AI Customer Support Devalues Customers And The Company That Adopts It

AI customer support isn’t all that intelligent or supporting

I noticed an article on MacRumors that Apple is getting ready to roll out it’s “AI-powered Support Assistant.” Apparently Apple’s only willing to take the risk with tech support and not customer support. That’s where money might exchange bank accounts.

Shutterstock 2482823939.

This is the way the world is spinning at the moment. My prediction is that companies will ratchet back these cost saving moves but not until the realize what it costs in customer loyalty. We have to go through the suck, before we get to the less suck.

I base that prediciton on my experiences spending the better part of this Summer and past Spring helping clients and a few relatives, some elderly, work to cut back on expenses and take care of some warranty repairs for appliances. (Hint: Ditiching warranty services is one way to cut montly costs.)

Timing is everything. My efforts coincided with several of these companies caught in the process of switching to AI solutions for customer and tech support. To be direct, it was a mess. For me, the customer, and also for the employees left holding the bag on the other end of these crazy corporate strategies.

No one would argue that most customer and technical support systems were in good shape previous to these kind of moves. They were indeed ripe for re-inventing and they have always been easy marks for the bean counters to cut corners.

Chatbots had already begun to proliferate, descended from automated phone trees like some form of inverted evolution that only a sadist could love. No one would ever conclude that they had been intelligently designed. My previous experiences were always hit and miss, but at least I understood that if I followed the steps I could eventually reach someone on a phone or live chat. During these transitons that became nigh on near impossible.

Prior to one of the companies I worked making the switch, it had become obvious that they had abandoned call centers and let their agents work from home. I kid you not, I spent one phone call with a barking dog in the background of whatever small quarters this rep was in, and another with two small children fighting with each other in the background of another call.

Let me give you one example from my recent experience with one company undergoing a transiton to AI tech and customer support.

Sears Home Services

Sears Home Services has been a popular home warranty service for many throughout the years. It’s been apparent for a while that services like these have lost their luster and some have devolved into scams. But for folks of certain generations they were always in the monthly budget. In my experience with one of my clients, prior to their switchover, it worked about as well as it was advertised to work. You made a call, talked with an agent, set up an appointment, a technician arrived to check things out, ordered parts if necessary, rescheduled the appointment, and then came back to effect the repair or replacement.

The first repair I assisted with happened just like I described above. The entire process from first call to final signoff on the repair took 10 days.

The second call not so much.

I guessed things were in trouble when the phone number prominently displayed on the webpage would not yield a method of speaking with an agent, but kept pushing me to their chatbot. The chatbot had limited options that you could select. It did not have a way to enter any request beyond those options. My guess is the company didn’t want customers speaking to an agent.

Undaunted, I did the usual online searching for phone numbers and finally stumbled on to a Reddit thread where users experiencing the same problems were reporting phone numbers that worked. Until they didn’t. It was a cat and mouse game of dialing a phone number before it was changed or taken out of service. That lasted about a week.

Finally I succumbed and scheduled an appointment via the chatbot. That chatbot sure was happy. I was told the support technician would contact me the night before to schedule a more specific appointment window. Things were looking up. That call never came. The morning of the appointment I got a text telling me the appointment was scheduled between 8 and 5pm. In my previous experiences these appointments were scheduled in four hour windows.

On the afternoon of the repair, at 5:30pm I got a phone call from a support person saying he would be their in a half-hour. He showed up 45 minutes later. He diagnosed the issue, said he would order parts and they would be shipped directly to me. This was a change I’ll describe later. He then said he needed to go sit in his truck and work with the system to get the parts ordered and that would take a half-hour or so becuase the system was constantly kicking him out mid-order and he would have to start over.

When he came back to finalize everything for that appointment he reiterated that this new system was screwed up. I told him I wasn’t a fan either. We had a good conversation.

Previously, according to him, each night technicians like him would get a list of their appointments for the next day. They would go to a drop ship pickup location for any parts for that day’s appointments, head out and do the work. Now the system sent parts directly to the address of the repair and required the customer to reschedule the next appointment once the parts arrived. Because customers were not receiving notifications of these part shipments, the parts would just show up, often get returned, delaying the inevitable service.

