Microsoft Explains that Its AI Leads to Smart Software Capacity Gap Closing
May 7, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
I read a content marketing write up with two interesting features: [1] New jargon about smart software and [2] a direct response to Google’s increasingly urgent suggestions that Googzilla has won the AI war. The article appears in Venture Beat with the title “Microsoft Just Launched Powerful AI ‘Agents’ That Could Completely Transform Your Workday — And Challenge Google’s Workplace Dominance.” The title suggests that Google is the leader in smart software in the lucrative enterprise market. But isn’t Microsoft’s “flavor” of smart software in products from the much-loved Teams to the lowly Notepad application? Isn’t Word like Excel at the top of the heap when it comes to usage in the enterprise?
I will ignore these questions and focus on the lingo in the article. It is different and illustrates what college graduates with a B.A. in modern fiction can craft when assisted by a sprinkling of social science majors and a former journalist or two.
Here are the terms I circled:
product name: Microsoft 365 Copilot Wave 2 Spring release (wow, snappy)
integral collaborator (another bound phrase which means agent)
intelligence abundance (something everyone is talking about)
frontier firm (forward leaning synonym)
‘human-led, agent-operated’ workplaces (yes, humans lead; they are not completely eliminated)
agent store (yes, another online store. You buy agents; you don’t buy people)
browser for AI
brand-compliant images
capacity gap (I have no idea what this represents)
agent boss (Is this a Copilot thing?)
work charts (not images, plans I think)
Copilot control system (Is this the agent boss thing?)
So what does the write up say? In my dinobaby mind, the answer is, “Everything a member of leadership could want: Fewer employees, more productivity from those who remain on the payroll, software middle managers who don’t complain or demand emotional support from their bosses, and a narrowing of the capacity gap (whatever that is).
The question is, “Can either Google, Microsoft, or OpenAI deliver this type of grand vision?” Answer: Probably the vision can be explained and made magnetic via marketing, PR, and language weaponization, but the current AI technology still has a couple of hurdles to get over without tearing the competitors’ gym shorts:
- Hallucinations and making stuff up
- Copyright issues related to training and slapping the circle C, trademarks, and patents on outputs from these agent bosses and robot workers
- Working without creating a larger attack surface for bad actors armed with AI to exploit (Remember, security, not AI, is supposed to be Job No. 1 at Microsoft. You remember that, right? Right?)
- Killing dolphins, bleaching coral, and choking humans on power plant outputs
- Getting the billions pumped into smart software back in the form of sustainable and growing revenues. (Yes, there is a Santa Claus too.)
Net net: Wow. Your turn Google. Tell us you have won, cured disease, and crushed another game player. Oh, you will have to use another word for “dominance.” Tip: Let OpenAI suggest some synonyms.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2025
Thorium News: Downplaying or Not Understanding a Key Fact
May 7, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
My first real job, which caused me to drop out of my PhD program at the University of Illinois, was with a nuclear consulting and services firm. The company was in the midst of becoming part of Halliburton. I figured a PhD in medieval literature might be less financially valuable to me than working in Washington, DC, for the nuke outfit. When I was introduced at a company meeting, my boss, James K. Rice explained that I was working on a PhD in poetry. Dr. James Terwilliger, a nuclear engineer shouted out, “I never read a poem.” Big laugh. Terwilliger and I became fast friends.
At that time in the early 1970s, there was one country that was the pointy end of the stick in things nuclear. That was the United States. Some at the company like Dominique Dorée would have argued that France was right next to the USA crowd, and she would have been mostly correct. Russia was a player. So was China. But the consensus view was that USA was number one. When I worked for a time for Congressman Craig Hosmer (R-Cal., USN admiral ret.), he made it quite clear that America’s nuclear industry was and would be on his watch the world leader in nuclear research, applications, and engineering.
I read an article in the prestigious online publication Popular Mechanics which appears to be trapped in that 1970s’ mind set. The publication’s write up “A Thorium Reactor in the Middle of the Desert Has Rewritten the Rules of Nuclear Power” does a good job of running through the details and benefits of a thorium-based nuclear reactor. Think molten salt instead the engineering problem child water to cool these systems.
But the key point in the write up was buried. I want to highlight what I think is the most important item in the article. Here it is:
Though China may currently be the world leader in molten salt reactors, the U.S. is catching up.
Several observations:
- Quite a change in the 60 plus years between Terwilliger’s comment about poetry and China’s leadership in thorium systems
- Admiral Craig Hosmer would not be happy were he still alive and playing a key role in supporting nuclear research and engineering as the head of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. (An unhappy Admiral is not a fun admiral I want to point out.)
