Can Sergey Brin Manage? Maybe Not?
December 12, 2025
True Reason Sergey Used “Super Voting Power”
Yuchen Jin, the CTO and co-founder of Hyperbolic Labs posted on X about recent situation at Google. According topmost, Sergey Brin was disappointed in how Google was using Gemini. The AI algorithm, in fact, wasn’t being used for coding and Sergey wanted it to be used for that.
It created a big tiff. Sergey told Sundar that, “I can’t deal with these people. You have to deal with this.” Sergey still owns Google and has super voting power. Translation: he can do whatever he darn well pleases with his own company.
Yuchin Jin summed it up well:
“Big companies always build bureaucracy. Sergey (and Larry) still have super voting power, and he used it to cut through the BS. Suddenly Google is moving like a startup again. Their AI went from “way behind” to “easily #1” across domains in a year.”
Congratulations to Google making a move that other Big Tech companies knew to make without the intervention of founder.
Google would have eventually shifted to using Gemini for coding. Sergey’s influence only sped it up. The bigger question is if this “tiff” indicates something else. Big companies do have bureaucracies but if older workers have retired, then that means new blood is needed. The current new blood is Gen Z and they are as despised as Millennials once were.
I think this means Sergey cannot manage young tech workers either. He had to turn to the “consultant” to make things happen. It’s quite the admission from a Big Tech leader.
Whitney Grace, December 12, 2025
The Waymo Trip: From Cats and Dogs Waymo to the Parking Lot
December 12, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I am reasonably sure that Google Waymo offers “way more” than any other self driving automobile. It has way more cameras. It has way more publicity. Does it have way more safety than — for instance, a Tesla confused on Highway 101? I don’t know.
I read “Waymo Investigation Could Stop Autonomous Driving in Its Tracks.” The title was snappy, but the subtitle was the real hook:
New video shows a dangerous trend for Waymo autonomous vehicles.
What’s the trend?
Weeks ago, the Austin Independent School District noticed a disturbing trend: Waymo vehicles were not stopping for school buses that had their crossing guard and stop sign deployed.
Oh, Google Waymo smart cars don’t stop for school buses. Kids always look before jumping off a school and dashing across a street to see their friends or rush home to scroll Instagram. Smart software definitely can predict the trajectories of school kids. Well, probability is involved, so there is a teeny tiny chance that a smart car might do the “kill the Mission District” cat. But the chance is teeny tiny.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The write up asserts:
The Austin ISD has been in communication with Waymo regarding the violations, which it reports have occurred approximately 1.5 times per week during this school year. Waymo has informed them that software updates have been issued to address the issue. However, in a letter dated November 20, 2025, the group states that there have been multiple violations since the supposed fix.
What’s with these people in Austin? Chill. Listen to some country western music. Think about moving back to the Left Coast. Get a life.
Instead of doing the Silicon Valley wizardly thing, Austin showed why Texas is not the center of AI intelligence and admiration. The story says:
On Dec. 1, after Waymo received its 20th citation from Austin ISD for the current school year, Austin ISD decided to release the video of the previous infractions to the public. The video shows all 19 instances of Waymo violating school bus safety rules. Perhaps most alarmingly, the violations appear to worsen over time. On November 12, a Waymo vehicle was recorded violating a law by making a left turn onto a street with a school bus, its stop signs and crossbar already deployed. There are children in the crosswalk when the Waymo makes the turn and cuts in front of them. The car stops for a second then continues without letting the kids pass.
Let’s assume that after 16 years of development and investment, the Waymo self driving software intelligence gets an F in school bus recognition. Conjuring up a vehicle that can doddle down 101 at rush hour driven by a robot is a Silicon Valley inspiration. Imagine. One can sit in the automobile, talk on the phone, fiddle with a laptop, or just enjoy coffee and a treat from Philz in peace. Just ignore the imbecilic drivers in other automobiles. Yes, let’s just think it and it will become real.
I know the idea sounds great to anyone who has suffered traffic on 101 or the Foothills, but crushing the Mission District stray cat is just a warm up. What type of publicity heat will maiming Billy or Sally whose father might be a big time attorney who left Seal Team 6 to enforce and defend city, county, state, and federal law? Cats don’t have lawyers. The parents of harmed children either do or can get one pretty easily.