Most striking in his telling was the fact that he no longer received the next day’s list of appointment the night before. Only the first one for the day. Once that was completed he would receive his next appointment. Again, according to him, the previous system in place for dispatching personnel was pretty good at scheduling the next day’s appointments with minimal travel time between appointments. Now with the new system, he would find himself traveling between appointments, often located far apart, more than he would working the repairs.

To begin to bring this ancedote about this repair to a close, suffice it to say that the entire episode from first call to eventual repair has not yet been completed. It begin on May 20. Once it was determined that the appliance needed to be replaced, not repaired (that took two appointments,) a new one was ordered. Then canceled by Sears Home Repair’s system. Then re-ordered.

On the night before the scheduled delivery I got a call that it would be delivered the next day. That morning I got a call saying the delivery would take place that morning. Ten minutes later I got a call saying that the appliance had not been delivered to the delivery driver. (It was too large for a home delivery.) This necessitated canceling the order, re-ordering and a repeat of the process.

Somewhere in the middle of the process phone calls with agents became possible again. Progress? Not quite.

After several discussions with several agents I discovered that they were as challenged as their customers were by the new system. I’m sure you’ve played the escalation game to get to a supervisor and I played that game here as well. At last count I’m waiting on approximately 7 phone calls from supervisors that never came in.

Eventually the appliance was delivered to the delivery person. But there was no record in the system of an appointment to install the new one and remove the old one as per the warranty.

It took a month and two more canceled appointments for installation before Sears finally gave up and said a check would be forthcoming to cover the installation costs. That check has yet to arrive. (That’s why I consider the transaction not completed.) We did get the appliance installed on our own.

But of course, we did receive the usual survey request asking us to rate how well Sears Home Repair Services performed. Once the check arrives and clears the bank, my client will be cancelling that warranty. That will be our response.

Xfinity

One bill I was working on reducing for another client was Xfinity. I probably don’t need to say more if you’ve ever dealt with that company. But I will. I simply wanted to call and discuss plan options for reducing the bill.

No where was I able to get through to a live person. I was sent links to chatbots that would promise a live person, if I followed along, but those calls never connected.

I eventually took a trip to an Xfinity store and got the info and made adjustments to my client’s bill in person. The staff member at that store told me that they were seeing more foot traffic because the online and phone systems were such a mess.

Back to Apple

Now, I began this post mentioning Apple’s move to a generative AI based technical support system. I find this greatly disappointing. In general, because I believe this type of cost cutting move represents a decline in how I value a company because it represents a decline in how these companies view their customers.  And in Apple’s case, I have typically found Apple’s tech support to be better than most companies. Not perfect. Still flawed. But better than most.

I’ve had to work through some tricky issues over the years with Apple’s technical support. Some easily resolved. Some not so. One of those issues required several months worth of conversations, eventually reaching up the chain to Craig Federeghi, before getting the issue resovled. I can’t imagine any tech support system being able to measure up to what Apple has currently, even with flaws and failures that require steadfast persistence and often negotiation.

In my attempts to aid my clients I’ve tried some of the AI chatbots that aren’t part of the specific company I’m working with. Typically they spit out much of what I imagine is in the documentation most phone bank customer service reps use to begin a diagnostic process. (Yes, the device or appliance is plugged in.)

I imagine that Apple will use this new system to handle those rudimentary requests that come in that I’m sure fill up the tech support queues and can be resolved easily. I can only hope Apple then passes more difficult issues to an actual human being who can do the type of intervention necessary to reach a resolution. Heaven help us all, and Apple, if they ever automate the degree of support that requires screen sharing over to a robot.

I have yet to meet anyone in the real world that thinks AI on any level is going to fulfill anything close to the promises made by those pushing it. Folks have already seen and felt the results of these early efforts and have turned sour on the entire concept. I think of this like I imagine the last century’s transition to the automobile. Regardless of how some felt upon seeing the first automobiles on the same streets as pedestrian and horse traffic, everyone knew, for better or worse, it was a future they would have to adapt to.

I have encountered a few business owners who think AI will help them create efficiency and reduce costs, but their discussions about what is possible demonstrate a real hype-fed ignorance and hoped for way of cutting costs. I have one client who is smitten with the promise, but is constantly getting bitten by the results.

I’m betting Apple’s move will take a bite out of its customer satisfacton numbers as well.

(Image from Munthia 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. 