- The statement about China’s lead in this technical space suggests that fast and decisive action is needed to train young, talented people with the engineering, mathematical, and other technical skills required to innovate in nuclear technology.
Popular Mechanics buried the real story, summarizing some features of thorium reactors. Was that from a sense of embarrassment or a failure to recognize what the real high impact part of the write up was?
Action is needed, not an inability to recognize a fact with high knowledge value. Less doom scrolling and more old fashioned learning. That reactor is not in a US desert; it is operating in a Chinese desert. That’s important in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2025
Ask Siri: How Does Apple Avoid a Tariff Catastrophe
May 7, 2025
Visualize Tim Apple. He asks Siri, “Siri, how do I guarantee Apple’s dominance in the mobile device sector?”
Siri answers, “Just ignore reality.”
The only problem is that Siri is one example of Apple’s outstanding technology, management decision making, and financial wizardry. Too bad the outputs are incorrect.
Let’s look at one good example:
Apple’s immense success is underpinned by the global supply chain it has spent decades cultivating. Now, President Trump may have turned that asset into a liability with the stroke of a pen. The BBC explains, “Designed in US, Made in China: Why Apple is Stuck.” Though the president backtracked a bit and exempted smartphones and computers from the tariffs, those final products are just the last step of Apple’s production infrastructure. Reporter Annabelle Liang writes:
“While the sleek rectangle that runs many of our lives is indeed designed in the United States, it is likely to have come to life thousands of miles away in China: the country hit hardest by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, now rising to 245% on some Chinese imports. Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year and by most estimates, nine in 10 are made in China. From the glossy screens to the battery packs, it’s here that many of the components in an Apple product are made, sourced and assembled into iPhones, iPads or Macbooks. Most are shipped to the US, Apple’s largest market. Luckily for the firm, Trump suddenly exempted smartphones, computers and some other electronic devices from his tariffs last week. But the comfort is short-lived. The president has since suggested that more tariffs are coming: ‘NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook’,’ he wrote on Truth Social, as his administration investigated ‘semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN’.”
Such as stable genius. Meanwhile, Apple is vulnerable to competition from Chinese firms that benefit from the infrastructure Apple fostered. We learn:
“‘Now that ‘Apple has cultivated China’s electronic manufacturing capabilities, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo and others can reuse Apple’s mature supply chain,’ according to Mr. Lin. Last year, Apple lost its place as China’s biggest smartphone seller to Huawei and Vivo.”
Way to kick a billionaire when he is down. It seems Tim Cook may now face Apple sauce, not Apple success. Did he not kiss the ring sufficiently? The firm now plans to invest $500 billion in the US, but we doubt even that sum will relocate much of Apple’s entrenched network to these shores. Or do much to placate the tariffer-in-chief. I want to write about ignoring the court decision regarding its online store. That’s another example of Ask Siri wisdom.
Cynthia Murrell, May 7, 2025
Google Versus OpenAI: Whose Fish Is Bigger?
May 6, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Bing Crosby quipped on one of his long-ago radio shows, “We are talking about fish here” when asked about being pulled to shore by a salmon he caught. I think about the Bingster when I come across “user” numbers for different smart software systems. “Google Reveals Sky High Gemini Usage Numbers in Antitrust Case” provides some perjury proof data that it is definitely number two in smart software.
According to the write up:
The [Google] slide listed Gemini’s 350 million monthly users, along with daily traffic of 35 million users.
Okay, we have some numbers.
The write up provides a comparative set of data; to wit:
OpenAI has also seen traffic increase, putting ChatGPT around 600 million monthly active users, according to Google’s analysis. Early this year, reports pegged ChatGPT usage at around 400 million users per month.
Where’s Microsoft in this count? Yeah, who knows? MSFT just pounds home that it is winning in the enterprise. Okay, I understand.
What’s interesting about these data or lack of it has several facets:
- For Google, the “we’re number two” angle makes clear that its monopoly in online advertising has not transferred to becoming automatically number one in AI
- The data from Google are difficult to verify, but everyone trusts the Google
- The data from OpenAI are difficult to verify, but everyone trusts Sam AI-Man.
Where are we in the AI game?
At the mercy of unverifiable numbers and marketing type assertions.
What about Deepseek which may be banned by some of the folks in Washington, DC? What about everyone’s favorite litigant Meta / Facebook?
