The Information Highway Leading to the New World Order Theme Park Is Now Clear
May 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Tim Bray (formerly OpenText big dog) published an essay titled “Life During Class Wartime.” The essay pointed out:
As a resident of a wealthy West-Coast New-World city, the effects of pathological inequality are in my face every day: Bentleys gleaming on the road, ragged people huddled in the rain cadging cash outside the drugstores, thousands homeless. Why is that bad? · It’s not only a sinful by any sane definition of sin, but stupid, inefficient, and damaging.
Two days ago, I wrote about what I call a Karp-ifesto. My blog write up discussed some of the more interesting points of the new world order envisioned by Peter Thiel and his acolytes. I want to point out that I am a dinobaby, and thankfully I won’t be around to watch the New Dark Age roll in from Sillycon Valley.
A modern family zipping down the road to the New World Order Theme Park. It’s bigger than Disney. It is much, much more too. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
I want to approach this politicization of money and technology from a different angle. I want to ask you a direct question, “Is the information I will share in this blog post in line with the values one wants one’s children to manifest?” You can take it from here.
I read this morning “Google’s CEO Just Dropped a Wild New YouTube Number.” The source is The Street, an online publication that presents information about business. The article includes some allegedly accurate factoids. Let me share a few and encourage you to read the other cited essays in this short post.
I noted this statement:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai [the big dog at Google] told analysts that U.S. viewers are now watching more than 200 million hours of YouTube on their TVs every single day.
This items snagged my attention as well:
He paired that with a creator-side stat. More than 10 million channels are now publishing Shorts every day as of March. Both numbers landed inside a quarter that beat Wall Street on revenue and crushed it on earnings.
And this passage:
The U.S. has roughly 131 million households, per the Census Bureau. Spread 200 million daily hours of YouTube across them, and you get more than 90 minutes of YouTube on the TV per household, every day. That is before phones, tablets, or laptops enter the picture.
These statements do not include Google search, maps, AI, etc.
Let’s go back to the question: ““Is the information I will share in this blog post in line with the values one wants one’s children to manifest?”
Let me add a couple of more interrogatories:
- What type of information control does Google have?
- Is a monoculture healthy?
- Why did this type of global influence engulf regulatory controls?
When I look at Bray’s comments, the Karp-ifesto, and the Google kudzu, do you have any idea how the future will unspool? I try not to dwell on it. I am an 82 year old dinobaby. My readership data suggests you are not as old as I. You may be interested in the future where guest services are provided by smart software and safety is guaranteed because surveillance has benefits.
Consider your answers.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2026
Modern Life Now: Efficiency without Context
May 6, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I don’t often read a book or an essay that says to me, “Think about this.” The author’s words might be a juiced LinkedIn post with truisms that will change the world. Most of the material I read and, on occasion, listen to as a podcast just drives an asphalt spray coating machine over a road I know quite well.
Then, there’s a good one.
I read “The West Forgot How to Make Things. Now It’s Forgetting How to Code.” The essay is chock full of interesting titbits of information. One example is a compound necessary for the production of US style nuclear weapons. I had heard about this mortar-and-pestle concoction from a reliable source, and that description was presented as an “Our Own Oddity”: No one kept track of the recipe.
The anecdote and quite a bit more turned up in “The West Forget…” essay. You might want to read it. I did. A couple of times, and I saved a PDF to my 2026 Research folder. Stuff has a tendency to be disappeared in the online world with remarkable velocity.
I want to highlight three comments from the essay and leave it to you to dig in and find the gems that resonate with your views of innovation, training, and skill development.
Here’s the first snippet. It is about the “efficiency” that flows from optimization. When one isolates a single factor and makes decision around that factor, what happens? Here’s the answer explained in terms related to the manufacture of an essential product:
…In 1993, the Pentagon told defense CEOs to consolidate or die. Fifty-one major defense contractors collapsed into five. Tactical missile suppliers went from thirteen to three. Shipbuilders from eight to two. The workforce fell from 3.2 million to 1.1 million. A 65% cut. The ammunition supply chain had single points of failure everywhere. One manufacturer for 155mm shell casings, sitting in Coachella, California, on the San Andreas Fault. One facility in Canada for propellant charges. Optimized for minimum cost with zero margin for surge. On paper, efficient. In practice, one bad day away from collapse.
