ai – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

Streaming Services and Sports

Streaming fantasies

I have a fantasy. It’s a sports fantasy. Actually it’s a sports viewing fantasy. Perhaps it’s an entertainment streaming fantasy. Regardless, it’ll never be fulfilled.

Just about every streaming service has jumped onto the live sports streaming bandwagon. That’s understandable. Sports attracts eyeballs. Eyeballs equal money. Money makes the balls bounce.

Streaming services that I turn to insist on pushing their sports investments on to the top of their poorly designed homepages, forcing the user to scroll if they aren’t interested. Of course streaming services homepages are notoriously poor user experiences to begin with.

Like I said, I get all the reasons behind this. I get that the streaming executives have overpaid for the right to stream whatever they’re streaming and are trying to capitalize on the investment, on the way to raising prices to cover that cost, and perhaps find a few new viewers who might not already be fans. It feels very much like my grandkids screaming “watch this, watch this!”

To be fair, things have gotten better. Streaming services that feature live sports have at least reduced some top line over exposure along the way, or provided tabs for different categories that segment sports and other viewing genres. But they could go further.

So, here’s my fantasy.

Give users an option to not see sports programming so prominently displayed on the already atrociously and algorithmically designed homepages. A simple switch that says “give me more of this” or “give me less.” Trust me, as someone who likes to view sports, I’ll find a game or a match that I’m interested in if I want it. And I’m sure there are plenty of users who will want to see sports programming prominently featured. So let viewers choose. Those who run these networks should be interested in that choice.

Streaming services could also extend a give me more or less feature to other programming. How many times do you need to see the same title displayed in different categories, or after you’ve watched it, or have to scroll past a genre you have no interest in?

Whether it’s sports or any other entertainment genre it seems to me it would be better to gauge interest ahead of time, instead of waiting for viewership numbers after the fact. Who knows, it might be a good way to provide metrics that might actually be meaningful when it comes to thinking about where these services are going to spend money in the future.

Like I said, it’s a fantasy.

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. This site does not use affilate links.

Sunday Morning Reading

It’s all a loop

Back from spending time with the grandkids and back for some Sunday Morning Reading. There’s an interesting context to the many issues we face that evolves while watching the little ones grow and learn. Things are happening that will affect their lives in the years ahead. Yet there’s a blissful innocence cocooning them from it all. At the moment.

In my reading, and in my sharing of that reading, I find I’m doing so mostly for the thousands of tomorrows they have in their future, much more so than for anything that will happen in this week’s tomorrows that might affect me in the moment. Read on.

Neil Steinberg’s Meet My Metaphors #5: ConAgra is about so much more than the agricultural giant moving to Chicago years ago. If you like metaphors, it’s a must read. If you’re approaching the last leg of the journey, it’s a must read. If you’re concerned about what you may leave behind, well, it’s a must read.

JA Westenberg posits that it’s all a loop. Joke’s on us, I guess. Check out The Loop: Everything Has Happened Before, And Everything Will Happen Again.

Ky Decker wonders, Do I Belong In Tech Anymore? I find if you’re asking that question about anything, you already know the answer.

Wesley Hilliard thinks we should Stop With The Tech Celebrity Worship. I concur. AND I’m for knocking down all the pedestals we erect for celebrities to ascend in any and all fields of human endeavor.

Timothy Noah takes a look at How The Tech World Turned Evil. Pop the bubbles. Tear down the pedestals. Endless loops.

Meanwhile, Makena Kelly examines how Palantir Employees Are Talking About The Company’s Descent Into Fascism.

Follow that up with Jasmine Sun’s piece, Silicon Valley Is Bracing For A Permanent Underclass.

The previous four links speak to a much darker future in one way or the other. Read them. Then go back and re-read the first two links by Steinberg and Westenberg. Looping context.

Closing out this week, here’s a couple of links that feel a bit more uplifting. First up, check out Mat Duggan’s Boy Was I Wrong About the Fediverse.

