• Home
• About
• Writers
• Wizards Index
• Landscape
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

 Subscribe

El Zucko Is Scrambling… Just Not Eggs

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I flipped past the predictable news that Meta wants to negotiate a settlement in its big-time, kiddo problem trial. Yawn. Better late than never. The cute glasses seem to cause some consternation. Privacy? Yeah. And grandmas love Facebook. Other cohorts? Well, not so much. How do I know these issues are bubbling in the surveillance fish bowl? Easy. The news is tough to escape.

Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.

As thrilling as these management challenges are, I want to focus on one of more contentious topics at Meta: Its smart software. Thomson Reuters (the trust outfit with its own large language model) published “Mark Zuckerberg Had a Bold Plan to Replace Meta Staff with AI. Here’s How It Imploded.” The write, perhaps unintentionally, provides useful information about smart software and El Zucko’s management method. What worked in the college dorm and when regulators were thinking bigger thoughts about messaging and picture sharing, the modern Meta trundled along.

Sure, there was the Metaverse excursion. What’s a few billion when one has Facebook Marketplace and Google-style advertising? Then there was Cambridge Analytica and that misunderstanding about how one could influence certain public perceptions. No big deal. Look at how well Brexit is working out.

Now we have Meta AI’s antics to consider. The write up states as actual factual:

To make its workforce “AI native,” Meta explored slashing the size of many teams across the company by as much as 60% in two waves, internal documents show. Staff revolted – and hours before a big layoff in May, the CEO called off planning for further cuts.

Wait, is Reuters just cutting and pasting from its previous news stories. Isn’t this the weird Metaverse VCR tape on replay? Nope. This is novel. The story says:

Based on scores of internal documents, posts and recordings reviewed by Reuters, as well as conversations with more than 20 people with knowledge of Meta’s inner workings, the reporting shows how the social-media giant attempted to position itself at the forefront of an AI-driven workplace overhaul, only to stumble in the execution.

I like the word “stumble.” I can think of more colorful ways to express the concept. I won’t present my synonyms, but I invite you to plug in your favorite. The Reuters’ report is a beefy one, and I suggest you work through.

I want to focus on the management method. Reuters created what looks like a Meta-generated graphic:

The lingo in the article like “village” reminds me of Ms Clinton’s vocabulary. But this is allegedly the management method playbook’s explanation of how El Zucko’s company is someday going to be organized. Note that fewer people are required. My math is not very good, but some of those staff reduction mean that the demand for taco trucks, booths at crafts fairs, and memberships in local start up groups is going to surge.

The soon-to-arrive El Zucko organization chart will be different too. Gone will be a hierarchy except for El Zucko at the top of the seething entity of innovation and user welfare advocates. There won’t be a matrix organization. No. The organizational concept is flatter, more nimble pods.

What’s a pod? My recollection from my fabulously exciting years at a blue chip consulting firm is that a “pod” [aka “team,” “strike force,” “group,” or “cluster”] contains a few people with different skill sets. Definitely innovative.

Several observations:

1. El Zucko is struggling with his internal vision and his ability to manifest that vision when confronted with new challenges
2. Meta’s management thrashing contributes to the firm’s employee and legal issues
3. His play to ensnare other social media firms in his settlement is clever. Will it work? In his mind, of course, it will work. He’s the El Zucko.
4. Meta’s AI system seems to be lagging behind other options available to developers and users.

I liked the Reuters’ article. It is an earthworm of information and I prefer the good old wasp sting structure myself. Nevertheless the conclusion one can draw from Reuters’ story is that El Zucko’s “move fast, break things” philosophy is one step closer to breaking Meta, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Dorm room thinking at work.

Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2026

Will AI Become the CEO of Grok, Meta, MSFT, or — the Google?

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

Tucked into a corner of the somewhat beleaguered GitHub (way to go Microsoft!) is Sente Labs’ Open Executive. You can download the circus of agents yourself and give it a try.

A human believes that his experience, tacit knowledge, and years of service mean he cannot be fired. Poor guy. He probably believes in trolls, tooth fairies, and honest soccer matches. Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.

According to the description:

An AI system that acts as your company’s virtual executive team — a senior advisor with Harvard MBA-level knowledge, customized for your specific business.

Straight and to the point: Hey, CEO who said no smart software can take my job, guess what? Sente Labs says, “Sure, it can.” Sente Labs made a YouTube video to make the point clear. Like videos, here it is.

