• Home
• About
• Writers
• Wizards Index
• Landscape
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

 Subscribe

Consultants, Start Your Proposal Writing Engines. (Just Sell and Worry about Delivering Later. Okay?)

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I read in my trusty newsfeed two quite different stories about using smart software to replace humans. MBAs and bean counters want to replace humans with software. I have reviewed the reasons in previous essays. I will mention two biggies: Humans cost money and humans require management. Software can be licensed and software (so far) does not want health care, vacations, and union representation.

Therefore, humans are expendable. The argument boils down to how quickly, how to achieve good enough, and how to reach this goal of a couple of smart people running a big company making huge amounts of money.

Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

Almost every “knowledge value” outfit knows that smart software is coming for jobs. Microsoft is in a big hurry to shift from individual PCs running a copy of Word to a Tomorrowland with Microsoft software providing Softie Agents or Agents for Softie Software. This is a variant of the blue ocean approach to an opportunity. It is an Azure ocean. Maybe it is an Azure solar system? Could it be an Azure galaxy of revenue? Just ask Copilot in Excel to help you verify the math.

How do I know that Microsoft is into an agentic future? Easy. “Microsoft Wants You to Hire Its AI Agents” explains:

The company now wants you to hire its AI agents rather than just use them. That’s not just clever branding; it’s a fundamental change in how Microsoft expects enterprises to integrate AI into their operations. These new autonomous AI agents will take over defined roles. Instead of waiting for a prompt, they run continuously, managing sales data, scheduling workflows, even  monitoring IT systems. Microsoft describes them as “trusted team members” that can handle repeatable knowledge work, guided by user policy and corporate data access controls.

Microsoft will deploy its version of a temp agency like the old Kelly Girls’ operation. But no humans show up to type. The worker arrives from Azure Staffing and just works perfectly like other Microsoft products and services. Perfection is in the firm’s DNA. Ah, you doubt me. Well, buttercup, get with the program. Even Palantir Technologies uses Windows, and they will use it out way. If you don’t get it, sign up for boot camp. Now, give me 20.

The vision will become a Microsoft reality. The Softies are now so deep into the AI rabbit hole that backing out is not an option.

Let’s assume that Microsoft’s agentic workers are perfect (like the rest of Microsoft’s software and services). The rest of the work to replace humans is easy, isn’t it?

Once again, a possible hurdle may be on the Information Highway’s agentic bypass. “Enterprise Agentic AI Requires a Process Layer Most Companies Haven’t Built” suggests that companies are behind in the agentic worker movement. That’s easy to understand. Agentic workers are not yet ready for the Rumpke garbage business or Third Street Donuts. Therefore, the managers are indeed lacking an agentic enabling layer.

The write up states:

85% of enterprises want to become agentic within three years — yet 76% admit their operations can’t support it. According to the Celonis 2026 Process Optimization Report, based on a survey of more than 1,600 global business leaders, organizations are aggressively pursuing AI-driven transformation. Yet most acknowledge that the foundational work — modernizing workflows, reducing process friction, and building operational resilience — remains unfinished. The ambition is clear. The infrastructure to execute on it is not.

With universities struggling to output verifiable information, how will organizations get an agentic process layer? The answer is, “Consultants.” Yep, agentic AI is likely to usher in a golden age of experts who can help a garbage company or a donut baker to go agentic. Only consultants can address this issue:

AI that looks impressive in a demo but falters once it’s dropped into a real enterprise environment. That’s the wall companies are hitting. So, despite the overwhelming ambition, only 19% of organizations use multi-agent systems today. It all comes down to an operational readiness problem…

It seems to me that for Microsoft to get in the agent HR business, organizations have to figure out how to move their systems to a state of AI readiness. That seems like an easy problem to solve. Just look at the effectiveness of corporations training their employees to use AI to do their work. Employees, particularly older employees, are eager to master new systems and methods, revise proven workflows, and dedicate their attention to putting themselves or their colleagues out of a job.

Microsoft is confident. The consultants are writing proposals. The employees are yearning for AI to make their lives … different.

No problem, right?

Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2026

Who Knew? Anyone Who Has Worked with the Young at Heart

The Register wrote about a study that confirms why we already knew about experience versus youthful optimism: “Study Confirms Experience Beats Youthful Enthusiasm.” Why is that so surprising? Youthful enthusiasm is great! It helps motivate older workers and keeps pushing society forward so we can accomplish bigger and better things.