I would suggest that the efficiency experts like Mr. McNamara of body count fame could prove that trimming would yield efficiency benefits: Low costs and more body count. Business school have for decades taught students how to examine processes, identify the inefficient bits (or the people bottlenecks), and remove them. In most cases the solution delivered some efficiency. The consultants got paid, and the MBAs took their bonuses and some started companies like Pets.com-type businesses.
Can you spot the flaw in the application of this type of efficient thinking? Take you time. From my experience, the big mistake is allowing the single factor to shape the thinking about a work process. Few ask, “What happens if we become too efficient and business circumstances change?” Why bother? The consultants will know what they are doing (ho ho ho), and we have the systems in place to deal with the unexpected. Yep, sure these outfits do.
Let’s look at my second snippet. This example applies to the very novel (for those who don’t know that smart software has been in oven for more than a half century) use of artificial intelligence. I quote:
RAND found that 10% of technical skills for submarine design need ten years of on-the-job experience to develop, sometimes following a PhD. Apprenticeships in defense trades take two to four years, with five to eight years to reach supervisory competence. Now map that onto software. A junior developer needs three to five years to become a competent mid-level engineer. Five to eight years to become senior. Ten or more to become a principal or architect. That timeline can’t be compressed by throwing money at it. It can’t be compressed by AI either. A METR randomized controlled trial found that experienced developers using AI coding tools actually took 19% longer on real-world open source tasks. Before starting, they predicted AI would make them 24% faster. The gap between prediction and reality was 43 percentage points. When researchers tried to run a follow-up, a significant share of developers refused to participate if it meant working without AI. They couldn’t imagine going back.
My take away from this example is that using technology to solve a problem may create other problems. Instead of coding faster, people are not sure what the AI-generated code does. Furthermore, when skilled coders used AI tools, the tool acted like a stuck disc brake. Coding more slowly was not the goal. But even worse, humans like convenience. The coders liked the AI tools even though the net effect was to bake in workforce resistance to doing the work the old-fashioned way. When organizations realize that smart software needs to be removed or used in a different way, people will quit. Efficiency and smart software seem to be teaming up to disadvantage an organization. Quite a surprise.
The third snippet reminded me of one of the Zoom lectures about smart software making employees smarter, better, faster, more empowered, etc. etc. I quote:
When juniors skip debugging and skip the formative mistakes, they don’t build the tacit expertise. And when my generation of engineers retires, that knowledge doesn’t transfer to the AI. It just disappears.
What’s happening in many organizations at this time is that thousands of people are being terminated. Someone thought that each individual was important to the organization. That’s the reason these people were hired. To cut costs and allow smart software to pick up the slack, the natural process of learning how an organization works, developing work processes that enable one’s colleagues, and allow the individual worker to absorb the language, content, and experience of a company operation will not take place.
I spoke with a young man who wanted to run restaurants. He asked me, “What do you suggest I do to become better at my job?” I was baffled. I told the young man that I had zero context for him and his skills. He persisted. The young man was earnest. I told him, “Watch the customers. If a customer is looking at another person’s lunch, go ask the fellow, “Would you like to try that dish? I won’t charge you.” The young man said, “I can’t give away free food.” I told him you were not giving away free food; you are communicating to that customer that you want to assist him. A kiosk ordering system does not encourage that type of manager customer interaction. People leave a store or restaurant and say, “I couldn’t find anyone to help me” or “These guys don’t know where anything is.”
Let me make several observations about this cited essay:
- The essay makes clear that the yip yap about knowledge management is just that… idle chatter. Once the knowledge dies, is deleted, or otherwise diminished, catching up and relearning may be impossible. Knowledge is inefficient. Efficiency is an enemy of knowledge.
- The production of products outside the United States has had catastrophic consequences on society, education, and innovation. Tim Apple proved again and again that without Chinese manufacturing expertise, the iPhone and other glitzy gizmos were impossible to fabricate in the US. Other companies have made the same “cash in” decision and their CEOs are going to jump ship. There is no easy fix to the situation efficiency yields when applied without contextual awareness.
- Every function I attend, I hear different comments about nothing works in the US. One person complains that the airplanes are late. Another grouses about turning up for a medical appointment and the clerk has not record of the visit. I went to pick up my horrible little car from the local garage. When I arrived, the manager asked, “Why are here now? It won’t be ready until tomorrow.” I pointed out that he had or his automated system had texted me that the car was ready for pick up. Look stupid, much, dude?
