chatgpt – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

The Golden Age Of Shit. Super Intelligence Style

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. -Walter Scott

The farce that unfolded in Washington DC yesterday regarding Artificial Intelligence wasn’t comedy. Yet it was super hilarious. At some point you have to understand that the wool is being pulled over all of our eyes, including those of the president. And you have to laugh.

Us president donald trump attends national design studio launch event for america gov a new ai powered government website at t.jpg.

In an election year that sees American’s distaste for anything approaching the topic of AI growing like kudzu, the folks running the AI show keep rapidly alternating back and forth between requests that the government step in and stop them from destroying humanity and telling us that their products will create a new golden age of abundance.

If there’s a joke in the circle jerk of a game they’re playing, it’s that the president croaks that he got the assembled AI oligarchy to sign on to a “morally binding” agreement to self-police. You read that right. “Morally binding.” There’s lots of laughing about a group of technologists who built empires on stealing the work of others, who never met a law or a moral they wouldn’t spit on, signing such a document put forward by one of the most outrageous criminals the world has ever known. But that’s just the set up.

The joke is that these conmen are playing the decaying before our eyes president for all they can while he’s still breathing. He no longer understands what’s put before him. He doesn’t have a competent staff. A fact made abundantly clear by the misspelling of the United States under the president’s signature and the fact that his administration’s AI fueled new website spent the day disproving all the lies he’s foisted upon a population with an average reading age of a sixth grader. You’d think his flunkies would use AI to do some basic proofreading and fact-checking. But that’s above a sixth grader’s skill set. Apparently they’ve already “corrected” the website to spit out the lies again.

These tech bros are openly yanking the president’s chain, taking advantage of his infirmity, our divisiveness, our curiosity, and the greed of the markets. The rest of the world is doing it. Given their desires to run the planet, into the ground or elsewhere, they might as well get in on the act before the curtain comes down.

Couple all of that with the supposed name change in the order, rebranding Artificial Intelligence to Super Intelligence. On the one hand it’s good to know that if the technology kills us all there will be no shortage of superlatives to describe the end of times in the summaries all the robots, Muses, and Dots will spam each other with after we’re gone. It beats being wiped out by something branded as artificial, I guess. On the other, the name change is just super silly. Call me when OpenAI changes its name. I’m just surprised he didn’t name it American Intelligence. Or Trump Intelligence.

If there’s drama ahead in any of this, it’s that at some point it’s going to all go to shit. Mostly it has already. Those who dismiss every warning as merely marketing remind me of early climate change deniers. Those who take the warnings seriously remind me of every bandwagon jumper that’s ever leaped to a conclusion. As in most things, what truth that exists probably lies somewhere in the muddy middle, which is exactly where those who will profit over either their success or failure want it to stay.

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.

Take AI Leaders At Their Word Or Call Their Bluff

Play the hand we’ve been dealt

Artificial Intelligence may or may not destroy human existence by 2030 or sometime in the next decade. Why waste the computing cycles and tokens when we’re doing a damn good job of beating it to the punch?

Museums of history new south wales VLFT8_H1tm8 unsplash.

After some dangerous confessions and warnings, along with continuing news of AI engines escaping their sandboxes, the leaders are calling out to slow things down, saying that they need to be regulated before what they are spending so much money on creating can become uncontrollable. Of course that spurs debate between those who love the technology and are making money off it, those who despise it—harbinger of doom it may or may not be, and now the millions who are stirring on the sidelines they usually sit on.

Some believe this is just another in a long line of overhyping the technology to improve bottom lines. Some see it as a timely move to try and influence the upcoming talks with the always-feared Chinese. Some, including those who have been working and studying the technology for quite some time, see AI as a real threat.

If we want to wipe the last two camps out of the memory banks and the debate, then either take them at their word or call the AI leaders’ bluff. Take them at their word that their brain children are too dangerous and put systems in place to regulate and slow things down. Or demand they pull the plug. They’ve exhausted the use of hyperbole in hyping the promises of their tech and most fell for it along the way. Why not take them at their word now?

