Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

Watching Others On The Digital Frontier

Lobsters, doctors, and spreadsheets

At one point space was the familiar final frontier. Even with talk of putting data centers in space, I dare say we’ve moved the concept of frontier closer to terra forma and set aside the “final.” Frontiers require explorers who are willing to accept risks, pushing beyond them to discover if there’s any there there. Maybe we’re in the moment of redefining “there.”

Shutterstock 2698519847.

I’ve been curiously watching recent developments on the frontiers of Artificial Intelligence around what was launched as Clawdbot, then became Moltbot, and molted into OpenClaw. At least I think that’s what it is still called as of this writing.

For those unfamiliar, essentially OpenClaw is an AI agent created by software engineer Peter Steinberger, that receives instructions from the user in a chat. Running locally on your computer it then connects to other AI sources and web based apps you give it permission to access. It performs those tasks and actions. Mike Elgan has a good rundown on the (brief) history and the ins and outs. I encourage you to read it.

Both fascinating and frightening, OpenClaw seems to have taken on a life of its own without any regard for guardrails. After Federico Viticci wrote an early post about what was Clawdbot at the time, interest shot through the roof, reminding me quite a bit of the furor over the still recent launch of ChatGPT and just about any other big computing innovation we’ve seen.

Quite a few jumped in with both feet to test the waters. Alongside of all of the splashing around came upfront real warnings that this thing was not secure. That proved to be even less effective than signs telling you not to run around the pool. Viticci mentioned that given security concerns the project was not really ready for everyday users, and recommended that those interested install it on a second computer, not their main one. Apparently there was even a run on Mac minis.

The promise seemed clear and the hype leapt into hyperspace. OpenClaw would become the user’s personal assistant doing whatever was required. That’s been the as yet unrealized promise so far in all of these AI adventures.

The moment continued to evolve to a point that there’s even a social network called Moltbook where these AI bots could talk with each other. (Sounds like Mark Zuckerberg’s dream.) Mathew Ingram writes about that here, linking to Simon Willison’s post Moltbook Is The Most Interesting Place On The Internet Right Now.

At the time of Mathew’s post there were 1.6 million agents participating. Not to spoil his article, which you should read, there is some doubt as to whether or not there are humans doing mischievous human things behind the scenes. (Again, sounds like Zuckerberg’s dream.)

Casey Newton gave it a try. Still Moltbot at the time of his writing, he fell in love and out again, eventually uninstalling the software saying that “maybe someday you’ll have a genie in your laptop working for you 24/7. Today is not that day.”

That reminded me of all of the users who said that ChatGPT would replace Google for all of their search needs in that first explosive week. It appears that though the excitement and hype is still boiling hot, not everyone is ready to be the chef that tosses the lobster in the pot.

On other fronts

Before all of the OpenClaw news became the main course of the moment there was another very interesting AI story that caught my attention.

Since January 7th, Apple Health users have been able to connect ChatGPT to Apple Health. Geoffrey Fowler gave it a try.

Like many people who strap on an Apple Watch every day, I’ve long wondered what a decade of that data might reveal about me. So I joined a brief wait list and gave ChatGPT access to the 29 million steps and 6 million heartbeat measurements stored in my Apple Health app. Then I asked the bot to grade my cardiac health.

It gave me an F.

I freaked out and went for a run. Then I sent ChatGPT’s report to my actual doctor.

The good news is Fowler was OK and his doctors told him to relax. The concerning news is that one of the promises of AI is that it would help with medical diagnosis and be a boon to patients and doctors alike.

Now, certainly Fowler’s experiment is different than what may happen under stricter supervision and stringent testing. And, as he points out, OpenAI and Anthropic say their digital doctor bots can’t replace the real thing and provide big bold disclaimers.

Fowler’s experiments didn’t stop short with his artificially intelligent failing grade. You should read the article to see how the adventures continued. Suffice it to say, the conclusions (not just the medical ones) currently leave much to be desired.

Then this morning I stumbled across this article from Om Malik called How AI Goes To Work. It’s a great story about how one user found a way to solve a problem he has with spreadsheets using AI. It also provides some great tech history context and leads to an opinion I share about where we are today:

My simpler explanation of “embedded intelligence” to myself makes me step away from the headlines and look at the present and the future in more realistic terms. My bet is that in five years, it will all be very different anyway. It always is. I am a believer in the power of silicon. When we have newer, more capable silicon, and more networks, we will end up with ever more capable computers in our hands. And the future will change.