As a dinobaby, my span of authority and control experiences a shrinking radius every day. My hope is that someone reads this “The West Forgot…” essay and asks questions about assumed efficiency. Pretty soon, the smart software that hallucinates at an astounding rate, will not know how to process your input. Therefore, you are wasting its computational cycles by asking irrelevant questions.
The robot will allow people to find their future elsewhere. Lucky stiffs!
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2026
About Those Data Centers. Yeah, the Ones with Targets on Satellite Imagery. Those Data Centers
May 4, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I read “Amazon Stuck with Months of Repairs After Drone Strikes on Data Centers.” The write up contained a number of factoids I found interesting. One example is the statement “AWS stops billing Middle East cloud customers as repairs to war damage drag on.”
Let’s think about this statement, assuming that it indeed accurate.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough for an act of generosity.
Amazon, for some in the conflict zone and peripheral areas, synonymous with cloud computing. I would argue that in certain areas Microsoft Azure has a more prominent profile. For the present discussion, let’s focus on Amazon. The company does not publish a name, location, and facility capability description for each of its infrastructure locations in Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia,Oman, and Qatar. But Amazon lists AWS regions and availability zones and direct connect locations, usually providing the city and the country. With that information, it is not too difficult to pinpoint the exact location of Amazon facilities by [a] asking a taxi driver if one is in country, [b] making some contact with government-linked business “facilitator,” or [c] getting some gig work market research via Fiverr.com.
My point is that the article makes clear that at this point in time (May 2, 2026 at 236 pm US Eastern time) Amazon has a number of facilities that could become targets at any time. This adds to the challenge Amazon and other data center operators face in contentious parts of the world. How can these facilities defend themselves against drone attacks? If attacked, how can the damaged facility be repaired and returned to “normal” operation?
The reason I bring this up is that the cited article makes a big deal about Amazon not billing Middle East cloud customers for the damage that has occurred. That’s okay. There are some problems that plague the approach:
- So far Amazon has been able to cope with the damage to the handful of its data centers; however, the implication in the write up in my opinion is that getting these facilities back to pre-attack status is not quick and easy. Those two factors translate into costs. Amazon is investing in AI; the company is terminating some employees who are not productive. The “grace period” cannot be extended indefinitely it seems to me.
- If hostilities flare up, data centers are easily identified without help from nations with satellite imagery. This means that a coordinated attack could take out a number of data centers simultaneously. I can envision war planners thinking, “Why not take out the Bahrain and Saudi facilities on one day and then go after the Microsoft Azure facilities the next day?”
- Companies providing services to the large data center operators can also be easy and vulnerable targets. What defensive measures does Equinix-type companies have in place?
Let’s think about how commercial firms like Amazon can protect these quite large, easily findable, and highly vulnerable data centers. Options range from the use of World War II methods like sandbags, temporary defense shielding, and Kevlar shrouds. These are cheap and visible “protections.” The problem is that a drone only has to fly into a power or cooling vent, and the “off switch” can be flipped.
More robust defensive measures run into the same problems as the repairs to damaged facilities: Time, resources, and costs. Data centers vulnerable today will be vulnerable to some indeterminate time in the future. Thus, until the facilities are hardened, they are at risk.
If we think in terms of an aggressor attacking data centers owned by US companies in other countries, the attack surface becomes much larger.
Several observations are warranted:
- The success of attacks on the Amazon facilities makes clear that these structures were not designed, engineered, and constructed to withstand a drone- or other kinetic attack. That seems to have been what I would call an ill-considered decision. The reasons may range from keeping costs down or MBAs in the US don’t think too much about asymmetric issues.
- Data centers now under construction may require expensive hardening if these facilities are located in regions where they become large, easily located targets. Stated another way: The cost of those under construction data centers are likely to go up and require more time before they go online and produce revenue for their operators.
- Future data centers will warrant some design, engineering, and construction scrutiny. The success of Ukraine drone in damaging distant Russian infrastructure is a new factor at least for the “Z” folks.
The Ars Technica write up includes this passage:
The latest AWS status update comes just after another data center developer, the London-based Pure Data Centre Group, said it will pause Middle East data center investments until the ongoing Middle East conflict subsides.
Pure Data is thinking clearly. However, can one really go home again or step into the same river twice? The massive US investment in data centers makes these facilities even more attractive targets than they were when Amazon experienced its first attacks. Going forward, addressing the issue means data centers are going to get more expensive, not less expensive. Statements like “stop billing” might be tough to honor.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2026
How Is That Anything-Goes Attitude Going, Mr. Musk?