Then follow that up with David Todd McCarty’s Becoming A Local. Sometimes the horizon is much closer than you think.

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. This site does not use affilate links.

More Thoughts On The Cook/Ternus Changeover

Honeymoon timing

Yesterday’s news of Tim Cook handing over the CEO mantle to John Ternus was news only in the sense of the timing. As I said then, it’s been expected for a while. It reminds me of any Apple rumor. It’s not true until it’s announced, even though most of the announcements turn into mostly confirmation these days. Note that Wall Street barely moved a tick on that news today. That tells you how well the ground was laid.

Apple ceo jpg.

Of course yesterday’s announcement has prompted exactly what you would expect, yielding tons of coverage on websites and podcasts. For Cook there have been accolades and brickbats, both deserved. For Ternus there has been excitement and a little caution.

Before I get to some thoughts of my own, here are a few links I found worthy of sharing because they stepped outside of the expected.

M.G. Siegler takes us on A Cook’s Tour.

Daryl Baxter saw more shock in the Apple community than I did. He reminds us that Tim Cook introduced the first Siri as part of his first iPhone event in 2011. He points ahead to this year’s announcement by John Ternus possibly poised to announce a promised better Siri. What goes around, might come around again. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 15 years to get it right this time.

And Horace Dediu looks way ahead to 2040, when Ternus himself steps down to begin the transition to the next CEO. John Ternus Has Left Big Shoes To Fill is quite a trip into the future. You’ll get a chuckle or two.

The first of my thoughts has to do with timing. Not specifically the timing of the announcement, but the timing that any new leader gets when stepping into that role. There’s a window of time in which new leaders get a bit of grace. Most call it a honeymoon. While enjoying that honeymoon it’s perfectly acceptable to foist off blame for anything that goes wrong on the last guy.

That will obviously be difficult with Tim Cook stepping into the role of Executive Chairman of the Board. Sort of like going on your honeymoon with your significant other’s father tagging along. But it will be even more challenging given the apparently well deserved narrative being hyped about Ternus’ hardware smarts and his responsibilities in recent years. He’s had his hands on much of the Apple Silicon generation of products, almost presaging the announcement of his ascension to CEO with his role in the recent release of the MacBook Neo.

Adding to the challenge is the well known and well worn narrative about Apple’s long view roadmap of rolling out new products. The story is that Apple is always working ahead on the next generation of a product as it is preparing to release the newest version. What products will we see over the next period of time were green lighted by Cook?

Ternus’s prior role in overseeing hardware also means all of the products rumored to be in Apple’s pipeline for later this year and into next year will certainly feature his fingerprints. But they will also have Tim Cook’s. The question will one day be which product can the world accept as the first Ternus only product. Does it matter? Not really. But it will be treated as if it does. Ask Tim Cook about how that went once he assumed the CEO mantle.

We also all know that there are apparently hardware products (HomePods, Apple TV, other home products) waiting to be shipped once Apple gets its act together with whatever the new Siri is, and how well that works with whatever they will call what heretofore has been labeled Apple Intelligence.

In my way of scoring, the success or failure of those products will fall into the Tim Cook column, regardless of any contributions by Ternus. Again, does it matter? And again, not really. But there is much riding on that this year. One way or the other it will be an imprint on Ternus’ first efforts, whether that’s fair or not.

As to that last thought on Siri and Apple Intelligence, that’s software. That’s software holding back the release of hardware products for Apple, which is first and foremost a hardware company that relies on its own software.

As I’ve said many times, the hardware I’ve seen the since the dawn of the Apple Silicon era is very good, if not exceptional. The software needs lots of attention and work. It’s not just the design choices, it’s the chinks here and there in the armor that sour.

Ternus may be the hardware product guy, but he’s now going to be the guy responsible for the famous and coveted “whole widget.” Obviously that includes the software. And also, the marketing of that whole widget. Software design and implementation has been a bitter bite of the Apple lately, as has some of the marketing. As Ternus expands his view, I will be watching how Apple’s software develops under his leadership with a keen eye.