The Quest for the Unicorn AI Device

Hyping a tech war that won’t ever happen

Reporters love to declare war, crown winners and dismiss losers. Except of course when it comes to shooting wars and the rhetoric that often leads to them. But that’s not what this post is about. Tim Higgins of The Wall Street Journal, and his headline writers, are declaring that Mark Zuckerberg Just Declared War on the iPhone. 

I usually expect this kind of nonsense from the half-a-gazillion blogs and social media accounts out there that like to ginny up controversy to generate clicks. With AI glasses will clicks become blinks?

Now that I think about it, I’m wrong in my expectations because the WSJ, like most of the mainstream media is trying hard (too hard) to follow that pattern these days. It’s an easy game to play in the short term, but then so is the game of companies and governments making big announcements about the future. Remember the “pivot to video?” Remember “virtual reality?” The faux legs went out from underneath that pretty quick.

Higgins does and mentions those failures to capture marketshare beyond the initial hype and funding fevers. Nevertheless, he forgets a few simple things during his embedded tour on this march to the promise of “Personal Super Intelligence.” (That’s this fiscal quarter’s new label.) Zuckerberg might indeed be banging the war drums by propagandizing AI glasses as the latest form factor of mass destruction, but it’s too much hype without enough rhythm to marshall the troops. And to be fair, most of Higgins’ column is just regurgitating old news (AI summary?) that has been bouncing around in what passes for new news these days, tacking Zuckerberg’s recent announcement on as the headline war cry.

Bottom line in my opinion, we’re not going to see any new form factor take down iPhones, smartphones as a category, or computers, as the way we live, work and play in any near future. Folks have been waiting for all kinds of second comings for quite awhile now. I love how even the coming of advanced AI is now referred to as “near emergence.”

One day perhaps. Long after most of us interested in what this technological moment might eventually yield will have forgotten what Medicare and Medicaid were actually about. If and when that day arrives, the real clicks (blinks?)  will be in tutorials on how to turn off all of the notifications and other distractions and keep the tech from tracking you.

I’m old enough to remember when FourSquare came on the scene. The promise was you’d walk down the street and receive a notification from the coffee shop you just passed about the daily special. That never really materialized, but the tech was different then. Google and Waze later tried that and just annoyed any driver who stopped at stoplights looking for their next turn.

When the marketing survelllance mavens can figure out how not to send me ads for something I just bought I think there might actually be a chance for that kind of thing to work. A small chance, but a chance. But they’re not even close to that on the backend, let alone integrating them into some device that might pinch your nostrils after wearing them for too long.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is indeed cool when companies create niche products that give some people joys and hobbies. Bits and pieces of that kind of innovation often creep into bigger things that do help our lives somewhere down the road. Even if they become creepy. Obviously I’d prefer they not become creepy, but that’s where the money is and the creeps always follow the money.

I’d much prefer to see the money and the hype meisters follow something like this that could probably actually help humanity. But even that kind of innovation can attract the creep factor.

Call me when a reporter can research, write, and submit for editing a column like this one I’m complaining about with a pair of AI glasses, an Alexa device, or a pendant, or any other smart device currently in the works.

Call me again, when the AI summary machines can actually deliver an accurate summarization of that article.

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. 

Mark Zuckerberg Says We All Need AI Glasses

The blind leading the blind-to-be

Mark Zuckerberg, trying to see his way clear to dominating the Artificial Intelligence race, is now saying that those of us who don’t use AI glasses will be at a disadvantage in the future. Reminds me of the X-Ray glasses hype from my childhood.

X ray man 1.

When you consider Zuckerberg’s checkered legend with starting what would eventually become Facebook, after running a college website called FaceSmash to rate girls, the comparison to the come on for X-Ray glasses does have a prurient parallel to many an adolescent boy’s fantasies.

I guess Zuckerberg needs to justify all of the money he’s spent building out AI infrastructure and wooing talent but it also is very reminiscent of the days he mucked up the media by declaring text was out and the pivot to video was in. In fact, much of this AI race feels very much like that. Sure, some of that stuck, but it mostly just made a mess and the legacy of that pivot left more than a few scars.

This entire AI race feels like that to me at the moment. I believe some of it is going to stick around and actually be useful. But mostly it’s just messing things up at the moment as everyone jumps into the deep end of a pool hoping to learn a new way to swim.

