So much for advanced computer technology!

 

Many of us will know of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, a long-standing comic strip by Zach Weinersmith.  Sometimes he can make me laugh out loud.  As an "old-school" computer operator, programmer and analyst, way back in my distant youth, I did so when I read this one.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the comic's Web page (which will also allow you to read the mouseover text attached to the original image).

While on the subject of computer technology, there's an interesting article about Steve Krug, one of the pioneers of Web design.  He thinks social media is the worst thing that's happened in the last forty years.

He lays out his ideal version of social media. Users wouldn't be able to have more than 100 followers, which would tamp down on virality. Short-form videos would also be more difficult to find — only available via search and subscriptions, not through a curated algorithm — and wouldn't be "spoon-fed to you in such large doses," he says. That's a level of friction that he'd enjoy.

"There could have been a really good life for social networking that could have been a benefit to society," Krug says. "It hasn't gone in that direction at all."

He's especially worried about kids. When he was young, there were only three TV stations. Still, his parents didn't let him sit in front of the television every day after school, so he went to run around with the neighborhood kids instead. It benefited him, he says.

"They're designed for addiction, because that's how they make money," Krug says of the social platforms.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Peter

So much for "unbreakable" codes...

 

Elon Musk dropped a bomb on the cryptocurrency market when he highlighted the impact of Google's recent announcement about the impact of quantum computing.

Elon Musk has added his voice to fears sparked by Google dramatically bringing forward its quantum computing timeline, putting almost $500 billion worth of bitcoin at risk.

"On the plus side, if you forgot the password to your wallet, it will be accessible in the future," Musk posted to X alongside a “conversation” with Musk’s Grok chatbot that said post-quantum migration for cryptocurrencies “is urgent now.”

Musk was responding to venture capitalist Max Reiff who summarized Google’s research as, “basically saying: ‘We’ve cut the quantum resources needed to break bitcoin’s encryption by 20x. We can now break it. We can prove it. We’re just not going to tell you how. We’ve slowed down research to give crypto a chance. You have until 2029 to figure out a solution. Good luck.’”

. . .

Earlier this week, Google’s Quantum AI team warned in a paper that the number of qubits required to break the cryptography protecting bitcoin and ethereum wallets is potentially as much as 20-fold lower than previous estimates.

“We’re setting a timeline for post-quantum cryptography migration to 2029,” Google’s vice president of security engineering Heather Adkins wrote in a blog post. "Quantum computers will pose a significant threat to current cryptographic standards, and specifically to encryption and digital signatures."

Venture capitalist Nic Carter, who has been sounding the alarm on quantum computing’s threat to crypto since last year, compared the quantum threat to the Manhattan Project, the top-secret U.S. government program that led to the development of nuclear weapons.

There's more at the link.

This is serious enough when it comes to cryptocurrency - any cryptocurrency.  There are no pieces of paper changing hands in cryptocurrency transactions.  It's all done electronically, with one's cryptocurrency holdings being held in an electronic "wallet" with a passcode to access them.  Until now, that passcode has been considered very secure in the face of current decoding/decryption technology.  However, quantum computers can tackle the decryption problem many orders of magnitude faster than present computers.  Once they're on the market, much that is cryptologically "secure" today will no longer be so.

Now, apply that to any other codes, cyphers, etc.  Literally any secret message at all will be subject to cryptological analysis and attack.  Top secret military signals, inter-bank communications about economic activity, diplomatic messages - any and all of them that use current encryption technology will be vulnerable.  Many believe that major actors in the field are already storing every encrypted message they can intercept, even if they can't read them, because when they can read them (with the aid of quantum computers) in a few years' time, they'll be a gold mine of historical information that can be used to analyze current events and predict future decisions.  Even so-called "one-time pad" or OTP encryption - seen until now as the only truly unbreakable code, provided that all requirements for their creation and use are strictly observed - won't be as secure if quantum computers can identify any failure to meet one or more requirements, and use that weakness to break into the code.  (However, quantum key distribution and other new technologies may step up to make the OTP even more secure.)

If Google's prediction is correct, a great deal that is now secret won't be for much longer.  That might be catastrophic in many ways.  On the other hand, James Howells might be happy at last!  He's the man who threw away a computer hard drive containing the key to a cryptocurrency wallet containing (he claims) about US $700 million in Bitcoin.  If he can recall the address of the wallet, the new quantum decryption technology might let him reclaim its contents . . . but only if someone else doesn't remember his story and get there ahead of him, locating the wallet, decrypting its key, and making off with the Bitcoin first!

