IBM and Smart Software: Try and Try Again, Dear Watson with an X
August 7, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
With high hopes, IBM is acquiring FinOps firm Apptio for $4.6 billion. As Horses for Sources puts it, “IBM’s Acquisition of Apptio Can Shine if IBM Software and IBM Consulting Work Together to Deliver Cost-Managed Innovation at Speed.” But that is a big “if”. The odds seem long from the standpoint of RedHat users unimpressed with both IBM’s approach and internal cooperation at the company.
The young, sincere child presages her future in a giant technology company, “Yes, I will try to stack blocks to make the big building you told me to create with the blocks I got from my friend, Apt Ti Oh.” MidJourney, you did let me down with your previous “frustrated kid” images. Sultry teens were not what I was after.
IBM intends to mix Apptio with several other acquisitions that have gone into the new Watsonx platform, like Turbonomic, Instana, and MyInvenio, to create a cohesive IT-management platform. Linking spending data with operational data should boost efficiency, save money, and facilitate effective planning. This vision, however, is met with some skepticism. Writers Tom Reuner and Phil Fersht tell us:
“Apptio never progressed beyond providing insights, while IBM needs to demonstrate the proof points for integrating its disparate capabilities as well as progress from insight to action and, ultimately, automation. IBM Software must work with IBM Consulting transformation more effectively. … In essence, if successful, the ability to act on – and ultimately automate – all those insights is pretty much the operational Holy Grail. Just for transparency, getting expansive spend management and FinOps capabilities in itself will be a solid asset for IBM. However, any new and bolder proposition aiming at the bigger transformation price must move beyond technology and include stakeholders and change management. The ambition could be a broader business assurance where spend data, operational insights, and governance get tied to business objectives. In our view, this provides a significant alignment opportunity with IBM Consulting as it seeks to differentiate itself from the likes of Accenture Operations and Genpact. Having a deep services alignment with Watsonx and Apptio will bridge together the ability to manage the cost and value of both cloud transformation and AI investments – provided it gets it right with its global talent base of technical and process domain specialists.”
So the objective is a platform that brings companies’ disparate parts together into a cohesive and efficient whole. But this process must involve humans as well as data. If IBM can figure out how to do so within its own company, perhaps it stands a chance of reaching the goal.
Cynthia Murrell, August 6, 2023
MBAs, Lawyers, and Sociology Majors Lose Another Employment Avenue
August 4, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. (´?_?`) Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
Some days I find MBAs, lawyers, and sociology majors delightful. On others I fear for their future. One promising avenue of employment has now be cut off. What’s the job? Avocado peeler in an ethnic restaurant. Some hearty souls channeling Euell Gibbons may eat these as nature delivers them. Others prefer a toast delivery vehicle or maybe a dip to accompany a meal in an ethnic restaurant or while making a personal vlog about the stresses of modern life.
“Chipotle’s Autocado Robot Can Prep Avocados Twice as Fast as Humans” reports:
The robot is capable of peeling, seeding, and halving a case of avocados significantly faster than humans, and the company estimates it could cut its typical 50-minute guacamole prep time in half…
When an efficiency expert from a McKinsey-type firm or a second tier thinker from a mid-tier consulting firm reads this article, there is one obvious line of thought the wizard will follow: Replace some of the human avocado peelers with a robot. Projecting into the future while under the influence of spreadsheet fever, an upgrade to the robot’s software will enable it to perform other jobs in the restaurant or food preparation center; for example, taco filler or dip crafter.
Based on this actual factual write up, I have concluded that some MBAs, lawyers, and sociology majors will have to seek another pathway to their future. Yard sale organizer, pet sitter, and possibly the life of a hermit remain viable options. Oh, the hermit will have GoFundMe and BuyMeaCoffee pages. Perhaps a T shirt or a hat?
Stephen E Arnold, August 4, 2023
Llama Beans? Is That the LLM from Zuckbook?
