations to offer, of course:
- Mr. Stotz allegedly owns shares in a company (possibly more than 50 percent or more of the outfit) that does business in the UAE and other countries where hookahs are popular. That’s AIR.
- Mr. Stotz worked for a short time a a senior manager at the TON Foundation. That’s an organization allegedly 100 percent separate from Telegram. That’s the totally independent, Swiss registered TON Foundation, not to be confused with the other TON Foundation in Abu Dhabi. (I wonder why there are two Telegram linked foundations. Maybe someone will look into that? Perhaps these are legal conventions or something akin to Trojan horses? This dinobaby does not know.
- By happenstance, Mr. Snoop Dogg learned about Telegram NFTs and at the same time Mr. Stotz was immersed in activities related to the Foundation and its new NASDAQ listed property TON Strategy Company, the NFT spun up and then moved forward allegedly.
- Does a regulatory entity monitor and levy tax on the sale of NFTs within Telegram? I mean Mr. Snoop Dogg resides in America. Mr. Stotz resides allegedly in London. The TON Foundation which “runs” the TON blockchain is in United Arab Emirates, and Mr. Pavel Durov is an AirBnB type of entrepreneur — this question of paying taxes is probably above my pay grade which is US$0.00.
One simple question I have is, “Does Mr. Snoop Dogg have an Al Faker hookah?
This is an example of one semi interesting activity involving Mr. Stotz, his companies (Koenigsweg Holdings Ltd Holdings Ltd and its limited liability unit Kingsway Capital) and the Telegram / TON Foundation interactions cross borders, business types, and cultural boundaries. Crypto seems to be a magnetic agent.
As Mr. Snoop Dogg sang in 1994:
“With so much drama in the LBC, it’s kinda hard being Snoop D-O-double-G.” (“Gin and Juice, 1994)
For those familiar with NFT but not LBC, the “LBC” refers to Long Beach, California. There is much mystery surrounding many words and actions in Telegram-related activities.
PS. My team and I are starting an information service called “Telegram Notes.” We have a url, some of the items will be posted to LinkedIn and the cyber crime groups which allowed me to join. We are not sure what other outlets will accept these Telegram-related essays. It’s kinda hard being a double DINO-B-A-BEEE.
Stephen E Arnold, December 24, 2025
All I Want for Xmas Is Crypto: Outstanding Idea GenZ
December 24, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I wish I knew an actual GenZ person. I would love to ask, “What do you want for Christmas?” Because I am a dinobaby, I expect an answer like cash, a sweater, a new laptop, or a job. Nope, wrong.
According to the most authoritative source of real “news” to which I have access, the answer is crypto. “45% of Gen Z Wants This Present for Christmas—Here’s What Belongs on Your Gift List” explains:
[A] Visa survey found that 45% of Gen Z respondents in the United States would be excited to receive cryptocurrency as their holiday gift. (That’s way more than Americans overall, which was only 28%.)
Two geezers try to figure out what their grandchildren want for Xmas. Thanks, Qwen. Good enough.
Why? Here’s the answer from Jonathan Rose, CEO of BlockTrust IRA, a cryptocurrency-based individual retirement account (IRA) platform:
“Gen Z had a global pandemic and watched inflation eat away at the power of the dollar by around 20%. Younger people instinctively know that $100 today will buy them significantly less next Christmas. Asking for an asset that has a fixed supply, such as bitcoin, is not considered gambling to them—it is a logical decision…. We say that bull markets make you money, but bear markets get you rich. Gen Z wants to accumulate an asset that they believe will define the future of finance, at an affordable price. A crypto gift is a clear bet that the current slump is temporary while the digital economy is permanent.”
I like that line “a logical decision.”
The world of crypto is an interesting one.
The Readers Digest explains to a dinobaby how to obtain crypto. Here’s the explanation for a dinobaby like me:
One easy way to gift crypto is by using a major exchange or crypto-friendly trading app like Robinhood, Kraken or Crypto.com. Kraken’s app, for example, works almost like Venmo for digital assets. You buy a cryptocurrency—such as bitcoin—and send it to someone using a simple pay link. The recipient gets a text message, taps the link, verifies their account, and the crypto appears in their wallet. It’s a straightforward option for beginners.
What will those GenZ folks do with their funds? Gig tripping. No, I don’t know what that means.