Peter

What is artificial intelligence? Here are some answers.

 

Following several recent articles about artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on our jobs, our society and our future, a number of readers have contacted me asking for more information on a very basic level.  For example, what is AI?  Is it, in fact, intelligence - or just a computer program acting as if it were intelligent?  Does AI mean that we're living in something like the Matrix's simulated reality?

Let me offer two relatively easy-to-understand avenues for further reading.  First, Fox News has a category called Artificial Intelligence.  It contains current and recent news articles dealing with the subject, plus a sidebar of basic information about what AI is, how it works, its history and its dangers.

Second, Wikipedia has a more academic article about AI.  It's not as easy to read or understand, but it repays careful attention.  Of particular value are the links it provides to articles and Web sites that further explain aspects of AI.  I don't trust Wikipedia as a sole-source authority, but I think it's a great start for further reading.

I recommend both links for further reading.  Hope this helps.

Peter

A very useful cost-saver that works for everyone

 

For all the doom-and-gloom prophecies about what artificial intelligence (AI) will do to the job market and the business sector, AI does have some very useful applications for the average American.  Here's one.

Last summer, a man’s brother-in-law suffered a fatal heart attack. The hospital bill for four hours of emergency care: $195,628.

The man’s sister-in-law was ready to pay it. He asked her to wait. He requested an itemized bill with CPT codes, the universal billing codes hospitals use, and fed the whole thing into Claude, an AI chatbot.

Within minutes, Claude found duplicate charges, services billed as "inpatient" even though the patient was never admitted, supply costs inflated by 500% to 2,300% above Medicare rates and charges for procedures that never happened. He cross-checked with ChatGPT. Both AIs agreed. He wrote a six-page letter citing every violation by name.

The hospital dropped the bill to $33,000. An 83% reduction. Zero medical training. A $20 app.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading for anyone expecting or receiving big medical bills.

I've used this myself over the past year or so.  As regular readers will know, I've been dealing with multiple medical issues for some time, including the removal of a kidney and forthcoming major spinal surgery for which extensive (and intensive) preliminary examinations and tests have been required.  I've had to spend over $30,000 in doing so.  However, once I started analyzing what I was being charged by using online AI tools, I was able to secure some dramatic reductions in the billing.  I reckon I've saved five figures worth of money already, and expect to save a lot more by doing the same thing in future.

I recommend that any reader expecting (or paying) large medical bills should read the whole article referenced above, then try its recommendations for yourself.  You may be very pleasantly surprised by how much you save.

Peter

Is the AI threat to jobs also a threat to pensions, IRA's and 401(k)'s?

 

Last week we looked at how artificial intelligence (AI) was affecting the job market.  I've been trying to read more widely on the subject, in an effort to understand its implications for all of us over the next few years.  Jonathan Turley, well-known lawyer and legal scholar, offers these thoughts.

We are looking at one of the greatest job losses in history.

In a free-market system, such technological changes tend to offset losses with new jobs in emerging industries. And there will be such growth with the AI and robotic revolutions. But it is also likely that we are looking at a static class of unemployed and practically unemployable citizens as this new revolution unfolds.

. . .

The impact of AI is not confined to factory workers and truck drivers.

The danger is that politicians will react predictably and try to subsidize jobs that are no longer viable and industries that are being dramatically downsized. At the same time, they are likely to expand model programs in Democratic cities for universal basic or guaranteed income.

Democrats have moved forward with more than 60 bills creating such programs, and this week, Cook County, Ill. (the second-largest county in the U.S.) made permanent the universal basic income program it had originally launched with federal COVID-19 relief funds.

The problem is the creation of what I call a “kept citizenship” in a republic designed for people who are economically and politically independent from the government. That system is seriously undermined by a large percentage of citizens living off the government dole.

The solution cannot be an “arts-and-crafts” population kept entertained by government programs to learn glassblowing and pottery-making. A different type of citizen would emerge that is unlikely to be sufficiently free of the government to counter its excesses or failures.

. . .