That expanded view also includes services. New CEOs always like to make a bold statement when they first sit in the chair. While there’s a lot being made of the semiotics trying to show continuity between Cook and Ternus, I can think of one thing Ternus could do on September 1, that would immediately set him apart an Apple on a new course.

Announce an increase in the base amount of iCloud storage users get for free. 5GB hasn’t cut it for awhile. Cut and run from that legacy and begin making a bold new path.

Sunday Morning Reading

“Scars speak more loudly than the sword that caused them.” – Paulo Coelho

It figures. You plan a weekend of yard work and Mother Nature reminds you she controls more than you do. In these parts that makes this a perfect chilly Sunday for a little Sunday Morning Reading. I’m not sure how, but a theme emerges in the collection of links I’m sharing this weekend, somehow suggesting that regardless of our feelings, the forces that seem to be conspiring against us just keep rolling. At some point, just like with the shifts in the weather, you just want some unshifting force to make it all stop.

Here in Chicago we’re seeing a number of theatre spaces closing. (We’re also seeing a few open.) On the national stage, we’re watching with dismay, anger, and sadness as The Kennedy Center is being shut down by cultural barbarians. Josef Palermo had an inside seat to that dismantling and tells the story in My Front-Row Seat To The Kennedy Center Implosion.

And while Madison Square Garden is more a venue for pure entertainment than the arts, the story about how its owner is using surveillance on its patrons and employees that upset the powers that be is a harbinger of things to come in all arenas of our lives. Check out The Shocking Secrets of Madison Square Garden’s Surveillance Machine by Noah Shachtman and Robert Silverman.

Having experimented a bit with Artificial Intelligence in seeking information about a statue this weekend, my ongoing suspicions that this “way of the future” isn’t ready for today, much less tomorrow. The technology might be not ready for prime time, but the hype has never been. Kyle Chayka says A.I. Has A Message Problem Of It’s Own Making. I like this quote in the subhead, “If you tell people that your product will upend their way of life, take their jobs, and possibly threaten humanity, they might believe you.” True enough. And if those things are as incompetent as humans, what’s the damn point?

It’s all math. That’s one way to sum up any computing activity. Unless it comes to emotion. And yet, some think feelings are somewhere in the numbers. Mike Elgan writes, No, Math Doesn’t Have Feelings in response to those who must not have any feelings of their own, but are trying to add that into the AI equation.

Gaby Del Valle, says The Only Way To Fight Deepfakes Is By Making Deepfakes. Sounds like an arms race to me. We should be up in arms about it.

Speaking of arms races, Gideon Lewis-Kraus looks at AI in the war that isn’t a war, that’s over every week, but begins again every weekend once the markets close in How Project Maven Put AI Into The Kill Chain.

Apologies for so much AI linkage this week, but it’s been on my mind lately, especially since the news of Mythos broke. It’s the latest demon to fly out of Pandora’s box, and I’m afraid it’s not the last. Margie Murphy, Jake Bleiberg, and Patrick Howell O’Neill examine How Anthropic Learned Mythos Was Too Dangerous For The Wild.

CNN has a report by Saskya Vandoorne, Kara Fox, Niamh Kennedy, Eleanor Stubbs, and Marco Chacon called Exposing A Global Rape Academy. It’s a hard, but I think necessary read considering the topic is just how horrible humans can be to one another. Maybe we should hope the robots develop feelings. Too many humans seem to have stopped developing theirs.

Gail Beckerman says If You Want A Better World, Act Like You Live In It. I concur.

And to close out this week, Scars is a short story by Sigrid Nunez. Some scars can’t be seen. The ones we’re watching form daily, can be.

(Photo by the author.)

Apple and Google Still Generating Profits from Grok’s Sexualized Image Generation

It’s my rule. I’ll break it if I want.

