Artificial Intelligence – Page 3 – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

More Thoughts On Apple’s Price Increases: The AI Tax

The AI Tax is about more than the cost of a computer

Now that the dust is settling a bit after Apple unsurprisingly announced price increases across its hardware lineup, I have to say that I’m quite bemused to see the pocket book hit being called the AI Tax.

I wasn’t clever enough to use that descriptor when I posted about the news shortly after the announcement, but I had been paying enough attention to immediately point the finger of blame at the costs associated with Artificial Intelligence. I think Jonny Evans was the first to coin the phrase AI Tax. For what it’s worth, I hope the phrase AI Tax sticks. Sticks hard and deep. And twists the knife. Because it’s going to affect much more than just the cost of MacBooks, iPads, Apple TVs, and other gear designed in California.

While other tech companies had already started raising prices due to the AI Tax, (talk to anyone in the gaming market) Apple’s announcement is one that brought real shivers and shakes to consumers, the stock market, and boardrooms around the globe. Whether mostly myth or prescient business practices, Apple’s reputation for being ahead of the curve when it comes to purchasing large supplies of chips to withstand market pressures is and was such that tech companies in other sectors often found themselves facing sold out inventories or higher prices when it came time to make their orders. The “Apple Tax” extended far beyond the high cost of Apple products.

That rep and Apple’s stock took a dive on the news. Apple recorded its second biggest market drop in its history, dragging the NASDAQ down with it. Heading into the weekend there’s consternation brewing about all of the chip releated businesses going forward. (Hint: that’s most businesses these days.) But then again, the stock market is not much more than a wild ride in an aging prediction market, so who knows how that will unfold as a holiday week begins on Monday.

Word came via The Financial Times Friday night that Tim Cook was calling in some chits on chips with the Trump administration, attempting to circumvent chip bans balled up in the trade war to and fro with China. If successful, that would allow Apple to buy banned chips that the Pentagon is hesitant about, given that they are built by state controlled Chinese companies. According to the report this lobbying had been going on for a month or so prior to Cook’s first warning a week before the price hike announcement on Thursday.

The timing hints at a bit of public hardball lobbying from Apple. (Note that the price increase announcement wasn’t a Friday news dump after the market closed. However, The Financial Times article came after no known action from the administration post Apple’s announcement.) Shake the markets and try to wrest the attention of the administration fighting losing battles of its own making with bodies of water in the Middle East and in its own backyard. I’m almost surprised Apple hasn’t been called a vandal yet.

As I said earlier, this is going to have far reaching implications beyond the consumer gadget markets. Chip capacity has to increase, or the demand for higher bandwidth memory has to decrease before any of the predictions that this will subside in a few years. (There’s a good read on this from Imran Valiani here.) On the current trajectory, fueled by still increasing hype to combat building blowback, I don’t see that timeline materializing. This news might bobble the bubble, but I don’t think it’s ready to pop.

Costs are going to rise across the board. It’s not just consumers that purchase computers who will take the hit. And it’s not just the purchase of computers that will drive an inflationary spiral. Yep, that’s the I-word that no one likes to hear, especially politicians. Everything is a computer these days, or at least has some form of chip in it. And, in my opinion, too many companies have jumped on the AI bandwagon far too soon to understand the long term ramificatinos. All of those costs will be passed down the line to consumer pocket books.

I also don’t think we’re going to see these price pressures subside to pre-AI Tax levels. I’m old enough to remember when new cars used to have price ranges well below $5,000. That obviously makes me prehistoric, but I can remember watching The Price is Right featuring cars as the grand prize with contestants guaranteeing at least their first guess was accurate by chosing the number two for cars that would be priced at $2995. That’s a memory that doesn’t require a chip. Although streaming those old shows does.

Like it or not, Apple’s success since the launch of the iPhone, has been a key piece of U.S and global economic growth with much of the tech sector following along and prospering in its wake. Apple’s recent announcements are probably one day going to be viewed as just as big a marker going forward as the release of that first iPhone.

It feels to me that we’re entering into a price curve trajectory for computing on all levels that will follow a similar trajectory as the automobile market. The financial markets will find ways to love it as financing will become a key driver to cover costs while the markets get used to price points for signature hardware starting much higher than the $1000 price point today. There’s got to be a way for the bankers to cover all of the borrowing associated with the build out of data centers.