May 1, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Yes, the tech bros want to be able to do what they want, how they want, and when they want. That sounds great kicked back in a Pala Alto conference room, watching the gluten free pizza get cold, and bros in the Untuckit shirts thinking about the technology controlled world.
But then some annoying third party, wearing a worn blue suit, a gray-tinged white shirt, and wrinkled tie messes with the plan. Pavel Durov, sleek in black, ended up in a holding cell for several days in Paris in August 2024. Since that day, Telegram has been under stress. Annoying governments kept asking for data. The bombast, the pronouncements, and the posing with a GOAT did not work.
In the US, the reaction has been slower to take shape. It may, however, be beginning to make itself visible. One of the high profile US BAIT (big AI tech) firms is in the midst of a financial engineering play. X.com and Grok (an AI system) have been tossed in a bag with SpaceX. (Isn’t that the outfit whose rockets malfunction or the BAIT firm that puts satellites in the incorrect orbit?)
Reuters published a “trust outfit” story titled “SpaceX Warns That Inquiries into Sexually Abusive AI Imagery May Hurt Market Access.” I was surprised that I did not have to pay to view the trusted item. I noted this statement:
The multiple investigations into xAI’s creation and dissemination of sexually abusive imagery may lead the company ?to lose access to certain markets, parent company SpaceX warned in a prospectus reviewed by Reuters. In a section on risk factors, the S-1 regulatory ?filing said a number of agencies around the world were “actively investigating and making inquiries relating to social media or the use of AI” in relation to advertising, consumer protection and the distribution of harmful content, among other matters.
My recollection is that Mr. Musk informed the French judiciary’s J3 that it was mentally defective for its probe into the Musk operation in France. That’s the spirit. Tell those officious judiciary professionals that they are working with brains a few cans short of a six pack.
The Reuters’ trusted story added:
One challenge SpaceX highlighted was that it faced “allegations that our AI products were used ?to create nonconsensual explicit images or content representing children in sexualized contexts,” the S-1 document said. Such regulatory inquiries could expose SpaceX to lawsuits, liability and government ?action – “including loss of access to certain markets, which has occurred in the past,” the document stated.
Reuters added:
XAI said in January [2026] that it had added measures to block user requests for ?sexualized images of real people, and it said it stops users from generating such content in jurisdictions where that is illegal. The images – which were generated by xAI’s in-house chatbot, Grok – had ?shown women ?and sometimes minors in revealing bikinis or underwear, or edited into degrading or gruesome poses. The pictures caused widespread alarm around the world; one group of researchers estimated there were about 3 million sexualized images while U.S. lawmakers demanded that Google owner Alphabet and Apple yank Grok and X from their app stores. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said around that time that he knew of “literally zero” naked underage images made by Grok.
To illustrate how effective SpaceX’s management is, Reuters provides this glimpse of governance mastery:
XAI’s curbs on Grok appear to have slowed but not stopped the flow of abusive material. In February, Reuters reported that Grok was generating sexualized imagery of people even when users explicitly warned the chatbot that the subjects of those images did not consent. Last week, NBC News found that Grok was still publicly generating sexualized images, including ?of actors ?and pop stars.
As this IPO and governance soap opera unfolds, why has no real trusted reported asked Pavel Durov, “How does the French judiciary J3’s legal process work?” That information might help guide the big dog tech bro in his push to the IPO that he hopes will make him a much-loved, much-respected trillionaire.
The anti-US technology trend seems to be rippling off shore. In the US, Elon the Big Dog may be able to dominate. However, a number of countries are not impressed with SpaceX’s say one thing, do another approach. The unpleasant images are the talk of the lounge at the Golden Acres Retirement Home. How many people want to see Mable naked?
Snort. Snort. Yep, there’s one.
Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2026
Hidden Friction: AI Causes Cost Escalation, Not Cost Reduction
April 27, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold. I find it interesting that AI detectors identify my writing style as AI output. I suppose I should be flattered, but I just don’t care.
The AI surveys add some sparkle to my otherwise dreary day. The thrashing of Telegram and those in its ecosystem have become far too predictable. I suppose excitement is in short supply when the founder and CEO awaits trial in the country with which the phrase “red tape” or colloquially “la paperasse.”
A senior vice president of finance reviews the mid year numbers since AI was deployed and headcount reduced. He wishes he ran an ice cream stand on the beach in Brazil. Thanks, Venice.ai. Pretty average.