Rules are made to be broken is the cliché. That’s a theme that’s running louder and wilder through much of life these days. Build complicated and successful things. Create rules to protect what you’ve built. Mass enough power and then bend or ignore the rules when they become inconvenient.

That theme surfaces frequently enough that it’s almost a meme. In politics it happens every day, enough to make a mocking myth of things like the rule of law and the constitution. We see it in religion. We see it in business, too frequently in the business of tech. When you’re big enough that you have to, and can create rules to protect what you’ve built against others, and yourself, you substitute the convenience of adhering to the rules for the inconvenience of principle.

Back in January, (damn that seems so long ago), Elon Musk’s Grok released an AI image editing feature that allowed users to create nonconsensual sexualized deepfakes. It was ugly and disgusting.

As with all new things tech, it caught on like wildfire, and then X took fire from many quarters including some governments. (Not ours — caterwauling congress critters no longer count.) Apple and Google also took hits for continuing to allow the app on their respective App stores in violation of existing rules. There were calls for both Apple and Google to follow those rules and take the app down. Something both companies have done for other rule violating apps with and without public punity.

That didn’t happen.

Yesterday, a report from NBC revealed that Apple, in a letter to U.S. Senators, claimed that it worked behind the scenes of the public uproar to demand that the developers “create a plan to improve content moderation.” According to The Verge,

Throughout this covert back-and-forth, Grok and X appear to have remained live on the App Store, a drawn-out process that may help explain the confusing, haphazard rollout of moderation changes announced in real time. This included limiting Grok on X to paying subscribers and attempting to stop Grok from undressing women. Our investigations revealed that neither were particularly effective beyond making the tool a bit harder to access. Later interventions, like X letting users block Grok from editing their photos, are also easily circumvented.

Despite Apple’s approval and xAI’s claims it has tightened safeguards, Grok still appears to be able to generate sexualized deepfakes with relative ease.

So, essentially nothing of any real effect happened. Scratch that. Something did. X and Grok put the feature behind a paying subscription. One that Apple also reaped profits from and still does. As does Google.

The one rule this era has taught us is that if you’re big and rich enough, and can weather the storm of public scorn, you can essentially ignore the rules. Even those you’ve written yourself. With impunity.

U.S. Treasury Wants Access To Mythos

What could possibly go wrong?

The kicker above says it all. According to Bloomberg, the CIO of the U.S. Treasury, Sam Corcos, is hoping to get his hands on Anthropics’s apparently super dangerous AI software, Mythos. The idea is to use Mythos to check and prepare for vulnerabilities. In any normal world that would make sense. We don’t live in that normal world.

Claude mythos.

Set aside that Anthropic and the U.S. Government are feuding over the government designating Anthropic a security threat and supply chain threat. The fact that Mythos can seek out and find vulnerabilities in software that humans apparently can’t, and has done so already for most operating systems and browsers currently in existence, is concerning in and off itself. Add to that what I’m reasonably sure is exploitable software the government is running, and this smells like a recipe for potential chaos.

Anthropic did not want to release Mythos to the public, given its potential for harm in the wrong hands and formed Project Glasswing, inviting a number of tech companies and JP Morgan Chase into the fold so they could check out their systems. Other banks have since also begun testing.

I don’t want to sound all doomy and gloomy, but however this story unfolds, it does appear there is enough there there to be skeptical and concerned. Even before the ongoing daily chaos and incompetence displayed by the second Trump administration, the U.S. government has a much deserved reputation for being slow on the uptake in the digital age. I know several folks working in various government agencies, any of whom could tell you horror stories.

The fear obviously is what happens if Mythos gets into the wrong hands. I don’t know about you, but I think we certainly have enough of those running Washington DC currently. Bottom line, this bears watching and any number of fronts.

Microsoft Raises Surface PC Prices Due To Increasing RAM Costs

No mystery under the surface here.

No doubt about it, this one will sting for those interested in Microsoft’s Surface line of computers. Microsoft is putting the blame squarely on the AI-fueled increasing costs of RAM according to a report on Windows Central.