Experience, however, is a tried and true approach to work and life that can only be acquired through years of trial and error. Younger workers want to blaze through work environments without paying their dues. While some of the old-fashioned “hazing” techniques of yesteryear should be done away with, nothing can beat

Herer’s information on the study:

“Annie Coleman, founder of consultancy RealiseLongevity, analyzed the data and highlighted a 2025 study finding peak performance occurs between the ages of 55-60. Writing in the Stanford Center on Longevity blog, she cited research examining 16 cognitive markers that confirm that although processing speed declines after early adulthood, other dimensions improve, and overall cognition peaks near retirement age. Studies from the past 15 years show that some qualities like vigilance may worsen with age alongside processing speed, but others improve, including the ability to avoid distractions and accumulated knowledge.”

This is important because AI is eliminating entry level and other jobs for new graduates. Older, experienced workers can mentor the younger generations and provide valuable knowledge that AI fails to duplicate.

As a counter, some older workers are stuck in their ways and fail to adapt to new circumstances. They might lack the crucial skills needed to push and lead into the future. That’s why it’s good to have a mixture of the old and new.

The dinobaby who has me write is inexperienced, old, and generally baffled by everything.

Whitney Grace, March 6, 2026

The AI Problem: Getting Left Behind

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

After lots of clicks and learning that key features were in “gray,” I was able to read “Redefining the Software Engineering Profession for AI.” The write up explains a corollary to “home alone”; that is, left behind.

I waded through examples of AI output fixed up because a humanoid smarter than the AI spotted mistakes. Are there mistakes in AI output? If you ask a whiz kid at a big tech outfit (I shall not name names), the answer is, “Look at the score on this benchmark.” If you ask someone who knows about a specific topic, you may hear, “Hey, you have to double check this stuff.”

Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

And there is a lot of stuff to check. That’s the main idea lurking behind the fancy lingo and the screenshots. The write up finally says:

Generative AI currently acts as seniority-biased technological change: It disproportionately amplifies engineers who already possess systems judgment, like taste for architecture, debugging under uncertainty, and operational intuition.

As a dinobaby, I am usually wrong by default. However, for me this means that a person who knows something cold is going to be in great demand. Why? The “older and more informed humans” can spot the AI mistakes. This is definitely good for senior types. The write up focuses on computer programming. I think the observation applies to other disciplines as well. I want to point out that the softer the user’s field, the less likely errors will be flagged and hopefully corrected. Question: Why? Answer: Programming works or it doesn’t. A squishy discipline like social science has more flexibility. Programming is brittle; explaining why a young female is unhappy is clay.

What’s the fix? I think the big idea is to go back to apprentice-type programs. A younger programmer with less experience works with a senior more skilled programmer. Somehow the knowledge of the senior diffuses to the younger. At least that’s my take. Does it work? Sure, for skilled and adept less seasoned programmers. But we live in a multi-tasking, accelerationalist environment. Will it work? Probably but some real life data are needed.

The write up concludes with:

The future of software engineering will be defined not by the volume of code AI can generate but by how effectively humans learn, reason, and mature alongside these systems. Investing in early-in-career developers through deliberate preceptorship ensures today’s expertise becomes tomorrow’s intuition. In balancing automation with apprenticeship, we preserve the enduring vitality of the software engineering profession.

How will this play out in the TikTok-type of programmer, financial engineer, or tax expert? Answer: Outputs are good enough. Look at these benchmark scores.

Stephen E Arnold, March 4, 2026

Now You Are Trained in AI. What Is Next?

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I am assuming that you have [a] watched some YouTubes about smart software, [b] you have read articles online, [c] you fooled around with free or low cost large language models, and [d] you dug into a specific use case and made it work (more or less). Are you an AI adept? Tip: Not too many people will doubt your expertise. That’s good news, right?

Now the bad news: You have to learn more. I will come back to the “more” at the end of this essay. First, however, I want to take a quick look at a write up called “Beyond Giant Models: Why AI Orchestration Is the New Architecture.” Spoiler: You better be good at life-long learning.

The write up says:

AI is having its microservices moment.

I think this means that the “old” single large language model that knocks out high school essays for cheating teams doesn’t work for some other real life applications. Therefore, developers want to “break down” LLMs or take pieces of LLMs, hook them together, and do the 1 + 1 = 3 calculation beloved by power thinkers, techno-whiz kids, and MBAs who want to buy an island. (There is one available, I believe, complete with tacky decor and trash in plastic boxes.)

The write up continues by identifying and explaining the AI stack; that is,

1. A model layer (what you have learned)
2. The tool layer (what you are, I assume, now learning)
3. The orchestration layer (what you absolutely have to learn tomorrow).