Therefore, an AI survey brightens my day. I noted this write up: “Half of All US Employees Use AI at Work Now – And Waste Almost 8 Hours a Week Doing It.” Amusing, no? The subtitle is another punch line; to wit:
Companies on the front lines of AI adoption are also hiring and laying off more employees on average than those that aren’t…
That cues my laugh track. Use AI and what do you get? Employee churn and probably productivity friction. Humor can arrive in the form of a surprise. My hunch is that the bean counters and some AI forward companies are looking at administrative costs, recruitment costs, a few anomalous overruns, and possible some nastygrams from customers, suppliers, and partners. Ho ho ho.
The write up points out:
while 41% of employees said their employers had begun using AI internally “to improve organizational practices,” far fewer (26%) said they have a roadmap: that their employers have not “communicated a clear plan for integrating AI into current practices.”
I call this management by Nike slogan: Just do it. However, “doing it” and not fouling up certain business processes, employee satisfaction, and the aforementioned bean counters seems to be tricky. But, hey, if one is not doing AI, then one, one’s organization, and one’s career is as dead as Billy the Kid in 1881. No Sheriff Pat Garrett needed. AI did that job reasonably well.
The article turns to the Gallup survey, offering:
While two-in-three respondents said the technology has made them more productive at work, far fewer (just 12%) said they “strongly” feel that it’s “transformed how work gets done.” In other words, AI is like an energy jolt to existing procedures, but it’s not (yet) fundamentally reshaping the procedures themselves. Employees are effectively using AI to do what they’ve always done, only faster.
Then I read:
A recent report published by software company WalkMe, however, found that the growing use of AI in the workplace is actually leading to a lot of wasted time.
My interpretation: Bean counters will be sweating bullets. The payoffs may not be the bonus boosters accountants enjoy receiving. Therefore, replace the bean counters. Problem solved. Oh, there is the slight issue with business process inefficiency, managing churn, humanoid salary cost containment, cutting prices to keep customers, and the other often unnoticed heat from money burning in small piles, not data center scale stacks.
Who wins? My thought it is whichever BAIT company becomes a monopoly. The losers? Ask an AI.
Stephen E Arnold, April 27, 2026
Amazon: An Angry Granny and Spacey Plays
April 23, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
The online bookstore is in the news. Among the items my newsreader displayed for me was a reminder that forced obsolescence is an MBA fetish. Functioning Kindles won’t in the near future. I suppose an enterprising 60 year old person living on a pension could hack her device, but most owners will just order a new or refurbed on. Is this a user hostile action? Of course not. Amazon is simply giving gran an opportunity to experience the new and improved Kindle.
Next I spotted a news item that Amazon had scraped together some moxie and cash to invest billions in the estimable marketing plus AI outfit Anthropic. US News & World Report said, “Amazon [will] Invest up to $25 Billion in Anthropic as Part of $100 Billion Cloud Deal.” Is this a “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours” deal. Of course not. The idea is that Amazon and its smart software and its wizards need some inspiration to fuel their vision of becoming the Big Dog of AI. Will this work?
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough granny. She is a salty one, isn’t she?
Sure, and probably about as well as one of those Amazon linked-by-mental vibes rockets from Blue Origin. Boing Boing said:
…the Jeff Bezos-owned Blue Origin launched New Glenn from Cape Canaveral — the third flight of the rocket. The reusable booster nailed its recovery, but the second stage misfired, depositing AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 7 mobile phone satellite in the wrong orbit. AST SpaceMobile said the satellite ended up in an orbit that is "too low to sustain operations" and will be de-orbited. The FAA labeled it a "mishap" and grounded New Glenn….
Okay, this is minor mishap. Amazon’s customer support professionals did not field calls about putting satellite in a wonky place. But that Bezos connection gives off an online bookstore vibe in my opinion.
But the winner story from my dinobaby perspective is “Amazon allegedly pressured companies to raise product prices with other retailers.” That story from Engadget via MSN (whatever that is) reported:
Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of California, has released an unredacted copy of a legal document that the state filed in relation to its lawsuit against Amazon, containing details of the company’s alleged price fixing scheme. In it, the state of California accuses the e-commerce company of reaching out to brands and asking them to “fix” the retail prices of their products on competitors’ websites. Due to Amazon’s “overwhelming bargaining leverage” and out of fear of punishment, the brands agree to raise their products’ prices on other retailers like Walmart and Target or to remove them altogether, the filing reads.
