technology – Page 8 – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

Yes, There’s More on The Chicago Sun-Times AI Flap

Content is no longer king. Revenue generation is the boss.

You probably remember last week’s adventure in AI and The Chicago Sun-Times. A special section featuring summer activities called The Heat Index included a traditional list of fifteen books for summer reading. Ten of the books didn’t exist, even though they are listed as being written by actual authors. Yes, AI was the culprit. But so too were the humans.

Well, it turns out there’s more to the story. Other parts of The Heat Index also included things like quotes from folks who claim they never made them and in the case of one chef was never solicited for an interview. The Sun-Times began checking the Heat Index and discovered 10 stories they checked all had similar erroneous sources, some phony, and multiple errors and information that couldn’t be verified.

The digging also unveiled that similar errors existed in past special supplements put together by King Features, a division of Hearts Corp, the newspaper published. The Sun-Times typically does about 10 such special supplements a year.

Here are some examples from the latest article describing the scenario:

One of the first stories in the summer section, touted as “a look at the hammock boom,” quoted several people who may not exist, or at least are not who Buscaglia said they were.

For example, a Ryan Leidecker was described as a product line manager at Eagles Nest Outfitters. The company said Leidecker is not an employee nor ever has been.

Buscaglia also cited a Dr. Jennifer Campos as professor of leisure studies at the University of Colorado. The university says it has no record of an employee named Jennifer Campos.

The story quoted Campos as saying a “hammock has become this generation’s equivalent of the Frisbee on the quad,” from her “2023 research paper published in the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography.” A search of her name in the journal yielded nothing.

In the same story, Mark Ellison is identified as an employee at Great Smoky Mountains National Park and warns about the damage that “improper hammock hanging techniques” can do to trees, with Buscaglia noting the information appeared on the park’s website.

Ellison posted on Facebook that he was not an employee of the park and said no such thing. The national park confirmed to the Sun-Times that Ellison does not work there and that there is no such information about hammocks on its website.

Also cited in the DIY article was a 2024 Wired magazine story by a tech writer named Brian Kahn, about setting up an outdoor movie area in your backyard. Wired told the Sun-Times that Kahn has not written for the publication and the quote was inaccurate.

The author of the content, Mark Buscaglia, did come clean about using AI and his failure to fact check. The Sun-Times has also come clean and said that no Sun-Times employees proofed the content before publishing it under its own banner.

What’s interesting, though not surprising, is The Sun-Times reasoning for how it got into this mess. Using King Features and not Sun-Times staff to prepare the supplements was, as you would expect, a cost-saving move according to Chicago Public Media’s CEO Melissa Bell, who also called the episode a series of “human mistakes.”

Here’s another quote:

Bell said the decision to buy special sections from King Features — which predated her arrival at CPM last year — was a “creative solution to keep hitting revenue goals while we transition from print to digital revenue.” She said she had no objection: “I didn’t deeply investigate the editions, and quickly approved the team to continue the practice in place. My reasoning: let’s not sacrifice any revenue.”

As a side note to this story, and pointing to the bigger picture human mistakes I think all of these AI companies have made, it seems to me that a lot of these kind of error prone mistakes or hallucinations — too easily overlooked by most humans — could easily be rectified if the AI output included some sort of watermark or other identifier to say that it was generated by machines. That technology certainly should be easy to implement. At least given the promises of what AI is supposed to offer. But then that lets the air out of the balloon.

When it comes to scraping nickels off the pavement or bigger bucks from investors, and appearing that you’re something you’re not, we humans are far too accomplished at those skills. It’s no wonder Artificial Intelligence spits it back in our faces from time to time.

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.

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.

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.

Review: Apple In China by Patrick McGee

An excellent read about Apple and America’s acquiescence to China.

Timing is everything. As I began to write this short review of Patrick McGee’s new book Apple in China, this article, Auto Shangai 2025 Wasn’t Just a Car Show. It Was a Warning to the West, popped up on my radar. Let’s just say, they are nice companion pieces, given what I think the real message of McGee’s book is all about.

Cover page for Patrick McGee's Apple in China

I highly recommend McGee’s Apple in China. It not only provides some rich history and context to much of the hurly burly news we follow about Apple and its relationship with China, but beneath that surface it provides a deeper warning about the failures of capitalism — Apple and American style — in general.

Not only does it hit that crucially important overlay of the story, it provides some fascinating, and at times frightening detail in many of the design, engineering, corporate, and political maneuverings far beneath the surface of all the machinations we read about on our iPhones.

