A Positive State of AI: Hallucinating and Sloppy but Upbeat in 2025
October 21, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who can resist a report about AI authored on the “interwebs.” Is this a variation of the Internet as pipes? The write up is “Welcome to State of AI Report 2025.” When I followed the links, I could read this blog post, view a YouTube video, work through more than 300 online slides, or see “live survey results.” I must admit that when I write a report, I distribute it to a few people and move on. Not this “interwebs” outfit. The data are available for those who are in tune, locked in, and ramped up about smart software.
An anxious parent learns that a robot equipped with agentic AI will perform her child’s heart surgery. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
I appreciate enthusiasm, particularly when I read this statement:
The existential risk debate has cooled, giving way to concrete questions about reliability, cyber resilience, and the long-term governance of increasingly autonomous systems.
Agree or disagree, the report makes clear that doom is not associated with smart software. I think that this blossoming of smart software services, applications, and apps reflects considerable optimism. Some of these people and companies are probably in the AI game to make money. That’s okay as long as the products and services don’t urge teens to fall in love with digital friends, cause a user mental distress as a rabbit hole is plumbed, or just output incorrect information. Who wants to be the doctor who says, “Hey, sorry your child died. The AI output a drug that killed her. Call me if you have questions”?
I could not complete the 300 plus slides in the slide deck. I am not a video type so the YouTube version was a non-starter. However, I did read the list of findings from t he “interwebs” and its “team.” Please, consult the source documents for a full, non-dinobaby version of what the enthusiastic researchers learned about 2025. I will highlight three findings and then offer a handful of comments:
- OpenAI is the leader of the pack. That’s good news for Sam AI-Man or SAMA.
- “Commercial traction accelerated.” That’s better news for those who have shoveled cash into the giant open hearth furnaces of smart software companies.
- Safety research is in a “pragmatic phase.” That’s the best news in the report. OpenAI, the leader like the Philco radio outfit, is allowing erotic interactions. Yes, pragmatic because sex sells as Madison Avenue figured out a century ago.
Several observations are warranted because I am a dinobaby, and I am not convinced that smart software is more than a utility, not an application like Lotus 1-2-2 or the original laser printer. Buckle up:
- The money pumped into AI is cash that is not being directed at the US knowledge system. I am talking about schools and their job of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. China may be dizzy with AI enthusiasm, but their schools are churning out people with fundamental skills that will allow that nation state to be the leader in a number of sectors, including smart software.
- Today’s smart software consists of neural network and transformer anchored methods. The companies are increasingly similar and the outputs of the different systems generate incorrect or misleading output scattered amidst recycled knowledge, data, and information. Two pigs cannot output an eagle except in a video game or an anime.
- The handful of firms dominating AI are not motivated by social principles. These firms want to do what they want. Governments can’t reign them in. Therefore, the “governments” try to co-opt the technology, hang on, and hope for the best. Laws, rules, regulations, ethical behavior — forget that.
Net net: The State of AI in 2025 is exactly what one would expect from Silicon Valley- and MBA-type thinking. Would you let an AI doc treat your 10-year-old child? You can work through the 300 plus slides to assuage your worries.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2025
Apple: Waking Up Is Hard to Do
October 16, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a letter. I think this letter or at least parts of it were written by a human. These days it can be tough to know. The letter appeared in “Wiley Hodges’s Open Letter to Tim Cook Regarding ICEBlock.” Mr. Hodge, according to the cited article, retired from Apple, the computer and services company in 2022.
The letter expresses some concern that Apple removed an app from the Apple online store. Here’s a snippet from the “letter”:
Apple and you are better than this. You represent the best of what America can be, and I pray that you will find it in your heart to continue to demonstrate that you are true to the values you have so long and so admirably espoused.
It does seem to me that Apple is a flexible outfit. The purpose of the letter is unknown to me. On the surface, it is a single former employee’s expression of unhappiness at how “leadership” leads and deciders “decide.” However, below the surface it a signal that some people thought a for profit, pragmatic, and somewhat frisky Fancy Dancing organization was like Snow White, the Easter bunny, or the Lone Ranger.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Sorry. That’s not how big companies work or many little companies for that matter. Most organizations do what they can to balance a PR image with what the company actually does. Examples range from arguing via sleek and definitely expensive lawyers that what they do does not violate laws. Also, companies work out deals. Some of these involve doing things to fit in to the culture of a particular company. I have watched money change hands when registering a vehicle in the government office in Sao Paulo. These things happen because they are practical. Apple, for example, has an interesting relationship with a certain large country in Asia. I wonder if there is a bit of the old soft shoe going on in that region of the world.