For now, what I call embedded intelligence is a sensible on-ramp to the future. The hype may be about the frontier models. The disruption really is in the workflow.

As I said, I concur with that opinion and it colors all of my current observations of the AI landscape. Be curious and become informed. I go further and say I’m comfortable letting others take the first leap.

I don’t think there’s any denying that most of us would enjoy living in a world when we could sit down with our computing devices, talk to a pendant, or even the air around us, (anything without the name Siri preferably), wish the world a good morning, and have it spit out not only our tasks for the day but do many of those for us. Folks of my generation grew up on Star Trek and other science fiction where this seemed common place. So too, did the problems and catastrophes when circuits got crossed or corrupted.

So, it’s a new frontier. Maybe the final one. Maybe not. But at the moment, we’re still just humans crossing into it. Forget what the bots may eventually do to us. I think I’m more concerned about the humans.

(image from kentoh on Shutterstock)

You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above.

If There Are Better Angels, What Does That Make The Rest Of Us?

Dual or duelling realities?

Abraham Lincoln trying to find a middle ground and attempting to hold the Union together proclaimed in his 1861 inaugural address that the “better angels of our nature” would help the country persevere. James Madison, writing in Federalist 51 said “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Shutterstock 736772815.

We’ve always looked to angels, either to save ourselves from ourselves, or excuse ourselves from those parts of humanity we know exist within or alongside us. The countless cartoons of angels and devils sitting on opposite shoulders illustrate this duality quite well. Even so, those who see the world as the brutal place it can be and act accordingly can just as often be found in pulpits praying to those better angels for guidance and protection.

Which begs the question, if there are “better angels” what does that make the rest of us? Are they divided into good, better, best ratings? To say they are all demons and devils is a shortcut that typically has led those holier than thou turning their own plowshares into swords of retribution just as sharp as those they hope to defeat.

So, I’m not a fan of the metaphor. First, it implies some sort of fairy tale-like savior(s) from beyond, heavenly or no, to right wrongs and dole out punishment, or caring and consoling those less fortunate. Second, depending on which religious texts you cling to, angels haven’t all been the “angels” we fantasize about and commercialize. Biblical texts, some still sworn by (Genesis), and some not (The Book of Enoch), talk about Angels sexually cavorting with humans, although just like anything else you can pick your side of that theological debate.

I’m sure many of those finding their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, who are now the subject of scrutiny they thought they’d avoided, didn’t think twice in the moment about brushing off the better angels on their shoulders.

So, it’s no wonder we dwell in our duality. Sticking to the biblical for the moment, theoretically and theologically there was only one rule in the beginning. “Don’t eat the damn apple.” We’ve been adding and breaking rules ever since. Insert something about them made to be broken here.

It doesn’t matter which sphere of life you wander through, that duality is going to exist. I happen to believe that the vast majority of people start out to do something they think is a good thing, and then perhaps find their morality or their principals challenged along the they way. At that fork in the road, some choose a path that doesn’t comprise their belief systems, others the opposite.

That’s the test. There may be many gray areas in life, but that test is only pass/fail. Some may try to erase the result from their permanent record, but I think they call it permanent for a reason. Even if they can be redacted, deleted, or discarded.

On a more earthly level than spirituality, in sports there are those who play by the rules and those who will do anything it takes to win. There are admirers and fans of both. The same is true in business. The language often used in either competitive arena certainly isn’t always what I would call better angel-ish.

And then there’s politics. As my grandmother used to say, “politics is a dirty business for dirty people.” She nailed that one.

Good friend and fellow gadfly, David Todd McCarty, recently wrote about our America’s Dual State, more specifically about the dual state theory of Ernst Frankel wherein we exist in two different realities, the Normative State and the Prerogative State. As David distills it,

He called the first reality, the Normative State, where everything felt normal, and people were protected by laws and courts, and life functioned as before. The other, he called the Prerogative State, which was governed entirely by the Party, outside of the rule of law, existing in an arbitrary state of violent oppression.

Frankel was speaking about Nazi Germany, and today’s parallels have been far too easy to see or avoid. Except for those living in the Normative State, or those relishing in the performance of those pushing us towards the Prerogative State.

While I’m not a fan of the dueling angels on opposite shoulders metaphor in and of itself, pair it up with Frankel’s theory and I think those cartoons lift the animated dilemma closer to our own reality than most want to admit, but find themselves increasingly coming to terms with as those two realities increasingly converge.