A life long guitar player faces his first audition for a job at a symphony orchestra. The young guitar player, who is an adept at K pop music knows he has to get symphony experience before he can become the next Lenny Bernstein. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

So what do you need to master tomorrow? That’s the orchestration thing. You must become adept at:

1. Sequential logic or the chain pattern. This is the type of orchestration that leads to thinking about putting big money into data centers the need for which may be reduced by to-be innovations.
2. Retrieval first logic or the old-school search – and – retrieval “utility” of machine – generated indexing, automated tokenization, and smart manipulation
3. Delegation logic. The idea is that software will make little components (the microservice analogy) work like one big, smoothly functioning, smart application.

The author sums these consultant-crafted statements with this observation:

AI orchestration represents a maturation of the field….The future of AI isn’t in finding the perfect model. It’s in learning to conduct the orchestra.

Nice concept. Learn an instrument. You’re good. Six months of lessons, form a rock bank, and play high school parties. Now  you want to play in a big time band. You move to Nashville. You hang out. You play free gigs. Someone in the bar says, “Come by and meet a couple of people.” You go. The fellow’s “people” say, “Yeah, our guitar guy is not available. Want to sit in?” You sit. You play and get some money. Maybe $50 or $100 (after you pay for your burger and sparkling water)? You do this a year, two, possibly three. You have met people. You do fill ins. You hear that the local symphony wants to do a chamber concert thing featuring the music of Andrés Segovia. You show up. You do your thing. You get picked to participate but just sort of background strum along. You practice. You do gigs. You hook up with a local K-pop and digital native group. You tour in Arkansas and Alabama. You hear that the Delta Symphony Orchestra in Jonesboro, Arkansas, needs a conductor. You read The Art of Conducting Technique by Keith Wilson. (Actually you memorize it because the life of a guitar player riding a bus with the K Pop digital native folks is very draining. You get the job. You have health insurance. You can pay down your credit card. You can think about maybe marrying Mary Jones, the country music singer you dated when you first moved to Nashville. You have a life. Jonesboro is THE place. You look back on the 13 years required to become an orchestra leader.

Read the write up about software orchestration. Then consider the analogy and my summary of a life long learner’s journey. Easy. No problems. Just do it. Also, I have a bridge for sale right outside of Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky. Buy it. You can make millions. AI, becoming a conductor, making big money running a toll bridge. Just apply yourself.

Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2026

Data Center Engineers: But What about AI?

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I read “Engineers Rush to Master New Skills for AI Data Centers.” I came away confused. I believe the AI revolution will change technology-anchored work. That means work in, for, and around data centers. AI is improving by leaps and bounds. Human-type intelligence is just around the corner.

Engineers at a consulting company learn they are to be retrained for data center jobs. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

Why, then, did the write up present this paragraph to my AI saturated eyes:

More than half (51%) of data center operators reported difficulty finding qualified candidates to fill job openings in 2024, according to Uptime Institute. The biggest challenge was filling junior and mid-level operations jobs, with 39% of data centers reporting shortfalls. This was followed by electrical jobs, at 33%, operations management at 32% and mechanical at 30%. Electrical labor climbed to the second highest concern last year since outfitting data center space for high-powered, high-density IT for AI and similar applications requires electrical distribution skills for both IT and cooling.

Let’s think about the headline. “Engineers” are trying to learn “new skills.” The shortages in the paragraph above span:

• “Operations jobs”. This is undefined, but I assume it is someone who rides around in a golf cart checking when an anomaly is detected, uses a small or flip down terminal, and tries to solve the problem. If a cable is the problem, the “operations job person” retrieves a replacement, plugs it in, and rides the golf cart back to his cube in the “operations” center. Okay, this is a human task and “engineers” want to be retrained to handle this work. Does this mean a civil engineer more familiar with sewage treatment will be retrained? Interesting but engineers choose fields of study due to love, aptitude, or parental input.
• “Electrical jobs”. I am not sure what this means. An electrical engineer, based on my experience, usually suggests he or she has the expertise to handle circuits and such. I worked with an electrical engineer who told me when I asked about a problem with a laptop, “Just buy a new one.” Granted the fellow was a Georgia Tech graduate who was an electrical engineer. But my recollection is that “Buy a new one” was his standard response to an electrical problem. However, fiddling around with one of those nifty electrical panels and super special circuit breakers and fusers might not lend itself to the “Buy a new one solution.” I do know that if a 440 power line is severed, exciting things happen to those panels. Would a mechanical engineer want to retrain to handle micro electronics and the industrial scale electrical installations usually located outside of a data center and shrouded with louvered panels to keep prying eyes out?
• “Operations management.” How many engineers rush to learn how to be a manager. Once again I have to fall back on my experience at the so so nuclear engineering firm at which I worked for a number of years. Most nuclear engineers are not too keen on becoming managers. In fact, most of the nuclear enigneers wanted to do nuclear things. That did not include sitting in meetings with other types of engineers, executives in suits and ties, lawyers, or PR / marketing people. My hunch is that the “rush” will not include too many of the nuclear engineering category. Perhaps engineers who are really bad at their job or who miss the camaraderie of hanging out with engineers building robots might show a flicker of interest. But “rush.” Hmmm.
• Mechanical.” This suggests to me an engineer who can design, test, and maybe map out the production process for a “thing.” I worked with a very capable mechanical engineer who specialized in stress analysis. He liked making testing devices and pushing objects to be tested to their limits. One example was this person’s ingenious solution to a problem involving ejecting spent cartridges from an automatic weapon suitable for use in a helicopter assault. He did get the ejection method worked out, but he told me, “Yeah, this approach worked, but I got a kick out of trying dozens of clips and ejection mechanisms. That was fun. Now the job is over. Bummer.” Would he rush to learn how to do data centers? Answer: Only if he could break things and then figure out how to make the “thing” more robust. Oh, he didn’t categorize himself as a “mechanical.” He was a “stress analysis expert.” Retraining him? Might be a tough sell.

I suppose my stupid idea that data center funders and leadership types would rush to use AI software, robots, and other state of the art methods to build their multi-million dollar data centers. But the write up makes clear that I was indeed a dolt. Humans are needed.

Does this suggest that the hyperbole about smart software and related break throughs is baloney?

Answer: Yep.

Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2026

Software in 2026: Whoa, Nellie! You Lame, Girl?

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

When there were Baby Bells, I got an email from a person who had worked with me on a book. That person told me that one of the Baby Bells wanted to figure out how to do their Yellow Pages as an online service. The problem, as I recall my contact’s saying, was “not to screw up the ad sales in the dead tree version of the Yellow Pages.” I won’t go into the details about the complexities of this project. However, my knowledge of how pre- and post-Judge Green was supposed to work and some on-site experience creating software for what did business as Bell Communications Research gave me some basic information about the land of Bell Heads. (If you don’t get the reference, that’s okay. It’s an insider metaphor but less memorable than Achilles’ heel.)

A young whiz kid from a big name technology school experiences a real life learning experience. Programming the IBM MVS TSO set up is different from vibe coding an app from a college dorm room. Thanks, Qwen, good enough.

The point of my reference to a Baby Bell was that a newly minted stand alone telecommunications company ran on what was a pretty standard line up of IBM and B4s (designed by Bell Labs, the precursor to Bellcore) plus some DECs, Wangs, and other machines. The big stuff ran on the IBM machines with proprietary, AT&T specific applications on the B4s. If you are following along, you might have concluded that slapping a Yellow Pages Web application into the Baby Bell system was easy to talk about but difficult to do. We did the job using my old trick. I am a wrapper guy. Figure out what’s needed to run a Yellow Pages site online, what data are needed and where to get it and where to put it, and then build a nice little Web set up and pass data back and forth via what I call wrapper scripts and code. The benefits of the approach are that I did not have to screw around with the software used to make a Baby Bell actually work. When the Web site went down, no meetings were needed with the Regional Manager who had many eyeballs trained on my small team. Nope, we just fixed the Web site and keep on doing Yellow Page things. The solution worked. The print sales people could use the Web site to place orders or allow the customer to place orders. Open the valve to the IBM and B4s, push in data just the way these systems wanted it, and close the valve. Hooray.

Why didn’t my team just code up the Web stuff and run it on one of those IBM MVS TSO gizmos? The answer appears, quite surprisingly in a blog post published December 24, 2025. I never wrote about the “why” of my approach. I assumed everyone with some Young Pioneer T shirts knew the answer. Guess not. “Nobody Knows How Large Software Products Work” provides the information that I believed every 23 year old computer whiz kid knew.

The write up says:

Software is hard. Large software products are prohibitively complicated.

I know that the folks at Google now understand why I made cautious observations about the complexity of building interlocking systems without the type of management controls that existed at the pre break up AT&T. Google was very proud of its indexing, its 150 plus signal scores for Web sites, and yada yada. I just said, “Those new initiatives may be difficult to manage.” No one cared. I was an old person and a rental. Who really cares about a dinobaby living in rural Kentucky. Google is the new AT&T, but it lacks the old AT&T’s discipline.