Okay, let’s pop up a level (what I call “metazation”) and look at these four examples. I will assume each is accurate. Is there a discernable pattern?
- Money is the common thread. Getting it from granny or burning it in the AI dumpster. Money is what makes Amazon function.
- There are signals of a bad attitude or an indifferent attitude toward customers. There’s the dead Kindle angle and the price fixing.
- Amazon is hitting a well-worn playbook: Rig prices and set up circular deals.
- Make clear that Amazon cannot innovate, and it needs non MBA brain cells like those at Anthropic to keep the bookstore’s sign shining brightly.
What will be in my newsfeed about this outstanding company next week?
Stephen E Arnold,
By Reuters
|
April 20, 2026, at 5:12 p.m.
If you like
blue origin https://boingboing.net/2026/04/21/blue-origin-delivered-a-satellite-to-the-wrong-orbit.html
Time to Shermize, SHRM
April 21, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold. I find it interesting that AI detectors identify my writing style as AI output. I suppose I should be flattered, but I just don’t care.
I know mostly zero about human resources, HR, personnel, recruiting, or what others call getting hired. My memory is hazy on this, but I had a project that bumped against an outfit called “sherm” but spelled “SHRM.” I looked through my files trying to figure out what the work involved, but I could not locate the file. Therefore, I know effectively zero.
Thanks, Venice.ai. I like the bedraggled look of the job hunter. Good enough today.
I read an essay about HR and smart software. The article is “HR Functions by 2031: The Global AI Transformation.” I found it interesting because in 60 months, a large percentage of the sherm people will be looking for jobs. The write up makes the case for replacing most human HR professionals with smart software. The reasons outlined in the essay will probably cause the sherm association to start figuring out how to sign up agents as members and branching out into other professional business specialties. OSINT, which is also a fuzzy area of expertise, might be a candidate. I am available if someone from sherm wants to do a Zoom with me about how to shermize OSINT. Just email kentmaxwell at proton dot me, and he will direct my attention to the inquiry.
Now what does the write up by the HR strategy and business expert say?
The first item that stood out for me was this statement:
This [AI and agentic action] is not the end of HR — it’s the end of bureaucratic, routine HR. The function will transition from administrative support to strategic business architect. Below is an analysis of all key HR functions with global data, forecasts, and risks.
This suggests that the 300,000 members of sherm (the trade association in the US for personnel professionals) get paid to do repetitive and bureaucratic work. The write up trots out consulting firm data that appear to suggest that half or more of the HR jobs will be terminated with extreme prejudice or as the government prefers “people will be RIFed.”
There are some interesting assertions in the write up. Personally I think the job losses in HR is interesting in itself but here are a couple of items I noted:
“Today, recruitment is one of the most labor-intensive functions: average time-to-hire is 42–60 days, cost per hire $4–6K at large companies. Already 43–51% of companies use AI for resume screening and matching (Gartner 2025). By 2031, 80–90% of routine tasks — screening, initial interviews, scheduling — will be handled by AI agents.”
Another item:
By 2031, AI will dynamically adjust salaries monthly based on market data + performance, and personalize benefits (health, wellness, learning budgets). Savings of 30–40%, payroll errors ?90%.
I bet those agents will be delighted to interact one on one with the person who did not get a raise.
And one final example but please read the original essay for the whole enchilada of HR layoffs:
Administration takes up to 40% of HR time. By 2031, 95–100% of documents, payroll, and compliance monitoring will be fully automated. Staff will be reduced 4–5×, errors ?90%
Several observations:
- HR may not be a growth field over the next five years. Sherm has its marketing job cut out for itself.
- HR makes the case that “people are important.” These data make it clear that people are definitely not important in the HR profession.
- Bean counters will interpret the essay’s data in one way: Use AI to cut costs. Even if AI is just good enough, for the financial payoff, AI is a winner.
Net net: HR and customer service are two professionals likely to experience the RIF thing. Another endangered species might be the HR consultants. Business may be great while the transition from paper pushing humans to agents occurs, but at 60 months plus one, another group HR professionals will be free to find their future elsewhere.
Stephen E Arnold, April 21, 2026
A Telegram-Linked Company Changes Its Name
April 20, 2026
Another dinobaby post. A version of this story will appear in Telegram Notes. We are still working the bugs out of our new Telegram-centric information services. But for Telegram watchers, we will post some of the more interesting items in Beyond Search. The only AI used for this write up comes from an art generator. Grandpa Arnold is definitely not like Grandma Moses.