I’ve dealt with a few different companies of late trying to help some elder clients cut down on bills and solve some issues. Several of those companies have been switching much of their customer service to AI chatbots and the like. In those transitions they’ve more than made a mess of things for their customers and their employees who are left trying to clean up the mess.

I’m not completely down on Artificial Intelligence. I can see some benefits from the technology. At this point in the game it’s tough to sort out what that might be from the hype that seems to be authored by the folks who keep promising self-driving cars and those that promised X-Ray glasses.

You’d think by now someone would have developed an AI platform for investors and corporations that could see through the hype.

You can 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. 

Sunday Morning Reading

Intelligence or compassion? They both caught my eye this week.

It’s interesting how topics surface throughout a week. I’m not sure if it’s follow-the-leader or hive mind thinking, but from the sources I follow this week it seemed like everyone was thinking and writing, in one way or another, about Artificial Intelligence. Or maybe just about intelligence.

Certainly there was plenty on other topics because there were certainly plenty of other big things happening. Some intelligent, some not so. Some showing the capacity for compassion right along side our capacity for cruelty. I’m sure there will be plenty written in the days ahead about all of those things. These are the posts that stuck with me for this week’s Sunday Morning Reading.

Kicking things off is a short post by Gene Weingarten called A Cat Named Grandpa. It’s about compassion.

Mathew Ingram wonders Is AI Smarter Than We Are or Stupider Than We Are? Read the piece. If you’ve read any of the things I’ve written on AI you’ll know I agree with Mathew’s conclusions.

David Todd McCarty thinks the lack of originality in human consciousness is both appalling and comforting in I Gotta Be Me.

Natasha MH was Seeking God In A Machine.

For those who need to think about end of life issues, this might be a timely, yet frightening from Ashley Belanger. Check out How To Draft A Will To Avoid Becoming an AI Ghost. Apparently, it’s not easy.

Matteo Wong writes about The Newspaper That Hired ChatGPT. It’s mostly an interview, but one worth reading.

Folks can become addicted to and troubled by just about anything, and AI is no different. We’re starting to hear more and more about this, which is somewhat surprising on a number of fronts given how short a time generative AI has been with us. Kashmir Hill writes about a young man whose reality became so distorted it almost killed him in They Asked ChatGPT Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling.

While not about AI in specific, this tech story speaks volumes about the decisions tech bosses make that influence the technology we use to work and play with. Check out Phil McKinney’s I Convinced HP’s Board To Buy Palm for $1.2B. Then I Watched Them Kill It In 49 Days.

And Happy Father’s Day to all. Miss you Dad.

(Image from Rey Seven on Unsplash.)

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. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.

Sunday Morning Reading

There’s a creeping inevitability to much of what’s happening around us.

Some Sunday’s when I sit down to collect what I find interesting enough to share it seems like things around us are just bad. Or going from bad to worse. It feels inevitable. This is one of those Sundays. Nevertheless, there’s some good writing and good thinking in the articles linked below that I believe are worthy of your attention. But paying attention is not one of our strong suits. Cue up a little Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, pay attention, and read away.

‘Tin Soldiers and Nixon’s Coming’ is an excellent look back as we stare at this moment we’re in from Robert Cohen and Michael Konciewicz on the 2020 50th anniversary of Kent State and Jackson State.

You’re Not Ready, is an excellent, yet somewhat frightening compilation of articles by various authors at Wired, comprising info on AI hacker attacks, grid attacks, or a GPS blackout. I say “somewhat” simply because many of us have had inklings about this. Or at least those who pay attention.

Josh Marshal of Talking Points Memo has an excellent piece on Artificial Intelligence and The Posture of Skepticism.

Mathew Ingram’s fascinating piece, How Marc Andreessen and I (and you) Created The Web is informative and entertaining history and context that’s worth your time about the time we’re in.

Paul M. Sutter tells us that A New Theory Says Time Has Three Dimensions. It ‘Really Messes Up’ What We Know About the Cosmos, Scientists Say. We seem to be doing a good job of that at the moment given our current understanding of time, so why not go ahead and mess things up.

Timothy Snyder wonders what happens with The Next Terrorist Attack. It’s far deeper than the headline suggests.

Michael Podhorzer writes about something I’ve been thinking and saying for a while: The Courts Will Not Save Us. It’s a long read but more than worth your time. Read this instead of watching TV lawyers.