Back to the write up. The cited article says:

Why can’t you just document the interactions once when you’re building each new feature? I think this could work in theory, with a lot of effort and top-down support, but in practice it’s just really hard….The core problem is that the system is rapidly changing as you try to document it.

This is an accurate statement. AT&T’s technical regional managers demanded commented code. Were the comments helpful? Sometimes. The reality is that one learns about the cute little workarounds required for software that can spit out the PIX (plant information exchange data) for a specific range of dialing codes. Google does some fancy things with ads. AT&T in the pre Judge Green era do some fancy things for the classified and unclassified telephone systems for every  US government entity, commercial enterprises, and individual phones and devices for the US and international “partners.”

What does this mean? In simple terms, one does not dive into a B4 running the proprietary Yellow Page data management system and start trying to read and write in real time from a dial up modem in some long lost corner of a US state with a couple of mega cities, some military bases, and the national laboratory.

One uses wrappers. Period. Screw up with a single character and bad things happen. One does not try to reconstruct what the original programming team actually did to make the PIX system “work.”

The write up says something that few realize in this era of vibe coding and AI output from some wonderful system like Claude:

It’s easier to write software than to explain it.

Yep, this is actual factual. The write up states:

Large software systems are very poorly understood, even by the people most in a position to understand them. Even really basic questions about what the software does often require research to answer. And once you do have a solid answer, it may not be solid for long – each change to a codebase can introduce nuances and exceptions, so you’ve often got to go research the same question multiple times. Because of all this, the ability to accurately answer questions about large software systems is extremely valuable.

Several observations are warranted:

1. One gets a “feel” for how certain large, complex systems work. I have, prior to my retiring, had numerous interactions with young wizards. Most were job hoppers or little entrepreneurs eager to poke their noses out of the cocoon of a regular job. I am not sure if these people have the ability to develop a “feel” for a large complex of code like the old AT&T had assembled. These folks know their code, I assume. But the stuff running a machine lost in the mists of time. Probably not. I am not sure AI will be much help either.
2. The people running some of the companies creating fancy new systems are even more divorced from the reality of making something work and how to keep it going. Hence, the problems with computer systems at airlines, hospitals, and — I hate to say it — government agencies. These problems will only increase, and I don’t see an easy fix. One sure can’t rely on ChatGPT, Gemini, or Grok.
3. The push to make AI your coding partner is sort of okay. But the old-fashioned way involved a young person like myself working side by side with expert DEC people or IBM professionals, not AI. What one learns is not how to do something but how not to do something. Any one, including a software robot, can look up an instruction in a manual. But, so far, only a human can get a “sense” or “hunch” or “intuition” about a box with some flashing lights running something called CB Unix. There is, in my opinion, a one way ticket down the sliding board to system failure with the today 2025 approach to most software. Think about that the next time you board an airplane or head to the hospital for heart surgery.

Net net: Software excitement ahead. And that’s a prediction for 2026. I have a high level of confidence in this peek at the horizon.

Stephen E Arnold, December 31, 2025

AI Training: The Great Unknown

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

Deloitte used to be an accounting firm. Then the company decided it could so much more. Normal people ask accountants for their opinions. Deloitte, like many other service firms, decided it could just become a general management consulting firm, an information technology company, a conference and event company, and also do the books.

A professional training program for business professionals at a blue chip consulting firm. One person speaks up, but the others keep their thoughts to themselves. How many are updating their LinkedIn profile? How many are wondering if AI will put them out of a job? How many don’t care because the incentives emphasize selling and upselling engagements? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough but you are AI and that’s a mark of excellence for some today.

I read an article that suggests a firm like Deloitte is not able to do much of the self assessment and introspection required to make informed decisions that make surprises part of some firms’ standard operating procedure.

This insight appears in “Deloitte’s CTO on a Stunning AI Transformation Stat: Companies Are Spending 93% on Tech and Only 7% on People.”  This headline suggests that Deloitte itself is making this error. [Note: This is a wonky link from my feed system. If it disappears, good luck.]

The write up in Fortune Magazine said:

According to Bill Briggs, Deloitte’s chief technology officer, as we move from AI experimentation to impact/value at scale, that fear is driving a lopsided investment strategy where companies are pouring 93% of their AI budget into technology and only 7% into the people expected to use it.

The question that popped into my mind was, “How much money is Deloitte spending relative to smart software on training its staff in AI?” Perhaps the not-so-surprising MBA type “fact” reflects what some Deloitte professionals realize is happening at the esteemed “we can do it in any business discipline” consulting firm?

