Quantum Supremacy Is a Thing and IBM Now Has It
November 18, 2021
I read “IBM Achieves Quantum Supremacy: Announces 127-qubit “Eagle” Quantum Processor at Quantum Summit 2021.” Maybe this is indeed accurate. I would like to ask IBM Watson, “Is this IBM marketing talk, or has Big Blue aced the Google and legions of Chinese quantum engineers?”
The write up reports:
IBM expects to achieve a 1,121-qubit quantum processor – and quantum advantage – by 2023.
This statement seems different from the headline. In fact, I expect to be named the next 77 year old analyst flying into space in 2023. The problem is that “expect” and “do” are quite different things to me.
Not to IBM, at least according to the article which quotes and IBM’er as saying:
“The arrival of the ‘Eagle’ processor is a major step towards the day when quantum computers can outperform classical computers at meaningful levels,” said Dr. Darío Gil, Senior Vice President, IBM and Director of Research. “Quantum computing has the power to transform nearly every sector and help us tackle the biggest problems of our time. This is why IBM continues to rapidly innovate quantum hardware design, build ways for quantum and classical workloads to empower each other, and create a global ecosystem that is imperative to the adoption of quantum computing.”
Yep, marketing talk based on some lab experiments. That means no quantum computer on your desk in the near future. Quantum supremacy is here at least in IBM’s view of its capabilities.
Okay, Google and Chinese engineers. Back to work. The amusing but somewhat bittersweet IBM news has been lost in the endless flow of content marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, November 18, 2021
Psychopathy: Do the Patients Referenced by Richard Kraft Ebing Gravitate to Work in High Tech?
November 12, 2021
First, who is Richard Kraft Ebing? He was an Austro-German psychiatrist with some interesting research. Wowza. He described selected human behaviors in a way which caught the attention of a couple of the Psychology Today professional when we were talking after I delivered a report. Yep, that was a memorable day. The big dog in overalls; the marketing wizard chatting intensely with an intern in gym clothes; and the sun sparkling on the beach behind the house in Del Mar, California. I recall there was some talk about the computer company providing hardware and software to the firm which owned Psychology Today, Intellectual Digest, and a few other high IQ publications. The main point was that the computer sales people lied. “Those guys cheated us. We were raped.” That’s when I referenced good old Richard Kraft Ebing?
Flash forward to “Science Reveals the Fascinating Link between Lying and Technology.” The story is paywalled, of course. One pays for the truth, Silicon Valley infused journalism, and the unvarnished truth about high technology in its assorted manifestation.
But before looking that the article itself, let me highlight two of the rules for high technology sales and and marketing effectuators.
Rule Number One; herewith:
Tell the prospect what he or she wants to hear.
Now for Rule Number Two:
Hyperbole and vaporware are not really falsehoods. Sell sizzle, not steak.
The article in Fast Company is quite like some of T George Harris’ faves. (T George, described as a visionary journalist, was a big wheel at the outfit which owned Psych Today and ID decades ago.)
The main point of the write up published online on November 12, 2021, struck me as:
The belief that lying is rampant in the digital age just doesn’t match the data.
There you go. Definitive evidence that truth reigns supreme. Example: when Verizon uses the word “unlimited.” Example: Charter Spectrum sells 200 megabit connectivity. Example: FAANG statements under oath.
Yep, truth, integrity, and the best of what’s good for “users.” Psychopathia whatever.
Stephen E Arnold, November 12, 2021
Meta: A Stroke of Genius or a Dropout Idea from a Dropout
November 10, 2021
I read an article called “Thoughts on Facebook Meta.” The main idea of the essay surprised me. Here’s the passage which caught my attention:
I think the metaverse will be massive not so much because gaming and VR will be big, but because gaming and VR will be the only avenue to thrive for the bottom 80% of people on the planet.
I also circled in red this passage:
Anyway, this is a smart move by Face-meta. It allows Zuckerberg to dodge the scrutiny bullets and become a quixotic futurist, and at the same time build the reality substrate for 80% of the planet.