These are, however, not the main point of this blog post. There cited article contains this statement:
Hodges, earlier in his letter, makes reference to Apple’s 2016 standoff with the FBI over a locked iPhone belonging to the mass shooter in San Bernardino, California. The FBI and Justice Department pressured Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow them to backdoor the iPhone’s passcode lock. Apple adamantly refused.
Okay, the time delta is nine years. What has changed? Obviously social media, the economic situation, the relationship among entities, and a number of lawsuits. These are the touchpoints of our milieu. One has to surf on the waves of change and the ripples and waves of datasphere.
But I want to highlight several points about my reaction to the this blog post containing the Hodge’s letter:
- Some people are realizing that their hoped-for vision of Apple, a publicly traded company, is not the here-and-now Apple. The fairy land of a company that cares is pretty much like any other big technology outfit. Shocker.
- Apple is not much different today than it was nine years ago. Plucking an example which positioned the Cupertino kids as standing up for an ideal does not line up with the reality. Technology existed then to gain access to digital devices. Believing the a company’s PR reflected reality illustrates how crazy some perceptions are. Saying is not doing.
- Apple remains to me one of the most invasive of the technology giants. The constant logging in, the weirdness of forcing people to have data in the iCloud when those people do not know the data are there or want it there for that matter, the oddball notifications that tell a user that an “new device” is connected when the iPad has been used for years, and a few other quirks like hiding files are examples of the reality of the company.
News flash: Apple is like the other Silicon Valley-type big technology companies. These firms have a game plan of do it and apologize. Push forward. I find it amusing that adults are experiencing the same grief as a sixth grader with a crush on the really cute person in home room. Yep, waking up is hard to do. Stop hitting the snooze alarm and join the real world.
Net net: The essay is a hoot. Here is an adult realizing that there is no Santa with apparently tireless animals and dwarfs at the North Pole. The cited article contains what appears to be another expression of annoyance, anger, and sorrow that Apple is not what the humans thought it was. Apple is Apple, and the only change agent able to modify the company is money and/or fear, a good combo in my experience.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2025
The Use Case for AI at the United Nations: Give AI a Whirl
October 15, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read a news story about the United Nations. The organization allegedly expressed concern that the organizations reports were not getting read. The solution to this problem appears in a Gizmodo “real news” report. “AI Finds Its Niche: Writing Corporate Press Releases.”
Gizmodo reports:
The researchers found that AI-assisted language cropped up in about 6 to 10 percent of job listings pulled from LinkedIn across the sample. Notably, smaller firms were more likely to use AI, peaking at closer to 15% of all total listings containing AI-crafted text.
Not good news for people who major in strategic communications at a major university. Why hire a 20-something when, smart software can do the job. Pass around the outputs. Let some leadership make changes. Fire out that puppy. Anyone — including a 50 year old internal sales person — can do it. That’s upskilling. You have a person on a small monthly stipend and a commission. You give this person a chance to show his/her AI expertise. Bingo. Headcount reduction. Efficiency. Less management friction.
The “real news” outfit’s article states:
t’s not just the corporate world that is using AI, of course. The research team also looked at English-language press releases published by the United Nations over the last couple of years and found that the organization has seemingly been utilizing AI to draft its content on a regular basis. They found that the percentage of text likely to be AI-generated has climbed from 3.1% in the first quarter of 2023 to 10.1% by the third quarter of 2023 and peaked around 13.7% by the same quarter of 2024.
If you worked at the UN and wanted to experiment with AI to boost readership, that sounds like an idea to test. Imagine if more people knew about the UN’s profile of that popular actor Broken Tooth.
Caution may be appropriate. The write up adds:
the researchers found the rate of AI usage may have already plateaued, rather than continuing to climb. For press releases, the figure peaked at 24.3% being likely AI-generated, in December 2023, but it has since stabilized at about a half-percent lower and hasn’t shifted significantly since. Job listings, too, have shown signs of decline since reaching their peak, according to the researchers. At the UN, AI usage appears to be increasing, but the rate of growth has slowed considerably.