Getting a lawyer is much easier than delivering on a dream that is a bit of nightmare after 16 years and an untold amount of money. But the idea is a good one. Sort of.
Stephen E Arnold, December 12, 2025
Students Cheat. Who Knew?
December 12, 2025
How many times are we going to report on this topic? Students cheat! Students have been cheating since the invention of school. With every advancement of technology, students adapt to perfect their cheating skills. AI was a gift served to them on a silver platter. Teachers aren’t stupid, however, and one was curious how many of his students were using AI to cheat, so he created a Trojan Horse. HuffPost told his story: “I Set A Trap To Catch My Students Cheating With AI. The Results Were Shocking.”
There’s a big difference between recognizing AI and proving it was used. The teacher learned about a Trojan Horse: hiding hidden text inside a prompt. The text would be invisible because the font color would be white. Students wouldn’t see it but ChatGPT would. He unleashed the Trojan Horse and 33 essays out of 122 were automatically outed. Thirty-nine percent were AI-written. Many of the students were apologetic, while others continued to argue that the work was their own despite the Trojan Horse evidence.
AI literacy needs to be added to information literacy. The problem is that how to properly use AI is inconsistent:
“There is no consistency. My colleagues and I are actively trying to solve this for ourselves, maybe by establishing a shared standard that every student who walks through our doors will learn and be subject to. But we can’t control what happens everywhere else.”
Even worse is that some students don’t belief they’re actually cheating because they’re oblivious and stupid. He ends on an inspirational quote:
“But I am a historian, so I will close on a historian’s note: History shows us that the right to literacy came at a heavy cost for many Americans, ranging from ostracism to death. Those in power recognized that oppression is best maintained by keeping the masses illiterate, and those oppressed recognized that literacy is liberation. To my students and to anyone who might listen, I say: Don’t surrender to AI your ability to read, write and think when others once risked their lives and died for the freedom to do so.”
Noble words for small minds.
Whitney Grace, December 12, 2025
AI Fact Checks AI! What A Gas…Lighting Event
December 12, 2025
Josh Brandon at Digital Trends was curious what would happen if he asked two chatbots to fact check each other. He shared the results in, “I Asked Google Gemini To Fact-Check ChatGPT. The Results Were Hilarious.” He brilliantly calls ChatGPT the Wikipedia of the modern generation. Chatbots spit out details like overconfident, self-assured narcissists. People take the information for granted.
ChatGPT tends to hallucinate fake facts and makes up great stories, while Google Gemini doesn’t create as many mirages. Brandon asked Gemini and ChatGPT about the history of electric cars, some historical information, and a few other things to see if they’d hallucinate. He found that the chatbots have trouble understanding user intent. They also wrongly attribute facts, although Gemini is correct more than ChatGPT. When it came to research questions, the results were laughable:
“Prompt used: ‘Find me some academic quotes about the psychological impact of social media.;
This one is comical and fascinating. ChatGPT invented so many details in a response about the psychological impact of social media that it makes you wonder what the bot was smoking. ‘This is a fantastic and dangerous example of partial hallucination, where real information is mixed with fabricated details, making the entire output unreliable. About 60% of the information here is true, but the 40% that is false makes it unusable for academic purposes.’”
Either AI’s iterations are not delivering more useful outputs or humans are now looking more critically at the technology and saying, “Not so fast, buckaroo.”
Whitney Grace, December 12, 2025
AI Year in Review: The View from an Expert in France
December 11, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I suggest you read “Stanford, McKinsey, OpenAI: What the 2025 Reports Tell Us about the Present and Future of AI (and Autonomous Agents) in Business.” The document is in French. You can get an okay translation via the Google or Yandex.
I have neither the energy nor the inclination to do a blue chip consulting type of analysis of this fine synthesis of multiple source documents. What I will do in this blog post is highlight several statements and offer a comment or two. For context, I have read some of the sources the author Fabrice Frossard has cited. M. Frossard is a graduate of Ecole Supérieure Libre des Sciences Commerciales Appliquées and the Ecole de Guerre Economique in Paris I think. Remember: I am a dinobaby and generally too lazy and inept to do “real” research. These are good places to learn how to think about business issues.