I freely admit there are days when I’m hearing more from my darker angels than I want to. I like to think those thoughts come from a place of good I can return to once this is all over. But then I’m reminded of Madison more than I am of Lincoln.

(image from Alexander_P on Shutterstock)

Ian McKellen, Thomas More, Shakespeare, and The Strangers’ Case

Watch this

There really is nothing new under the sun. Man’s “mountainous inhumanity” is something that’s always been with us. We constantly need to remind ourselves of that when it comes to our current moment, especially as relates to our current ICE capades.

Ian McKellen appeared recently on The Late Night With Stephen Colbert for an extended interview in which he recited a 400-year-old monologue from the play Sir Thomas Moore, that speaks to directly to the plight of immigrants.

You can watch the clip below. It should be cued to the monologue. In case it’s not, the monologue begins at roughly 22:16 in the 26 minutes interview. Naturally I’d recommend watching the entire thing.

For an intriguing bit of context, the play largely thought to have been originally written by Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle, but contains pages attributed to Shakespeare and others in what was largely a collaborative effort over time as it passed from troupe to troupe. Which is when Shakespeare would have entered the picture. Of course, Shakespeare’s authorship has been debated as it always is. If interested, you can check out a Wikipedia entry on the play and its history that will give you some idea.

McKellen stepped into the play for the first time in 1964 after the original actor left the production due to artistic differences.

Setting aside authorship debates, the 400-year-old speech certainly speaks to our current moment as it has through generations, even if the play has been rarely performed live in its 400-year-old history.

A Question for Senate Democrats: Which Side Are You On?

Showing up is half the battle

Each time I try to lower my blood pressure a bit and calm down about the abhorrent political situation we’re living through in this country, something else pops and causes it to spike again. This time it’s the Democrats in the Senate.

It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the shit that’s continually dumped on us from the Trump regime, but when the Democrats have a chance to at least show up and threaten a fight they seem to forget that showing up is more than half the battle.

Both branches of Congress decided to split out DHS funding from the recently passed appropriations bills, leading to what most presume is a ridiculous two week timeline to debate changes for that appropriation. Call me skeptical, but I see that as another Lucy and the football moment just waiting to play out.

But it gets worse. The Democrats, according to this report from Politico, decided to strip from their demands a requirement banning ICE agents from polling sites.

If it seems feckless, that’s because it is.

At the very least include the requirement as a demand and make the GOP work to negotiate it away. Given words coming out of the White House about nationalizing voting and the pot stirring of its allies, you’d think they’d at least pay lip service to the threat. From a pure political standpoint I don’t understand the rationalization for this move given what we’ve seen with our own eyes and the words we’re hearing.

If Pete Seeger was alive today I’m sure he’d still be singing.

The Power Users Have With Subscriptions

Unsubscribing is a vote

I was not a fan of app subscriptions initially. I long ago rethought my position. I continue to think it’s the best option for users. That belief is becoming more entrenched now that we’re entering into whatever the future will be with Artificial Intelligence and it takes constant cash to continue to burn the planet.

Apple Creator Studio hero_571x321.jpg.large.

Whether it’s this week’s flavor of AI chatbots, Apple’s new Creator Studio, or any other new app or service, most now require a subscription to take advantage of new features as they roll out. In most cases the offer is pay $XX a month or $XX a year, with the yearly price being discounted by the cost of a month or more. Even so, we’re already seeing premium subscriptions that add on costs for more features and I think that trend will only accelerate. Welcome to the land of upsell.

Although much less than I used to, I will subscribe to a new app or service that attracts my interest for a month to check it out. I’ll set a reminder a few days before the end of the month and then take a little inventory to see if it’s worth continuing. If not, I’ll unsubscribe.

If the app or service is truly worth my while I may subscribe for the yearly price after determining it’s something I value, but that’s becoming rarer. Frankly, there just aren’t many new apps and services that seem worth even a monthly try out these days, much less paying for a yearly subscription. There have been a few apps that, although they didn’t really fit my needs, I have paid for a yearly subscription to support the developer. But that’s even rarer.

In those cases with apps, newsletters and other services, I think of those more as tips or a donation than I do entering into an ongoing relationship. I’ve even subscribed on occasion and immediately canceled with just that thought in mind. I’m all for supporting good work by good people. I admit it’s a bit unfair to a good app that doesn’t fit my needs, but it’s still a signal that I think is worth sending.