B00 Surface Laptop 13 inch 1Ed Rational Violet Front.

According to a statement to Windows Central:

“Due to recent increases in memory and component costs, Surface is updating pricing on Microsoft.com for its current‑generation hardware portfolio,We remain committed to delivering value to customers and partners while upholding our standards for quality and innovation.”

The Surface Pro 11 and the Surface Laptop 7 now cost $500 more than their original price. Other Suface computers in the line up including the 12-inch Surface Pro and the 13-inch Surface laptop have also seen a hike in prices. In fact the entire Surface line has seen increases.

When it comes to competition, this puts some of Microsoft’s Surface line into a higher cost category than the equivalent range of Apple’s Macs.

Note that this comes before the next edition of Surface PCs is unveiled this Spring and Summer, which is often preceded by a drop in prices on last year’s editions.

It’s getting expensive out there and we don’t have to look to far beneath the surface of the news to wonder why.

Sunday Morning Reading

Optimism comes every Spring, but Winter always nips at the edges

Temperatures are warming. Every day brings more daylight, more blooms in the gardens and trees Yet on the edges of two of my interests, politics and tech, things continue to darken a bit. The common denominator between the two? Humans. But then again, humans are the ones who read this Sunday Morning Reading column. As well as the bots that scrape it of course.

PXL 20260411 142247979.

Some of the big news in tech this week was about a new AI product from Anthropic called Mythos. So fraught with potential peril that Anthropic gathered together the major tech heads to form a consortium to keep lid on it. Monica Verma has a good run down with her piece Did Claude Mythos Break The Cybersecurity Industry.

M.G. Siegler’s The Causal Catastrophe of AI takes a look at maneuvering around Mythos as well. Call me crazy, but I don’t think there’s anything casual about this development.

The reason I’m a pessimist on this is that I agree with a comment from JA Westenberg, “Being wrong about doom costs you nothing.” Check out Optimism Is Not A Personality Flaw. The piece walks a line. You should read it and walk it too.

Mike Elgan takes a look at Black Traffic: The Corporate Sabotage Technique You’ve Never Heard Of. Now you have.

Ng Chong examines The Echo Chamber In Your Pocket. Follow that up with this from Julie Jargon: Over 4,732 Messages, He Fell In Love With An AI Chatbot. Now He’s Dead.(That’s an Apple News lnk. This is an archived link.)

David Todd McCarty thinks one path to reclaiming power over information might be in The Return Of The Local Newspaper.You don’t know what you had until it’s gone.

This Is What Will Ruin Public Opinion Polling For Good. The “this,” according to Lief Weatherby, is something called silicon sampling. Yes, you guessed it. AI.

Coming back around to my comment at the top about not having faith in humans, OpenAI’s Sam Altman got his turn in the barrel (again) this week. Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz spent quite a bit of time putting this piece together. Check out Sam Altman May Control Our Future — Can He Be Trusted? FWIW, I don’t need much more time than it takes to put this column together every week to answer their question in the negative. And not just about Altman.

Mean while Altman responded on his blog, after someone tossed a Molotov cocktail at his house. He says “I have underestimated the power of words and narratives.” For someone who has scraped all the words he can off of the Internet and tried to turn them into something smarter than humans, you’d think his machines could have at least figured out that words have power.

Natasha MH sums up a lot of my lack of faith in humans in her piece, Stop Blaming The Chatbot. As she puts it, “AI didn’t make you stupid. You were already getting there.”

Sorry to be so negative this week, but that’s where I’m living., But to change the tone, Neil Steinberg turns around the Latin term, memto mori, (remember to die) around to memento vivere, or remember to live. A nice little bit of humanity to close out this week with Little LIfe.