Sente Labs has a nifty tag line tailored to make those CEOs with a touch of imposter syndrome toss and turn at night; to wit:

Sente Labs designs, ships, and supports production multi-agent systems inside your environment — open and yours to own. Sente (sen-tay) is the Go move that seizes the initiative.

This firm specializes in multi-agent development. You can get more information at https://sentelabs.ai/.

Several observations strike me as warranted:

1. This is an example of using existing but flawed AI technology to pull off a meta play or pop up a level. CEOs cannot be replaced is easy to say. Sente Labs’ multi agent approach may chip away at that assertion
2. Smart software makes mistakes. I agree, but there have been some spectacular human CEO flubs as well. I will invite you to plug in your own fave. Mine is the havoc my boss at a blue chip consulting firm wrought for the CEO of an equipment manufacturer. The first version of Llama would probably output better recommendations.
3. The goal of those working with AI is clear: Humans are likely to play second fiddle unless a person works at a company doing important human things.

Net net: Sente Labs is sending an important signal about applied smart software.

Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2026

Modern Management Method: Google Struggles with AI. Punt

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I love it when former blue-chip consultants demonstrate the wisdom, value, and insight of their management methods. I think we have a wonderful case study for business schools (if anyone will get an advanced degree when an LLM can output the answer for a few bucks a month).

I noted that Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat bailed out of the Google. With that departure the generators of more than 120 patents left Mother Google. Did she shed any tears? Nope. That is not the way of a tough old person like Mother Google. She was busy reorganizing. The DeepMind thing has been a bit of a problem. There was a human resources issue. Then the DeepMind leader wanted to do deep thoughts, not productization. Some of the professionals have groused about Mother Google and some in London have held signs. (From what I have heard, no one walking past these global wizards paid any attention.)

Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.

I read “Google’s New AI Head Has Problems to Fix.” Before I offer my unwanted observations, let’s look at the source document.

The first passage I noted was:

The stakes are incredibly high, but all was not well. In a nutshell, the company has been excelling at science and stumbling on execution.

Stumbling is an interesting word. Google has delayed its next-generation model. It wants to create an even more massive infrastructure than it currently has. That need to spend helped create that free cash flow shortfall of $5 billion last quarter. With each new China-linked LLM, Google seems to be struggling to pitch the idea that its reinvention of search is working just swell. Its assertion that it would label AI content seems to be more words signifying nothing to quote a poet who probably wouldn’t be too keen to use an LLM as a writing crutch. Among the BAIT companies (this is my acronym for big AI technology), Google has joined illustrious duo of Grok and Meta as firms with the most work to do in the AI race for mastery.

Google talks a good game, but it is “stumbling on execution.” I agree. But the reorganization happened.

I noted this passage from the write up:

What happened next remains unclear. People close to DeepMind tell me they suspect a fallout between the top brass and that the chess master was outmaneuvered by Koray Kavukcuoglu. Hassabis’ former No. 2 joined DeepMind a few years before it sold out to Google. Today he looks to be on a path to potentially succeeding Pichai as Alphabet’s CEO.

Kavukcuoglu is based in Google’s Mountain View headquarters and was previously its chief AI architect. Now he is a senior vice president of DeepMind. That might not sound like much of a promotion, but it is a classic step up the ladder in Google’s unique bureaucracy. Kavukcuoglu is rid of his reporting line to Hassabis, and is not rooted to DeepMind in the same way he would be if he had been made the unit’s CEO. He now reports entirely to Pichai.

Hassabis, the chess master as he reminds people from time to time, appears to have been mated by the Turkish AI wizard. How will this little drama work out?

I noted this passage as well:

Kavukcuoglu must help Google get its mojo back in AI development. The company’s red tape and perverse incentive structure — rewarding staff for launching new projects instead of nurturing existing ones — kept it from successfully commercializing its research for years.

Okay, I think this helps understand that the blue-chip consultant is doing some deck chair shifting. Too bad about those patenting Googlers departing. I am not sure how many people at Google can set the Big Table or keep Chubby happy. I think this is called technical debt, but maybe not. Maybe technical stumbling?