In my opinion, that’s where the real magic is in the story. Given the amount of detail, McGee had access to some excellent sources. He’s an excellent writer. Portions of the story read with the pace, suspense, and scope of an adventure novel.

The focus of the book — and any of the praise and criticism of it — is obviously Apple. The gist is that Apple essentially trained up China to such a point, that with the pull of a plug, China can cut it off, and take what it has learned to dominate the world’s manufacturing sectors. His arguments are persuasive, and since Apple is — and has been — such a crucial focus since the dawn of the iPhone age, that focus makes sense. But lurking beneath those headlines, are other American companies, occasionally mentioned, who might not have gained the same notoriety, but essentially followed the same path. Check out the article I linked to earlier about the Shanghai Auto Show.

If there’s a villain in the story, it’s China. If there’s a useful idiot, it’s Apple, along with other shareholder valuing and profit loving American companies. Think of the parable of The Scorpion and the Frog.

Certainly Tim Cook plays a central role in all of this, but I have to say outside of some of the details, his obsequious compromises and acquiescence throughout comes as no more of surprise revelation as does his knee-bending to the Trump regime’s recent bullying. That’s all been on transparent display for anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention, which makes any and all of it seem nothing short of a foolish farce, albeit a lucrative one.

In fact, I think you learn more about Foxconn’s Terry Gou than you do about Tim Cook.

If there is one big surprise that I think pierces the Apple aura, it’s just how little central control and understanding of what was happening on the ground in China in the helter-skelter days of early iPhone growth. What on the surface may have seemed like, and been adopted almost as mantra-like by the tech press, a giant corporation with a vision pushing buttons in Monday morning executive meetings, often feels like a company reacting to forces beyond its control that it brought into the tent.

The fact that Apple was as completely overwhelmed by early iPhone sales volume in China is quite frankly astounding, given what most have believed was a generally good central command of inventory control and marketing predictions. Certainly no one can predict everything, but it seems Apple wasn’t even close to understanding, much less predicting, what might happen in that market. Even as it was unfolding.

Obviously Apple won most of those skirmishes and battles. The question the book raises is will Apple have what it takes to win the larger war that it helped set the battlefield for.

(I don’t do affiliate links to products mentioned in any article.)

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.

John Siracusa on Changes Needed at Apple

The time is ripe.

Apple is taking it on the chin lately. Deservedly so. Although some of the pounding is from external sources (Tump’s not happy with Tim Cook apparently,) most of the blows are entirely self-inflicted. Among those critics is noted Apple pundit and podcaster, John Siracusa, who delivered a piece on how he sees Apple’s current predicament. His post, Apple Turnover, essentially says it’s time for a leadership change in the C-Suite. I think he’s correct and his post is worth a read.

AppleWorm copy.

Nothing lasts forever, as Siracusa nicely sums it up. Change happens. Life goes on whether that change is planned, forced, or fumbled into; a sort of a reverse echo of Shakespeare’s funniest villain Malvolio telling us that “some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” His display of hubris comes before his comic comeuppance. Apple’s won’t yield as much comedy.

Quoting from his piece:

…the only truly mortal sin for Apple’s leadership is losing sight of the proper relationship between product virtue and financial success—and not just momentarily, but constitutionally, intransigently, for years. Sadly, I believe this has happened.

The preponderance of the evidence is undeniable. Too many times, in too many ways, over too many years, Apple has made decisions that do not make its products better, all in service of control, leverage, protection, profits—all in service of money.

You can certainly argue that Apple achieved greatness and now appears like it’s reached a critical juncture on many fronts, including falling behind in Artificial Intelligence and trying to ring every ounce of worth it can from every penny its users might be willing to pay for its goods and services. I won’t go into any detail on any of that here because whether it’s AI, App Store business practices, or developer relationships, it’s all been chronicled well enough for most of those paying attention to recite like a catechism. The question is, are the high priests in the C-Suite paying attention?

A few years ago I wrote a piece about how I thought Apple had built itself into a design trap. Here’s a quote from that piece:

The larger and more precarious point with this tangent is that Apple’s rich design expectations, as powerful as they are, are also Apple’s Achilles heel. Great artists aren’t afraid to fail. Great product makers who use great art as a selling point need to tread more carefully to avoid the level of disappointment that can turn a legacy into a burden.