Several observations:
- I liked getting practical gifts, and I like giving practical gifts. Crypto is not practical. It is, in my opinion, idea for money laundering, not buying sweaters.
- GenZ does have an uncertain future. Not only are those basic skill scores not making someone like me eager to spend time with “units” from this cohort, I am not sure I know how to speak to a GenZ entity. Is that why so many of these young people prefer talking to chatbots? Do dinobabies make the uncomfortable?
- When the Readers Digest explains how to buy crypto, the good old days of a homey anecdote and a summary of an article from a magazine with a reading level above the sixth grade are officially over.
Net net: I am glad I am old.
Stephen E Arnold, December 24, 2025
Telegram News: AlphaTON, About Face
December 22, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Starting in January 2026, my team and I will be writing about Telegram’s Cocoon, the firm’s artificial intelligence push. Unlike the “borrow, buy, hype, and promise” approach of some US firms, Telegram is going a different direction. For Telegram, it is early days for smart software. The impact will be that posts in Beyond Search will decrease beginning Christmas week. The new Telegram News posts will be on a different url or service. Our preliminary tests show that a different approach won’t make much difference to the Arnold IT team. Frankly I am not sure how people will find the new service. I will post the links on Beyond Search, but with the exceptional indexing available from Bing, Google, et al, I have zero clue if these services will find our Telegram Notes.
Why am I making this shift?
Here’s one example. With a bit of fancy footwork, a publicly traded company popped into existence a couple of months ago. Telegram itself does not appear to have any connection to this outfit. However, the TON Foundation’s former president set up an outfit called the TON Strategy Co., which is listed on the US NASDAQ. Then following a similar playbook, AlphaTON popped up to provide those who believe in TONcoin a way to invest in a financial firm anchored to TONcoin. Yeah, I know that having these two public companies semi-linked to Telegram’s TON Foundation is interesting.
But even more fascinating is the news story about AlphaTON using some financial fancy dancing to link itself to Andruil. This is one of the companies familiar to those who keep track of certain Silicon Valley outfits generating revenue from Department of War contracts.
What’s the news?
The deal is off. According to “AlphaTON Capital Corp Issues Clarification on Anduril Industries Investment Program.” The word clarification is not one I would have chosen. The deal has vaporized. The write up says:
It has now come to the Company’s attention that the Anduril Industries common stock underlying the economic exposure that was contractually offered to our Company is subject to transfer restrictions and that Anduril will not consent to any such transfer. Due to these material limitations and risk on ownership and transferability, AlphaTON has made the decision to cancel the Anduril tokenized investment program and will not be proceeding with the transaction. The Company remains committed to strategic investments and the tokenization of desirable assets that provide clear ownership rights and align with shareholder value creation objectives.
I interpret this passage to mean, “Fire, Aim, Ready Maybe.”
With the stock of AlphaTON Capital as of December 18, 2025, at about $0.70 at 11 30 am US Eastern, this fancy dancing may end this set with a snappy rendition of Mozart’s Requiem.
That’s why Telegram Notes will be an interesting organization to follow. We think Pavel Durov’s trial in France, the two or maybe one surviving public company, two “foundations” linked to Telegram, and the new Cocoon AI play are going to be more interesting. If Mr. Durov goes to jail, the public company plays fail, and the Cocoon thing dies before it becomes a digital butterfly, I may flow more stories to Beyond Search.
Stay tuned.
Stephen E Arnold, December 22, 2025
First, Virtual AI Compute and Now a Virtual Supercomputation Complex
December 19, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Do you remember the good old days at AT&T? No Judge Green. No Baby Bells. Just the Ma Bell. Devices were boxes or plastic gizmos. Western Electric paid people to throw handsets out of a multi story building to make sure the stuff was tough. That was the old Ma Bell. Today one has virtual switches, virtual exchanges, and virtual systems. Software has replaced quite a bit of the fungible.
A few days ago, Pavel Durov rolled out his Cocoon. This is a virtual AI complex or VAIC. Skip that build out of data centers. Telegram is using software to provide an AI compute service to anyone with a mobile device. I learned today (December 6, 2025) that Stephen Wolfram has rolled out “instant supercompute.”