Oh, wait. Whether the danger or is real or a bluff to be called there is a problem. The folks who would do the regulating belong to an institution that no longer exists called Congress. The president could do so, but then so could a dead fish for all it would matter. Funny, not funny that he joked about banning fishing just yesterday.

To think these ultra-competitive tech titans will slow themselves down in some selfless act of altruism to save the human race is folly. As much folly as hoping some governmental set of regulations or committees or dictates would. As much folly as pretending the conversation hasn’t been poisoned a million ways from Sunday to the point that no one knows what to believe.

At one point in our recent history the powers that be came to accept that the banks were too big to fail. We’ve sort of reached that point again with AI. It may not be too big to fail, but those who’ve created it, and those who have financed it, have already failed the rest of us. The rest of us who they need to pay for and feed their robots and robot-like artificial brains.

Call their bluff.

(Photo by Museums of History New South Wales on Unsplash)

Getting Used To The Phrase: “Without Human Involvement”

Like shouting at the wind

John Gruber links to an interesting story about Dutch regulators fining Uber almost $1 billion for suspending dishonest drivers “without warning or human involvement.”

Jon tyson tEVKC91Qm6c unsplash. A neon sign saying For Humans By Humans

Say what you want about Uber’s practices, dishonest drivers, scams, and what have you. That’s not my interest in linking to the story. What struck me this morning was that phrase “without warning or human involvement.

It struck me because I’ve been dealing with a similar issue with one of my prescriptions that keeps getting changed. According to my pharmacy and my doctor, it appears that the change keeps happening without “any human involvement” because they are seeing this happen with other patients and customers on the same medication.

A few thoughts.

1. There is always “human involvement.” Someone made a decision at some point in the process. Otherwise it wouldn’t be happening. If the robots are capable of making these decisions on their own, I guess we’re headed to a world where the only legal remedy is to pull the plug. And we all know that ain’t happening.

2. We’ll never be able to track these decisions back to whomever is culpable. Although maybe we will if the AI responsible for note taking and code changes can actually do that job and maintain the logs responsibly, “without any human involvement.”

3. This kind of thing is going to replace the usual bullshit excuses we used to get when various customer service operations actually had humans you could talk to. Computers hang up more easily on customers than humans do, so the day-to-day customer service battles are going to become more frustrating than they are already. Who knew that AI was an acronym for avoiding interaction?

Looks like we’ll all be blaming the AI robots more and more in the future. For the record, I’m not a fan of shouting at the wind.

(Image from Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Throwing Rocks At The Internet

Eventually, someone breaks a window.

The Internet was never perfect. It was always a work in progress. That’s usually considered a phrase with a good connotation. But that depends on the side of the coin you’re looking at. It always begs the question, progress for whom?

A young boy getting ready to toss a rock

Calling it enhshittification is apt, but it’s also an insufficient description. It implies that the mess can be cleaned up. I don’t think that’s the case. We’re too deep in the shit.

Implementing Artificial Intelligence into everything has mucked up most things the same way that inserting ad-tech into everything did back in the early days of that craze. I’d wager that in the days of the ad-tech explosion 8 times out of 10 most of the updates we downloaded or were subjected to dealt more with ad-tech than “bug fixes and improving reliability.”

It reminds me of the early days of DRM when there was a constant wack-a-mole game, trying to maintain and protect media copy protection schemes. I want to think that it cost more to keep fixing things than it ever yielded in profits, but that’s obviously naive on my part.

We’re currently seeing the same with AI. The models are changing so rapidly that today’s new release or bug fix is probably outdated by the time it reaches most computers or smartphones. The pace is maddening and the disruptions for every day users even more so, including those who don’t even use the stuff.

Given how things are going I don’t think even the purveyors of AI know what they are actually releasing. They feel like little kids trying to see who can throw a rock the farthest. Eventually, someone breaks a window.