Net net: The Zuck does it again. He likes old-school barbeque sauce, not New Coke. The question is, “What will government regulators like?”
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2021
Google Has the Tools to Shape Reality: Are Local Businesses a Public Demonstration of Functionality
November 9, 2021
I read about Google’s “effort to regain control of the antitrust narrative” in an essay published by Near Media. You can find that write up here. The idea is that Alphabet Google YouTube can employ “search features to sway small business sentiment.” The Cambridge Analytica example makes clear that even if framing, augmenting, and information shaping are not efficient, the methods work.
Now Google may be sufficiently concerned to employ the methods in a way that allows Near Media and even SEO wizards to sit up and take notice. An online newsletter founded by the luminary who later joined Google to explain “search” observed:
This is not the first time. When in legislative trouble before, Google has previously tried to appeal to users to make its case when laws change. In 2013, they made the case for cookies by telling searchers in the SERP, “Cookies help us deliver our services.” This was a prompt in response to European privacy laws.
SERP is one of the buzzwords much loved by search engine optimization specialists. SERP is “search engine result pages.” If an entity is not in Google or on the first page of a query result list, that entity effectively does not exist. Conversely, if information appears in such a position, that information has higher value and should be considered pretty darned reliable.
Shaping results is one of the easiest ways to provide information that frames and then paints the picture the controlling entity wishes to present. Some call this propaganda; others use terminology ripped from Orwell’s 1984.
Search Engine Land “cares.” Here’s the explanation of their emotional involvement:
While marketers are often more skeptical of the search giant’s methods and motives, it may be worth being proactive to your local SEO clients to let them know what this prompt means.
My interpretation is that the baloney shoveled by SEO experts is useless. Google has decided to exert its control in order to avoid regulation and oversight.
Will it work? Sure, it works. Just keep your eye on the lobbying efforts of the world’s largest outfit which once was associated with a truly crazy catchphrase, “Do no evil.”
If Google is sufficiently concerned, it may put pro Google, anti monopoly messages above the ads and before promotions of Google services. That would be something, wouldn’t it?
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2021
A Great Idea: New Coke
November 1, 2021
I don’t think too much about companies changing their names. The reason is that brand shifts are a response to legal or financial woes. I may have to start paying more attention if I read analyses like “From Facebook to Meta: The Most Notable Company Rebrands.” Wow.
The article identifies name changes which emphasize the underlying desire to create distance between one name and a new, free floating moniker. The goal is no baggage and a lift to the beleaguered executives MBA-inspired strategic insights.
USA Today mentions Tronc. That is a name that flows trippingly on the tongue. The newspaper with color pictures points out that Andersen Consulting morphed into Accenture and then demonstrated that CPAs can make quite poor business decisions about how to report a client’s financial condition. Think Enron. Do you remember Jeffrey Skilling, who has a Harvard MBA and was a real, live Baker scholar. Impressive. He was able to explain bookkeeping to Andersen/Accenture. Good job! The must-read newspaper mentioned a cigarette outfit which became the Altria outfit. Think processed cheese, not nicotine delivery.
But the write up is about Facebook, which is now “meta.” I think “meta” is a subtle move. No one will know the difference, just like Coca Cola’s push of New Coke. Brilliant.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2021
5G, Gee Whiz, Marketing Is Easier Than Making Technology Work
October 25, 2021
One of the interesting characteristics of life in the US in 2021 is that marketing is easier than other types of work. Furthermore, once the marketing copy is written and pushed into the channel, it’s time to take a break. Writing about bits and bytes is much easier than making those restless zeros and ones do what the copywriter said would happen. A good example of this “let’s have lunch” statement tossed out on a Manhattan sidewalk to a person whom one never wants to see again appears in “Fake It Until You Make It: 5G Marketing Outpaces Service Reality.”
The real and trusty news report asserts:
An analysis done by OpenSignal released on Thursday found that their testers connected with T-Mobile 5G just 34.7% of the time, AT&T 16.4% of the time and Verizon just 9.7%. And that’s generally not for the fastest 5G many expect.
And the marketing?