Most of the articles I’ve already linked to this Sunday morning in one way or another deal with trust. That trust gap is widening these days. It doesn’t help when we do find out things that break trust, but the finding out at least helps us understand the gap better. Take a look at Aruna Viswanatha’s piece The Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America’s UFO Mythology.

Tomorrow, June 9th, Apple kicks off its annual World Wide Developer Conference. There are trust issues there as well. These next few links contain some interesting thoughts heading into WWDC, beginning with Sebastiann De With’s Physicality: the new age of UI, which anticipates the coming design changes rumored for all of Apple’s operating systems. A fresh coat of paint may not hurt. I’m not sure it’ll help.

As I said, Apple faces a number of problems, some legal and regulatory. Jérôme Marin explains how A Simple Comma is going to cost Apple Billions in Europe. Commas can indeed cause all sorts of chaos. Just ask US constitutional scholars about a comma and the 2nd Amendment.

And to close things out, one of my favorite developers _DavidSmith talks about his optimism heading into WWDC in Let’s Get Started. I admire the optimism and the reality check approach _DavidSmith brings to this.

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. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.

You Will Be Assimilated as OpenAI Seeks Single Sign On Capabilities

Resistance to Single Sign On is not futile

News on so many fronts is fast and furious these days and this little Artificial Intelligence nugget seemed to skirt around quite a few radars. OpenAI, the purveyors of ChatGPT is working on a Sign In with ChatGPT feature. 

OpenAI logo

As I said on social media when this news broke, we’ve seen this movie before. It’s a complex plot, that never seems to work out in the end. Signing in with Beginning what seems like a generation ago, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like proliferated and many users joined the parade out of convenience. Apple has its own Sign in with Apple feature, and swears up and down that it doesn’t share your data. That may be true, but we now know different about most, if not all of the others.

Like what happens with most new technology, we jump into the pool without really knowing what lurks beneath, and once it became more apparent how single sign in allowed companies to track you across most online activities folks began changing their habits. Swimming with sharks is never fun.

The tracking is the key. So is the passage of time. There’s an entire new generation of users who have embraced Artificial Intelligence, OpenAI’s ChatGPT in particular. TechCrunch cites that there are 600 million monthly active users of ChatGPT. I’d wager that a large number of those users were too young to experience the last generation of the single sign in revolution years ago.

As I said, we’ve seen this movie before, and by and large it never ends well. Data is tracked, traded — and now with AI used for training — in ways that should cause greater care when it comes to the tradeoff for convenience when consenting to those user agreements no one ever reads.

As the TechCrunch article points out the intent here is to use that data for commercial purposes supposedly to “help people with a wide range of online services.” That’s the pitch. But it’s a knuckle ball that is difficult to control, much less swing at. It’s always about the money and data is money.

OpenAI may be the first of the AI companies vying to sign you in, it won’t be the last. In my opinion the safest bet in the big data casino is to always create a separate sign in for each online service you use. Don’t let the convenience factor outweigh what little control you do have over how your data is used and abused.

You can 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. 

Sunday Morning Reading

So what is this future we’re heading into anyway?

If you’re observing Memorial Day weekend in the U.S. I hope you have had a pleasant one. Even if the weather isn’t cooperating, seemingly echoing the threats of seeing that tradition, like so many others, diminished. We’re on the road again for a dear friend’s memorial service, but there’s still time for a little Sunday Morning Reading. Mostly tech related this week, some politics, and of course some cultural happenings. If you’re paying attention, it’s all intertwining. Listening to a lot of Bruce Springsteen. Enjoy.

Adding to what’s becoming a recurring theme in this column, Ian Dunt is looking for ways to get the most out of our digital lives while taking back a bit of control from the tech god wanna-be’s. Check out Taking Back Control of Our Digital Life.

Matthew Ingram wonders If AI Helps To Kill The Open Web What Will Replace It? Excellent piece and excellent topic, because like it or not, it’s the current and next movement we on the ground are going to have to contend with. Pay attention.

Neil Steinberg, one of my favorite of a dying breed of Chicago journalists, gives his take on the recent Chicago Sun-Times AI flap in The AI Genie Is Out of The Bottle, and the Granted Wish Often Brings Trouble.