I think they’ve built themselves a similar sort of trap in their business model(s) that comes from the same sort of reliance on their legacy of success and the hubris that’s engendered. You can easily argue that Apple’s business prowess, akin to its design prowess have both yielded unparalleled results feeding each other and fueling the company’s growth.

Joan Westenberg has an excellent piece called Apple’s Diet of Worms that touches on this. But to a certain extent it goes well beyond that. Apple is well known to take a long view, and by and large that’s paid off. They’ve been able to afford that long view historically, even though there have been grumblings along the way. However, I don’t believe Apple is dictating the terms or the timeline any longer.

In the case of Artificial Intelligence, as an example, who knows how that is going to play out for any of the players currently on the field or yet to come. But you can’t deny how OpenAI has changed the pace of things or how Google, and everyone else, is trying to play catch up. The recent announcement that OpenAI was purchasing Jony Ive’s design company to collaborate on what looks like new hardware, coming chock-a-block on top of Google’s mostly AI IO conference announcements, certainly changed the conversation. But then again it might be all smoke and mirrors, no matter how anxious everyone seems to be for some kind of new gadget of the future. Personally, I still think much on this AI front is a race without a finishing line or even a destination beyond collecting data for dollars.

That said, Apple is in it, perhaps thrust into the fray or perhaps fumbling along. Regardless, in my opinion any future achievements are going to require leadership change at the top.

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.

Apple’s Long Term Challenges Complicate The Short Term

It’s not easy to sell a waiting game.

Mark Gurman offers up a relatively thorough summary of the number of challenges Apple is facing going forward in his weekly Power On column. Things always go forward. The question is always how.

The original link above is paywalled, but here’s a web archive link to the story.

And here’s the summary:

CleanShot 2025-05-05 at 09.41.06@2x.

Gurman calls this point in Apple’s history a “critical juncture.” I would agree. The many moving parts, both surrounding Apple, and of its own making, have put Cook and company squarely in that critical juncture. This comes as Apple and those that make their living talking about Apple are gearing up for this year’s World Wide Developer’s Conference (WWDC) next month.

Gurman delivers the punchline well below the headline that neatly summarizes why WWDC is not going to be able to address all of these challenges, but also why the turmoil is going to continue.

Speaking specifically about Apple’s race to catch up in the AI realm he says:

it’s going to be a while before we can tell if Apple is heading in the right direction

Perhaps that should have been the lede. He could have easily said the same about each of these challenges he enumerates.

But there’s also a larger, more encompassing challenge that makes surmounting each even more difficult. The tech world is moving at a pace that Apple is unaccustomed to. Apple’s historic long view has served it well over the years, but the window on that long view is increasingly narrowing its aperture.

Apple may spend its June introducing and setting the table for what’s coming later this year, but already most of the smart players who follow and promote Apple are shifting their focus to the bigger, and more critical, table stakes coming long after this year’s summer and fall hype cycles end. The now familiar “coming later this year” now means much less when the real issues may only begin to be addressed further down the road.

Waiting “a while” is not an easy sell. Especially these days.

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.

Dan Moren Questions What It Means To Be An Apple Fan These Days

Core questions for Apple users

The headline of Dan Moren’s final column for MacWorld says it all: I’m An Apple Fan In 2025. What Does That Even Mean?

Apple fanboy.

Moren has been writing for MacWorld and been a sensible voice inside the Apple community for close to 20 years. He’s signing off his regular column gig for MacWorld, but he’ll still be around on the likes of Six Colors, podcasts, and I’m sure other places. Which is good, because his voice is an important and reliable one.

In his farewell, he raises the question many are asking of themselves, and the questions many are asking of Apple in its current state and our own state of affairs. As he puts it in a nutshell of a statement:

As Apple started becoming more and more successful, I’ve become increasingly skeptical that one should ever really consider oneself a “fan”of a company.

It’s a well thought out and well reasoned post and one that I think should be read by anyone considering themselves a fan, or a no longer fan, or even someone who just doesn’t care for Apple or its products.

A big part of the self-examination I know quite a few folks are going through in assessing their current relationship with Apple deals with issues bigger than just the products. For lack of a better description call them corporate issues. Even using that label — corporate — feels dirty to type in ways that seem damning in more dangerous ways these days. But that’s a fungible feeling and thinking that’s becoming increasingly tangible.