Over the years the myths of Apple being doomed have largely been just that. Myths. Apple always found a way. This turbulence probably won’t change that. But the AI Tax will change things for all of us in ways that we’re just beginning to understand. Inept global political and corporate leadership easily taken advantage of by hype-masters and hucksters have paved the way to this moment.

And all of this for a still largely unproven technology.

Thanks for reading. You can subscribe to this blog if you care to. 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.

Dear Algo Shenanigans

The joke has always been on us.

I’m looking for someone to tell me I’m wrong here. Then we’ll laugh together. At the moment I’m laughing alone at what I believe is a masquerade that’s hiding the ball while promising social media users new capabilities.

According to reports, Threads, Instagram, and TikTok are offering ways for users to tune their own algorithms, providing better control over what they see in their feeds.

That’s the masquerade. I’m sure users will have a ball jumping at the chance to fine tune their feeds. That may indeed prove beneficial, but the way I see it this is just a way for Meta (Threads and Instagram) and TikTok to fine tune user preferences for better and more specific data collection and targeting.

I love this quote from the TechCrunch article:

The shift reflects an evolution in how recommendation systems work. Social media feeds are moving away from a one-size-fits-all TV channel and toward something more like a streaming service, where users can tune recommendations to their interests and have more control over what they see.

Like that works so well on streaming media services.

The “Dear Algo” posts, which I’ve seen on Threads for a while now, may send a signal saying none of, or more of this or that, but a signal is a signal that throngs of users will think they control, but it’s serving the companies more than it ever will the users. It’s the same game as before. The house always wins.

Go ahead, call me crazy. But bad things get masked behind supposedly good things all the time. Oldest trick in a very thick book of tricks.

Looking at the big picture and speculating further one could argue that this is a tacit admission that these tech companies have discovered better, perhaps or perhaps not more efficient ways to capture data than their algorithms ever provided. I’m guessing AI has something to do with it.

Actually, I’m not guessing.

(Image from the author)

More Thoughts On The Economics Of AI Not Adding Up

Math is hard. Harder still when you ignore the math.

I wrote a piece last month expressing some thoughts on how and why I think the economics of Artificial Intelligence don’t add up. I’m expanding on a couple of those thoughts.

First, the cold feet of the bean counters are getting colder when it comes to the cost of token usage. Tokens, being the measure of how the cost of computing all of those requests to whatever AI engine is waiting to invoice for hallucinating, are proving to still be expensive and probably will be for some time to come. Unless the costs have been vastly overvalued to increase margins, those costs aren’t going to come down any time soon.

Second, in order to keep the pumps primed the race seems to be shifting from cloud servers to on device use. That sounds smart. It certainly is as a possible security measure and selling point. But at the moment, and probably in the end, already rising costs of hardware will continue to inflate as the memory demands needed to turn those on device dreams into hallucinations escalate. Segmentation of the market will continue.

Already we’re seeing strong hints that more and more memory is required to run the latest and supposedly greatest. That means newer devices with more memory, already becoming too expensive a proposition for many. As an example, only the newest Apple devices will be able to run all of the new features of Siri AI. Frankly, I don’t think that will turn into big new hardware upgrade cycles.

Third, for those already turned off and pushing back on the AI curve I don’t think any of this matters at the moment. Will it matter down the road? Most likely, yes. It’s not about more expensive devices or service prices, it will all be about how the costs are spread around in other ways that we’ll never really see outlined in any price or feature comparison.

The bottom line is still the bottom line. Costs are going to continue to rise one way or the other, whether bubbles pop or not. And then the advertising will kick in.

(Image from Viktoria_P on Shutterstock)

Siri AI and The Spam Call Problem

Put AI to work banishing spam

Listening to podcasts after each WWDC is always a bit of information overload, but occasionally you catch a bit of analysis that seems perhaps pertinent.

One of the podcasts I listen to his John Gruber’s Talk Show Live event that he’s been hosting for a few years now. After his infamous Something Is Wrong In The State of Cupertino post last year, Apple execs stayed away after having been guests in years previous. They stayed away this year as well.