The explanation is that “the culture, workflow, and training” of a blue chip consulting firm is not extensive. Now with AI finding its way from word processing to looking up a fact, educating employees about AI is given lip service, but is “training” possible. Remember, please, that some consulting firms want those over 55 to depart to retirement. However, what about highly paid experts with being friendly and word smithing their core competencies, can learn how, when, and when not to rely on smart software? Do these “best of the best” from MBA programs have the ability to learn, or are these people situational thinkers; that is, the skill is to be spontaneously helpful, to connect the dots, and reframe what a client tells them so it appears sage-like.

The Deloitte expert says:

“This incrementalism is a hard trap to get out of.”

Is Deloitte out of this incrementalism?

The Deloitte expert (apparently not asked the question by the Fortune reporter) says:

As organizations move from “carbon-based” to “silicon-based” employees (meaning a shift from humans to semiconductor chips, or robots), they must establish the equivalent of an HR process for agents, robots, and advanced AI, and complex questions about liability and performance management. This is going to be hard, because it involves complex questions. He brought up the hypothetical of a human creating an agent, and that agent creating five more generations of agents. If wrongdoing occurs from the fifth generation, whose fault is that? “What’s a disciplinary action? You’re gonna put your line robot…in a timeout and force them to do 10 hours of mandatory compliance training?”

I want to point out that blue chip consulting is a soft skill business. The vaunted analytics and other parade float decorations come from Excel, third parties, or recent hires do the equivalent of college research.

Fortune points to Deloitte and says:

The consequences of ignoring the human side of the equation are already visible in the workforce. According to Deloitte’s TrustID report, released in the third quarter, despite increasing access to GenAI in the workplace, overall usage has actually decreased by 15%. Furthermore, a “shadow AI” problem is emerging: 43% of workers with access to GenAI admit to noncompliance, bypassing employer policies to use unapproved tools. This aligns with previous Fortune reporting on the scourge of shadow AI, as surveys show that workers at up to 90% of companies are using AI tools while hiding that usage from their IT departments. Workers say these unauthorized tools are “easier to access” and “better and more accurate” than the approved corporate solutions. This disconnect has led to a collapse in confidence, with corporate worker trust in GenAI declining by 38% between May and July 2025. The data supports this need for a human-centric approach. Workers who received hands-on AI training and workshops reported 144% higher trust in their employer’s AI than those who did not.

Let’s get back to the question? Is Deloitte training its employees in AI so the “information” sticks and then finds its way into engagements? This passage seems to suggest that the answer is, “No for Deloitte. No for its clients. And no for most organizations.” Judge for yourself:

For Briggs [the Deloitte wizard], the message to the C-suite is clear: The technology is ready, but unless leaders shift their focus to the human and cultural transformation, they risk being left with expensive technology that no one trusts enough to use.

My take is that the blue chip consulting firms are:

1. Trying to make AI good enough so headcount and other cost savings like health care can be reduced
2. Selling AI consulting to their clients before knowing what will and won’t work in a context different from the consulting firms’
3. Developing an understanding that AI cannot do what humans can do; that is, build relationships and sell engagements.

Sort of a pickle.

Stephen E Arnold, December 23, 2025

How to Get a Job in the Age of AI?

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

Two interesting employment related articles appeared in my newsfeeds this morning. Let’s take a quick look at each. I will try to add some humor to these write ups. Some may find them downright gloomy.

The first is “An OpenAI Exec Identifies 3 Jobs on the Cusp of Being Automated.” I want to point out that the OpenAI wizard’s own job seems to be secure from his point of view. The write up points out:

Olivier Godement, the head of product for business products at the ChatGPT maker, shared why he thinks a trio of jobs — in life sciences, customer service, and computer engineering — is on the cusp of automation.

Let’s think about each of these broad categories. I am not sure what life sciences means in OpenAI world. The term is like a giant umbrella. Customer service makes some sense. Companies were trying to ignore, terminate, and prevent any money sucking operation related to answer customer’s questions and complaints for years. No matter how lousy and AI model is, my hunch is that it will be slapped into a customer service role even if it is arguably worse than trying to understand the accent of a person who speaks English as a second or third language.

Young members of “leadership” realize that the AI system used to replace lower-level workers has taken their jobs. Selling crafts on Etsy.com is a career option. Plus, there is politics and maybe Epstein, Epstein, Epstein related careers for some. Thanks, Qwen, you just output a good enough image but you are free at this time (December 13, 2025).