Net net: AI is everywhere so what’s the big deal? Let’s get used to marketing because those wonderful large language models still have a bit of problem with hallucinations, not to mention security issues and copyright hassles. I won’t mention cost because the data make clear that the billions pumped into smart software have not generated a return yet. Someday perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2025
China Tough. US Weak: A Variation of the China Smart. US Dumb Campaign
May 6, 2025
No AI. This old dinobaby just plods along, delighted he is old and this craziness will soon be left behind. What about you?
Even members of my own team thing I am confusing information about China’s technology with my dinobaby peculiarities. That may be. Nevertheless, I want to document the story “The Ancient Chinese General Whose Calm During Surgery Is Still Told of Today.” I know it is. I just read a modern retelling of the tale in the South China Morning Post. (Hey. Where did that paywall go?)
The basic idea is that a Chinese leader (tough by genetics and mental discipline) had dinner with some colleagues. A physician showed up and told the general, “You have poison in your arm bone.”
The leader allegedly told the physician,
“No big deal. Do the surgery here at the dinner table.”
The leader let the doc chop open his arm, remove the diseased area, and stitched the leader up. Now here’s the item in the write up I find interesting because it makes clear [a] the leader’s indifference to his colleagues who might find this surgical procedure an appetite killer and [b] the flawed collection of blood which seeped after the incision was made. Keep in mind that the leader did not need any soporific, and the leader continued to chit chat with his colleagues. I assume the leader’s anecdotes and social skills kept his guests mesmerized.
Here’s the detail from the China Tough. US Weak write up:
“Guan Yu [the tough leader] calmly extended his arm for the doctor to proceed. At the time, he was sitting with fellow generals, eating and drinking together. As the doctor cut into his arm, blood flowed profusely, overflowing the basin meant to catch it. Yet Guan Yu continued to eat meat, drink wine, and chat and laugh as if nothing was happening.”
Yep, blood flowed profusely. Just the extra that sets one meal apart from another. The closest approximation in my experience was arriving at a fast food restaurant after a shooting. Quite a mess and the odor did not make me think of a cheeseburger with ketchup.
I expect that members of my team will complain about this blog post. That’s okay. I am a dinobaby, but I think this variation on the China Smart. US Dumb information flow is interesting. Okay, anyone want to pop over for fried squirrel. We can skin, gut, and fry them at one go. My mouth is watering at the thought. If we are lucky, one of the group will have bagged a deer. Now that’s an opportunity to add some of that hoist, skin, cut, and grill to the evening meal. Guan Yu, the tough Chinese leader, would definitely get with the kitchen work.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2025
AI Chatbots Now Learning Russian Propaganda
May 6, 2025
Gee, who would have guessed? Forbes reports, “Russian Propaganda Has Now Infected Western AI Chatbots—New Study.” Contributor Tor Constantino cites a recent NewsGuard report as he writes:
“A Moscow-based disinformation network known as ‘Pravda’ — the Russian word for ‘truth’ — has been flooding search results and web crawlers with pro-Kremlin falsehoods, causing AI systems to regurgitate misleading narratives. The Pravda network, which published 3.6 million articles in 2024 alone, is leveraging artificial intelligence to amplify Moscow’s influence at an unprecedented scale. The audit revealed that 10 leading AI chatbots repeated false narratives pushed by Pravda 33% of the time. Shockingly, seven of these chatbots directly cited Pravda sites as legitimate sources. In an email exchange, NewsGuard analyst Isis Blachez wrote that the study does not ‘name names’ of the AI systems most susceptible to the falsehood flow but acknowledged that the threat is widespread.”
Blachez believes a shift is underway from Russian operatives directly targeting readers to manipulation of AI models. Much more efficient. And sneaky. We learn:
“One of the most alarming practices uncovered is what NewsGuard refers to as ‘LLM grooming.’ This tactic is described as the deliberate deception of datasets that AI models — such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok 3, Perplexity and others — train on by flooding them with disinformation. Blachez noted that this propaganda pile-on is designed to bias AI outputs to align with pro-Russian perspectives. Pravda’s approach is methodical, relying on a sprawling network of 150 websites publishing in dozens of languages across 49 countries.”
AI firms can try to block propaganda sites from their models’ curriculum, but the operation is so large and elaborate it may be impossible. And also, how would they know if they had managed to do so? Nevertheless, Blachez encourages them to try. Otherwise, tech firms are destined to become conduits for the Kremlin’s agenda, she warns.
Of course, the rest of us have a responsibility here as well. We can and should double check information served up by AI. NewsGuard suggests its own Misinformation Fingerprints, a catalog of provably false claims it has found online. Or here is an idea: maybe do not turn to AI for information in the first place. After all, the tools are notoriously unreliable. And that is before Russian operatives get involved.