My thought is that the UN might want to step up its AI-enhanced outputs.
I think it is interesting that the billions of dollars invested in AI has produced such outstanding results for the news release use case. Winner!
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
At Google Innovation Never Stops or Gee a G
October 10, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Google’s Gradient G Icon Design Is Going Company Wide.” Usually Deepseek, the YouTube leadership, or a rando in advertising announces a quantumly supreme achievement. The stunning Google news for September 29, 2025, is presented this way:
Google used “brighter hues and gradient design” to “symbolize the surge of AI-driven innovation and creative energy across our products and technology.” The aim was to stay “true to Google’s iconic four colors,” with the last design refresh taking place 10 years ago.
The article includes the old G and the new forward leaning, innovative, quantumly supreme G. Here’s what I saw in the cited write up:
This is the old, backward leaning, non-innovative, un-quantumly supreme G.
Now here’s is the new forward leaning, innovative, quantumly supreme G:
That is revolutionary, boundary stretching, Leonardo DaVinci grade art.
I am impressed. Imagine the achievement amidst some staff concern about layoffs, and the financial headaches resulting from those data center initiatives, crypto services, and advertising sales efforts.
What’s next from the Google? Gee, this new G will be difficult to galvanize more grandiose game changers.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2025
With or Without AI: Winners Win and Losers Lose
October 8, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Some outfits are just losers. That’s the message I got after reading “AI Magnifies Your Teams’ Strengths – and Weaknesses, Google Report Finds.” Keep in mind that this report — the DORA Report or DevOps Research & Assessment — is Googley. The write up makes clear that Google is not hallucinating. The outstanding company:
surveyed 5,000 software development professionals across industries and followed up with more than 100 hours of interviews. It may be one of the most comprehensive studies of AI’s changing role in software development, especially at the enterprise level.
Winners with AI win bigger. Losers with AI continue to lose. Is that sad team mascot one of Sam Altman’s AI cheerleaders. I think it is. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Obviously the study is “one of the most comprehensive”; of course, it is Google’s study!
The big finding seems to be:
… AI has moved from hype to mainstream in the enterprise software development world. Second, real advantage isn’t about the tools (or even the AI you use). It’s about building solid organizational systems. Without those systems, AI has little advantage. And third, AI is a mirror. It reflects and magnifies how well (or poorly) you already operate.
I interpret the findings of the DORA Report in an easy-to-remember way: Losers still lose even if their teams use AI. I think of this as a dominant football team. The team has the money to induce or direct events. As a result, the team has the best players. The team has the best coaches (leadership). The team has the best infrastructure. In short, when one is the best, AI makes the best better.
On the other hand, a losing team composed of losers will use AI and still lose.
I noted that the report about DORA did not include:
- Method of sample selection
- Questions asked
- Methodology for generating the numerous statistics in the write up.
What happens if one conducts a study to validate the idea that winners win and losers keep on losing? I think it sends a clear signal that a monopoly-type of outfit has a bit of an inferiority or fear-centric tactical view. Even the quantumly supreme need a marketing pick me up now and then.
Stephen E Arnold, October 8, 2025
Same Old Search Problem, Same Old Search Solution
September 25, 2025
A problem as old as time is finding information within an organization. A good company organizes their information in paper and digital files, but most don’t do this. Digital information is arguably harder to find because you never know what hard drive or utility disc to search through. Apparently BlueDocs, via WRAL News, found a solution to this issue: “BlueDocs Unveils Revolutionary AI Global Search Feature, Transforming How Organizations Access Internal Documentation Software.”
The press release about BlueDocs, an AI global documentation software platform, opens with the usual industry and revolutionary jargon. Blah. Blah. Blah.
They have a special sauce:
“Unlike traditional search solutions that operate within platform boundaries, AI Global Search leverages advanced artificial intelligence to understand context, intent, and relationships across disparate knowledge sources. Users can now execute a single search query to simultaneously explore BlueDocs content, Google Workspace files, Microsoft 365 documents, and integrated third-party platforms.”