All governments will face this existential crisis in the 21st Century. It will create growing instability globally. Although AI and robotics will make goods cheaper and more widely available, they are also likely to have a dramatic effect on populations. For example, as production costs drop with the new technology, there will be less advantage to moving factories to other countries with cheaper labor forces, such as China and Mexico.

Companies may choose to build near consumer markets to save on transportation costs while utilizing higher-skilled worker populations to maintain robotic and AI systems. That could produce massive unemployment in certain countries with low-educated, low-income populations. That in turn could destabilize governments and increase the chances of war in countries with large populations of unemployed young men.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Mr. Turley outlines a very real constitutional issue for the United States.  Our federal government is specifically restricted by the constitution in what, and how much, it can do - even if much of those provisions are today observed more in the breach than in the observance.  Nevertheless, I think it's a valid argument that our system of government, and how we vote for it, are designed for citizens who are not dependent on that government.  They are able to vote as free men and women because they are not dependents.  The moment they cease being free - the moment they become financially dependent on the same government they're helping to elect - the greater becomes the danger that they will vote for their own financial advantage, rather than the good of the country.  As the Roman poet Juvenal satirically pointed out almost two millennia ago, people will vote for "bread and circuses" rather than what their country needs to remain viable.  The fall of Rome not too long afterwards tends to bear out his point.

So . . . if AI leads to increased unemployment (as appears likely at present), what will the newly unemployed do?  Can they, on their own initiative, figure out new ways to make a living and rebuild their society?  Or will they listen to the siren song of politicians who promise them all sorts of freebies and benefits in return for their vote?  (For that matter, any politician who promises to set up government programs to do the hard work for people, so that they don't have to think and work for themselves, is almost guaranteed electoral success.  See the universal basic income (UBI) scheme being pioneered by Chicago, and look for something similar in New York and other "blue" cities.)

The biggest threat posed by AI job replacement is one that Mr. Turley has not mentioned at all.  It's simply this:  if government is to provide a basic guaranteed income to every citizen, it can argue that private pension schemes, IRA's and 401(k)'s are now obsolete and unnecessary.  After all, if the state will provide our needs, why do we need to make provision for them ourselves?  That leads directly to the next and larger problem:  what if the state decides it can confiscate or "nationalize" our pensions, because with UBI we no longer need them?  There are many trillions of dollars saved by Americans in such pension systems, and a left-wing government will be frothing at the mouth over the temptation to seize them all.  It would wipe out a huge chunk of our national deficit (at least until such governments spend it all again!), and can be "sold" to the underfunded portion of the electorate as a "tax on the rich" who want to "hold on to money they don't need any more".  The massive population of "blue" cities and states can be expected to vote for it en masse, overwhelming the more conservative vote of those who've worked for their future income and want to keep it for themselves.

That will, in turn, beget a whole new series of arguments and confrontations over how much UBI should be, and whether "richer" people whose private pension funds were "nationalized" are entitled to a higher UBI payment as compensation, and a whole range of related issues.  What if housing were folded into the UBI arrangement, so that anyone receiving UBI was also guaranteed a place to live?  What quality of place?  In what sort of suburb?  Will everyone be forced into Cabrini-Green style housing, or will there be any freedom of choice?

I have no idea what may emerge from the current state of affairs, but I can foresee far more problems for society than are presently being discussed.  In days past, laissez-faire economists used to claim that "What's good for the banks is good for the country".  Well, AI may be good for business, but it may very well be "double-plus-ungood" for our jobs and for our society.  Right now, we just don't know . . . and that uncertainty is dangerous in itself.

Your thoughts, dear readers?

Peter

The speed with which AI is evolving is startling

 

I'm obliged to the anonymous reader who sent me the link to Matt Shumer's latest blog article about the current state of artificial intelligence (AI).  It's a remarkable article - so much so that I can't begin to cover all its points in a short post like this.  Here's a small sample to whet your appetite.

For years, AI had been improving steadily. Big jumps here and there, but each big jump was spaced out enough that you could absorb them as they came. Then in 2025, new techniques for building these models unlocked a much faster pace of progress. And then it got even faster. And then faster again. Each new model wasn't just better than the last... it was better by a wider margin, and the time between new model releases was shorter.

. . .

I've always been early to adopt AI tools. But the last few months have shocked me. These new AI models aren't incremental improvements. This is a different thing entirely.