This year, like last, Gruber put together a panel that featured The Verge’s Nilay Patel and Joanna Stern, formerly of The Wall Street Journal, now with her own gig, New Things With Joanna Stern. This year and last offered excellent commentary by both, and given the wait and see cynical posture I’ve adopted for all of Apple’s upcoming offerings, worth a listen.

One interesting tidbit stood out that I want to highlight in the context of my ongoing complaints and requests to Apple about making the handling of spam and unwanted phone calls easier.

Joanna seemed to be quite impressed with what she’s seen of Siri AI in the early going, citing a number of examples that she tried out during the event. The one that stood out to me is this:

I said, “What could I do that’s fun near the California Theater? I have some time to to kill,” and I don’t know if… I don’t know exactly what was the prompt or what was the thing, but it started suggesting things I could do locally. But also, it had access to my voicemail, so it knew that I had just gotten a message from my uncle who asked me to speak at his book club, and it said, “You… you could get back to my your uncle about his book club engagement, you would have some time to do that.” Okay, that’s crazy. It really is, right? And but what if that was sensitive information, right?

The key is Siri AI having access to voice mail. Regardless of however you feel about what data and info Siri AI needs to have about you to develop “Personal Context,” if Siri AI has access to your voice mail it seems it should be a relatively easy technological hop, skip, and jump to just automatically delete the flood of spam calls that have already figured out ways around any of the current wack-a-mole tricks that are being used.

Obviously the larger point Joanna makes about “Personal Context” and a new level of trust is spot on. It is one many iPhone users will have to reckon with. But I’ll tell you this. For my own personal context, if Siri AI can automatically banish to digital hell all of the fake calls that now use names to try and circumvent current spam call prevention I’ll be grateful.

The only reasons I can think of for Siri AI (or Google’s Gemini on Android phones) are business reasons and relationships with the mobile carriers. Apple’s “Personal Context” or Google’s “Personal Intelligence” are the names of the game, or so they claim. It seems logical to me that the technology exists to eradicate more of this curse that same technology makes possible and we all are prey to, whether it be phone calls, emails, or texts.

Sunday Morning Reading

Searching for normal in abnormal places

Time for a little Sunday Morning Reading. Sharing good writing is a normal thing to do. Maybe that’s abnormal. Don’t know. Don’t care. Defining normal is a tricky subjective thing. But then trying to define most things these days feels, well…almsot abnormal.

Just be normal. Is that a “new normal” or last week’s “old normal?” Do we crave normality? Does it matter? Normally, I’d have more to say, but instead check out JA Westenberg’s Just Be Normal About Things.

Mathew Ingram takes on the subject of consciousness, one of the latest discussions bopping around the bits and bytes surrounding AI, with his piece, Is Atlantic Writer Ted Chiang Conscious? How Do We Know? If you ask me, that fact that this is being discussed calls whatever the idea of consciousness is into question. Doesn’t feel normal. For that matter doesn’t feel abnormal either. Just weird.

Mike Masnick states the obvious in CEOs Who Think AI Replaces Their Employees Are Just Bad CEOs.

David Todd McCarty calls his piece The Slow News Moment. I like his description better. “How we became terrorized by the 24-hour news cycle and what we might do to combat the charade of exigency.” Perhaps less is more normal.

“We are being robbed by the worst people in the world,” says Kelly Hayes in The Heist State. Spot on, given that blatant thievery is the new normal these days.

Everywhere you look life is a scam. That is indeed far too normal. Neil Steinberg takes on one that targeted him and other writers in We Love Your Book! Now Give Us Money. Funny stuff.

Protect The Weird, Slow and Inefficient. Natasha MH thinks AI might one day become as invisible a tool to the process of writing as the typewriter did in its day. But look again. The tools don’t matter as much as the desire.

(Image from Justin Simmonds on Unsplash.)

Thanks for reading. Feel free to subscribe if you want. It’s free. 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.

AI May Make Mistakes But Court Finds AI Makers Are Still Responsible

You can’t take humans out of the chain of responsibility

By now everyone is familiar with the caveats every AI company trots out like Surgeon General’s warnings on tobacco products. AI can make mistakes, so you need to double check. Great sales pitch. Better liability protection. Some lawyers obviously dreamed that up, but it appears there’s a chance they might need to dream again.