Let’s dive into his 2000 word write up.
The first point that struck me is that he include what I think is a point not given sufficient emphasis by the experts in the US. This theme is not forced down the reader’s throat, but it has significant implications for M. Frossard’s comments about the need to train people to use smart software. The social implication of AI and the training creates a new digital divide. Like the economic divide in the US and some other countries, crossing the border is not going to possible for many people. Remember these people have been trained to use the smart software deployed. When one cannot get from ignorance to informed expertise, that person is likely to lose a job. Okay, here’s the comment from the source document:
To put it another way: if AI is now everywhere, its real mastery remains the prerogative of an elite.
Is AI a winner today? Not a winner, but it is definitely an up and comer in the commercial world. M. Frossard points out:
- McKinsey reveals that nearly two thirds of companies are still stuck in the experimentation or piloting phase.
- The elite escaping: only 7% of companies have successfully deployed AI in a fully integrated manner across the entire organization.
- Peak workers use coding or data analysis tools 17 times more than the median user.
These and similar facts support the point that “the ability to extract value creates a new digital divide, no longer based on access, but on the sophistication of use.” Keep this in mind when it comes to learning a new skill or mastering a new area of competence like smart software. No, typing a prompt is not expert use. Typing a prompt is like using an automatic teller machine to get money. Basic use is not expert level capabilities.
If Mary cannot “learn” AI and demonstrate exceptional skills, she’s going to be working as an Etsy.com reseller. Thanks, Venice.ai. Not what I prompted but I understand that you are good enough, cash strapped, and degrading.
The second point is that in 2025, AI does not pay for itself in every use case. M. Frossard offers:
EBIT impact still timid: only 39% of companies report an increase in their EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) attributable to AI, and for the most part, this impact remains less than 5%.
One interesting use case comes from a McKinsey report where billability is an important concept. The idea is that a bit of Las Vegas type thinking is needed when it comes to smart software. M. Frossard writes:
… the most successful companies [using artificial intelligence] are paradoxically those that report the most risks and negative incidents.
Takes risks and win big seems to be one interpretation of this statement. The timid and inept will be pushed aside.
Third, I was delighted to see that M. Frossard picked up on some of the crazy spending for data centers. He writes:
The cost of intelligence is collapsing: A major accelerating factor noted by the Stanford HAI Index is the precipitous fall in inference costs. The cost to achieve performance equivalent to GPT-3.5 has been divided by 280 in 18 months. This commoditization of intelligence finally makes it possible to make complex use cases profitable which were economically unviable in 2023. Here is a paradox: the more efficient and expensive artificial intelligence becomes produce (exploding training costs), the less expensive it is consume (free-fall inference costs). This mental model suggests that intelligence becomes an abundant commodity, leading not to a reduction, but to an explosion of demand and integration.
Several ideas bubble from this passage. First, we are back to training. Second, we are back to having significant expertise. Third, the “abundant commodity” idea produces greater demand. The problem (in addition to not having power for data centers will be people with exceptional AI capabilities).
Fourth, the replacement of some humans may not be possible. The essay reports:
the deployment of agents at scale remains rare (less than 10% in a given function according to McKinsey), hampered by the need for absolute reliability and data governance.
Data governance is like truth, love, and ethics. Easy to say and hard to define. The reliability angle is slightly less tricky. These two AI molecules require a catalyst like an expert human with significant AI competence. And this returns the essay to training. M. Frossard writes:
The transformation of skills: The 115K report emphasizes the urgency of training. The barrier is not technological, it is human. Businesses face a cultural skills gap. It’s not about learning to “prompt”, but about learning to collaborate with non-human intelligence.
Finally, the US has a China problem. M. Frossard points out:
… If the USA dominates investment and the number of models, China is closing the technical gap. On critical benchmarks such as mathematics or coding, the performance gap between the US and Chinese models has narrowed to nothing (less than 1 to 3 percentage points).
Net net: If an employee cannot be trained, that employee is likely to be starting a business at home. If the trained employees are not exceptional, those folks may be terminated. Elites like other elite things. AI may be good enough, but it provides an “objective” way to define and burn dead wood.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2025
No Phones, Boys Get Smarter. Yeah
December 11, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I am busy with a new white paper, but one of my team called this short item to my attention. Despite my dislike of interruptions, “School Cell Phone Bans and Student Achievement” sparked my putting down one thing and addressing this research study. No, I don’t know the sample size, and I did not investigate it. No, I don’t know what methods were used to parse the information and spit out the graphic, and I did not invest time to poke around.