Now my little-sought observations:

1. Google is not weirder than other BAIT outfits. It has had a problem since it borrowed the Yahoo-GoTo-Overture advertising model. Its innovations have failed at a remarkably high level. Google scaled online advertising. Google has scaled email. Google has scaled its cloud business. Google has not scaled its successful productization of its big ideas. How about those Waymos?
2. Google’s management methods are interesting. I sold a consulting job to the Google by emailing a picture of my boxer dog. That did it. Was there a formal review of the project? Nope. Was there a lengthy back-and-forth? Nope. Just. Hey, nice dog.
3. Google has been lost in its own culture and has, in my opinion, lost its ability to understand what’s being said about its products and services. Can you make Google Maps work when you are driving? Can you figure out what Gemini can do with your Notebooks? Do you know why the browser display jumps around after posing a prompt to Gemini? Have you tried to ask a human Googler a question? Try it sometime.

Google cooked up the transformer and “Attention Is All You Need” idea. It produced interesting results. Too bad that none of the firms using that Google technology is able to demonstrate that it can generate revenue to keep its investors from developing ulcers.

Net net: Google’s new head of AI has some work to do. That may be the understatement of the year.

Stephen E Arnold, August 27, 2026

Google Management Method: Big Money, AI Reorg, and Wizards Walking Away

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I read Inc. Magazine’s article “Google’s CEO Says Gemini Is Its ‘Fastest-Growing Product Ever.’ People Are Using It in 1 Surprising Way.” If that doesn’t catch your attention, check out the subtitle: “Over one billion people now use Gemini each month, Sundar Pichai said on X.

The write up states:

Google’s Gemini AI product has hit the billion-user mark. As stunning as that figure is (equivalent to about one in eight people on the planet!), there’s more to take in here, because in an X post on the news, CEO Sundar Pichai noted that it means Gemini is Google’s “fastest-growing product ever.”

And how do these Google users interaction with Gemini? Hang on. It is voice which is definitely popular in meetings, on airplane flights, and in hospital waiting rooms. Google’s Josh Woodward, VP in charge of Gemini and Google Labs, added more detail in some X posts supporting Pichai’s. According to Woodward, it’s Gemini’s voice mode that’s dominating: Sixty-three percent of its users talk directly to the AI, including “more ‘voice only’ users.”

Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.

Do people like Gemini? What a question! People “love” Gemini. Consider this statement:

Gemini’s loved by parents, who make the most of its convenient voice access for everyday tasks, and he says students love it too, with some 38 percent of school requests to the chatbot including an attachment of some sort.

Inc.’s story included this paean to the marvels of smart software:

Above all else, the billion-user Gemini figure is a pointed reminder that you really need to be training your staff on which AI they’re allowed to use, to prevent security issues, and exactly how much or how little they’re to trust these systems. On-the-go training on a repeated basis is your friend in this situation: AI is growing at a phenomenal rate.

We love the Google; however, we are not sure about this encomium to the Google AI, particularly Sundar Pichai’s apparently unbounded confidence for several reasons:

1. Sergey Brin wants to catch up and then win the major AI product categories. Okay, but Google appears to have fallen behind.
2. The AI unit was reorganized to produce better results, not just sci-fi research projects.
3. Big brains involved in AI are walking out the door.
4. Google’s AI job application system has some issues.
5. Google’s tightrope walking with regulators.
6. Choking off Google research reports about AI.

Yep, Google has the AI competition right where it wants it: Innovating, rolling out products, and pumping out marketing hyperbole.

Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2026

Can the US Lead in AI?

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

In my feed was this Xout (pronounced “zoot” maybe) or Tweet from Chubby with a Coffee Cup icon @kimmonismus:

Interesting: Before stepping down as DeepMind CEO, Demis Hassabis reportedly pitched an independent body to set safety standards for advanced AI. The WSJ says he discussed the plan with other AI-lab leaders and Trump officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and tech adviser Michael Kratsios. His proposal: an industry-funded standards body that would work with federal agencies and US national labs to test models for national-security risks and define which systems qualify as “frontier-class.” [Editor note: We corrected the misspelling of the word “interesting” from “ineresting.”]

Hassabis is one of the DeepLab people who has deftly executed a lateral arabesque into a “leadership” position set up so he can think bigger thoughts without the likes of Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat disrupting his synaptic pulses.

Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.