Now we come to computer engineering. I assume the OpenAI person will position himself as an AI adept, which fits under the umbrella of computer engineering. My hunch is that the reference is to coders who do grunt work. The only problem is that the large language model approach to pumping out software can be problematic in some situations. That’s why the OpenAI person is probably not worrying about his job. An informed human has to be in the process of machine-generated code. LLMs do make errors. If the software is autogenerated for one of those newfangled portable nuclear reactors designed to power football field sized data centers, someone will want to have a human check that software. Traditional or next generation nuclear reactors can create some excitement if the software makes errors. Do you want a thorium reactor next to your domicile? What about one run entirely by smart software?

What’s amusing about this write up is that the OpenAI person seems blissfully unaware of the precarious financial situation that Sam AI-Man has created. When and if OpenAI experiences a financial hiccup, will those involved in business products keep their jobs. Oliver might want to consider that eventuality. Some investors are thinking about their options for Sam AI-Man related activities.

The second write up is the type I absolutely get a visceral thrill writing. A person with a connection (probably accidental or tenuous) lets me trot out my favorite trope — Epstein, Epstein, Epstein — as a way capture the peculiarity of modern America. This article is “Bill Gates Predicts That Only Three Jobs Will Be Safe from Being Replaced by AI.” My immediate assumption upon spotting the article was that the type of work Epstein, Epstein, Epstein did would not be replaced by smart software. I think that impression is accurate, but, alas, the write up did not include Epstein, Epstein, Epstein work in its story.

What are the safe jobs? The write up identifies three:

1. Biology. Remember OpenAI thinks life sciences are toast. Okay, which is correct?
2. Energy expertise
3. Work that requires creative and intuitive thinking. (Do you think that this category embraces Epstein, Epstein, Epstein work? I am not sure.)

The write up includes a statement from Bill Gates:

“You know, like baseball. We won’t want to watch computers play baseball,” he said. “So there’ll be some things that we reserve for ourselves, but in terms of making things and moving things, and growing food, over time, those will be basically solved problems.”

Several observations:

1. AI will cause many people to lose their jobs
2. Young people will have to make knick knacks to sell on Etsy or find equally creative ways of supporting themselves
3. The assumption that people will have “regular” jobs, buy houses, go on vacations, and do the other stuff organization man type thinking assumed was operative, is a goner.

Where’s the humor in this? Epstein, Epstein, Epstein and OpenAI debt, OpenAI debt, and OpenAI debt. Ho ho ho.

Stephen E Arnold, December x, 2025

AI Breaks Career Ladders

Another dinobaby original. If there is what passes for art, you bet your bippy, that I used smart software. I am a grandpa but not a Grandma Moses.

My father used to tell me that it was important to work at a company and climb the career ladder. I did not understand the concept. In my first job, I entered at a reasonably elevated level. I reported to a senior vice president and was given a big, messy project to fix up and make successful. In my second job, I was hired to report to the president of a “group” of companies. I don’t think I had a title. People referred to me as Mr. X’s “get things done person.” My father continued to tell me about the career ladder, but it did not resonate with me.

Thanks Venice.ai. I fired five prompts before you came close to what I specified. Good work, considering.

Only later, when I ran my own small consulting firm did the concept connect. I realized that as people worked on tasks, some demonstrated exceptional skill. I tried to find ways to expand those individuals capabilities. I think I succeeded, and several have contacted me years after I retired to tell me they were grateful for the opportunities I provided.

Imagine my surprise when I read “The Career Ladder Just Got Terminated: AI Kills Jobs Before They’re Born.” I understand. Co workers have no way to learn and earn the right to pursue different opportunities in order to grow their capabilities.

The write up says:

Artificial intelligence isn’t just taking jobs. It’s removing the rungs of the ladder that turn rookies into experts.

Here’s a statement from the rock and roll magazine that will make some young, bright eyed overachievers nervous:

In addition to making labor more efficient, it [AI] actually makes labor optional. And the disruption won’t unfold over generations like past revolutions; it’s happening in real time, collapsing decades of economic evolution into a few short years.

Forget optional. If software can replace hard to manage, unpredictable, and good enough humans, AI will get the nod. The goal of most organizations is to generate surplus cash. Then that cash is disbursed to stakeholders, deserving members of the organization’s leadership, and lavish off site meetings, among other important uses.

Here’s another passage that unintentionally will make art history majors, programmers, and, yes, even some MBA with the right stuff think about becoming a plumber:

And this AI job problem isn’t confined to entertainment. It’s happening in law, medicine, finance, architecture, engineering, journalism — you name it. But not every field faces the same cliff. There’s one place where the apprenticeship still happens in real time: live entertainment and sports.