It delivers special results:
“ ‘AI Global Search has fundamentally changed how our team accesses information,’ said one Beta Customer. ‘What used to require checking five different platforms now happens with a single search. It’s particularly transformative for onboarding new team members who previously needed training on multiple systems just to find basic information.’”
Does this lingo sound like every other enterprise search solution’s marketing collateral? If BlueDocs delivers an easily programmable, out-of-the-box solution that interfaces across all platforms and returns usable results: EXCELLENT. If it needs extra tech support at a very special low price and custom engineering, the similarity with enterprise search of yore is back again.
Whitney Grace, September 25, 2025
IBM Technology Atlas: A Buzzword Blow Up
September 17, 2025
![Dino 5 18 25[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Dino-5-18-253.gif "Dino 5 18 25[3]")
Written by an unteachable dinobaby. Live with it.
Do you need some handy buzzwords, jargon, or magnetic phrases for your marketing outputs? IBM has created a very useful tool. It is called the “IBM Technology Atlas.” Now an atlas (maybe alas?), according to the estimable Google, is “a book of maps or charts.” Now I know what you are thinking. Has IBM published a dead tree book of maps like the trucker’s road map sold at Buc-ees?
No. IBM is too high tech forward leaning for that.
Navigate to “IBM Technology Atlas.” Here’s what your browser will display:
I assume you will be asking, “What does this graphic say?” or “I can’t read it.” Spot on. This Technology Atlas is not designed for legibility like those trucker road maps. Those professionals have to know where to turn in order to deliver a load of auto parts. Driving a technology sports car is more subtle.
The idea with this IBM atlas is to use your cursor to click on one of the six areas of focus for IBM’s sales machine to deliver to customers between 2024 and 2030. I know 2024 was last year, but that’s useful if one wants to know where Lewis and Clark were in Missouri in 1804. And 2030? Projecting five years into the future is strategically bold.
Pick a topic from the option arrayed around the circle:
- AI
- Automation
- Data
- Hybrid Cloud
- Quantum
- Security.
Click on, for instance, AI and the years at which the checkpoint for targets appears. Note you will need a high resolution monitor because no scroll bar is available to move from year to year. But no problem. Here’s what I see after clicking on AI:
Alternatively, you can use the radar chart and click on the radar chart. For the year 2030 targets in AI, put your cursor under AI and place it between AI and Automation. Click and you will see the exploded detail for AI at IBM in 2030:
Now you are ready to begin your exploration of buzzwords. Let’s stick to AI because the future of that suite of technologies is of interest to those who are shoveling cash into the Next Big Thing Furnace as I write this news item with editorial color.
Here are some of the AI words from the 2030 section of the Atlas:
Adaptable AI
Biological intelligence
Cognitive abilities
Generalist AI
Human-machine collaboration
Machine-machine collaboration
Mutual theory of mind
Neuron heterogeneity
Sensory perceptions
Unified neural architecture
WatsonX (yep, Watson).
One can work from 2024 to 2029 and build a comprehensive list of AI jargon. If this seems like real busy work, it is not. You are experiencing how a forward leaning outfit like IBM presents its strategic road map. You—a mere human— must point and click your way through a somewhat unusual presentation of dot points and a time line.
Imagine how easy absorbing this information would be if one just copied the url, pasted it into Perplexity, and asked, “Give me a 25 word summary of this information.” I did that, and here’s what Perplexity replied:
IBM’s Technology Atlas outlines six roadmaps — AI, Automation, Data, Hybrid Cloud, Quantum, Security — for advancing performance, efficiency, and future IT/business evolution through 2030.
Well, that was easy. What about the clicking through the hot links on the radar chart?
That is harder and more time consuming.
Perplexity did not understand how to navigate the IBM Technology Alas. (Ooops. I mean “atlas.” My bad.) And — truth be told — I did not either when I first encountered this new age and undoubtedly expensive combination of design, jargon collection, and code. Would direct statements and dot points worked? Yes, but that is not cutting edge.
I would recommend this IBM Alas to a student looking for some verbiage for a résumé, a start up trying to jazz up a slide deck, or a person crafting a LinkedIn blurb.