We really never know when a web service chooses to update, things just break. (Looking at you WordPress.) We rarely know what most updates to apps really mean. It’s becoming a rare thing to see a real list of bug fixes published alongside a release. The developers who do so deserve your business.

The difference in this rock throwing frenzy is that many of the geeks who in the past worked hard to defeat copy protection and ad-tech are only too eager to help the AI purveyors throw their rocks further. There’s a lot of would be Oppenheimers out there.

Set aside the potential dangers of using this tech for military use and malicious attacks. For everyday users of the Internet, the bitch of it is many of the AI changes we’re starting to see and those we will certainly see more of the in the future will be to further serve ad-tech as the AI industry inevitably pours that on to try and recoup some of its out of control costs.

That’s an incestuous marriage that I’m not looking forward to seeing the rock throwing delinquents it spawns.

(Image from on Kristine Jones on Shutterstock)

If This Is The Singularity Who Is This Joke On Exactly?

Poor decisions and low bars

The script about Artificial Intelligence is beginning to feel like a teen slasher movie. Everyone in the audience knows the characters are going to do dumb shit and die. I haven’t seen one of those flicks in awhile, but as I remember even the characters knew they were doing dumb shit. And going to die.

Apparently we’re no longer climbing Demis Hassabis’ “foothills of the singularity.”. At least according to OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman. Appearing on the Relentless podcast Altman is quoted by Business Insider as saying, “We are now, like, in the singularity.”

The air must be pretty thin and getting thinner the higher these folks climb.

Altman’s statement came after last week’s incident when one of OpenAI’s models went rogue and broke out of its sandbox containment and attacked another AI company, Hugging Face. More than a few alarm bells went off.

But everyday there’s a new story that makes the previous ones seem old hat. This morning 9to5Mac reports that Anthrophic’s Claude Cowork escaped it’s sandbox on Macs and gained full access to all files. According to that report, around a half a million Mac users had co-work sessions exposed. Oops. So much for all of those good vibes.

I’m not in the least surprised that we’re seeing these type of reports. Based on what I know, and that certainly isn’t everything, this kind of thing has seemed to be the logical progression. The only question was when. The history of tech is filled with break through innovations that seem beneficial, but ultimately get abused. Geeks love to geek.

But, hey when you’re geeking out on something cool and those that control the levers of the world’s economies jump on your digital bandwagons and fill them with cash, there’s a chance that the entire simulation just might crash when the bubble bursts. Bigger picture enthusiasts might also want to check out this MacRumors interview with AI skeptic Ed Zitron.

So, I’m going to non-ironically agree with Sam Altman. If the singularity is supposedly the moment when Artficial Intelligence surpasses human intelligence, it sounds like we’re there. But my agreement comes within the context that AI has proven just what a low bar it had to overcome.

Poor decisions indeed.

(Image created by Amy Sterling Casil for a blog post called We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers.)

More Thoughts On The Segmentation In Computing

Seniors turning their nose up at tech

A reader asked me a very legitimate question about the coming segmentation of the computing marketplace I’ve been writing about.

Sweet life axYZum3rdMY unsplash.

Essentially the question was why I thought it was a bad trend.

Here’s one reason why. While it is somewhat about increasing costs, it’s about more than that.

I do technical support with a number of senior citizens, among others. To be frank, the majority of the seniors are terribly frustrated with computers, smartphones, the Internet, and basically any technology. The conversation typically begins about healthcare as they have to use apps like MyChart or the Internet to communicate with their doctors. It moves down the line from banks to government agencies to grocery stores who require apps to access what were once coupon savings.

If they buy or are gifted something that requires an app or an account to use they typically just don’t want to set it up. The thought of updating any operating system fills them with dread. Setting up a new phone or computer has kept some from even considering upgrading to newer devices. The fact that I will typically find too many apps that need updating on their devices speaks to their reluctance to even pay attention to that chore.