When those business plans don’t work out, the buggy whip boys decide to rent out their factory and machines. Too bad about those new fangled horseless carriages. Will the AI data center business work out? Stephen Wolfram and Pavel Durov seem to think that excess capacity is a business opportunity. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
A Mathematica user wants to run a computation at scale. According to “Instant Supercompute: Launching Wolfram Compute Services”:
Well, today we’ve released an extremely streamlined way to do that. Just wrap the scaled up computation in RemoteBatchSubmit and off it’ll go to our new Wolfram Compute Services system. Then—in a minute, an hour, a day, or whatever—it’ll let you know it’s finished, and you can get its results. For decades I’ve often needed to do big, crunchy calculations (usually for science). With large volumes of data, millions of cases, rampant computational irreducibility, etc. I probably have more compute lying around my house than most people—these days about 200 cores worth. But many nights I’ll leave all of that compute running, all night—and I still want much more. Well, as of today, there’s an easy solution—for everyone: just seamlessly send your computation off to Wolfram Compute Services to be done, at basically any scale.
And the payoff to those using Mathematica for big jobs:
One of the great strengths of Wolfram Compute Services is that it makes it easy to use large-scale parallelism. You want to run your computation in parallel on hundreds of cores? Well, just use Wolfram Compute Services!
One major point in the announcement is:
Wolfram Compute Services is going to be very useful to many people. But actually it’s just part of a much larger constellation of capabilities aimed at broadening the ways Wolfram Language can be used…. An important direction is the forthcoming Wolfram HPCKit—for organizations with their own large-scale compute facilities to set up their own back ends to RemoteBatchSubmit, etc. RemoteBatchSubmit is built in a very general way, that allows different “batch computation providers” to be plugged in.
Does this suggest that Supercompute is walking down the same innovation path as Pavel and Nikolai Durov? I seem some similarities, but there are important differences. Telegram’s reputation is enhanced with some features of considerable value to a certain demographic. Wolfram Computer Services is closely associated with heavy duty math. Pavel Durov awaits trial in France on more than a dozen charges of untoward online activities. Stephen Wolfram collects awards and gives enthusiastic if often incomprehensible talks on esoteric subjects.
But the technology path is similar in my opinion. Both of these organizations want to use available compute resources; they are not too keen on buying GPUs, building data centers, and spending time in meetings about real estate.
The cost of running a job on the Supercompute system depends on a number of factors. A user buys “credits” and pays for a job with those. No specific pricing details are available to me at this time: 0800 US Eastern on December 6, 2025.
Net net: Two very intelligent people — Stephen Wolfram and Pavel Durov — seem to think that the folks with giant data centers will want to earn some money. Messrs. Wolfram and Durov are resellers of excess computing capacity. Will Amazon, Google, Microsoft, et al be signing up if the AI demand does not meet the somewhat robust expectations of big AI tech companies?
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2025
AI and Management: Look for Lists and Save Time
December 18, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
How does a company figure out whom to terminate? [a] Ask around. [b] Consult “objective” performance reviews. [c] Examine a sales professionals booked deal? [d] Look for a petition signed by employees unhappy with company policies? The answer is at the end of this short post.
A human resources professional has figured out which employees are at the top of the reduction in force task. Thanks Venice.ai. How many graphic artists did you annoy today?
I read “More Than 1,000 Amazon Employees Sign Open Letter Warning the Company’s AI Will Do Staggering Damage to Democracy, Our Jobs, and the Earth .”* The write up states:
The letter was published last week with signatures from over 1,000 unnamed Amazon employees, from Whole Foods cashiers to IT support technicians. It’s a fraction of Amazon’s workforce, which amounts to about 1.53 million, according to the company’s third-quarter earnings release. In it, employees claim the company is “casting aside its climate goals to build AI,” forcing them to use the tech while working toward cutting its workforce in favor of AI investments, and helping to build “a more militarized surveillance state with fewer protections for ordinary people.”
Okay, grousing employees. Signatures. Amazon AI. Hmm. I wonder if some of that old time cross correlation will highlight these individuals and their “close” connections in the company. Who are the managers of these individuals? Are the signers and their close connections linked by other factors; for example a manager? What if a manager has a disproportionate number of grousers? These are made up questions in a purely hypothetical scenario. But they crossed my mind
Do you think someone in Amazon leadership might think along similar lines?
The write up says:
Amazon announced in October it would cut around 14,000 corporate jobs, about 4% of its 350,000-person corporate workforce, as part of a broader AI-driven restructuring. Total corporate cuts could reach up to 30,000 jobs, which would be the company’s single biggest reduction ever, Reuters reported a day prior to Amazon’s announcement.