Young females having lunch with their mobile phones in hand cannot believe the school’s football star now gets higher test scores. Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The main point of the research report, in my opinion, is to provide proof positive that mobile phones in classrooms interfere with student learning. Now, I don’t know about you, but my reaction is, “You did not know that?” I taught for a mercifully short time before I dropped out of my Ph.D. program and took a job at Halliburton’s nuclear unit. (Dick Cheney worked at Halliburton. Remember him?)
The write up from NBER.org states:
Two years after the imposition of a student cell phone ban, student test scores in a large urban school district were significantly higher than before.
But here’s the statement that caught my attention:
Test score improvements were also concentrated among male students (up 1.4 percentiles, on average) and among middle and high school students (up 1.3 percentiles, on average).
But what about the females? Why did this group not show “boy level” improvement? I don’t know much about young people in middle and high school. However, based on observation of young people at the Blaze discount pizza restaurant, females who seem to me to be in middle school and high school do three things simultaneously:
- Chatter excitedly with their friends
- Eat pizza
- Interact with their phones or watch what’s on the screen while doing [1] and [2].
I think more research is needed. I know from some previous research that females outperform males academically up to a certain age. How does mobile phone usage impact this data, assuming those data which I dimly recall are or were accurate? Do mobile devices hold males back until the mobiles are removed and then, like magic, do these individuals manifest higher academic performance?
Maybe the data in the NBER report are accurate, but the idea that males — often prone to playing games, fooling around, and napping in class — benefit more from a mobile ban than females is interesting. The problem is I am not sure that the statement lines up with my experience.
But I am a dinobaby, just one that is not easily distracted unless an interesting actual factual research reports catches my attention.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2025
Social Media Companies: Digital Drug Pushers?
December 11, 2025
Social media is a drug. Let’s be real, it’s not a real drug but it affects the brain in the same manner as drugs and alcohol. Social media stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain, releases endorphins, and creates an immediate hit. Delayed gratification becomes a thing of the past as users are constantly seeking their thrills with instantaneous hits from TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.
Politico includes a quote from the recent lawsuit filed against Meta in Northern California that makes a great article title: “‘We’re Basically Pushers’: Court Filing Alleges Staff At Social Media Giants Compared Their Platforms To Drugs.” According to the lawsuit, Meta, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube ignored their platforms’ potential dangers and hid them from users.
The lawsuit has been ongoing doe years and a federal judge ordered its contents to be opened in October 2025. Here are the details:
“The filing includes a series of detailed reports from four experts, who examined internal documents, research and direct communications between engineers and executives at the companies. Experts’ opinions broadly concluded that the companies knew their platforms were addictive but continued to prioritize user engagement over safety.”
It sounds like every big company ever. Money over consumer safety. We’re doomed.
Whitney Grace, December 11, 2025
Google Data Slurps: Never, Ever
December 11, 2025
Here’s another lie from Googleland via Techspot, “Google Denies Gmail Reads Your Emails And Attachments To Train AI, But Here’s How To Opt-Out Anyway.” Google claims that it doesn’t use emails and attachments to train AI, but we know that’s false. Google correctly claims that it uses user-generation data for personalization of their applications, like Gmail. We all know that’s a workaround to use that data for other purposes.
The article includes instructions on how to opt out of information being used to train AI and “personalize” experiences. Gmail users, however, have had bad experiences with that option, including the need to turn the feature off multiple times.
Google claims it is committed to privacy but:
“Google has flatly denied using user content to train Gemini, noting that Gmail has offered some of these features for many years. However, the Workspace menu refers to newly added Gemini functionality several times.
The company also denied automatically modifying user permissions, but some people have reported needing multiple attempts to turn off smart features.”
There’s also security vulnerabilities:
“In addition to raising privacy concerns, Gmail’s AI functionality has exposed serious vulnerabilities. In March, Mozilla found that attackers could easily inject prompts that would cause the client’s AI generated summaries to become phishing messages.”