(Photo from the author)

Taking Flight On A Glasswing

With the fragility of egos as a pilot

Every time I hear the warnings about the current or next big thing in Artificial Intelligence, I’m reminded of the Surgeon General’s warnings that are printed on packs of cigarettes. I’m also reminded of every new fad I’ve seen in my lifetime, that might have inched over into a trend, but eventually ended up waiting for its turn on the nostalgia wheel of time.

Claude mythos.

As the world was holding its breath from the civilization destroying threats that sprung forth from the mind of the U.S. President, and then exhaling as they turned into the latest episode of “Bluff, Bluster, and Bullshit,” we were learning about a new AI leap and threat from Anthropic, potentially as dire, called Claude Mythos Preview. To get ahead of any damage this coming attraction might visit upon us Anthropic created Project Glasswing. Given that the raving lunatic in the White House came to power a second time with a civilization destroying manual in hand called Project 2025, I’m more than a bit leery of anything with a title that leads with the word “Project.”

From what I’ve read, Mythos is the latest innovation in Anthropic’s flavor of Artificial Intelligence. It is so powerful that it has sought out and found vulnerabilities in so much of the software the world runs on, that Anthropic is only releasing it to a hand full of companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Broadcom, JPMorganChase, the Linux Foundation, NVIDIA, and more.) That’s Project Glasswing. Tech overlords uniting to protect us from their sloppy software. (The lawyers will have a field day.)

Anthropic, having been declared by the U.S. as an unacceptable national security threat and supply chain risk, nevertheless is also working with the same U.S. Government looking ahead to the threats. Somehow security and existential threats always seem to become negotiating partners with their foes when money is at stake. Also occasionally when global annihilation is knocking on the door.

The way I interpret the idea behind Project Glasswing is that these companies, and presumably governments, might use Mythos to seek out all of the vulnerabilities, and perhaps obliterate them (I use that term in the Trumpian and Hegsethian sense) before they can filter down into things like power grids, banking systems, and consumer use. It can supposedly do this at a scale humans can’t. Note that Mythos discovered problems in every operating system and, on a level both big and small, the constantly updating browsers we use on our computers.

During our testing, we found that Mythos Preview is capable of identifying and then exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser when directed by a user to do so. The vulnerabilities it finds are often subtle or difficult to detect.

I think of it this way. Announcing the existence of Mythos is akin to living the moments of terror those responsible for our safety have in House of Dynamite, once they realize the gig is up, misses are inbound, and the interceptors have failed. I’d call it an “Oh, shit” moment.

If you ask me Mythos is also exposing more than a few myths as well as vulnerabilities. The sound you hear is PR slide decks about security enhancements in the latest releases of current software being furiously redone.

As M.G. Siegler puts it,

Historically, many vulnerabilities have been fixed only after someone exploited them in some way. Again, that’s because the incentives are in favor of the attacker versus the defender. If and when Mythos-caliber tools are put in the hands of hackers… yeah.

That’s obviously exactly why Anthropic isn’t releasing Mythos to the public and also why they’ve set up Glasswing. While the company may be first to such capabilities, they won’t be the last. They probably don’t even have long to try to get ahead of the situation. While I generally dislike the nuclear weapons analogy for AI, I must admit, this all does feel a bit Manhattan Project-y. The good guys are racing against the clock to implement a new technology before the bad guys catch up. But they will. They always do.

Yeah, that sounds problematic.

Paul Krugman took a break from agonizing and writing about the situation in the Middle East and weighed in with this,

The good news is that Anthropic discovered in the process of developing Claude Mythos that the A.I. could not only write software code more easily and with greater complexity than any model currently available, but as a byproduct of that capability, it could also find vulnerabilities in virtually all of the world’s most popular software systems more easily than before.

The bad news is that if this tool falls into the hands of bad actors, they could hack pretty much every major software system in the world, including all those made by the companies in the consortium.

So, there’s plenty of doom floating around, along with the now clichéd approach to all things AI, that there’s good tech behind all of the bad things that the tech can do. Note that the profits from tobacco helped found the U.S. and twisted science and politics into knots trying not to end up on the ash heap.