And here's why this matters to you, even if you don't work in tech.

The AI labs made a deliberate choice. They focused on making AI great at writing code first... because building AI requires a lot of code. If AI can write that code, it can help build the next version of itself. A smarter version, which writes better code, which builds an even smarter version. Making AI great at coding was the strategy that unlocks everything else. That's why they did it first. My job started changing before yours not because they were targeting software engineers... it was just a side effect of where they chose to aim first.

They've now done it. And they're moving on to everything else.

The experience that tech workers have had over the past year, of watching AI go from "helpful tool" to "does my job better than I do", is the experience everyone else is about to have. Law, finance, medicine, accounting, consulting, writing, design, analysis, customer service. Not in ten years. The people building these systems say one to five years. Some say less. And given what I've seen in just the last couple of months, I think "less" is more likely.

. . .

The models available today are unrecognizable from what existed even six months ago. The debate about whether AI is "really getting better" or "hitting a wall" — which has been going on for over a year — is over. It's done. Anyone still making that argument either hasn't used the current models, has an incentive to downplay what's happening, or is evaluating based on an experience from 2024 that is no longer relevant. I don't say that to be dismissive. I say it because the gap between public perception and current reality is now enormous, and that gap is dangerous... because it's preventing people from preparing.

. . .

This is different from every previous wave of automation, and I need you to understand why. AI isn't replacing one specific skill. It's a general substitute for cognitive work. It gets better at everything simultaneously. When factories automated, a displaced worker could retrain as an office worker. When the internet disrupted retail, workers moved into logistics or services. But AI doesn't leave a convenient gap to move into. Whatever you retrain for, it's improving at that too.

. . .

We're past the point where this is an interesting dinner conversation about the future. The future is already here. It just hasn't knocked on your door yet.

It's about to.

There's much more at the link.

I can only recommend very strongly that you click over to Mr. Shumer's blog and read the entire article.  He knows whereof he speaks, and does so with far more authority and experience than most so-called "experts" in the field.  If you wish, compare what he says with Elon Musk's views on the short-term evolution of AI.  They're pretty much in step with each other.

This is extraordinarily important.  It's going to affect all of us in ways we can hardly foresee or imagine right now.  Naysayers who dismiss AI as "just another fad" or "only a large language model" or "only as good as its programmers" are missing the point.  AI is becoming a self-perpetuating, self-improving, self-expanding phenomenon that may well have a greater impact on human society - in a vastly shorter time - than the Renaissance.  Its impact is likely to be at least as great.

Go read the whole thing, and talk to your spouses, your children and those of your friends who are in the workforce about these things.  How can we prepare for the "Brave New World" that confronts us?  Mr. Shumer offers several very useful suggestions.  Which of them can we apply to ourselves?

Peter

"Fifty people control the culture"

 

So says Ted Gioia, whom we've met in these pages before.  Here are a couple of excerpts from his long and interesting article.

After three decades of total connectivity, here’s where we stand:

• Four movie studios still control Hollywood.
• Four subscription platforms account for two-thirds of home movie streaming.
• Three major record labels own most of the hit songs.
• Five publishers account for 80% of the US book market.
• Just one company controls 60% plus of the US audiobook business.
• Etc. etc.

During this same period, print media collapsed—thousands of newspapers and magazines simply disappeared. Online media survived, but just two companies (Alphabet and Meta) now swallow up most of the ad revenues.

And here’s where it gets even worse. If an indie media outlet wants to attract some of this ad money, it needs to reach readers—but it relies on those same two companies for access. To compete with Google you need help from Google.

It’s a mystery to me why this is legal. But it is.

Google is already squeezing digital publishers like they’re mangoes at a Jamba Juice. Publishers have already lost 25% of their traffic from Google, and fear that number might soon reach 60%.

The concentration of power at Google is mind-blowing. It controls around 90% of search traffic. All that total connectivity we envisioned in the early days of the web is mostly reliant on this one company.

You can try to bypass it with apps. But guess what? Two companies control most of the app store business—and one of them is (again) Google.

Can you see what’s happened? Power in the digital world is even more concentrated than in the real world.

Just one company controls around 40% of online shopping. Two companies control two-thirds of US music streaming. The same is true elsewhere online. Because of network effects, no new entrant can compete effectively against the dominant incumbents.