Cynthia Murrell, May 6, 2025
Secret Messaging: I Have a Bridge in Brooklyn to Sell You
May 5, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
I read “The Signal Clone the Trump Admin Uses Was Hacked.” I have no idea if this particular write up is 100 percent accurate. I do know that people want to believe that AI will revolutionize making oodles of money, that quantum computing will reinvent how next-generation systems will make oodles of money, and how new “secret” messaging apps will generate oodles of secret messages and maybe some money.
Here’s the main point of the article published by MichaFlee.com, an online information source:
TeleMessage, a company that makes a modified version of Signal that archives messages for government agencies, was hacked.
Due to the hack the “secret” messages were no longer secret; therefore, if someone believes the content to have value, those messages, metadata, user names, etc., etc. can be sold via certain channels. (No, I won’t name these, but, trust me, such channels exist, are findable, and generate some oodles of bucks in some situations.)
The Flee write up says:
A hacker has breached and stolen customer data from TeleMessage, an obscure Israeli company that sells modified versions of Signal and other messaging apps to the U.S. government to archive messages…
A snip from the write up on Reddit states:
The hack shows that an app gathering messages of the highest ranking officials in the government—Waltz’s chats on the app include recipients that appear to be Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard, and JD Vance—contained serious vulnerabilities that allowed a hacker to trivially access the archived chats of some people who used the same tool. The hacker has not obtained the messages of cabinet members, Waltz, and people he spoke to, but the hack shows that the archived chat logs are not end-to-end encrypted between the modified version of the messaging app and the ultimate archive destination controlled by the TeleMessage customer. Data related to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the cryptocurrency giant Coinbase, and other financial institutions are included in the hacked material…
First, TeleMessage is not “obscure.” The outfit has been providing software for specialized services since the founders geared up to become entrepreneurs. That works out to about a quarter of a century. The “obscure” tells me more about the knowledge of the author of the allegedly accurate story than about the firm itself. Second, yes, companies producing specialized software headquartered in Israel have links to Israeli government entities. (Where do you think the ideas for specialized software services and tools originate? In a kindergarten in Tel Aviv?) Third, for those who don’t remember October 2023, which one of my contacts labeled a day or two after the disastrous security breach resulting in the deaths of young people, was “Israel’s 9/11.” That’s correct and the event makes crystal clear that Israel’s security systems and other cyber security systems developed elsewhere in the world may not be secure. Is this a news flash? I don’t think so.
What does this allegedly true news story suggest? Here are a few observations:
- Most people make assumptions about “security” and believe fairy dust about “secure messaging.” Achieving security requires operational activities prior to selecting a system and sending messages or paying a service to back up Signal’s disappearing content. No correct operational procedures means no secure messaging.
- Cyber security software, created by humans, can be compromised. There are many ways. These include systemic failures, human error, believing in unicorns, and targeted penetrations. Therefore, security is a bit like the venture capitalists’ belief that the next big thing is their most recent investment colorfully described by a marketing professional with a degree in art history.
- Certain vendors do provide secure messaging services; however, these firms are not the ones bandied about in online discussion groups. There is such a firm providing at this time secure messaging to the US government. It is a US firm. Its system and method are novel. The question becomes, “Why not use the systems already operating, not a service half a world away, integrated with a free “secure” messaging application, and made wonderful because some of its code is open source?
Net net: Perhaps it is time to become more informed about cyber security and secure messaging apps?
PS. To the Reddit poster who said, “404 Media is the only one reporting this.” Check out the Israel Palestine News item from May 4, 2025.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2025
One Argument for Google to Retain Chrome
May 5, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
“Don’t Make Google Sell Chrome” argues that Google’s browser is important for the Web. Two thoughts: [a] The browser is definitely good for Google. It is a data hoovering wonder. And [b] the idea that Google is keeping the Web afloat means that any injury to Google imperils the World Wide Web. The author argues:
We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web’s corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web’s capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in — and it did! But the vitality of that free and open application platform depends on constant development. If the web stagnates, other platforms will gain. But with Team Chrome pushing the web forward in a million ways — be it import maps, nested CSS, web push, etc. — is therefore essential.
This series of assertions underscores argument [b] above.
The essay concludes with this call to action for legal eagles:
Google should not get away with rigging the online ad market, but forcing it to sell Chrome will do great damage to the web.
But what about argument [a] “The browser is definitely good for Google.” Let me offer several observations:
First, I am not sure “browser” captures what Google has been laboring for years to achieve. Chrome was supposed to mash Microsoft’s Windows operating system into the dirt. If Chrome becomes the de facto “web”, the Google may pull off a monopoly displacement. Windows moves to the margin, and Chrome dominates the center.