Here’s the key. Large companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc…) and independent developers, writers, etc, notice when the turnstile rotates in reverse because someone unsubscribes. It’s a metric they pay attention to. They count on inertia and waning attention spans. You might think they don’t notice, but they do. As a user I look at unsubscribing as my vote up or down. Again, maybe unfair, but as I said, it’s a signal worth sending.

With the recent release of Apple’s Creator Studio suite of apps I found it remarkable that much of the commentary included mentions that users could try things out and turn off the subscription payments if they didn’t find things suitable for their purposes. Or, if they needed one of the apps for a short project that they could check in and out of the bundle for the duration of the project. I highly recommend that kind of thinking.

For what it’s worth I chose not to subscribe and try out the new Creator Studio. I thought about it, but have long since discovered other tools that fit what I might need from those apps.

In this hyper political age, we talk a lot about voting. That’s always a choice. Using the choice to subscribe and unsubscribe from apps and services can be one as well.

Matt Gemmell on “The Fallen Apple”

Dissatisfaction with the familiar breeds contempt

Matt Gemmell begins with an understatement. “It’s a troubling time to be a long-term Apple customer.” It doesn’t get any easier to read after that. Nor should it.

Shutterstock 1478322374.

Like many Apple users these days, including myself, Matt is expressing his dissatisfaction with Tim Cook’s Apple. Misery loves company. So does commiseration. The Fallen Apple is a powerful read, and I suggest you do so.

Yes, he points to Cook’s knee-bending and kowtowing that betrays much of the carefully cultivated culture Apple spent untold sums creating over the years, now tossed aside like a decaying FineWoven iPhone case. Perhaps with a sparing nod to rationality Gemmell calls it an act of “corporate sacrifice.”

But this paragraph is particularly damning:

I sometimes think about the full-page, black-background Steve Jobs memorial on the Apple site, with the list of tributes you could send submissions for. Then I try to imagine the same thing for Cook, and I find that it only cheapens the original. The Tim Cook of the Trump era is the erasure of a man who previously could do little wrong, but I think that ultimately it has also laid bare a person whose goals and even motives are as far from Apple’s erstwhile values as it’s possible to be. While Jobs gets to be remembered with artful aphorisms and elaborate hagiographies, surely Cook’s epitaph must be something along the lines of “another record quarter”.

Corporate rationality, like it or leave it, is often as distasteful as it is easy to comprehend. But in my view it requires the wrong kind of different thinking when you’ve built a company on creating an emotional connection with your users.

One thing leads to another. Gemmell points not just to the cultural upheaval and downward spiral, but also to a future that appears uncertain. As he puts it, “More perniciously, Apple is also hemorrhaging people and knowledge.” It makes one wonder if Apple University is still in existence. If so, what exactly are they teaching these days?

But, and to the larger point, he correctly states Apple isn’t hemorrhaging profit.

I hope very much to be wrong, but I fear that Apple’s skyrocketing revenue masks a steep institutional decline that is already well underway, propelled by the fact that success itself, improperly managed, is a poison.

It must be something for folks like Cook, Trump, Musk, etc… to sit atop such vast piles of money, knowing how much dislike and distaste they engender and how it undermines the thrones they cling to. Apples ripen and fall. Unless they are harvested. Either way, there’s an end.

Read the rest here.

(image from Johann Lensless on Shutterstock

Sunday Morning Reading

Small Pieces Loosely Joined

Connecting the dots can be one helluva hard game when you have so many dots. The volume of dots and the plots might seem overwhelming, but, if you care to look, it’s easy to find the connective threads, thin though they may be. String them together and the picture becomes clearer. Take a look at the links shared in this Sunday Morning Reading column. If you can’t find the connections, I suggest you’re not even trying to look.

Different colored strands of yarn woven together into a strong strand. Shutterstock 504091696.

Dave Winer writes of Small Pieces Loosely Joined, what he considers the best description of the web. It fits for the web. It fits for most things.

JA Westenberg discusses Why Intelligence Is A Terrible Proxy For Wisdom. Smart.

Backseat Software. That’s how Mike Swanson sees the state of things with software that is constantly interrupting us. As he puts it, “the slow shift from software you operate as a tool to software as a channel that operates you.” Excellent read.

John Gruber thinks we should shift from calling the bad guys Nazis and facists, instead use The Names They Call Themselves. Come to think of it, not sure why it’s so hard to do so given the dictates of the brander-in-chief.

Good dots among the bad are easy to spot. Ava Berger tells the story of how A Red Hat, Inspired By A Symbol Of Resistance To Nazi Occupation, Gains Traction In Minnesota.