August 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
We love open-source projects. Camelids that masquerade as such, not so much. According to The Register, “Meta Can Call Llama 2 Open Source as Much as It Likes, but That Doesn’t Mean It Is.” The company asserts its new large language model is open source because it is freely available for research and (some) commercial use. Are Zuckerburg and his team of Meta marketers fuzzy on the definition of open source? Writer Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols builds his case with quotes from several open source authorities. First up:
“As Erica Brescia, a managing director at RedPoint, the open source-friendly venture capital firm, asked: ‘Can someone please explain to me how Meta and Microsoft can justify calling Llama 2 open source if it doesn’t actually use an OSI [Open Source Initiative]-approved license or comply with the OSD [Open Source Definition]? Are they intentionally challenging the definition of OSS [Open Source Software]?'”
Maybe they are trying. After all, open source is good for business. And being open to crowd-sourced improvements does help the product. However, as the post continues:
“The devil is in the details when it comes to open source. And there, Meta, with its Llama 2 Community License Agreement, falls on its face. As The Register noted earlier, the community agreement forbids the use of Llama 2 to train other language models; and if the technology is used in an app or service with more than 700 million monthly users, a special license is required from Meta. It’s also not on the Open Source Initiative’s list of open source licenses.”
Next, we learn OSI‘s executive director Stefano Maffulli directly states Llama 2 does not meet his organization’s definition of open source. The write-up quotes him:
“While I’m happy that Meta is pushing the bar of available access to powerful AI systems, I’m concerned about the confusion by some who celebrate Llama 2 as being open source: if it were, it wouldn’t have any restrictions on commercial use (points 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition). As it is, the terms Meta has applied only allow some commercial use. The keyword is some.”
Maffulli further clarifies Meta’s license specifically states Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Bytedance, Alibaba, and any startup that grows too much may not use the LLM. Such a restriction is a no-no in actual open source projects. Finally, Software Freedom Conservancy executive Karen Sandler observes:
“It looks like Meta is trying to push a license that has some trappings of an open source license but, in fact, has the opposite result. Additionally, the Acceptable Use Policy, which the license requires adherence to, lists prohibited behaviors that are very expansively written and could be very subjectively applied.”
Perhaps most egregious for Sandler is the absence of a public drafting or comment process for the Llama 2 license. Llamas are not particularly speedy creatures.
Cynthia Murrell, August 4, 2023
Social Media Outputs: Aloft Like a Cooling Hot Air Balloon?
August 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I found the assertions in “”They Need Us. We Don’t Need Them: The Fall of Twitter Is Making the Trolls and Grifters Desperate” in line with my experience. The write up asserts:
The grifters that make up the troll-industrial complex are not okay.
If you want the political spin on this statement, please, navigate to the source document. I want to focus on the observation “They need us. We don’t need them.” I view social media companies and those who have risen to fame on clicks and hyperbole are going to try to inflate every more colorful balloons. Their hope is to be seen as rulers of the sky. F-35s, addled doctors flying Cessnas, and hobbyist drones are potential problems for the hot air crowd.
The colorful balloons compete for attention. What happens when the hot air source cools? MidJourney would not depict a balloon crash into a pre-school playground. Bummer.
Let’s go back in time. In the 1980s, there were two financially successful and highly regarded business information commercial databases. One of the two companies had the idea that it could generate more revenue by pulling out of the online distribution agreements upon which the commercial database ecosystem depended. I don’t expect anyone reading this essay to remember DataStar, Dialcom, ESA Quest, or the original LexisNexis service. The key factoid is that if one wanted to deliver an electronic business information product, the timesharing outfits were the enablers. Think of them as a proto-Google.
How did that work out?
After quite a bit of talking and thinking, the business information company resigned itself to the servitude under which it served. It was decades later that Web accessible content and paywalls began to make it possible for a handful of companies to generate without the old timesharing intermediaries.
Few know the names of these commercial databases which once were the cat’s pajamas.
The moral of the story, from my point of view, is that people or services which view themselves as important enough to operate outside of an ecosystem have to understand the ecosystem. Alas, too many individuals perceive themselves as being powerful magnets. Sure, these individuals or companies have a tiny bit of magnetic power. However, without the ecosystem and today’s enablers, the reality is that their “power” is not easily or economically amplified.
From my point of view, social media provided free, no friction amplification. For that reason, I want social media regulated and managed by responsible individuals. Editorial or content guidelines must be promulgated and enforced. The Wild West has be converted into a managed townhouse community. Keep in mind that I am a dinobaby, and I am not sure arguments about the “value” of social media will be processed by my aged mental equipment.