Lucy Bannerman takes on the AI’s abuse of copyright and artists rights in Nick Clegg: Artists’ Demand Over Copyright Are Unworkable. They aren’t. Those demands just cost more than folks counting the beans want to pay.

Lynette Bye’s Misaligned AI Is No Longer Just Theory raises up that specter that haunts this entire episode of our life across all spectrums that seems easy to fall prey to or dismiss, depending on which side of the coin you’re on. Frankly, if you don’t think the future of this can be manipulated, you’re not paying attention.

Jason Snell’s take on the recent announcement that OpenAI has bought Jony Ive’s company to produce new hardware for AI I think is the correct one. Check out Sam and Jony and Skepticism.

Chloe Rabinowitz fills us in on the outgoing president of the Kennedy Center’s response to the bullshit coming out of the White House. in Deborah Rutter Releases Statement In Response to Trump Kennedy Center Allegations.

The real boss, Bruce Springsteen, continues to piss off the orange buffoon in the White House and I’m glad to see it. So is Eric Alterman in a guest essay in The New York Times proclaiming Bruce Springsteen Will Never Surrender to Donald Trump. We need more of this.

And to wrap up this week, here’s NatashaMH wondering Do We Really Need To Have This Discussion? No hints. No clues. Just good stuff for you to read.

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. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.

We’re Losing The Battle Over What’s Real and What’s Not

The Chicago Sun-Times publishes AI generated fiction as fact

The Chicago Sun-Times is going to go through some things. Is AI the culprit? Business model? Lack of editorial oversight? The answer doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the struggle to understand what’s real and what’s not.

CleanShot 2025-05-20 at 09.26.11@2x.

The paper published a summer activities guide called the Chicago Sun-Times Heat Index that contained a reading list of books that included real authors, but some of the titles were entirely fictional. As in not real titles at all. Just made up. Five of the titles actually exist. Ten do not.

This episode lead most to immediately speculate that the article was generated by Artificial Intelligence and that there was no editorial oversight of what actually made it into print. I don’t know about you, but I’d call those assumptions more than an early warning sign.

According to 404 Media the Heat Index was published by King Features which is owned by Hearst Newspapers. The guide was licensed by the Sun-Times apparently for the Sunday print and online editions.

The Sun-Times issued an early statement saying they are looking into the matter as referenced below, promising more info to be released soon.

CleanShot 2025-05-20 at 09.32.34@2x.

To their credit they did. VP of marketing and communications for Chicago Public Media, which owns the Sun-Times stated to 404 Media that no one at Chicago Public Media reviewed the section, which follows a pattern used with similar such inserts saying that “historically, we don’t have editorial review…because it comes from a newspaper.” That statement of course includes the promise of a change in policy going forward and an investigation to see if there is other inaccurate information. You can read the full Chicago Sun-Times statement released later here.

The Sun-Times was not the only paper to license and publish the paper according to NPR.

That NPR report also says that writer Marco Buscaglia claimed responsibility for the guide and did acknowledge that it was partly generated by Artificial Intelligence.

Ah, well. All of those worst case assumptions were not a mass hallucination, I guess.

There were years that I bought both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune every morning and got to work early enough to read them both. Those days are long gone, mostly thanks to the Internet and the changes that wrought on the newspaper publishing industry. We’ve all seen this next chapter coming. I guess it’s here.

Here’s the thing. The cold hard fact that most leapt to the assumption that this is some form of AI generated content proves the battle, and perhaps the war has already been lost, regardless of how this did or didn’t happen. It will happen again.

We’ve been heading into the land of make believe where facts don’t matter for some time now. It’s sad that what once were venerated media sources have been helping to lead the charge, especially in an era when governments feel free to make up things as they go along.

You can 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. 

Time For The Shibboleth of Targeted Ads To Die

It’s always the data.

We all fell for it. We all thought it would be beneficial to us as users. I don’t want to say we were all suckers, so I’ll just say we were naive. But in the end we were all suckers. Targeted advertising was supposed to cater to our needs, desires, and wishes. Surfacing what we were interested in out of the clutter was a hope and a promise that died in colliding avalanches of greed and gluttony.

 

St,small,507x507 pad,600x600,f8f8f8.

To be fair some ad targeting actually works. To also be fair, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But the money came rolling in and the temptation to grab it all became far too much and made it far too easy to let slip those early promises.