Googles Gemini AI Is Reading Your Emails_AdobeStock_1766730889_FT.

According to an article in Ars Technica, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews. Given how Google is reinventing Search and itself this might turn into a problem, and not just for Google.

I love the title of the Ars Technica article describing the case by Ashley Belanger that says simply: Nobody Needs AI To Search The Internet, Court Says in Ruling Against Google. Google recently would beg to differ. Here’s an excerpt for the Ars Technica article:

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet.

That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews.

The bottom line it seems to me is if an AI Overview or other result summary hallucinates something false and perhaps defamatory, someone somewhere, meaning a human someone(s), can held responsible.

I’m sure appeals are already being worked on for this preliminary ruling. So the story will continue to unfold.

As far as U.S. users might be concerned we’re already seeing other countries treating technology issues very differently in the European Union and elsewhere than on our own shores. Things are very different here in the land where bribery no longer masquerades as politics. Nevertheless, it’s a pretty strong statement that bears some attention regardless of where you live and where you search the Internet from.

The Siri AI Demo Apple Should Have Done

One day perhaps we’ll move beyond AI cliché demos.

My nephew occasionally takes a look at this blog and gives me feedback on what I think and write. Actually, he mostly gives me shit. He certainly does when I write about Artificial Intelligence. He often asks why I’m so “down” on AI. At least we agree on politics.

Apple Executive Mike Rockwell demos Siri AI at WWDC 2026

I keep reminding him that I’m not “down” on the technology per se. I’d love to see the press release announcing AI led to a a cure for cancer. Who wouldn’t? I’m down on the way it continues to be sold to us and the ramifications that brings on so many levels, while still feeling like it’s not what the sellers keep promising. (I also remind him to read what I write more carefully, but he’s probably using some AI to summarize what I write.)

In truth, that’s the essence of my skeptical reaction to what we know as AI at the moment. There’s a lot going on, but how it’s being sold to most consumers still feels like it will ultimately be no more, no less than just another tool we use on a computer, after exacting high costs to do so, and dumbing down the general learning curve in the bargain.

Take for example the demos we constantly see about what AI can do when each company rolls out its latest version. As demos they all look slick as far as party and trip planning go.

(Coding is another case entirely. I’m not talking about that here, simply because I don’t have the expertise to do so. I’m strictly speaking of the sell to consumers.)

Even Apple fell back on these examples that have become clichés in this year’s WWDC 2026 announcement. Those clichés define the market companies think are ripe for the come on and then the plucking. I’m guessing they also define the current limitations of the technology. Or at least the limitations companies don’t want to risk pushing beyond in a live demo.

Here’s the AI Siri demo I wish Apple had shown us yesterday.

If you watched Apple’s keynote presentation you might remember this slide.

Maybe not. It flew by pretty quickly. It’s a word cloud of all of the other non Siri AI improvements Apple is bringing to its various operating systems this year.

Yes, the print is that tiny and crammed together. To call it unreadable is accurate. For those who didn’t watch the demo, the length of time it was on our screens was equally tiny, certainly compared to all the travel time each presenter took to walk on and hit their mark prior to speaking. To be honest, the slide’s quick and unreadable inclusion felt insulting given the long list of improvements it’s touting.

(To my knowledge no such list appears yet in Apple’s Newsroom or on its website heralding the other announcements. If I’m wrong, point me to it and I’ll link to it here. I’m sure it won’t be long before one of the sites that covers Apple distills it down and publishes it. Probably using AI.)

(UPDATE: Right after hitting publish, I noticed that John Gruber linked to this post on the Oneberri Blog listing all of those improvements.)

What if Mike Rockwell, the Apple Executive who did the Siri AI demos, had asked Siri AI to take that slide, and present the info into a bulleted list in Apple Notes, and then prepare a PDF for distribution? In the post keynote tech talk he and other Apple execs participated in, he could have followed that up by asking Siri AI to distribute the PDF to the other Apple execs on stage. Essentially it would have demonstrated the same Siri AI capability to gather info across native Apple apps, using context, in the same way the clichéd party planning demos do.

It certainly would have been more impressive than the usual clichés.

Perhaps AI Siri and the apps needed to do that work aren’t ready for such a challenge just yet. Things are still in beta after all. Perhaps it’s just too risky to stray outside of what’s made these kinds of demos a laughable cliché. Perhaps we’ll get there someday. Who knows?