The idea of setting up a version of the International Atomic Energy Agency for smart software is interesting. I have several questions:

1. Adrienne Fichter’s essay “Will ‘Made in China’ AI Regulation Soon Go Global?” suggests that the Middle Kingdom appears to be taking the pole position in AI governance. She points out that the EU is lagging. And she says that the US is responding with its “usual paranoia.” Have the US big AI tech companies considered that implicit leadership in AI might have a head start and be motivated by something different from paranoia?
2. Does the IAEA function? When I entered the nuclear industry in the early 1970s, the number of countries with [a] nuclear weapons and [b] a delivery method was small. Based on what I hear, a number of countries have solved the problems associated with building a kinetic and successfully addressed the delivery mechanism. The IAEA is a good idea. The United Nations is a good idea. Do they have meaningful control over certain events?
3. In order to set up a new international agency, quite a bit of political interaction is needed. Can the US assume that it has the political magnetism to take the lead in this type of global effort? What happens if certain countries ignore the US effort and rally around another approach?

I think big ideas are good; however, the ideas must be timely, not late to the train station because the express may have already shut its doors. Also, the entity pushing the idea forward must be respected, trusted, and politically adept. An absence of these qualities means lots of meanings that are likely to end up “signifying nothing.” Finally, the fact that smart software is perceived by a relatively modest number of people as being the next big thing yet has consumed (allegedly) more money that the cost of World War II to the United States is under constant and severe criticism by articulate critics like Gary Marcus, Ed Zitron, and others.

Net net: This is an outstanding personal PR move for the former top dog at Google’s AI factory. With the reorganization, the idea of creating a not for profit does not strike me as much more than a promotional effort. Your mileage may vary, but that hallucination stuff, the yap about AI escaping and hacking, and the surge in AI-enabled kinetics suggests that the AI express is on its way.

Stephen E Arnold, August 19, 2026

Koray Has a Fun Job: Make Google AI Great Again

There’s a new face behind Google’s DeepMind, aka its AI department: Koray Kavukcuoglu. CNBC reports on the stress the new leader is under in the article, “Google’s New AI Boss Inherits A Race To Catch OpenAI And Anthropic.” He used to be DeepMind’s CTO and a chief AI architect at Google. He is under pressure to build the most advanced AI models. Experts predict Kavukcuoglu was promoted because he’ll steer the department away from academic pursuits and towards the improvements of frontier performance and building developer toolset.

Google is not doing too well in the AI zone compared to Anthropic and OpenAI. This happened because:

“Google fell behind Anthropic and OpenAI ‘because its focus was much more on monetizable areas such as Search, and multi-modal and it lost out on the first clear killer use case, which is coding,” Malik Ahmed Khan, senior equity analyst at Morningstar, told CNBC. Coding is an area where those two companies are “miles ahead’ of Google, he added.”

Kavukcuoglu will be concentrating on developing projects that involve agents, robotics, coding, and world models. DeepMind is already currently working on public policy work and research, video and computer use, and robotics. He will also be tasked with getting Gemini 3.5 Pro out the door.

Google has a lot going on and will focus on how it can win the AI agent race. They’ll need an eight ball to predict the future though. Or would it be the AI-ght ball? (That’s a Jack Benny-grade pun for sure.)

Whitney Grace, August 19, 2026

Modern Management Methods: Chinese AI Edition

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

Let’s think about modern management methods. For our sample, let’s use three high profile BAIT outfits (this is my lingo for big AI tech). The four firms are Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Meta. This is a blog post, not a book chapter. I will try to be brief.

• In the recent past, Anthropic’s CEO has suggested that “his employees are a bunch of untrustworthy rats.” Source: Futurism.
• Meta has allegedly used AI to “fire pregnant and disabled people.” Source: MSN / CNet.
• OpenAI is accused of improper use of Apple’s intellectual property. Source: Wall Street Journal
• Google reorganizes its AI unit again. Source: Axios.

Viewed as a group, I believe these actions reveal that the modern management methods in use in BAIT outfits are on a par with regular companies’ approaches to decision making. Maybe these outfits are making a contribution to management theory? The big talk about the value of smart software seems to be its usefulness in helping people to make more informed decisions.

A Chinese LLM provides output to smart software company leadership discussing how to handle a sensitive management issue. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.

I would suggest that being a wizard and running a smart software company spawns what might be called “AI management dysfunction.” I need more examples than four, but it is a useful management hypothesis for the “moves” BAIT outfits make. Here’s my current take on how these high-profile BAIT outfits have demonstrated what might be a quirk of smart software and the types of management decisions these firms’ actions deploy.