Just look around you in an objective manner. Nice environment, right? Now we have balloons of craziness drifting above in an effort to capture attention. What happens when the hot air source cools? Back down to earth and possibly without a gentle landing.
Stephen E Arnold, August 4, 2023
Google Relies on People Not Perceiving a Walled Garden
August 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I want to keep this brief. I have been, largely without effect, explaining Google’s foundational idea of a walled garden people will perceive as the digital world. Once in the garden, why leave?
A representation of the Hotel California’s walled garden. Why bother to leave? The walled garden is the entire digital world. I wish MidJourney would have included the neon sign spelling out “Hotel California” or “Googleplex.” But no, no, no. Smart software has guard rails.
Today (August 3, 2023), I want to point to two different write ups which explain bafflement at what Google is doing.
The first is a brief item from Mastodon labeled (I think) “A List of Recent Hostile Moves by Google’s Chrome Team.” The write up points out that Google’s attempt to become the gatekeeper for content. Another is content blocking. And action to undermine an image format. Hacker News presents several hundred comments which say to me, “Why is Google doing this? Google is supposed to be a good company.” Imagine. Read these comments at this link. Amazing, at least to me!
The second item is from a lawyer. The article is “Google’s Plan To DRM The Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For.” Please, read the write up yourself. What’s remarkable is the point of view expressed in this phrase “everything Google once stood for.” Lawyers are a fascinating branch of professional advice givers. I am fearful of this type of thinking; therefore, I try to stay as far away from attorneys as I can.
Let’s step back.
In one of my monographs about Google (research funded by commercial enterprises) which contain some of the information my clients did not deep sensitive, I depicted Sergey Brin as a magician with fire in his hand. From the beginning of Google’s monetization via advertising misdirection and keeping the audience amazed were precepts of the company. Today’s Google is essentially running what is now a 25 year old game plan. Why not? Advertising “inspired” by Yahoo-GoTo-Overture’s pay-for-traffic model generates almost 70 percent of the company’s revenue. With advertising under pressure, the Google has to amp up its controls. Those relevant ads displayed to me for feminine-centric products reflect the efficacy of the precision ad matching, right?
Think about the walled garden metaphor. Think about the magician analogy. Now think about what Google will do to extend and influence the world around it. Exciting for young people who view the world through eyes which have only seen what the walled garden offers. If TikTok goes away, Google has its version with influencers and product placements. What’s not to like about Google News, Gmail, or Android? Most people find nothing untoward, and altering those perceptions may be difficult.
The long view is helpful when one extends control a free service at a time. And relevance of Google’s search results? The results are relevant because the objective is ad revenue and messaging on Googley things. An insect in the walled garden does not know much about other gardens and definitely nothing about an alternative.
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2023
What Will Smart Software Change?
August 3, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. (´?_?`) Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
Today (July 27, 2023) a person told me about “Photographs of People Making Books at the Collins Factory in 1960s Glasgow.” The write up is less compelling than the photographs. The online article features workers who:
- Organize products for shipping
- Setting type slugs with a hammer and chisel
- A person stitching book folios together
- A living artist making a plate
- A real person putting monotype back in a case.
I mention this because I have seen articles which suggest that smart software will not cause humans to lose their jobs. It took little time for publishers to cut staff and embrace modern production methods. It took less time for writers to generate a PDF and use an Amazon-type service to promote, sell, and distribute a book. Now smart software is allegedly poised to eliminate writers.
Will AI really create more work for humans?
The 1960s photos suggest that technology eliminates jobs in my opinion as it disrupts established work procedures and vaporizes norms which glue social constructs together. Anyone you know have the expertise to seat metal type with a hammer and chisel? I suppose I should have asked, “Does anyone near you scroll TikToks?”
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2023
The Authority of a Parent: In Question?
August 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
If we cannot scan the kids, let us scan the guardians. That is what the ESRB, digital identity firm Yoti, and kiddie marketing firm SuperAwesome are asking the Federal Trade Commission according to The Register‘s piece, “Watchdog Mulls Online Facial Age-Verification Tech—For Kids’ Parents.” The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires websites and apps to make kids under 13 get a parent’s permission before they can harvest that sweet, early stage personal data. It is during the next step the petitioners would like to employ age-verification software on the grown-ups. As writer Jessica Lyons Hardcastle describes, the proposed process relies on several assumptions. She outlines the steps:
“1. First, a child visits a website and hits an age gate. The operator then asks the kid for their parent’s email, sends a note to the parent letting them know that they need to verify that they’re an adult for the child to proceed, and offers the facial-age scanning estimation as a possible verification method.