Remember! Neuron heterogeneity is on the road map for 2030. I still like the graphic approach of those trucker road maps available where I can buy a Buc-ee’s T shirt:
Is there a comparable T shirt for quantum at IBM in 2030? No? Alas.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2025
What Happens When Content Management Morphs into AI? A Jargon Blast
September 16, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
I did a small project for a killer outfit in Cleveland. The BMW-driving owner of the operation talked about CxO this and CxO that. The jargon meant that “x” was a placeholder for titles like “Chief People Officer” or “Chief Relationship Officer” or some similar GenX concept.
I suppose I have a built in force shield to some business jargon, but I did turn off my blocker to read CxO Today’s marketing article titled helpfully “Gartner: Optimize Enterprise Search to Equip AI Assistants and Agents.” I was puzzled by the advertising essay, but then I realized that almost anything goes in today’s world of sell stuff by using jargon.
The write up is by an “expert” who used to work in the content management field. I must admit that I have zero idea what content management means. Like knowledge management, the blending of an undefined noun with the word “management” creates jargon that mesmerizes certain types of “leadership” or “deciders.”
The article (ad in essay form) is chock full of interesting concepts and words. The intent is to cause a “leadership” or “decider” to “reach out” for the consulting firm Gartner and buy reports or sit-downs with “experts.”
I noticed the term “enterprise search” in the title. What is “enterprise search” other than the foundation for the HP Autonomy dust up and the FAST Search & Transfer legal hassle? Most organizations struggle to find information that someone knows exists within an organization. “Leadership” decrees that “enterprise search” must be upgraded, improved, or installed. Today one can download an open source search system, ring up a cloud service offering remote indexing and search of “content,” or tap one of the super-well-funded newcomers like Glean or other AI-enabled search and retrieval systems.
Here’s what the write up advertorial says:
The advent of semantic search through vectorization and generative AI has revolutionized the way information is retrieved and synthesized. Search is no longer just an experience. It powers the experience by augmenting AI assistants. With RAG-based AI assistants and agents, relevant information fragments can be retrieved and resynthesized into new insights, whether interactively or proactively. However, the synthesis of accurate information depends largely on retrieving relevant data from multiple repositories. These repositories and the data they contain are rarely managed to support retrieval and synthesis beyond their primary application.
My translation of this jargon blast is that content proliferation is taking place and AI may be able to help “leadership” or a regular employee find the information needed to complete work. I mean who doesn’t want “RAG-based AI assistants” when trying to find a purchase order or to check the last quality report about a part that is failing 75 percent of the time for a big customer?
The fix is to embrace “touchpoints.” The write up says:
Multiple touchpoints and therefore multiple search services mean overlap in terms of indexes and usage. This results in unnecessary costs. These costs are both direct, such as licenses, subscriptions, compute and storage, and indirect, such as staff time spent on maintaining search services, incorrect decisions due to inaccurate information, and missed opportunities from lack of information. Additionally, relying on diverse technologies and configurations means that query evaluations vary, requiring different skills and expertise for maintenance and optimization.
To remediate this problem — that is, to deliver a useful enterprise search and retrieval system — the organization needs to:
aim for optimum touchpoints to information provided through maximum applications with minimum services. The ideal scenario is a single underlying service catering to all touchpoints, whether delivered as applications or in applications. However, this is often impractical due to the vast number of applications from numerous vendors… so
hire Gartner to figure out who is responsible for what, reduce the number of search vendors, and cut costs “by rationalizing the underlying search and synthesis services and associated technologies.”
In short, start over with enterprise search.
Several observations:
- Enterprise search is arguably more difficult than some other enterprise information problems. There are very good reasons for this, and they boil down to the nature of what employees need to do a job or complete a task
- AI is not going to solve the problem because these “wrappers” will reflect the problems in the content pools to which the systems have access
- Cost cutting is difficult because those given the job to analyze the “costs” of search discover that certain costs cannot be eliminated; therefore, their attendant licensing and support fees continue to become “pay now” invoices.
What do I make of this advertorial or content marketing item in CxO Today. First, I think calling it “news” is problematic. The write up is a bundle of jargon presented as a sales pitch. Second, the information in the marketing collateral is jargon and provides zero concrete information. And, third, the problem of enterprise search is in most organizational situations is usually a compromise forced on the organization because of work processes, legal snarls, secret government projects, corporate paranoia, and general turf battles inside the outfit itself.