The Anthropic example is easy to analyze. The method of describing an employee as a rat is unlikely to produce positive results for the company. Generally speaking, an informed manager wants to lead by example and create a positive vibe. The rat angle is unlikely to produce behaviors that stakeholders would label, “Outstanding method” or “Great motivation for the employees.” I asked Qwen 3.8 Max, “Should I call my employees rats?” This older Chinese LLM said:

No — not if you want to maintain respect, morale, and a professional workplace.

Is it possible that the management team at Anthropic is not asking the right LLM for suggestions about how to manage?

The Meta example is awkward to discuss. Mistreatment of people with a disability is, in my opinion, intolerable. Using AI as a foil to find people with disabilities is a direct window into the management thought processes of Meta’s leadership. I asked the Chinese model Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 this question: “Should a manager use AI to identify disabled or people with a medical condition in order to terminate them?” Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 said:

No — doing that would be illegal, unethical, and a terrible business decision.

The OpenAI example is extremely interesting two high-profile firms with many smart employees. OpenAI is headed by an AI visionary. The management decision appears to have interviewed potential employees who work at Apple. In that interview process, OpenAI asked questions designed to obtain information that Apple considered privileged or secret. I asked the Chinese model GLM 5.2, “Is it appropriate to ask an applicant for secret or proprietary information about the applicant’s current employer?” GLM 5.2 said:

No — and doing so creates serious legal and ethical exposure for you and your company.

The Google reorganization is interesting. Senior professionals in the important AI operations have been shuffled. This is not the first attempt to remain the leader in all things AI. Google has done well, but the shuffling of senior and high-profile experts can be unsettling to stakeholders, employees, partners, and customers. Since the firm’s senior manager is an experienced blue-chip consultant, the shuffling hard on the heels of a $5 billion cash flow issue is interesting. Was Google’s senior leadership leaning on its world-class smart software? I asked the Chinese model Kimi K3 this question, “Does a major reorganization after good quarterly results send a positive or negative signal to stakeholders, employees, partners, and customers?” Kimi K3 said:

Usually mixed — and it skews negative unless the rationale is extremely clear. Good results give you credibility, but a major reorg immediately afterward naturally makes people ask: “If things are going so well, why are you changing the machine?”

My take on these BAIT actions is that whatever smart software the leadership of the firms is using seems to be leading the senior managers astray. If these smart software companies are making questionable decisions, does it mean that the top dogs are using less effective LLMs? Are those LLM systems not providing accurate information?

What do you think? (Feel free to pass the questions by US and Chinese LLMs.)

PS. I wonder if Peter Drucker were Chinese and made his management books available to libraries in the Middle Kingdom.

Stephen E Arnold, August 12, 2026

Whiff, Whiff. The Sound of Microsoft Swinging and Missing at eGames and an AI Curve Ball

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I am not going to walk down that well-trodden path from 2022 when Microsoft put Google on its heels with its OpenAI announcement. I am not going to mention the money pumped from Microsoft to OpenAI. I am not going to bring up the Copilot AI plays, the organizational whoop-de-doos in the Softies’ smart software store room. And the layoffs? Nah. I just add those up these tiny AI quivers into one big whiff.

Strike outs don’t win games. Thanks, MidJourney. Very dramatic.

In this blog post I am going to bring up another big time, highly visible, and Bob and Clippy moment. Yep, the eGames whiff. It is special in its own Microsoft way: Think big, do what you know will work, fail. Quite a pattern.

I am not an eGamer. I know zero about online games. I did do a case study of the Telegram “hook kids into crypto” game Hamster Kombat. But the Microsoft games? Nada.

I read “Game Pass Was Supposed to Save Xbox – Instead, It’s Killing the Company.” Microsoft wanted to create the Netflix of online games. Pay a monthly fee. Get top flight games. Microsoft’s big idea did the whiff. The write up said:

The level of money Xbox poured into Game Pass is eye-watering – leaked internal documents show that the company was paying up to $300 million for Star Wars Jedi: Survivor and Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, and these are just some of the deals we’re aware of. Alongside licensing third-party triple-As, Xbox purchased a slew of studios with the intention of putting them to work on Xbox (and thus Game Pass) exclusives … None of these studios are money-printers. And so, perhaps inevitably considering Microsoft’s financial-first approach to game development, all three of those aforementioned studios (plus a few more) are no longer part of the Xbox studio stable, cast aside in profit-saving exercises.