Imagine that one little digital switch protects your privacy and data. Methinks it is a placebo effect. Whitney Grace, December 11, 2025
Google Gemini Hits Copilot with a Dang Block: Oomph
December 10, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Smart software is finding its way into interesting places. One of my newsfeeds happily delivered “The War Department Unleashes AI on New GenAI.mil Platform.” Please, check out the original document because it contains some phrasing which is difficult for a dinobaby to understand. Here’s an example:
The War Department today announced the launch of Google Cloud’s Gemini for Government as the first of several frontier AI capabilities to be housed on GenAI.mil, the Department’s new bespoke AI platform.
There are a number of smart systems with government wide contracts. Is the Google Gemini deal just one of the crowd or is it the cloud over the other players? I am not sure what a “frontier” capability is when it comes to AI. The “frontier” of AI seems to be shifting each time a performance benchmark comes out from a GenX consulting firm or when a survey outfit produces a statement that QWEN accounts for 30 percent of AI involving an open source large language model. The idea of a “bespoke AI platform” is fascinating. Is it like a suit tailored on Oxford Street or a vehicle produced by Chip Foose, or is it one of those enterprise software systems with extensive customization? Maybe like an IBM government systems solution?
Thanks, Google. Good enough. I wanted square and you did horizontal, but that’s okay. I understand.
And that’s just the first sentence. You are now officially on your own.
For me, the big news is that the old Department of Defense loved PowerPoint. If you have bumped into any old school Department of Defense professionals, the PowerPoint is the method of communication. Sure, there’s Word and Excel. But the real workhorse is PowerPoint. And now that old nag has Copilot inside.
The way I read this news release is that Google has pulled a classic blocking move or dang. Microsoft has been for decades the stallion in the stall. Now, the old nag has some competition from Googzilla, er, excuse me, Google. Word of this deal was floating around for several months, but the cited news release puts Microsoft in general and Copilot in particular on notice that it is no longer the de facto solution to a smart Department of War’s digital needs. Imagine a quarter century after screwing up a big to index the US government servers, Google has emerged as a “winner” among “several frontier AI capabilities” and will reside on “the Department’s new bespoke AI platform.”
This is big news for Google and Microsoft, its certified partners, and, of course, the PowerPoint users at the DoW.
The official document says:
The first instance on GenAI.mil, Gemini for Government, empowers intelligent agentic workflows, unleashes experimentation, and ushers in an AI-driven culture change that will dominate the digital battlefield for years to come. Gemini for Government is the embodiment of American AI excellence, placing unmatched analytical and creative power directly into the hands of the world’s most dominant fighting force.
But what about Sage, Seerist, and the dozens of other smart platforms? Obviously these solutions cannot deliver “intelligent agentic workflows” or unleash the “AI driven culture change” needed for the “digital battlefield.” Let’s hope so. Because some of those smart drones from a US firm have failed real world field tests in Ukraine. Perhaps the smart drone folks can level up instead of doing marketing?
I noted this statement:
The Department is providing no-cost training for GenAI.mil to all DoW employees. Training sessions are designed to build confidence in using AI and give personnel the education needed to realize its full potential. Security is paramount, and all tools on GenAI.mil are certified for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Impact Level 5 (IL5), making them secure for operational use. Gemini for Government provides an edge through natural language conversation, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and is web-grounded against Google Search to ensure outputs are reliable and dramatically reduces the risk of AI hallucinations.
But wait, please. I thought Microsoft and Palantir were doing the bootcamps, demonstrating, teaching, and then deploying next generation solutions. Those forward deployed engineers and the Microsoft certified partners have been beavering away for more than a year. Who will be doing the training? Will it be Googlers? I know that YouTube has some useful instructional videos, but those are from third parties. Google’s training is — how shall I phrase it — less notable than some of its other capabilities like publicizing its AI prowess.
The last paragraph of the document does not address the questions I have, but it does have a stentorian ring in my opinion:
GenAI.mil is another building block in America’s AI revolution. The War Department is unleashing a new era of operational dominance, where every warfighter wields frontier AI as a force multiplier. The release of GenAI.mil is an indispensable strategic imperative for our fighting force, further establishing the United States as the global leader in AI.