Perhaps there will be an MBA Comedy Club? Maybe some computer scientists will lean into their athletic prowess for table tennis or quoits?

Here’s another cause of heart burn for the young job hunter:

Today, AI isn’t hunting our heroes; it’s erasing their apprentices before they can exist. The bigger danger is letting short-term profits dictate our long-term cultural destiny. If the goal is simply to make the next quarter’s numbers look good, then automating and cutting is the easy answer. But if the goal is culture, originality and progress, then the choice is just as clear: protect the training grounds, take risks on the unknown and invest in the people who will surprise us.

I don’t see the BAIT (big AI technology companies) leaning into altruistic behavior for society. These outfits want to win, knock off the competition, and direct the masses to work within the bowling alley of life between two gutters. Okay, job hunters, have at it. As a dinobaby, I have no idea what it impact job hunting in the early days of AI will have. Did I mention plumbing?

Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2025

Gizmodo Suggests Sam AI-Man Destroys the Mind of Youth.

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

If I were an ad sales person at Gizmodo, I would not be happy. I am all for a wall between editorial and advertising. I bet you did not know that I learned that basic rule when I worked at Ziff in Manhattan. However, writing articles that accuse a potential advertiser of destroying the minds of youth is unlikely to be forgotten. I am not saying the write up is not accurate, but I know that it is possible to write articles and stories that do not make a potential advertiser go nutso.

Gizmodo published “OpenAI Introduces ‘ChatGPT for Teachers’ to Further Destroy the Minds of Our Youth” to explain a new LexisNexis-type of play to get people used to their online product. OpenAI thinks the LexisNexis- or close variant model is a good way to get paying customers. Students in law school become familiar with LexisNexis. When and if they get a job, those students will use LexisNexis. The approach made sense when Don Wilson and his fellow travelers introduced the program. OpenAI is jumping on a marketing wagon pulled by a horse that knows how to get from A to B.

Have those laptops, tablets, and mobile phones made retail workers adept at making change? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.

The Gizmodo article says:

ChatGPT for Teachers is designed to help educators prepare materials for their classes, and it will support Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) requirements so that teachers and school staff can securely work with student data within the workspace. The company says the suite of tools for teachers will be available for free through June 2027, which is probably the point at which OpenAI will need to show that it can actually generate revenue and stick its hand out to demand payment from teachers who have become reliant on the suite of tools.

Okay, no big innovation here.

Gizmodo states:

There is already mounting evidence that relying on AI can erode critical thinking skills, which is something you’d like kids to be engaging in, at least during school hours. Other studies have shown that people “offload” the more difficult cognitive work and rely on AI as a shortcut when it’s available, ultimately harming their ability to do that work when they don’t have the tool to lean on. So what could go wrong giving those tools to both students and teachers? Seems like we’re going to find out.

Okay, but that headline looms over the Ivory soap conclusion to the article. In my opinion, I know exactly how this free AI will work. Students will continue to look for the easiest way to complete assigned tasks. If ChatGPT is available, students will find out if it works. Then students will use AI for everything possible so the students have more time for digging into linear algebra. (That’s a joke.) A few students will understand that other students will not do the assignments but will pay someone to do that work for them. That other person will be [a] a paramour, [b] a classmate who is a friend, [c] a classmate who responds to threats, or [d] ChatGPT-type services.

Test scores will continue to fall until a group of teachers create easier tests. Furthermore, like putting A/V systems for students to learn a foreign language in 1962, the technology works only if the student concentrates, follows the lesson attentively, writes notes, and goes through the listen and repeat mechanisms in the language lab. PCs, tablets, Chrome books, mobile phones, or AI work the same way. When students do not have the discipline to pay attention and put in the effort required to learn, the technology cannot compensate. It can, however, replace certain jobs so companies and co-workers do not have to compensate for those who lack basic skills, the discipline required to do the work, and the social skills needed to fit into an organization.

The myth that technology can replace traditional educational techniques is more nutso than the sales professionals who have to overcome ideas like “destroy the minds of youth.”

Net net: Sam AI-Man has some challenge ahead with this free ChatGPT. Want evidence of the impact of technology on the minds of legal professionals? Just check out some of the YouTubing lawyers. There you go.

Stephen E Arnold, November 28, 2024

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Employment
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Telegram
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • The Chainsaw Tesla Dude: Another Play Fails
  • What Is the Future of Surveillance in the EU?
  • Are Bad Actors Upping the Ante
  • Blindsided by the Google: Get Used to It, Pal
  • India Wants Deep Fake Videos Labeled

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org