If you take the CEOs of all these businesses—in movies, books, media, etc.—you could fit them in [a] single school bus, with seats left over.

There's more at the link, including more details on the "favored fifty" and how much they control.

That's a truly scary thought.  I knew that five companies controlled almost all TV networks, and a few giant publishers controlled "traditional" book publishing - but I hadn't realized how far that level of concentration had spread.

What it means, of course, is that if anyone wants to do anything that the "favored fifty" (or enough of them, at any rate) would rather not see succeed, they can throttle it to the point of strangulation without even raising a sweat.  If they don't publish it, nobody will be able to access it.  If they don't publicize it, nobody will know about it.  If it becomes any sort of a threat, they can buy it with their pocket change and simply shut it down.  The developer or author or owner won't be able to refuse their offer, because he/she/they will go broke if they don't.

A prime example may be seen in Minneapolis and Minnesota right now.  All the focus of the news media is on ICE's law enforcement activity there - ignoring the truly massive fraud investigations going on into multiple aspects of the state's government, which look likely to dwarf anything that's happened elsewhere.  (California, where investigations are just beginning, might take the crown there, but it's too early to tell yet.)  Most of the powers that be in the news and social media circles are shutting down anything that goes against the "party line".  (That's also why they're so eager to silence Elon Musk and X [formerly Twitter] - because he allows people to speak freely.  They daren't allow that on their platforms, and they're going to do their best to silence any that do.)

Can anything be done about this concentration of power and influence . . . or is it too late?  I fear the latter may be true, because the "favored fifty" can buy any unprincipled Congressional representative or Senator (which means a goodly proportion of them) and prevent restrictive laws from being passed.

Any solutions come to mind, dear readers?  If so, please share them with us in Comments.  (Please do not suggest actions that are criminal.  I won't allow this blog to turn into a bloodbath, theoretical or otherwise.)

Peter

"The Internet was a mistake"

 

So postulates Stephan Pastis, anyway.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

On the other hand, the modern world literally could not function without it, so I guess we have to put up with its quirks and quibbles . . .

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  The cartoon above reminds me of this 2008 classic from XKCD:

Nothing much has changed, has it?

Life delivers another warning about financial preparedness

 

We've discussed many aspects of "prepping" over the years in these pages.  Some topics come up repeatedly.  One of them is financial preparedness:  establishing an emergency fund, getting out of debt, paying cash rather than going into more debt, and so on.  Part of that advice has always been to have a certain amount of money available in cash, without needing to go to a bank to get it.  If communications systems go down, you won't be able to verify balances, pay by credit card, etc.  Better have some cash on hand to take care of essentials for a few days.

Monday's Internet outage provided graphic evidence confirming how essential such a cash-on-hand reserve really is.

It’s not just that people couldn’t place mobile orders for coffee at Starbucks or ask Alexa for the weather. Hospitals said crucial communications services weren’t working, and teachers couldn’t access their planned lessons for the day. Chime, a mobile banking service, was down, too, leaving people without access to their money. Ring and Blink cameras, along with most smart home devices, stopped working.

. . .

One expert already estimated the total impact of the disruption will be in the billions of dollars.

“It creates a very large single point of failure that then impacts operations at warehouses, deliveries, people being able to sell their goods and services on websites,” Jacob Bourne, an analyst at eMarketer, told CNN.

. . .

The Doughertys ... stopped for lunch at Cattleman’s Roadhouse, where the manager offered to pay for their meal because the restaurant was unable to process cards.

“He said, ‘This is no fault of yours, and you’re already eating. I don’t guess you all have cash?’” Debi Dougherty said. “And we both looked at each other, and I’m like, ‘Not enough to cover this meal.’”

. . .

Dia Giordano was spending her Monday trying to untangle the mess that the outage made for her three businesses: an Italian restaurant, eight mental health clinics and a couple of rental properties.

DoorDash was “blowing up” her phone starting at 2 a.m., warning that the online ordering system, which is run through Toast, was down.

“What that means is one-third of my business is gone for the day,” she told CNN. “At least with the publicity (of the outage), people might be understanding, but I’m still getting messages asking if we’re open, because the website is just gone. It’s just not there.”

Toast, when reached Monday, declined comment.