Several observations:
- Google is now getting its chance to put Microsoft in its place from inside the Department of War. Maybe the Copilot can come along for the ride, but it could be put on leave.
- The challenge of training is interesting. Training is truly a big deal, and I am curious how that will be handled. The DoW has lots of people to teach about the capabilities of Gemini AI.
- Google may face some push back from its employees. The company has been working to stop the Googlers from getting out of the company prescribed lanes. Will this shift to warfighting create some extra work for the “leadership” of that estimable company? I think Google’s management methods will be exercised.
Net net: Google knows about advertising. Does it have similar capabilities in warfighting?
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2025
MIT Iceberg: Identifying Hotspots
December 10, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I like the idea of identifying exposure hotspots. (I hate to mention this, but MIT did have a tie up with Jeffrey Epstein, did it not? How long did it take for that hotspot to be exposed? The dynamic duo linked in 2002 and wound down the odd couple relationship in 2017. That looks to me to be about 15 years.) Therefore, I approach MIT-linked research from some caution. Is this a good idea? Yep.)
What is this iceberg thing? I won’t invoke the Titanic’s encounter with an iceberg, nor will I point to some reports about faulty engineering. I am confident had MIT been involved, that vessel would probably be parked in a harbor, serving as a museum.
I read “The Iceberg Index: Measuring Skills-centered Exposure in the AI Economy.” You can too. The paper is free at least for a while. It also has 10 authors who generated 21 pages to point out that smart software is chewing up jobs. Of course, this simple conclusion is supported by quite a bit of academic fireworks.
The iceberg chart which reminds me of the Dark Web charts. I wonder if Jeffrey Epstein surfed the Dark Web while waiting for a meet and greet at MIT? The source for this image is MIT or possibly an AI system helping out the MIT graphic artist humanoid.
I love these charts. I find them eye catching and easily skippable.
Even though smart software makes up stuff, appears to have created some challenges for teachers and college professors (except those laboring in Jeffrey Epstein’s favorite grove of academic, of course), and people looking for jobs. The as is smart software can eliminate about 10 to 11 percent of here and now jobs. The good news is that 90 percent of the workers can wait for AI to get better and then eliminate another chunk of jobs. For those who believe that technology just gets better and better, the number of jobs for humanoids is likely to be gnawed and spat out for the foreseeable future.
I am not going to cause the 10 authors to hire SEO spam shops in Africa to make my life miserable. I will suggest, however, that there may be what I call de-adoption in the near future. The idea is that an organization is unhappy with the cost / value for its AI installation. A related factor is that some humans in an organization may introduce some work flow friction. The actions can range from griping about services interrupting work like Microsoft’s enterprise Copilot to active sabotage. People can fake being on a work related video conference, and I assume a college graduate (not from MIT, of course) might use this tactic to escape these wonderful face to face innovations. Nor will I suggest that AI may continue to need humans to deliver successful work task outcomes. Does an AI help me buy more of a product? Does AI boost your satisfaction with an organization pushing and AI helper on each of its Web pages?
And no academic paper (except those presented at AI conferences) are complete without some nifty traditional economic type diagrams. Here’s an example for the industrious reader to check:
Source: the MIT Report. Is it my imagination or five of the six regression lines pointing down? What’s negative correlation? (Yep, dinobaby stuff.)
Several observations:
- This MIT paper is similar to blue chip consulting “thought pieces.” The blue chippers write to get leads and close engagements. What is the purpose of this paper? Reading posts on Reddit or LinkedIn makes clear that AI allegedly is replacing jobs or used as an excuse to dump expensive human workers.
- I identified a couple of issues I would raise if the 10 authors had trooped into my office when I worked at a big university and asked for comments. My hunch is that some of the 10 would have found me manifesting dinobaby characteristics even though I was 23 years old.
- The spate of AI indexes suggests that people are expressing their concern about smart software that makes mistakes by putting lipstick on what is a very expensive pig. I sense a bit of anxiety in these indexes.
Net net: Read the original paper. Take a look at your coworkers. Which will be the next to be crushed because of the massive investments in a technology that is good enough, over hyped, and perceived as the next big thing. (Measure the bigness by pondering the size of Meta’s proposed data center in the southern US of A.) Remember, please, MIT and Epstein Epstein Epstein.
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