Meanwhile I’ll remain “down” on AI the way my nephew likes to give me shit about my AI skepticism. I hope one day this technology might indeed lead to a cure for cancer. I also hope my nephew keeps reading this blog. It might help him learn to think for himself more often. 😉

Apple Announces New OS’s. I’m Still In Wait And See Mode

Apple works to make good on Apple Intelligence with Siri AI

At WWDC 26 Apple today announced new operating systems all ending in OS27. (The numbering thing drives me nuts.) The entire keynote felt different to me from recent years. I’m not talking about the presentation organization that strayed from the usual by device format. Rather it felt like Apple felt a bit humbled. Almost as if Apple is in a we’re in a thinking different mode these days. I may be reading more into that than is real, but I’m usually pretty good at sniffing these things out.

Apple announces Siri AI and its next generation of Apple Intelligence.jpg.

Apple chose the name Golden Gate for its macOS 27 version this year, and it looks like the folks in Cupertino heard the criticisms about Liquid Glass and have taken some steps to correct what I and many other consider design flaws. I’ve seen as many negative as positive reactions to the design changes, so we’ll see how that goes throughout the summer.

There was also quite a bit of time devoted to Parental Controls. Given the political heat big tech in general is taking politically here in the US and elsewhere that’s probably a smart move. The announcement stirred up a bit of controversy from folks not in favor of efforts like age verification. The devil will be in the details.

The big push though is all about Apple Intelligence and the New Siri, now called Siri AI. Trying to play catch up and recover from the mistakes of two years ago, Apple showed off some live demos in a separate meeting from the keynote. You can read about that on The Verge. So you have to consider showing live demos a plus over two years ago, although it was still in a protected environment. I’ll be looking for users to do the same as the betas roll out, even if it appears that there’s a waiting list for the New Siri. So, we’ll see how that goes.

Note that Siri AI, announced to roll out this fall, will be delayed in the European Union and China.

The announcements were solid. They appeared to address past problems of Apple’s own making, user complaints about recent design changes, and the promise of under the hood bug busting. Announcing speed increases across the platforms is promising. But we’ve been here before. Every keynote from every company makes promises. The devil is always in the details, and when life is a beta, you never know what’s final and when. Especially when you’re in a mode of trying to rebuild trust.

You can check out the entire keynote reduced to 26 minutes, also from The Verge here. And Jonny Evans has a nice collection of the headline announcements from the keynote here.

And this Mastodon post from Dwight Silverman sums up my some of my early thoughts as well.

To further sum it up my early thoughts, I’ll just say this. It’s going to be an interesting summer watching folks hammer on the betas, the first of what was released to developers today. The public betas will roll out in July. But we’ll have some early indications later in the week as developers begin working with the betas.

So, I’m still in wait and see mode. As should most of us be.

What Does A “Siri That Works” Mean?

“An acre of performance is worth a whole land of promise.”

You know what a litany is. It’s a series of prayers with predictable responses, learned, ingrained, and repeated without much thought. Call it “call and response.” As we finally arrive at the beginning of Apple’s WWDC 2026 today, the call has been summarized down to Apple needs a Siri that works.

But how the hell do you respond to that?

Siri was once a surprising computer gimmick, before Apple got its hand on it in 2010. Siri has been surprisingly bad at most things ever since. Sure you can set a timer, or a reminder, occasionally play the right play list and a few other things. If that were the extent of the promise the jokes wouldn’t be funny. But the promises were always more. They never lived up to the personal assistant aspirations. It’s still largely a gimmick. One too easily made fun of.

Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant, (now Gemini) have taken bigger steps forward than Siri, but also continue to fall down and scrape their knees. Chatbots have come along and for some have replaced the need for someone to talk to. But each of those efforts still yield mistakes and failures. You know the way, humans do.

So do pleas for a “Siri that works” mean something that will always work? I doubt it. I think the expectation is that these chatbot like companions will continue to fail. Again, the way humans do. But you can’t sell that.

Does it mean a “Siri that works” does something new? I doubt that also. The entire promise of computer assistants, chatbots and artificial intelligence is to do things we already do more efficiently. In fact, that’s the history of computing. When spreadsheets replaced pencils, green eyeshades, and then calculators we were on to something.