In the boiling battle that is Canada and the U.S., Cory Doctorow is elbows up with another of his speeches on enshittifcation. (I’m glad he publishes these.) Check out Disenshittification Nation.

If you’re looking for an antidote to all that’s flying around and at us, it’s tough. Gal Beckham says we can connect those dots through what we’re seeing in Minneapolis. She finds the right word to describe the activism, protests, political opposition, neighborism, and resistance. I won’t spoil it, but she threads them all together in There Is A Word For What Is Happening In Minneapolis.

David Todd McCarty suggests America is a dual state in Then They Came For Me.

Steven Levy says After Minneapolis, Tech CEOs Are Struggling To Stay Silent. Silence speaks volumes. So do actions. So too do “tepid free-floating empathy” memos that mean nothing. Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.

Joshua Panduro Preston tells the story of John Carter Of Minnesota: The “Convict Poet” Who Won His Freedom.

Pro football fans, especially those in Chicago know Charles ‘Peanut’ Tillman and the “peanut punch” well. Most don’t know that after his gridiron career he became a FBI agent. Even more don’t know that he walked away from that second career after the immigration raids started. Dan Pompeo connects the dots in After Charles Tillman Transformed Football, He Joined The FBI. Then The Immigration Raids Started.

(image from RA2016 on Shutterstock)

If you’re interested in just what the heck Sunday Morning Reading is all about you can read more about the origins of Sunday Morning Reading here. If you’d like more click on the Sunday Morning Reading link in the category column to check out what’s been shared on Sunday’s past. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.

Minnesota by The Marsh Family

Haunting and defining with resonances of our past

As one who has been saying for quite some time that we need more of our musicians to stand up and sing about the moments we’re all living through, I’m glad to see that happening as other musicians are singing about the occupation and murders in Minneapolis.

I linked to Bruce Springsteen’s Streets of Minneapolis earlier this week and today I’m linking to the Marsh Family’s new effort, Minnesota. It’s an adaptation of San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Some Flowers In Your Hair,) that kinda became the counterculture anthem of an earlier moment in American history. This new adaptation is just as simple, straightforward, and haunting. It’s also just as defining.

Share it.

A Dark Place

Damnable depravity

I’m in a dark place. We are in a dark place. Living with our eyes wide open in a darkness. No light needed to know what we plainly see. ICE thugs. Minneapolis. Journalists arrested. Public corruption. Wars. Corporate capitulation to evil. And “The Epstein Files.”

I have not written much about that entire depraved episode. I will today.

In what seems like a backhanded, boomeranging, and backfiring way to distract from all of the other despicable things this administration has been doing to distract us from the Epstein files, the Justice Department released about three million of those files today. Apparently there are millions more. But in some ways we’ve probably seen enough.

Or at least to my mind we probably have. At least enough to pass judgment. Some of the files, either mistakenly or on purpose, were leaked. They include descriptions of what horrible men did to young girls. I won’t post or describe the specifics, beyond saying how utterly depraved they are.

They’d get an XXX rating if those acts were included in a movie. If you want specifics you won’t find them in the government release of the files because the DOJ actually deleted the links to some of the worst, which do indeed finger the president of the United States as a participant. But I’m sure you can find them all over the Internet.

Let me say this. The fact that there are going to be people trying to brush past and brush over what we’ve long suspected but now seen makes those horrible acts of perversion almost pale in comparison. You have to be some sort of sick to try and rationalize it as anything other than evil. But I’m sure there will be too many willing to throw their souls under the bus they continue to ride on.

When and where I grew up, it was a small rural community, populated with many who had some of the same political and social leanings of those we call MAGA today. I don’t care how much of an exalted office anyone held, how much money they made, or what pulpit they preached from. If they were accused of the things mentioned in those files they would have been quietly disappeared from the earth, never to be heard from, and mostly not spoken of again.

If this crowd of criminals and pedophiles and their supporters keep talking about Making America Great Again, I assume they are referring to that period of time when I was growing up. There’s a large part of me that thinks in despicable cases like these that perhaps we should. If only to mete out punishment the way it was done then.

Promises, Promises

Harold Hill never had such easy marks

Years ago when I ran professional theatres my principal responsibility was picking a season of plays and/or musicals, then pulling things together to actually produce that season. Planning was based on quite a few variables and data, but you never knew how things were actually going to play out in the end. Show business can be cruel.

The Music Man There were always surprises. Some good and some bad. Some shows would become surprise runaway hits, others that seemed like sure things would flop. Lose a weekend due to a snowstorm and the bottom line got hit hard.