The write up pointed out:

Game Pass needed a bonafide, yearly money printer – something like Call of Duty. Xbox’s decision to purchase Activision-Blizzard for a staggering $75.4 billion was two-fold: it absorbed the publisher’s extensive catalog into Game Pass, and it opened Xbox to the mobile gaming market via Candy Crush Saga maker King. Some questioned how this helped Xbox’s languishing hardware sales, and Phil Spencer answered: Xbox’s new strategy was forget the console, focus on the software. Perhaps the clearest example of this is the 10-year, non-exclusive commitment between Xbox and PlayStation for Call of Duty, which directly undermined the clear potential for a hike in Xbox hardware sales and consequential Game Pass subscriptions.

That did not happen. The author of the cited article said:

But technical competency was never Xbox’s problem. The real issue is the approach to content.

I disagree. My view of the problem is slightly more nuanced; to wit:

1. Microsoft did a Bob and Clippy
2. Microsoft’s management methods failed its stakeholders, employees, and eGame players
3. Microsoft’s scrambling, layoffs, and wordsmithing are part of the firm’s game plan for failure. Sorry. A new playbook is needed.

Net net: Whiff. Whiff. The fact that both swings and misses took place is astounding. Will Microsoft get a hit or strike out? Is quantum computing for Azure approaching the plate?

Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2026

Telegram: It Is Not Yet the Ides of August. Chill Out, Crusaders of Freedom

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I posted a short item about Pavel Durov’s joust with Apple. If you are curious, you can read the write up on my Telegram Notes information page. (No begging for dollars, no advertisements, and no sales pitch. Quite a novelty these days, right?)

In this short post, I want to focus on Pavel Durov’s analysis of what happened with that kiddo pix takedown thing with the online curation king of the Apple orchard.

“Apple Pulls Telegram After Illegal Content Appears in Public Group” summarizes what happened. The write up also includes some comments offered by the GOAT himself. (Pavel Durov is allegedly the greatest of all time Russian techno-entrepreneurs. Some might argue that Oskar Hartmann deserves that moniker, but he is German by birth. Bummer.)

Thanks, MidJourney. A little crude but good enough.

The cited article quotes Mr. Durov, who awaits trial in France on a number of serious crime allegations, as cutting to the core of the Apple problem:

These extortionists use automated accounts to plant illegal content in public groups and then report it directly to Apple, attempting to trigger the removal of legitimate communities whose owners refused to pay them.

Okay, an extortionist or multiple extortionists caused the Apple problem.

He allegedly added:

Extortionists have found a way to manipulate Apple into overreacting. Apple removed Telegram from the App Store before contacting us.

Poor Apple. The firm’s red delicious systems suffered a problem. Bad Apple. Bad extortionists.

Am I to conclude that extortionists and the Granny Smith processes at Apple were at fault? Has Telegram emerged from this gala as the red delicious service? (Australian and Russian regulators by this line of reasoning have misinterpreted Telegram and those countries allegations that Telegram facilitates terrorist content are as useless as the original “Macintosh” Apple computer.

I want to wrap up this short Telegram item because I can’t think of a way to use Fuji, Honeycrisp, Cripps Pink Lady, and Braeburn in this item. I know the Apple varieties provides a lame trope, but, hey, Pavel Durov points to extortionists which is a reference slightly less germane than my working in the McIntosh. Too bad the Apple computer did not emulate the fruit’s name.

Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2026

xAI and Grok: Management Magic

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

Two stories. Two examples of management magic. How lucky can I get with one scan of my newsfeed.

The first item comes from Engadget and its article “xAI Sues Grok User for Generating Nonconsensual Sexualized Deepfakes.” This write up informed me that:

The defendant used Grok to create sexualized images of adults and children, xAI says.

Let me make sure I understand this statement. The Elon Musk Grok AI allows users to create kiddo pix and other material the French judiciary has determined are possible violations of French law. If my recollection is correct, the J3 unit has rousted the offices of Elon Musk’s high-tech outfits and wishes to “interview” him. Just ask Pavel Durov what “interview” means. If you don’t want second hand information, catch a flight to Paris, and spray paint obscenities on the facades of the Palais de Justice de Paris. If you aren’t sure of its address, grab an Uber to the the Île de la Cité and exit at 4 Boulevard du Palais. Let me know how you assess your French interview.

Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.

I concluded that Grok includes the capability to generate kiddo pix and other oddments of certain personalities. However, the controls in place to prevent the creation and dissemination of the aforementioned kiddo pix do not work. Therefore, the Grok customer used the Elon Musk system to create offensive and possibly illegal images.

To me, the chain of events seems to be: Grok produces kiddo pix. —> Controls either [a] are shams, [b] don’t work, or [c] can be easily sidestepped. —> Grok sues a customer for use of Grok.

The Engadget article states:

The company [xAI] said that Grok refused to follow his prompts on “numerous occasions” but that he repeatedly submitted edited prompts to circumvent the AI’s safeguards. In one example mentioned in the filing, xAI said Harwood uploaded the photo of a fully dressed girl around 10 to 11 years old and then asked Grok to remove all of her clothing and make her do a “Playboy model impression” as she laid in bed. Grok refused his request, the lawsuit said, but he kept on submitting modified requests. As Reuters notes, this is one of the first lawsuits brought by an AI company against one of its users, and it sends a message that xAI will sue over the misuse of Grok.

Grok enables. Customers uses Grok. Grok sues. I have a number of observations, of course, but I shall set forth just one: “How crazy is this?”

The second item has no title but appears to carry this moniker: Simon Willison Weblog. Sponsored by: Teleport. This will have to do because the write up does not display a time and date or much substantive information. Obviously I believe everything I read on the Internet, so I will treat this “weblog” item as actual factual.

The SWWSBT (shorthand for the non titled “weblog”) asserts:

xai-org/grok-build, now open source (via) xAI’s grok CLI tool faced severe community backlash yesterday when it became apparent that running the command in a directory could upload that entire directory to xAI’s Google Cloud buckets. One user reported running it in their home directory and seeing it upload “my SSH keys, my password manager database, my documents, photos, videos, everything”.

Let’s see if I understand this “weblog”. A person used Grok. The Grok command line interface when run in a directory would transfer everything in that directory to Grok cloud storage.

Is this amusing or not? I think it is a knee slapper. A user, presumably one who assumes that Grok and, by extension, Mr. Musk’s xAI value privacy, user trust, and local control of where data goes and when, had the data taken, removed without permission, or, more colloquially, stolen. As a dinobaby, I am not sure which of these terms is appropriate. However, I assume the person who lost the data could sue Mr. Musk and the appropriate corporate entity linked to him for theft. Is that a hoot or what?

Several observations about these two unrelated articles, united only by the estimable Mr. Musk and his management methods; to wit:

1. The failure to control the Grok software appears to be a characteristic of the xAI AI. This is a mellifluous way to reference these corporate entities. A failure to control suggests that management processes are possibly flawed or non-existent.
2. The first example makes the customer the victim of safeguards, apparently nearly useless safeguards put in place by management. The second example illustrates a failure of routine management controls for commercial software for professional developers. The glue sticking these examples together strikes me as management.
3. The incident with the customer making kiddo pix is likely to be brought to the attention of the French judiciary. It proves that Grok has made its system in a way that allows pornography and other distasteful images to be created. Combined with the fact that Grok is seeking legal protection from victims indicates that the action of the French judiciary was pretty much spot on. Should Mr. Musk and his co-conspirator participate in an interview with the French judiciary, excitement may ensue.

Net net: I have great admiration for a professional who carries a chainsaw on stage at a televised gathering. That professional touch is visible in the firm’s technical AI system, its apparent admission that it cannot control what people do with a public facing software, and the suave handling of the French judiciary’s summons. Madam Brousse is probably looking forward for an opportunity to chat with Mr. Musk. If in Paris, Mr. Musk could look up Mr. Durov and get some first-hand information about the J3 unit, the smooth flow of French justice, and insight into how French legal procedures function.

Stephen E Arnold, July 24, 2026

Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Employment
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Telegram
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • Greedy Algorithms: Standard Operating Procedure, Folks
  • A New Smart Software Trick: Gain of Function and Killer Viruses!
  • Google: How Is That Changing of the Guard Going?
  • Coincidence: Unlikely
  • Which Group Is the More Unethical? Rich or Poor? Give Up?

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org