Most are turned off by the mere thought of AI, but a few hope it makes things easier. None want to pay for it. They universally despise Google’s AI summaries in Search. Real life experiences with doctors and support services that are switching to AI Chatbot customer service is spoken of as it were a demon spawn from hell. Not being able to talk to a person drives them over the edge.

All are frustrated with the increasing costs from hardware to services. I can’t begin to tell you the number of subscriptions I’ve had to help them cancel as they choose to do without. For most it isn’t a question of affordability. After all they have the resources to hire me. Although for some it is. It’s more a feeling of getting ripped off, paying for features and services that they don’t want, and that the prices always increase. They also display an astonishing and increasing lack of trust in anything tech related.

If I had to summarize the prevailing mood of this admittedly limited sample it’s one of not worth the costs or the headaches so they wish they could simply do without. The sad reality is that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so. Especially for a generation that relies on health care professionals more than the younger set.

They are far from the bleeding edge. They mostly want to do video calls and see photos and videos of family. A few want to play games. Some want to read and watch streaming video. They all use email and messaging and no one understands why spam still exists. To quote one, “if they can’t fix that, they should get out of the damn business of selling phones.”

It is this segment of the market that I worry most about.

As an example I recently supported a family going through the far too onerous process of applying for Medicaid. The amount of scanning and digital paperwork they had to submit was horrendous. The act of filing out online forms was just as taxing. Of course part of that problem lies with the ridiculous Medicaid system. There was no way around what they had to go through but to do the drudge work and get it done. With all the talk of AI potentially removing drudge work from our lives, when I see someone deliver software that can tackle that system from both a users’s perspective and also from a bureaucratic one, I’ll believe the folks pushing that dream are out to do something other than make money. Believe me, they could make a lot of money if they cared to do so.

In my opinion tech companies, largely run by folks not in the senior set or too wealthy to have to worry about these things, would do well to put focus groups of seniors together to try out new technology and products. I don’t believe that will happen. Perhaps the prevailing wisdom is that by the time the youngsters pushing the tech envelopes reach the age when these frustration points of today’s seniors might matter to them, the tech they are working on today might take those frustrations away.

I’m not holding my breath.

(Image from Sweet Life on Unsplash)

When You Think You Own The Railroad

The European Commission and Google

Kicking this post off let me say I’m not really sure how I feel about any of this. The subject matter is The European Commission’s Recent Guidance to Google for AI Interoperability on Android & Sharing of Google Search. John Gruber has a very good post on Daring Fireball that’s worth reading if the topic interests you.

Shutterstock 208228144.

You should be interested and you should read Gruber’s post as he lays the arguments out quite well. The bottom line is the European Commission is trying to slow down what has made Google’s railroad run(Search) and what Google wants to use to run them in the future (AI). Here’s a quote:

Today, the European Commission has issued two sets of binding specification measures to Google under the Digital Markets Act.

The aim of the first specification measures is to ensure that competitors’ Artificial Intelligence (AI) services can compete with Google’s own AI services, such as Gemini, by having equal access to features on Google’s Android devices.

The aim of the second specification measures is to rebalance the playing field by giving third-party search engines access to search data that only Google Search can collect at scale.

In a moment when device costs are rising because of AI and companies like Apple are reportedly planning leasing hardware to users to offset higher prices in the same way automobile companies lease cars, it seems like this move from the EC, obviously striking at what most would consider a monopoly, also has the potential to segment computing in a different way than I’ve been writing about.

We’ve already seen that Apple is having similar problems with the EC, choosing so far not to release any of its now in beta new SiriAI and Siri related Apple Intelligence features in Europe until they can resolve similar conflicts with the EC’s aims.

The big difference is Google has built the beginnings of its new railroad and Apple doesn’t want to lay down its European tracks until the EC gives guidance approval. The EC doesn’t work that way, only passing guidance on what exists, not what’s planned.