Now the brains behind Artificial Intelligence are doing what many suspected from the get go and edging their way into the browser wars. TechCrunch has an interesting post talking about Perplexity’s plans to get to know us better by building a better browser.

Here’s the money quote:

“That’s kind of one of the other reasons we wanted to build a browser, is we want to get data even outside the app to better understand you,” Srinivas said. “Because some of the prompts that people do in these AIs is purely work-related. It’s not like that’s personal.”

Focus on the “personal” part.

Both Perplexity and OpenAI have made statements they would be interested in buying Google’s Chrome browser should Google be forced into a breakup for anti-trust reasons. But that’s years away. So why wait? Better to get in the game now before the regulators catch up. Or before all the data that’s good to grab gets grabbed and starts feeding on itself.

There’s irony in all of this that underlies and underlines the dissembling behind it that might just be seeping into the open. One of the promises of this new technology is that it will free us from drudgery, giving us all more time for creative pursuits and more balanced lifestyles. But the underlying goal is the same. Grab as much data as possible, especially “personal” data. That’s the currency. That will always be the currency.

Here’s the second money quote from Perplexity’s Aarvind Srinivasa:

“On the other hand, what are the things you’re buying; which hotels are you going [to]; which restaurants are you going to; what are you spending time browsing, tells us so much more about you.”

AI might continue its move into the enterprise, but that’s not enough. And if the corporate mindset of using AI to replace workers continues, that equation points to diminishing returns eventually, even if the advertisers never catch on.

We all know how this story plays out. Because it’s a rerun. And too often a plagiarized one as well.

You can 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. 

Sunday Morning Reading

We’re all circling. We’re not listening. We should be reading.

Everything changes. Everything remains the same. Damnit. With that said, here is this week’s Sunday Morning Reading with links to articles worth sharing and perhaps pondering over. There’s a bit of satire, a golden toilet heist, and the evolving nature of a piece from draft to final polish. And, yes, there is politics. Everything changes. Everything remains the same. Damnit.

Let’s kick off with Tina He and The Last Human Choice. That link is to the final version of the story. I also strongly encourage you to check out the draft version she shared here.

Alex Reisner takes on The Unbelievable Scale of AI’s Pirated-Books Problem. The technical scale may indeed boggle, the human greed behind it is a story told too often.

The Apple Intelligence/Siri sucks discussion continues and will certainly do so for quite awhile. Andrew Williams in Wired says To Truly Fix Siri, Apple May Have To Backtrack on One Key Thing–Privacy. I hate to say it, but I think he’s right and wish he weren’t.

Good satire can often be hard to distinguish from the real thing. Eli Grober walks that line well in Sergey Brin: We Need You Working 60 Hours A Week So We Can Replace You As Soon As Possible.

John Passantino takes a look at the unraveling of Threads in Hanging by a Thread.

Clearing the throat and clogging up the arteries with a bit of political writing here’s James Thorton Harris with Imagine Deportation: When Nixon Tried To Pull A Trump On John Lennon. Everything changes, everything remains the same. Damnit.

In the category of “be careful what you wish for,” Phoebe Petrovic in ProPublica gives us How A Push To Amend The Constitution Could Help Trump Expand Presidential Power. We’ve already let quite a few demons out of Pandora’s Box, I’m not so sure we want to crack it open any wider.

Speaking of demons, Elizabeth Lopatto tells us How Trump And Musk Built Their Own Reality. Excellent piece.

John Pavlovitz says we all make mistakes in America Chose The Monster.

Mark Jacob always has a great look at the media, especially in this moment, In this one he examines When The Media Take MAGA Liars At Their Word. I mentioned to Mark that what infuriates me is not just the media taking him at his word–ignorance and stupidity know no bounds–but that they know better and report it out as if they don’t.

And to flush away politics Clodagh Stenson, Jonathan Eden and William McLennan tell the tale of The Inside Story of Blenheim’s Gold Toilet Heist.

Bringing my words at the top full circle, NatashaMH once again delves deep into the personal past through a contemporary moment (her reaction to the streaming hit Adolescence) in A Requiem For My Dreams. I’ll close with a quote from her piece about the series that applies to everything, everywhere all at once:

People say the series is about a new world that’s happening. Fuck that, ignoramuses. It’s about a world that has always been out there behind closed doors when ears weren’t listening

(Image from Ashni on Unsplash)

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.  You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.