We haven’t yet figured out a way to help us communicate better in person, much less in front of a screen or into a microphone. A “working Siri” (or any other chatbot) isn’t going to help us with that. They may teach us a new way to communicate to set that reminder, but the respondents failure makes us all feel like we’re wrong. Until we just stop talking.

I’m not sure how you reconcile doing things more efficiently with the failure rate. One that seems all but guaranteed by the “mistakes will happen” caveats that prove lawyers always earn their keep. Frankly, I don’t ever see a “fire and forget it” guarantee in what remains of my lifetime. Maybe someday.

Word is that whatever Apple rolls out as “a working Siri” will roll out with a beta label attached to it. That’s a good preemptive legal response, but a sad commentary on the state of things. We expect things to go wrong in betas. Talk about setting a low bar. Even a necessary one.

Speaking of the history of computing, when it comes to mobile computing we’ve gone through at least one cycle where the focus shifted away from keeping us addicted to our phones, to an entire wave of ways to help us escape the tyranny of the small screens, put them down and enjoy more of life without them. Call me crazy, but the rush to chatting away to smartphones, AirPods, pendants, pucks, cars, etc… seems contradictory to solving our tech addictions. Out with the old trend, in with the rerun.

Gimmicks work. They help sell devices and feed trends. Think pet rocks. We’re already seeing talk of children’s toys with AI voice assistants and reactions against them. At least this time around the reactions are coming more quickly.

I’m guessing it’s not long before we see a pet rock product that contains an AI powered voice assistant. We can always use another paperweight.

Sunday Morning Reading

The art of dancing on the line that separates and defines humanity

It was a good week for reading good writing. It’s a better week for sharing what popped up. A variety of topics, spanning art and the making and selling of it, technology — which these days is more about the selling than the tech — the humanity, or lack thereof, behind it all, and…well to continue a list would sell it all short. Here’s hoping you enjoy the links shared in today’s Sunday Morning Reading as much as I enjoy sharing them. Yia Mas!

An overhead, first-person perspective shows a person lying on their back on a teal couch, holding open a large book to read. The person's head is closest to the foreground, with long, blonde-streaked hair spilling downward. They are wearing a deep maroon, long-sleeved sweater and light grey sweatpants. Image from Matias north v8DSLoY80Xk unsplash.

Om Malik wrote one of the best things I’ve read in quite some time. We Are Living In Pinocchio’s World is about lying. It’s about AI. It’s about a pen. But it’s about so much more.

Cory Doctorow’s Refining Humanity takes on our propensity for explanation, personhood for machines, and that line we seem to want to dance with defining just what makes us human in the midst of it all.

Meanwhile Martyn Berlin of Martyn’s Random Musings finds himself an outcast in To Have A Moral Stance On AI Is To Be An Outcast, And It Sucks.

At what cost art? Natasha MH wonders and writes about it in Sold At A Premium. At what cost, anything?

Mike Masnick thinks it’s not about whether technology is inherently good or bad, liberating or oppressive. You could argue the same could be said about most aspects of human endeavor. But then that’s the point. Tech is just another in a long line. Check out Enshittification, Despotification, And The Open Internet.

“The only conviction worth having is the kind you could lose tomorrow and survive it.” JA Westenberg warns us not to take a pill, regardless of color in Be Thou Not Pilled.

Mathew Ingram wonders Have Investors In AI Companies Lost Their Minds? I’m not sure we can call them investors any more. As to their minds? No comment.

Two interesting takes on what’s going on the business of making movies in Hollywood that occasionally and almost accidentally is about making art. M.G. Siegler talks about how YouTube Beats AI To Disrupting Hollywood. Meanwhile Sonny Bunch takes a look at The Thoughtlessness of AI Filmmaking.

Word came down this week that a restaurant was finally going to fill one of the retail spaces in the Trump Tower in Chicago, after they had all sat empty for seventeen years. Neil Steinberg asks Will Chicago Happily Eat Dolmades And Drink Roditis In Trump Tower?

To close, click through the popover on John Gruber’s post This Is A Dickover, and give the post a read. You know what a Dickover is. Now you have a name for it.

(Image from Matias North on Unsplash)