2. (Yes, let’s assume for a moment that the kid doesn’t do what every 10-year-old online does and lie about their age, or let’s assume the website or app has a way of recognizing it’s dealing with a kid, such as asking for some kind of ID.)
3. If the parent consents to having their face scanned, their system then takes a selfie and the software provides an age estimate.
4. If the age guesstimate indicates the parent is an adult, the kid can then proceed to the website. But if it determines they are not an adult, a couple of things happen.
5. If ‘there is some other uncertainty about whether the person is an adult’ then the person can choose an alternative verification method, such as a credit card, driver’s license, or social security number.
6. But if the method flat out decides they are not an adult, it’s a no go for access. We’re also going to assume here that the adult is actually the parent or legal guardian.”
Sure, why not? The tech works by converting one’s face into a set of numbers and feeding that to an AI that has been trained to assess age with those numbers. According to the ESRB, the actual facial scans are not saved for AI training, marketing, or any other purpose. But taking them, and their data-hungry partners, at their word is yet another assumption.
Cynthia Murrell, August 3, 2023
Research: A Suspicious Activity and Deserving of a Big Blinking X?
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The Stanford president does it. The Harvard ethics professor does it. Many journal paper authors do it. Why can’t those probing the innards of the company formerly known as Twatter do it?
I suppose those researchers can. The response to research one doesn’t accept can be a simple, “The data processes require review.” But no, no, no. The response elicited from the Twatter is presented in “X Sues Hate Speech Researchers Whose Scare Campaign Spooked Twitter Advertisers.” The headline is loaded with delicious weaponized words in my opinion; for instance, the ever popular “hate speech”, the phrase “scare campaign,” and “spooked.”
MidJourney, after some coaxing, spit out a frightened audience of past, present, and potential Twatter advertisers. I am not sure the smart software captured the reality of an advertiser faced with some brand-injuring information.
Wording aside, the totally objective real news write up reports:
X Corp sued a nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), for allegedly “actively working to assert false and misleading claims” regarding spiking levels of hate speech on X and successfully “encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform,” Twitter’s blog said.
I found this statement interesting:
X is alleging that CCDH is being secretly funded by foreign governments and X competitors to lob this attack on the platform, as well as claiming that CCDH is actively working to censor opposing viewpoints on the platform. Here, X is echoing statements of US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the CCDH of being a “foreign dark money group” in 2021—following a CCDH report on 12 social media accounts responsible for 65 percent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, Fox Business reported.
Imagine. The Musker questioning research.
Exactly what is “accurate” today? One could query the Stanford president, the Harvard ethicist, Mr. Musk, or the executives of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Wow. That sounds like work, probably as daunting as reviewing the methodology used for the report.
My moral and ethical compass is squarely tracking lunch today. No attorneys invited. No litigation necessary if my soup is cold. I will be dining in a location far from the spot once dominated by a quite beefy, blinking letter signifying Twatter. You know. I think I misspelled “tweeter.” I will fix it soon. Sorry.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Building Trust a Step at a Time the Silicon Valley Way
August 2, 2023
Note: Dinobaby here: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. Services are now ejecting my cute little dinosaur gif. (´?_?`) Like my posts related to the Dark Web, the MidJourney art appears to offend someone’s sensibilities in the datasphere. If I were not 78, I might look into these interesting actions. But I am and I don’t really care.
I know that most companies are not really “in” Silicon Valley. It is a figure of speech to put certain firms and their business practices in a basket. I then try to find something useful to say about the basket. Please, feel free to disagree. Just note that I am a dinobaby, and I am often reluctant to discard my perceptions. Look at the positive side of this mental orientation: If and when you are 78, you too can analyze from a perspective guaranteed to be different from the 20-somethings who are the future of lots of stuff; for example, who gets medical care. Think about that.