If it sounds like the railroad expansion era in America during the Gilded Age, you’re not imagining train whistles in the dark.

On the one hand it’s very easy for me to feel this is a good move for consumers who believe users should be able to control what’s on their devices. On the other, it is conceivable that Google and Apple could end up creating separate operating systems and devices for different parts of the world operating under different governing bodies. Some of that already exists with tech companies following different laws from different countries, but nothing on a level like this that seems to strike at the core of how Google and Apple build these devices, operating systems, and companies.

As I said in the beginning, I’m not really sure how I feel about this. The EC’s guidance seems like a potential good thing long term. But in a world that seems increasingly splintered along so many different lines, I’m not quite sure how I feel about the potential of segmenting our computing lives across borders.

I guess I’m old enough to remember when technology began to bring the far flung corners of the globe closer together rather than keep it separated. I’m also old enough to remember the early days of the Internet when some pointed out that our governments were too far behind the curve and ceding too much control to big tech companies too easily. Watching things grow and change at the speed of a bullet train mostly felt harmless back then. Things don’t seem quite so harmless today.

The cry then was to give users more control back in those early days. But it all became too convenient too quickly to stop or slow down, and those big tech trains left the station. As good or bad as the EC’s new guidance may ultimately be for users, it feels more like a potential derailment rather than switching tracks.

(Image from designbydx on Shutterstock)

Apple Sues OpenAI Alleging Theft Of Trade Secrets

No honor among partners or thieves.

In the middle of the Artificial Intelligence wars, which has included quite a bit of employee shuffling between AI hungry tech companies seeking to gain an edge, it seems someone might not have been all that intelligent when it comes to sharing things they knew at the company they’re leaving with the company they’re interviewing for.

Apple logo2.jpg.

Apple today dropped a lawsuit against OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT maker and some of Apple’s ex-employees stole trade secrets. 9to5Mac has the fullest report I’ve seen on this so far, including this statement from Apple:

At Apple, our teams are constantly developing breakthrough technologies to create the best products and services in the world, and protecting their work and intellectual property is something we take very seriously. Recently, significant evidence has emerged suggesting individuals employed by OpenAI wrongfully took Apple’s secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes, and products. We will always defend our teams’ hard work and innovations, and we are taking all appropriate steps to do so.

The full filing can be read here. The details are quite interesting if you’re into this kind of corporate skullduggery and legal maneuvering.

Here’s a quote from the filing:

In the months before he left Apple, Mr. Tan met with OpenAI or its collaborators and discussed meetings with a key Apple supplier. He began emailing himself information about Apple’s suppliers and internal summaries of the consumer electronics industry. And today, when interviewing Apple employees for jobs at OpenAI, Mr. Tan uses Apple’s confidential information to gain access to even more insider knowledge. He has used an Apple internal project codename to ask, “What’s theplan[?]” for an unannounced Apple product.

He has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” from Apple to their interviews for “show and tell” sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information. These directions to bring Apple’s parts to OpenAI job interviews surprised at least one of the candidates, who commented that he “didn’t even know we could take those from the office.”

This will certainly further strain on Apple’s partnership with OpenAI. Word had circulated earlier this past Spring that OpenAI was going to be the first company to release legal beagles at Apple over dissatisfaction with the partnership.

I’ll say this, even though everything is alleged at this point, Apple has to be pretty pissed off to drop this lawsuit. Of course if the accusations are true who could blame them. It’s certainly a shot across the bow if not directly at the water line.

But then again, when it comes to companies like OpenAI (also Apple and others) that had no compunction about scrapping the entire Internet to train their AI robots on the intellectual property of others, nobody should be trusting anybody with anything in these corporate circles.

The one thing this era has reminded us is that there’s no honor among thieves and not much that any company or government says that can be trusted.

I wonder if anyone has run the legal filing through OpenAI’s just announced products for a legal analysis yet?

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.