Of course the choice of plays was always the key variable. I remember sitting in a particularly contentious board of directors meeting as we were nearing a season announcement and a board member was pushing back hard on our revenue and expense projections for what we had planned. He pounded the table and asked, “How can you know what will sell tickets a year from now?” I told him I could project, but I couldn’t know and that I always went into each season saying that if we succeeded as much as .300 hitters in baseball we’d be superstars.

Well, we weren’t baseball players, but we still usually came out ahead of the game with more hits some seasons than others. We held our own. The not-for-profit theatre version of the game I was playing relied on picking and announcing a season a year or so in advance. You’d promote and sell that season to subscribers to accumulate cash and support up front, and then once you were in the season proper you’d push hard for single ticket sales and then after they got a taste, try to convert them into subscribers, then donors.

It was always risky, just like many business propositions. I remember asking that same board member if his business would be comfortable announcing his plans and projecting sales a year in advance knowing all of the risks. It was a rhetorical question on my part because I knew his business couldn’t operate that way. Most can’t.

The entire thing was based initially on a promise, and each new season announcement was a new promise. Each time you delivered a promised season the theatre built or kept trust with that subscriber base. That loyal base would resubscribe based on that trust. Those customers knew there may be a play or two in the season they didn’t care for, but they came back season after season based on the quality of what we offered, and also that we delivered on what we initially sold and promoted.

As an artistic director (CEO) I was the one who was responsible for that trust and never took that responsibility lightly. Yes, there were times we had to change our plans, but the trust engendered along the way helped weather those moments as long as we were honest with our customers and donors.

The above is a long wind up to something I’ve been thinking about lately and spurred by an article I saw on Elon Musk’s latest promises about delivering robots “next year.”

No one thinks that’s real. For the life of me, I doubt he does. Given how many “promises” this guy has made and broken I don’t understand how reasonably intelligent (I assume they are reasonably intelligent) reporters and investors don’t just burst out laughing when the next one self-drives out of the empty garage that is his mouth. But then again, everyone is in on the con.

Musk isn’t alone these days when it comes to talking out of more orifices than human anatomy provides. Our politicians do it. Relentlessly. As do Tech and other corporate CEOs. The politicians you can almost understand because they are allowed to say whatever the hell they want under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution, granting them immunity for anything they say while doing their legislative duties. Unfortunately that seems to have spread a bit outside of the original boundaries through various court rulings and a willingness to boldly and brazenly lie at the drop of a hat.

But CEOs are supposed to be under more scrutiny. From their shareholders. From various regulatory agencies. And yet, those like Musk and many of the Artificial Intelligence promoters seem to be able to promise the Moon (or Mars) without ever delivering.

As I said earlier, at some point you’d think intelligent folks would catch on and actually run these Harold Hills out of town, instead of allowing them to continue courting the librarians they want to take jobs away from. If the regulators aren’t regulating and the shareholders keep writing checks I guess those of us watching shouldn’t care if they all end up playing air trombones. (Bonus points for those who get The Music Man references.)

There’s a truism in my business that nobody ever starts out to do a bad show. Yet, some shows flop. I used to believe that no one ever started a business to be a bust. But the flimflammery we’re seeing these days makes me wonder. As long as you can continue to fleece the flock along the way, does it really matter if you ultimately succeed in producing what you promised as long as you score along the way?

Set aside for the moment that anything, well intentioned or not, can fail. But after delivering a string of broken promises you’d think there’d be enough erosion of trust that only fools would continue to pony up their money. Perhaps I’ve just underestimated the number of fools.

My business was disposable. Technology isn’t. Essential as the arts are to our collective humanity, the arts are always the first to feel financial hits in tough times, and generally the last to recover. Technology keeps playing an increasing role in all of our lives and is becoming dangerously essential. Lord help us if an EMP ever goes off. Watching this new rush into the a world of Artificial Intelligence it’s frightening to contemplate even a small portion of what the promises offer, even as some have already collapsed under their own weight. It’s even more challenging to contemplate what the remaining ones might actually turn into.

It’s one thing to run a smartphone on a beta OS. It’s another when it runs your life for you.

Frankly, I don’t buy all of the promises. The ones that I think offer possible benefits I’m skeptical about. And that’s because I don’t trust the folks offering the promises, the folks funding them, or those rushing to implement them. They’ve all had their chance to earn my trust. There are very few remaining that haven’t squandered it.