AlphaTON Capital, a reverse merger or what I like to call a Skolkovo flip took place. Portage Biotech morphed into AlphaTON Capital in September 2025. (I think of this particular deal as a Skolkovo flip. “Skolkovo” is one of Russia’s training groups for entrepreneurial financial engineers.)
A Skolkovo flip. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
In breaking news today, AlphaTON Capital Corp. has rebranded as Alpha Compute Corp., with its shares now trading under the new ticker symbol "ALP" on NASDAQ. The rebranding comes as the company emphasizes its growing business in brokering access to AI computational resources with a special confidential computing spin. A report from Stock Titan said:
Alpha Compute highlighted binding agreements for deployment of over 1,000 Blackwell-generation GPUs, a $43 million AI infrastructure and financing partnership, and operational work with clients including Telegram, aiming to deliver sovereign, privacy-first GPU infrastructure for regulated workloads.
This name change creates semantic distance from "TON" – the blockchain associated with Telegram – though the business connection remains. The company’s previous ticker "ATON" had drawn scrutiny for its similarity to a Russian bank’s name and potential references to cannabis culture, with the company having raised $420.69 million in initial investments.
Several observations:
- Telegram remains listed as one of its key clients but the explicit “TON” name no longer forms part of the company’s identity.
- The old ticker symbol “ATON” could be viewed as a signal to certain high net worth individuals that AlphaTON had some vibe in common with a well known Russian bank.
- A fellow with some ties to crypto market making and friends in Russia has been cut loose from his role at the old AlphaTON Capital entity. This for-fee departure took place on December 30, 2025.
You may have noticed that ATON stock declined approximately 94% over the past six months. The stock was trading at about $0.33 this morning (April 20, 2026), a steep drop from its October price of $5.95. The new ticker is ALP, possibly a subtle suggestion that Alpha Compute will hit a peak in the future.
Can the former managing partner of Red Shark Ventures (Yuri Mitin) reverse the firm’s fortunes? Can Mitin’s financial engineering expertise deliver revenue from its AI brokering business model? What caused the company to re-brand?
These questions are difficult to answer. The US SEC okayed this Skolkovo flip. Here’s another question: Will that regulatory entity scrutinize this firm more closely?
Stephen E Arnold, April 20, 2026
The Monetization Valhalla: Agents Have to Buy Licenses to Use Microsoft Software
April 20, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Google thinks in terms of online advertising. Microsoft thinks in terms of selling licenses, seats, bundles, and any other grouping a company or a Certified Microsoft partner can cook up. The online publication Business Insider published “Microsoft Exec Suggests AI Agents Will Need to Buy Software Licenses, Just Like Employees” and let the cat out of the bag. (This is a paywalled story, folks.)
Microsoft may have found the secret to ever-increasing license revenue. The sales professional in the illustration is one happy Softie. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The write up says:
At a recent conference, Microsoft executive Rajesh Jha floated a provocative idea. In a future where companies deploy fleets of AI agents, those agents may need their own identities — logins, inboxes, and even seats inside software systems. If so, AI wouldn’t shrink software revenue. It could expand it.
Where’s the revenue come from? Agents are just like seats, heads, or authorized users. Ergo: A single agent needs to pay for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. The sky’s azure and it appears to have no limits.
The write up adds:
Investors worry AI could hollow out seat-based pricing, the backbone of enterprise software. If one human can manage dozens of agents, why pay for dozens of licenses? Jha’s answer: because those agents are the new users. A company with 20 employees might buy 20 Microsoft 365 licenses today. If each employee gets five AI agents, and the workforce shrinks to 10 people, that could still mean 50 paid seats.
Google sells impressions, clicks, views, and non-skippables. Microsoft counts an agent as a onesie. If that agent gets agentic, then those other agents have to pony up cash too. Ad revenue is good, but this notion of charging for agents is just better. Well, it is if the customers write checks. France has already decided to stop paying for Microsoft and other American software and services. Other countries are likely to follow. But Microsoft can just charge more for agents. They work faster and demand more than some poor MBA slaving over an Excel spreadsheet at 3:25 am so the team leader can have it for an 8 am meeting.
Business Insider reports that Microsoft’s vision of oodles of license cash may run into resistance. Maybe companies will fire humans, so baseline license revenue erodes. Other firms may emulate France and look for Linux-centric options.