The “fix” is not a study. The “fix” is not a search appliance as Google discovered. The “fix” is not smart software. If you want an answer that won’t work, I can identify whom not to call.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: The Baidu AI Service
September 12, 2025
It seems smart software is good for something. CNBC reports, “AI Avatars in China Just Proved They Are Ace Influencers: It Only Took a Duo 7 Hours to Rake in More than $7 Million.” Chinese tech firm Baidu collaborated with two human influencers on the project. Reporter Evelyn Cheng tells us:
“Luo Yonghao, one of China’s earliest and most popular live streamers, and his co-host Xiao Mu both used digital versions of themselves to interact with viewers in real time for well over six hours on Sunday on Baidu’s e-commerce livestreaming platform ‘Youxuan’, the Chinese tech company said. The session raked in 55 million yuan ($7.65 million). In comparison, Luo’s first livestream attempt on Youxuan last month, which lasted just over four hours, saw fewer orders for consumer electronics, food and other key products, Baidu said.”
The experiment highlights Baidu’s avatar technology, which can save marketing departments a lot of money. We learn:
“Luo’s and his co-host’s avatars were built using Baidu’s generative AI model, which learned from five years’ worth of videos to mimic their jokes and style, Wu Jialu, head of research at Luo’s other company, Be Friends Holding, told CNBC on Wednesday. … AI avatars can sharply reduce costs since companies don’t need to hire a large production team or a studio to livestream. The digital avatars can also stream nonstop without needing breaks. … [Wu] said that Baidu now offers the best digital human product currently available, compared to the early days of livestreaming e-commerce five or six years ago.”
Yes, the “early” days of five or six years ago, when the pandemic forced companies and workers to explore their online options. Both landed on livestreaming to generate sales and commissions. Now, it seems, companies can cut the human talent out of the equation. How efficient.
Cynthia Murrell, September 12, 2025
Deadbots. Many Use Cases, Including Advertising
September 2, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I like the idea of deadbots, a concept explained by the ever-authoritative NPR in “AI Deadbots Are Persuasive — and Researchers Say, They’re Primed for Monetization.” The write up reports in what I imagine as a resonant, somewhat breathy voice:
AI avatars of deceased people – or “deadbots” – are showing up in new and unexpected contexts, including ones where they have the power to persuade.
Here’s a passage I thought was interesting:
Researchers are now warning that commercial use is the next frontier for deadbots. “Of course it will be monetized,” said Lindenwood University AI researcher James Hutson. Hutson co-authored several studies about deadbots, including one exploring the ethics of using AI to reanimate the dead. Hutson’s work, along with other recent studies such as one from Cambridge University, which explores the likelihood of companies using deadbots to advertise products to users, point to the potential harms of such uses. “The problem is if it is perceived as exploitative, right?” Hutson said.
Not surprisingly, some sticks in the mud see a downside to deadbots:
Quinn [a wizard a Authetic Interactions Inc.] said companies are going to try to make as much money out of AI avatars of both the dead and the living as possible, and he acknowledges there could be some bad actors. “Companies are already testing things out internally for these use cases,” Quinn said, with reference to such uses cases as endorsements featuring living celebrities created with generative AI that people can interactive with. “We just haven’t seen a lot of the implementations yet.”
I wonder if any philosophical types will consider how an interaction with a dead person’s avatar can be an “authetic interaction.”
I started thinking of deadbots I would enjoy coming to life on my digital devices; for example:
- My first boss at a blue chip consulting firm who encouraged rumors that his previous wives accidently met with boating accidents
- My high school English teacher who took me to the assistant principal’s office for writing a poem about the spirit of nature who looked to me like a Playboy bunny
- The union steward who told me that I was working too fast and making other workers look like they were not working hard
- The airline professional who told me our flight would be delayed when a passenger died during push back from the gate. (The fellow was sitting next to me. Airport food did it I think.)
- The owner of an enterprise search company who insisted, “Our enterprise information retrieval puts all your company’s information at an employee’s fingertips.”
You may have other ideas for deadbots. How would you monetize a deadbot, Google- and Meta-type companies? Will Hollywood do deadbot motion pictures? (I know the answer to that question.)
Stephen E Arnold, September 2, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