My reaction was, “Just 1,000 employees signed the grousing letter?” The rule of thumb in a company with pretty good in-person customer support had a truism, “One complaint means 100 people are annoyed just too lazy to call us.” I wonder if this rule of thumb would apply to an estimable firm like Amazon. It only took me 30 minutes to get a refund for the prone to burn or explode mobile phone battery. Pretty swift, but not exactly the type of customer services that company at which I worked responded.
The write up concludes with a quote from a person in carpetland at Amazon:
“What we need to remember is that the world is changing quickly. This generation of AI is the most transformative technology we’ve seen since the Internet, and it’s enabling companies to innovate much faster than ever before,” Beth Galetti, Amazon’s senior vice president of people and experience, wrote in the memo.
I like the royal “we” or the parental “we.” I don’t think it is the in the trenches we, but that is my personal opinion. I like the emphasis on faster and innovation. That move fast and break things is just an outstanding approach to dealing with complex problems.
Ah, Amazon, why does my Kindle iPad app no longer work when I don’t have an Internet connection? You are definitely innovating.
And the correct answer to the multiple choice test? [d] Names on a list. Just sayin’.
———————
* This is one of those wonky Yahoo news urls. If it doesn’t work, don’t hassle me. Speak with that well managed outfit Yahoo, not someone who is 81 and not well managed.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2025
Meta: An AI Management Issue Maybe?
December 17, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I really try not to think about Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg, his yachts, and Llamas. I mean the large language model, not the creatures I associate with Peru. (I have been there, and I did not encounter any reptilian snakes. Cuy chactado, si. Vibora, no.)
I read in the pay-walled orange newspaper online “Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Turbulent Bet on AI.” Hmm. Turbulent. I was thinking about synonyms I would have suggested; for example, unjustifiable, really big, wild and crazy, and a couple of others. I am not a real journalist so I will happily accept turbulent. The word means, however, “relating to or denoting flow of a fluid in which the velocity at any point fluctuates irregularly and there is continual mixing rather than a steady or laminar flow pattern” according to the Google’s opaque system. I think the idea is that Meta is operating in a chaotic way. What about “juiced running fast and breaking things”? Yep. Chaos, a modern management method that is supposed to just work.
A young executive with oodles of money hears an older person, probably a blue chip consultant, asking one of those probing questions about a top dog’s management method. Will this top dog listen or just fume and keep doing what worked for more than a decade? Thanks, Qwen. Good enough.
What does the write up present? Please, sign up for the FT and read the original article. I want to highlight two snippets.
The first is:
Investors are also increasingly skittish. Meta’s 2025 capital expenditures are expected to hit at least $70bn, up from $39bn the previous year, and the company has started undertaking complex financial maneuverings to help pay for the cost of new data centers and chips, tapping corporate bond markets and private creditors.
Not RIFed employees, not users, not advertisers, and not government regulators. The FT focuses on investors who are skittish. The point is that when investors get skittish, an already unsettled condition is sufficiently significant to increase anxiety. Investors do not want to be anxious. Has Mr. Zuckerberg mismanaged the investors that help keep his massive investments in to be technology chugging along. First, there was the metaverse. That may arrive in some form, but for Meta I perceive it as a dumpster fire for cash.
Now investors are anxious and the care and feeding of these entities is more important. The fact that the investors are anxious suggests that Mr. Zuckerberg has not managed this important category of professionals in a way that calms them down. I don’t think the FT’s article will do much to alleviate their concern.
The second snippet is:
But the [Meta] model performed worse than those by rivals such as OpenAI and Google on jobs including coding tasks and complex problem solving.
This suggests to me that Mr. Zuckerberg did not manage the process in an optimal way. Some wizards left for greener pastures. Others just groused about management methods. Regardless of the signals one receives about Meta, the message I receive is that management itself is the disruptive factor. Mismanagement is, I think, part of the method at Meta.
Several observations:
- Meta like the other AI outfits with money to toss in the smart software dumpster fire are in the midst of realizing “if we think it, it will become reality” is not working. Meta’s spinning off chunks of flaming money bundles and some staff don’t want to get burned.
- Meta is a technology follower, and it may have been aced by its message and social media competitor Telegram. If Telegram’s approach is workable, Meta may be behind another AI eight ball.
- Mr. Zuckerberg is a wonder of American business. He began as a boy wonder. Now as an adult wonder, the question is, “Why are investors wondering about his current wonder-fulness?”