Here’s the thing. Technology advances. Humans advance. Nothing that feels foundational or allegiance adhering, or even worth being infatuated about is going to ever stay the same. Nor are our feelings about what we first might have fallen in love with, regardless of how the object of that affection itself grows and changes. Change is constant.

Microsoft had my allegiance back in the Tablet PC days because they won it when those much maligned devices provided a better, more productive way to do my work. Microsoft changed. I did too. iPads replaced what Tablet PCs were for me in my work and my play, and those are the tools I still use today. Do I think that will be forever? Not a chance. I mourned the loss of Tablet PCs. I’m sure if Apple stopped making iPads, I’d go through a similar grieving process. But again, that’s change. That’s life.

That’s also growth. But growth on the human side of the ledger rarely equals growth on the corporate side. In my brief time on this planet the two have never added up to successful equation that yields anything other than diverging results. That’s one thing I don’t ever expect to change.

Kudos to Dan on a job and career well done, (and still going) and kudos for a lovely farewell column in MacWorld.

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.

Distrust-By-Default

Donning a new armor for protection

In a typically thorough article on Ars Technica about Microsoft preparing to reintroduce the Recall feature to Windows 11, Andrew Cunningham sums up his, and I think many of our, queasy feelings about these kind of feature and marketing failures we’ve recently seen from the likes of Microsoft, Apple and others, using the phrase distrust-by-default.

Here’s the quote in context:

This was a problem that Microsoft made exponentially worse by screwing up the Recall rollout so badly in the first place. Recall made the kind of ugly first impression that it’s hard to dig out from under, no matter how thoroughly you fix the underlying problems. It’s Windows Vista. It’s Apple Maps. It’s the Android tablet.

And in doing that kind of damage to Recall (and possibly also to the broader Copilot+ branding project), Microsoft has practically guaranteed that many users will refuse to turn it on or uninstall it entirely, no matter how it actually works or how well the initial problems have been addressed.

Unfortunately, those people probably have it right. I can see no signs that Recall data is as easily accessed or compromised as before or that Microsoft is sending any Recall data from my PC to anywhere else. But today’s Microsoft has earned itself distrust-by-default from many users, thanks not just to the sloppy Recall rollout but also to the endless ads and aggressive cross-promotion of its own products that dominate modern Windows versions. That’s the kind of problem you can’t patch your way out of.

Briefly, Recall is the Windows 11 feature that was built to capture and recall almost all of what you do on your PC via snapshots, making it available for recall later. After substantial promotion, Microsoft pulled and delayed the rollout last year after security concerns were raised. Skepticism was high even before the security issues were raised that caused the delay. Cunningham’s article provides an excellent rundown on that and I encourage you to read the full thing.

I think Andrew is spot on calling the uneasy feeling many of us have distrust-by-default. Certainly when it comes to this specific Microsoft moment and other tech companies. Zooming out, I think it also describes well the armor we’re all adopting on any number of issues in these moments of mistrust we seem to be facing on so many fronts in our lives.

(Image from Atmospher1 on Shutterstock)

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.

iHostage Review: Not A Good Trip To The Apple Store

Apple Store takes center stage in this hostage drama.

I’m guessing iHostage is a flick you’ll never see on Apple TV+ even though it features the Amsterdam Apple Store as a prominent character in the story. iHostage, directed by Bobby Boerman is currently streaming on Netflix and is based on an actual hostage situation that took place at the Apple Store in Leidseplein in 2022.

As far as hostage films go it isn’t bad nor is it great. These things typically only end one way, and of course if you have any familiarity (I did not) with the actual events you already know how things turn out in this case. But as to the entertainment value there’s good fun to be had as the director and his cameras look for every conceivable angle to shoot within and without the Apple Store. AirPods play an important role early on. Also interesting is watching some of the hostages use an Apple Watch to check whether or not another was having a heart attack. (For the record, an Apple Watch can’t detect underlying causes of a heart attack, but it can detect irregular rhythms.)

The acting, visuals, and direction are generally good, keeping the tension going as we cut back and forth between the hostage taker and his primary hostage, and those on the police side trying to bring about an end to the event. But again, these stories have a formula about them that to some extent just requires a plug-and-play approach with all the necessary elements of filmmaking. I’d say everyone pulls their job off well with the sort of cleanliness you’d expect in an Apple Store. In the end it’s all a bit too clean.

You can read about the true story behind the movie here and watch the trailer below. I’d say it’s a fun watch if this kind of story is your kind of thing, or you just want to tour an Apple Store in Amsterdam.

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.