I read “Meta, Amazon and Microsoft team up to take down Google Maps.” The source is a newspaper which I label “estimable tabloid.” The story caught my attention because it identified what this dinobaby perceives as collusion among commercial enterprises. My hunch is that some people living outside the US might label the business approach different. Classification debates are the most fun when held at information science trade shows. Vendors explain why their classification system is the absolute best way to put information in baskets. Exciting.
So my basket contains three outfits which want to undermine or get the biggest piece of the map action that Google controls. None of these outfits are monopolistic. If they were, the Cracker Jack US government agency charged with taking action against outfits that JP Morgan would definitely want to own would not lose its cases against a few big tech outfits.
The article explains:
The Operture Maps Foundation is an open initiative, making it a compelling alternative to Google Maps for app and software-makers. Google Maps takes a closed approach, giving Google greater control over how its map data is used and implemented. It also charges app developers for access to Google Maps, based on how many times the app’s users call on mapping info.
I wonder if this suggests that Operture Maps is different from the Google?
The article points out:
Overture Maps Foundation was established in 2022, as a partnership between Amazon AWS, Microsoft, Meta and TomTom. Its aim is “to create the smartest map on the planet,” according to TomTom VP of Engineering Mike Harrell. It also aims to make sure all your map needs in the future won’t be supplied by either Google or Apple.
I interpret this passage to mean that three big dogs want to team up to become a bigger dog. The consequence of being a bigger dog is that it can chow down on the goodies destined for the behemoths Apple and Google.
Viewed from the perspective of a consumer, I see this as an attempt for three “competitors” to team up and go after Apple and Google. Each company has a map business. Viewed as a person who worked in government entities for a number of years, I can interpret this tie up as a way to get some free meals and maybe a boondoggle from one or more lobbyists working on behalf of these firms. Viewed as someone concerned about the ineffectual nature of US regulation of the activities of big tech, I am more inclined than ever to use a paper map.
Will the Silicon Valley “way” work in other nation states? Probably not. China has taken steps to manage some of these super duper outfits within their borders. The European Union is skeptical of many big tech, Silicon Valley ideas. But at the end of the fiscal year, will objections matter?
I know what my answer is. Grab that paper map. We’re going on a road trip with location tracking and selective information whether I like it or not. I think I trust my paper map.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Hollywood and Unintended Consequences: The AI Puppy Has Escaped
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
For most viewers, the ongoing writers’ and actors’ guild strikes simply mean the unwelcome delay of their usual diversions. Perhaps they will revisit an old hobby or refresh themselves on what an in-person sunset looks like. But for those in the entertainment industry, this is nothing short of a fight for their livelihoods and, for some, human innovation itself. The Hollywood Reporter transcribes an interview with a prominent SAG-AFTRA negotiator in, “Justine Bateman: Pulling AI Into the Arts is ‘Absolutely the Wrong Direction’.”
Streaming is one major issue in these strikes. Studios are making big bucks off that technology but, strikers assert, pre-streaming contracts fail to protect the interests of actors, writers, and other content creators. Then there is AI, which many see as the bigger threat. Studio efforts to profit from algorithm-built content is already well underway. So, if the studios win out in these negotiations, don’t plan on being a Hollywood writer unless you are really famous, know AI methods, and have a friend in the executive suite. Others can practice van life.
Bateman is very concerned about that issue, of course, but she is also anxious for our collective creative soul. She states:
“Generative AI can only function if you feed it a bunch of material. In the film business, it constitutes our past work. Otherwise, it’s just an empty blender and it can’t do anything on its own. That’s what we were looking at the time [at UCLA]. Machine learning and generative AI have exploded since then. … When I could see that it was going to be used to widen profit margins, in white-collar jobs and more generally replace human expression with our past human expression, I just went, ‘This is an end of the progression of society if we just stayed here.’ If you keep recycling what we’ve got from the past, nothing new will ever be generated. If generative AI started in the beginning of the 20th century, we would never have had jazz, rock ’n’ roll, film noir. That’s what it stops. There are some useful applications to it — I don’t know of that many —but pulling it into the arts is absolutely the wrong direction.'”
So, are the WAG and SAG-AFTRA negotiators all that stand between us and a future of culture-on-repeat? Somehow, this dino-baby has faith human creativity is powerful enough to win out in the end. Just not sure how.
Cynthia Murrell, August 2, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