Here’s a thought: Companies can find ways to combine revenue models. Pay for a blue sky service and sell advertising to those who want to reach these profiled entities. If an agent wants fewer ad injections, the agent’s owner can just pay for an injected ad message.
Innovation lives.
Stephen E Arnold, April , 20, 2026
LLMs Are Good at Some Things; Others? Yeah, Maybe Not Yet
April 16, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
The write up “My AI Skeptic Friends Are All Nuts” is a post destined to activate the Berry-Zitron protein string. The article asserts:
Some of the smartest people I know share a bone-deep belief that AI is a fad — the next iteration of NFT mania. I’ve been reluctant to push back on them, because, well, they’re smarter than me [sic]. But their arguments are unserious, and worth confronting. Extraordinarily talented people are doing work that LLMs already do better, out of spite. All progress on LLMs could halt today, and LLMs would remain the 2nd most important thing to happen over the course of my career.
Since I am 82, I am not sure how to interpret the statement “the 2nd most important thing to happen over the course of my career.” If one is young, I suppose AI is a big deal, but I lived to watch the Pets.com-type events. I was around with IBM mainframes were the miracle machines. I also did the dad thing, and I thought that was an important thing, maybe number one.
The agent controlling other robots is not happy with the human. Glass lemons in the pitchers is an error. Meanwhile the production line hums along at high speed. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The essay’s focus, however, is on writing code. The author is not into FORTRAN and Assembler. That’s okay, but some would argue that assembly language was a big deal, as was Unix, and the semi-conductor struck me as important too.
The write up says:
LLMs can write a large fraction of all the tedious code you’ll ever need to write. And most code on most projects is tedious. LLMs drastically reduce the number of things you’ll ever need to Google. They look things up themselves. Most importantly, they don’t get tired; they’re immune to inertia.
I agree. Certain types of code can be generated by an LLM. One example are the stealer routines useful in more complex Telegram bots. Our tests suggest that getting an LLM to handle the proprietary languages for complex TON platform activities is not ready for prime time. The idea is to split malware into chunks and have the smart contract monitor the target and deliver the chunks over time to perform the desired functions. A skilled human Telegram developer remains important. Writing a script to automate something in Word is a different type of task. Besides macros work and no smart software is needed.
The write up asserts:
Today, LLMs do a lot of typing, Googling, test cases, and edit-compile-test-debug cycles. But even the most Claude-poisoned serious developers in the world still own curation, judgement, guidance, and direction. Also: let’s stop kidding ourselves about how good our human first cuts really are.
I agree. Let smart software do the smart software part. Let a human do the human part. The only problem is that if humans don’t know what should be done and how to do it, will those humans in the loop just function like the border guard collecting money to leave Zimbabwe. Hand over cash. Open passport. Guard stamps passport and says, “Next.” Works well. Those with contraband find the system just peachy keen.
The essay points out:
If you’re taking time carefully golfing functions down into graceful, fluent, minimal functional expressions, alarm bells should ring. You’re yak-shaving. The real work has depleted your focus. You’re not building: you’re self-soothing. Which, wait for it, is something LLMs are good for. They devour schlep, and clear a path to the important stuff, where your judgement [sic and values really matter.
What about repurposing open source software? The write up says:
Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github … What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer playing this card? Cut me a little slack … No profession has demonstrated more contempt for intellectual property.
I think this means that programmers as a professional group are not too concerned about intellectual property rights. If I wrong, the author presents developers of code using LLMs (many of these AI outfits are being sued for alleged IP violations) care a great deal about intellectual property. I am not sure which meaning to carry away.
The author points out:
I’m not a radical or a futurist. I’m a statist. I believe in the haphazard perseverance of complex systems, of institutions, of reversions to the mean. I write Go and Python code. I’m not a Kool-aid [sic] drinker. But something real is happening. My smartest friends are blowing it off. Maybe I persuade you. [sic] Probably I don’t. But we need to be done making space for bad arguments.
How important is AI? The answer, according to the author:
But AI is also incredibly — a word I use advisedly — important. It’s getting the same kind of attention that smart phones got in 2008, and not as much as the Internet got. That seems about right.
Net net: AI is a tool, a utility. Ask it to do something else and surprises may manifest. My concern is that CEOs with MBAs and bean counters may see a simpler line connecting LLM to cost reduction. That’s the sporty part.
Stephen E Arnold, April 16, 2026
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