Second, someone told me there was science fiction story about a series of vending machines. The beverage machine made you want a snack. The snack from the snack machine made you want something salty. The salty product vending machine made you want a beverage. The customer is addicted. That’s what the trifecta of Web search online advertising, and Chrome does — actually, possibly has done — to users. I am using the term “user” in the sense that it is tough to break the cycle. Think drug or some other addiction and how the process works.
Third, the argument that only big technology companies can operate their products. Okay, maybe. My approach to this is, “Hey, let’s break up these interlocked cycling systems and see what happens. I can hear, “Wow, you dinobabies are crazy.” Maybe so. Maybe so.
Net net: These pro-Google arguments strike me as content marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2025
Deep Fake Recognition: Google Has a Finger In
May 5, 2025
Sorry, no AI used to create this item.
I spotted this Newsweek story: “‘AI Imposter’ Candidate Discovered During Job Interview, Recruiter Warns.” The main idea is that a humanoid struggled to identify a deep fake. The deep fake was applying for a job.
The write up says:
Several weeks ago, Bettina Liporazzi, the recruiting lead at letsmake.com was contacted by a seemingly ordinary candidate who was looking for a job. Their initial message was clearly AI-generated, but Liporazzi told Newsweek that this “didn’t immediately raise any flags” because that’s increasingly commonplace.
Here’s the interesting point:
Each time the candidate joined the call, Liporazzi got a warning from Google to say the person wasn’t signed in and “might not be who they claim to be.”
This interaction seems to have taken place online.
The Newsweek story includes this statement:
As generative-AI becomes increasingly powerful, the line between what’s real and fake is becoming harder to decipher. Ben Colman, co-founder and CEO of Reality Defender, a deepfake detection company, tells Newsweek that AI impersonation in recruiting is “just the tip of the iceberg.”
The recruiter figured out something was amiss. However, in the sequence Google injected its warning.
Several questions:
- Does Google monitor this recruiter’s online interactions and analyze them?
- How does Google determine which online interaction is one in which it should simply monitor and which to interfere?
- What does Google do with the information about [a] the recruiter, [b] the job on offer itself, and [c] the deep fake system’s operator?
I wonder if Newsweek missed the more important angle in this allegedly actual factual story; that is, Google surveillance? Perhaps Google was just monitoring email when it tells me that a message from a US law enforcement agency is not in my list of contacts. How helpful, Google?
Will Google’s “monitoring” protect others from Deep Fakes? Those helpful YouTube notices are part of this effort to protect it seems.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2025
Can Digital Disgust Transcend Information Overload?
May 5, 2025
Our society has become awash in information. Though much of it is useless, many of us have trouble disengaging even when we want to. The temptation of instant distraction is too strong, and its instruments are always at hand. Perhaps the secret lies in “Developing Digital Disgust.”
Blogger Christopher Butler has a risqué but apt comparison for this moment in our culture: He asserts information is to wisdom as pornography is to real intimacy. Porn, he writes, portrays physical connection but creates emotional distance. Information overload is similar: When we are bombarded by data, each piece of knowledge loses meaning. Butler observes:
“When we feel overwhelmed by information — anxious and unable to process what we’ve already taken in — we’re realizing that ‘more’ doesn’t help us find truth. But because we have also established information as a fundamental good in our society, failure to keep up with it, make sense of it, and even profit from it feels like a personal moral failure. There is only one way out of that. We don’t need another filter. We need a different emotional response to information. We should not only question why our accepted spectrum of emotional response to information — in the general sense — is mostly limited to the space between curiosity and desire, but actively develop a capacity for disgust when it becomes too much. And it has become too much. Some people may say that we just need better information skills and tools, not less information. But this misses how fundamentally our minds need space and time to turn information into understanding. When every moment is filled with new inputs, we can’t fully absorb, process, and reflect upon what we’ve consumed. Reflection, not consumptions, creates wisdom. Reflection requires quiet, isolation, and inactivity.”
Yes. And also boredom is said to be the “gateway to creativity.” So why not dump the smartphone, stop streaming, and read books? Maybe even talk to people IRL? As with any addiction, change can be harder than it sounds. Butler suggests a shift in perspective. We must recognize that our attention is now a sort of currency and develop a sense of disgust at companies’ constant efforts to steal it. That disgust may help us put aside our devices and reconnect with the physical world. And ourselves.
Cynthia Murrell, May 5, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