Net net: Meta faces a management challenge. The AI tech is embedded in that. Some of its competitors lack management finesse, but some of them are plugging along and not yet finding their companies presented in the Financial Times as outfits making “increasingly skittish.” Perhaps in the future, but right now, the laser focus of the Financial Times is on Meta. The company is an easy target in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2025
How Not to Get a Holiday Invite: The Engadget Method
December 15, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Sam AI-Man may not invite anyone from Engadget to a holiday party. I read “OpenAI’s House of Cards Seems Primed to Collapse.” The “house of cards” phrase gives away the game. Sam AI-Man built a structure that gravity or Google will pull down. How do I know? Check out this subtitle:
In 2025, it fell behind the one company it couldn’t lose ground to: Google.
The Google. The outfit that shifted into Red Alert or whatever the McKinsey playbook said to call an existential crisis klaxon. The Google. Adjudged a monopoly getting down to work other than running and online advertising system. The Google. An expert in reorganizing a somewhat loosely structured organization. The Google: Everyone except the EU and some allegedly defunded YouTube creators absolutely loves. That Google.
Thanks Venice.ai. I appreciate your telling me I cannot output an image with a “young programmer.” Plugging in “30 year old coder” worked. Very helpful. Intelligent too.
The write up points out:
It’s safe to say GPT-5 hasn’t lived up to anyone’s expectations, including OpenAI’s own. The company touted the system as smarter, faster and better than all of its previous models, but after users got their hands on it, they complained of a chatbot that made surprisingly dumb mistakes and didn’t have much of a personality. For many, GPT-5 felt like a downgrade compared to the older, simpler GPT-4o. That’s a position no AI company wants to be in, let alone one that has taken on as much investment as OpenAI.
Did OpenAI suck it up and crank out a better mouse trap? The write up reports:
With novelty and technical prowess no longer on its side though, it’s now on Altman to prove in short order why his company still deserves such unprecedented levels of investment.
Forget the problems a failed OpenAI poses to investors, employees, and users. Sam AI-Man now has an opportunity to become the highest profile technology professional to cause a national and possibly global recession. Short of war mongering countries, Sam AI-Man will stand alone. He may end up in a museum if any remain open when funding evaporate. School kids could read about him in their history books; that is, if kids actually attend school and read. (Well, there’s always the possibility of a YouTube video if creators don’t evaporate like wet sidewalks when the sun shines.)
Engadget will have to find another festive event to attend.
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2025
A Job Bright Spot: RAND Explains Its Reality
December 10, 2025
Optimism On AI And Job Market
Remember when banks installed automatic teller machines at their locations? They’re better known by the acronym ATM. ATMs didn’t take away jobs, instead they increased the number of banks, and created more jobs. AI will certainly take away jobs but the technology will also create more. Rand.org investigates how AI is affecting the job market in the article, “AI Is Making Jobs, Not Taking Them.”
What I love about this article is that it says the truth about aI technology: no one knows what will happen with it. We have theories ,explored in science fiction, about what AI will do: from the total collapse of society to humdrum normal societal progress. What Rand’s article says is that the research shows AI adoption is uneven and much slower than Wall Street and Silicon Valley say. Rand conducted some research:
“At RAND, our research on the macroeconomic implications of AI also found that adoption of generative AI into business practices is slow going. By looking at recent census surveys of businesses, we found the level of AI use also varies widely by sector. For large sectors like transportation and warehousing, AI adoption hovered just above 2 percent. For finance and insurance, it was roughly 10 percent. Even in information technology—perhaps the most likely spot for generative AI to leave its mark—only 25 percent of businesses were using generative AI to produce goods and services.”
Most of the fear related to AI stems from automation of job tasks. Here are some statistics from OpenAI:
“In a widely referenced study, OpenAI estimated that 80 percent of the workforce has at least 10 percent of their tasks exposed to LLM-driven automation, and 19 percent of workers could have at least 50 percent of their tasks exposed. But jobs are more than individual tasks. They are a string of tasks assembled in a specific way. They involve emotional intelligence. Crude calculations of labor market exposure to AI have seemingly failed to account for the nuance of what jobs actually are, leading to an overstated risk of mass unemployment.”
AI is a wondrous technology, but it’s still infantile and stupid. Humans will adapt and continue to have jobs.
Whitney Grace, December 10, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