The numbers are in stark contrast to what the carriers promise about 5G in their advertisements, showing how much they are banking on 5G as a selling point in the hotly-contested market for cellular service.
This “fake it until you make it” method has been slapped on Banjo (now SafeX.ai), Theranos, and Uber, among others. The idea is that fast talking, jargon, and lots of high school confidence works.
Is this an American characteristic? Nah, the real and trusty journalist notes:
Internationally, the story is similar. South Korea tops the list of best 5G availability at 28.1% of the time, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Hong Kong all above 25%, according to an OpenSignal report from early September.
It’s the Silicon Valley way. It works really well sometimes.
Stephen E Arnold, October 25, 2021
Is Self Driving Ready for Regular Humanoids?
October 21, 2021
Teslas are popular and expensive cars. Tesla owners love their cars with the same fervor as Prius owners, except with a more elitist attitude. Fears of Elon Musk acting as Big Brother have been placated, but Electrek shares how that subject comes into question again in: “Tesla Will Make Sure You Are A Good Driver Before Giving You Access To Fill Self-Driving Beta.”
Musk said that his company will use telemetry data to guarantee its customers are “good” drivers before giving them access to the cars’ self-driving option. That is a problematic approach, because Tesla owners already paid for the software. In September, Tesla released an update to its Full Self-Driving Beta v10 software. The software realizes the dream of cars self-driving, however, drivers are still required to pay attention at all times and keep their hands on the steering wheel.
Teslas still have bugs with its self-driving feature, but Musk promises the upgrade is “mind-blowing.” But Musk only wants “good” drivers with a high safety record to use the beta. Since Teslas are linked to a “hive mind,” Musk has access to their driving data. The “good” driving requirement is a way for Musk to prevent accidents and deaths, but it begs the question if it is legal.
Insurance companies already monitor their customers with safe driving applications to receive discounts. Law enforcement also install breathalyzers in cars to prevent drunk driving. Limiting the self-driving beta is in the same vein, but the pros and cons must be investigated.
It also brings Musk’s intentions into question. Will he take responsibility if a Tesla terminates an annoying humanoid?
Whitney Grace, October 21, 2021
Progress: Marketing Triumphs, Innovating Becomes SEO
October 11, 2021
I read “Slowed Canonical Progress in Large Fields of Science.” My take on the write up is different from what the authors intended. The notion of “science” I bring ignores physics, medicine, mathematics, and computational chemistry.
The write up is about marketing, good old-fashioned salesmanship. Don’t take my comment as that of a person annoyed at academics or big thinkers. I believe that the authors have articulated an important idea. I simply view their insight as an example of a a particular manifestation of generating buzz, closing a deal, making a sale, or believing the assertions so common in advertising.
The write up states:
Rather than causing faster turnover of field paradigms, a deluge of new publications entrenches top-cited papers, precluding new work from rising into the most-cited, commonly known canon of the field.
Isn’t this “more is better” similar to generating clicks to a Web page — whether the content of the Web page is germane to a topic or not? I do.
I call this the SEO-ization of knowledge. Dr. Gene Garfield, the father of citation analysis, did not anticipate search engine optimization becoming the objective of his approach to determining importance in a scientific field.
The write up makes clear that:
As fields get larger, the most-cited papers become durably dominant, entrenched atop the citation distribution. New papers, in contrast, suffer diminished probability of ever becoming very highly cited and cannot gradually accumulate attention over time. Published papers tend to develop existing ideas more than disrupt them, and rarely launch disruptive new streams of research.
The effect of this “entrenchment” is little more than finding a way to get attention in a setting which resists change.
I think that the data presented in the paper provide an insight useful to understanding the vapidity of so-called corporate white papers to the interesting expressions of business ideas on LinkedIn and much more.
Advertising and search engine optimization are the defining characteristics of the last 10 years. The fact that it permeates scientific and technical work is evidence that intellectual endeavors are little more than key word stuffing.
Who “regulates” the behavior? A government agency? The reviewers of a technical paper? The publishers of journals dependent on commercial enterprises for survival? The young researcher who follows the well-worn path?