I’ve largely stayed away from playing with any of these AI tools and toys, but I follow the news of the advances on all fronts, and those who do play around with it. Like it or not, those who run the world have decided this is our future.

I’ll be honest. Hallucinations aside, I don’t know enough rather or not to trust the software. I have my doubts and I do have fears about the tech. Project Glasswing might be a noble effort. Yet, with a clear mind, I do know enough not to trust any of the humans running the show. Frankly, it feels like they don’t know enough to trust the software either, much less to protect their and our systems from being destroyed by some kid in a basement.

As Natasha MH puts it, not writing about Mythos specifically, but about Artificial Intelligence in general, AI didn’t make you stupid. You were already getting there.

Pinning Tails On AI Donkeys

Does authenticity matter?

Shortly after OpenAI fired the starting pistol for the AI race by releasing ChatGPT, I started saying that at some point the real money was going to be made by whatever company wins the horserace for identifying work created, regurgitated, or recycled by AI. Turns out I may have been wrong. In the face of what can be called abject surrender to an AI filled future, the sprint is now on to determine who has the best tool to identify what was created by humans. My money says everyone involved is running the Mongol Derby.

Erwan hesry ILOFQMEuUrQ unsplash.

Two very interesting recent articles caught my eye. The first is by Jess Weatherbed on The Verge. Riffing off a quote from Instagram’s Adam Mosseri that it will be “more practical to fingerprint real media than fake media,” the article delves into some of the companies working to authenticate human-made work and the challenges they are facing.

The second article is by JA Westenberg, called The AI Writing Witchhunt Is Pointless. Westenberg examines the unreliability of current AI detection tools, and the very reliable human instinct to jump on Internet band wagons loaded with pitchforks and torches at the ready, if they get any sniff of AI in any content.

Both pieces are worth your time.

As someone who has adapted Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers for the stage in both a musical and a dramatic version, in English and for Russian audiences, I really appreciate Westenberg using Dumas and his almost factory-like ways of cranking out his content and how that would most likely be received in today’s Internet world.

I also very much appreciate Westenberg’s conclusion, essentially saying that there’s no way we to tell how this all turns out. It’s too early in the race. I’m a bit more hard-nosed about accepting Weatherbed’s optimism that “maybe we can return to the days of trusting what we see with our eyes.” We’ve never been all that good at doing that.

At this moment, among admittedly many more moments to come in this saga, all of the major AI services come with the same kind of PAY ATTENTION warnings on some of their features, yet not so much when it comes to content. There’s really no incentive to do so. Mosseri’s Instagram makes money regardless of who or what creates whatever Reel you scroll by.

Outside of consumable and ad serving content, AI purveyors urge users to check sources because the output before them may be inaccurate in a search result, a math problem, or a medical diagnosis. Notice that the CEO of America’s largest public hospital system is ready to start replacing radiologists with AI. Every time I hear that AI will remove us from donkey-like drudge work, I hear AI will remove salaries, yet I somehow doubt the billing will change much.

We’ve never been good at heeding these types of warnings whether they come from Surgeon Generals, Terms of Service, or from our parents. We’re certainly not that adept at being able to separate fact from fiction, regardless of how it’s created.

It strikes me as a deeply ironic, and somewhat nihilistic question, that if Artificial Intelligence was as good as promised or continues as problematic as it is in its current form in any of its facets, would we even care? Yet, if it is good enough to plant seeds of doubt as to how a piece of content comes to be, does it even matter? Reminds me of the discussion between Oppenheimer and Einstein, teased early and then revealed at the end of the Oppenheimer.

I understand why human creators are concerned, but I’m afraid those concerns are being handicapped away from the pole position. We’ve allowed our economies, both large and small, to be staked on the outcome of the race. On the other hand, if AI is so great, why the hell are AI advocates, running such a breathless and competitive race, so afraid of having anything it produces labeled as created by AI?

(Image from Erwan Hesry on Unsplash.