Search engine optimization-type thinking has been absorbed into the intellectual foundations of scientific and technical disciplines.
Now it’s marketing which is much easier than innovating and discovering. Even Google advertises in the Wall Street Journal. Google!
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2021
Yext: Payoff Marketing
October 8, 2021
Years ago my team took a look at a search system called EasyAsk (originally Linguistic Technology Corporation and eventually as a unit of Progress Software and then a stand alone company headed by Craig Bassin, founder of B2Systems.
Yes, EasyAsk is licensing a range of software, but the company seems to lead with search for eCommerce.
What’s interesting is that the firm used what I called “payoff marketing.” The idea is that use of a particular search-and-retrieval system with appropriate technical enhancements can deliver a big financial return.
Here’s a snip from the EasyAsk Web site. Note the tagline: “Cognitive eCommerce.”
The “payoff” angle is evident in “Watch revenues soar by at least 20% within 90 days.”
In some sales presentations from other vendors I have heard words that suggest increased return on investment, reduced cost of search, and increased sales. Not too many vendors have gone out on a limb at put a number in the customer’s mind.
However, Yext has taken a page from the EasyAsk marketing playbook. I read “People’s United Bank Sees 15x Annualized ROI from Site Search Integration between Yext, Virtusa, and Adobe.” Wouldn’t the word “among” be more accurate? Oh, well.
Here’s the snippet I circled:
The launch of Yext Answers assisted in about a 50% and as much as 70% reduction in unnecessary support call volume in the months following its launch compared to the months before. By integrating locations into the Yext search experience with Adobe AEM, People’s United saw an estimated 15x annualized return on investment (ROI) on the platform — a number that rose to 35x annualized ROI when including locations, FAQs, and products.
I think this is another example of payoff marketing.
I find the angle an interesting one. Search-and-retrieval systems have been seeking a model for sustainable revenue for more than 40 years. Subscriptions, license fees, and engineering support have worked. The winning method is to charge people to appear in search results and sell advertising.
What happens if the search system does not deliver a “15x annualized return”? My hunch is that companies confident enough to provide a numeric peg for search technology have the hard data to shoot down doubters.
Stephen E Arnold, October 8, 2021
Big Tech Responds to AI Concerns
October 4, 2021
We cannot decide whether this news represents a PR move or simply three red herrings. Reuters declares, “Money, Mimicry and Mind Control: Big Tech Slams Ethics Brakes on AI.” The article gives examples of Google, Microsoft, and IBM hitting pause on certain AI projects over ethical concerns. Reporters Paresh Dave and Jeffrey Dastin write:
“In September last year, Google’s (GOOGL.O) cloud unit looked into using artificial intelligence to help a financial firm decide whom to lend money to. It turned down the client’s idea after weeks of internal discussions, deeming the project too ethically dicey because the AI technology could perpetuate biases like those around race and gender. Since early last year, Google has also blocked new AI features analyzing emotions, fearing cultural insensitivity, while Microsoft (MSFT.O) restricted software mimicking voices and IBM (IBM.N) rejected a client request for an advanced facial-recognition system. All these technologies were curbed by panels of executives or other leaders, according to interviews with AI ethics chiefs at the three U.S. technology giants.”
See the write-up for more details on each of these projects and the concerns around how they might be biased or misused. These suspensions sound very responsible of the companies, but they may be more strategic than conscientious. Is big tech really ready to put integrity over profits? Some legislators believe regulations are the only way to ensure ethical AI. The article tells us:
“The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, on track to be passed next year, would bar real-time face recognition in public spaces and require tech companies to vet high-risk applications, such as those used in hiring, credit scoring and law enforcement. read more U.S. Congressman Bill Foster, who has held hearings on how algorithms carry forward discrimination in financial services and housing, said new laws to govern AI would ensure an even field for vendors.”
Perhaps, though lawmakers in general are famously far from tech-savvy. Will they find advisors to help them craft truly helpful legislation, or will the industry dupe them into being its pawns? Perhaps Watson could tell us.
Cynthia Murrell, October 4, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