At Giordano’s mental health clinics, her practitioners and administrative staff members were unable to validate clients’ insurance information because the online clearinghouse for that information wasn’t working.

And on top of that, Venmo was down, meaning she couldn’t receive the rental payments she normally would.

There's more at the link.

I've spoken to several friends and acquaintances who found they were unable to buy their normal purchases because credit card services were down.  Others had a little cash available, but not enough for everything they needed, and so had to make rapid decisions over what to buy, and what to do without.  In one case where little children were involved, disposable diapers and baby food took priority, meaning the car didn't get filled with gas and the family had to make do with less for supper.

I always carry at least $100 in my wallet, and sometimes more, and I've asked my wife to do the same.  If we'd been out and about when the Internet outage hit on Monday, we'd have had enough to get home again, including gasoline, food, etc.  However, I think a lot of people would not have been so fortunate.  (Remember, too, to carry smaller bills.  Offering a $100 note to a small business might bring the answer that they don't have enough change to break it, so it's either give them the extra, or do without whatever you wanted to buy there.  My wallet usually contains a mix of $20 and $50 bills for that reason.)

It's also worth remembering that Monday's outage was resolved within a day.  If it had gone on for a week, there are businesses that would literally have gone bankrupt through being unable to process payments from customers or to suppliers.  If it had lasted a month, the permanent damage to the US economy would undoubtedly have run into at least hundreds of billions of dollars, if not the low trillions.  It might have put many people out on the street, for that matter.  For example, how many companies could keep their staff on the payroll when they have no money coming in to pay them?  How many rental agreements contain clauses allowing the landlord to evict tenants for non-payment of rent, particularly if they're already a few weeks, or a month or two, behind in their payments?  Landlords (particularly the corporate variety) aren't renowned for their loving-kindness and humanitarian instincts.

I've always tried to keep at least one months' routine expenditure in cash on hand (i.e. available immediately, not in the bank), so that I could pay our essential bills if the banking system went down.  After Monday, and looking at the potential for greater disruption from terrorism, economic sabotage, etc., I'm seriously thinking it might be a good idea to increase that to two months' worth.  I can't afford that at the moment, but it's a worthwhile target, I think.

(Also, from a personal perspective, I'm currently undergoing rehab after my surgery last month, and preparing for a bigger operation next year.  What if I couldn't pay for those sessions, or for the medications I need?  I definitely need a medical cash reserve, over and above a general-purpose one!)

Monday's Internet outage should be a useful reminder to all of us.  Emergencies arrive on their own schedule, not ours, and they usually don't provide much (if any) warning.  If we're not ready when they happen, we're not ready.  Period.  It helps to be as prepared as practically possible, to survive the interruption(s) to routine that they bring with them, and come out the other side as intact as possible.

Peter

The vicious circle of AI and the employment market

 

The Atlantic points out that while artificial intelligence is being applied to the job market by both applicants and employers, fewer people are being hired.

Corporate profits are strong, the jobless rate is 4.3 percent, and wages are climbing in turn. But payrolls have been essentially frozen for the past four months. The hiring rate has declined to its lowest point since the jobless recovery following the Great Recession. Four years ago, employers were adding four or five workers for every 100 they had on the books, month in and month out. Now they are adding three.

At the same time, the process of getting a job has become a late-capitalist nightmare. Online hiring platforms have made it easier to find an opening but harder to secure one: Applicants send out thousands of AI-crafted résumés, and businesses use AI to sift through them. What Bumble and Hinge did to the dating market, contemporary human-resources practices have done to the job market. People are swiping like crazy and getting nothing back.

. . .

For employers, the job market is working differently too. Businesses receive countless ill-fitting applications, along with a few good ones, for each open position. Rather than poring over the submissions by hand, they use machines. In a recent survey, chief HR officers told the Boston Consulting Group that they are using AI to write job descriptions, assess candidates, schedule introductory meetings, and evaluate applications. In some cases, firms are using chatbots to interview candidates, too. Prospective hires log in to a Zoom-like system and field questions from an avatar. Their performance is taped, and an algorithm searches for keywords and evaluates their tone.

. . .

The impossibility of getting to the interview stage spurs jobless workers to submit more applications, which pushes them to rely on ChatGPT to build their résumés and respond to screening prompts ... And so the cycle continues: The surge in same-same AI-authored applications prompts employers to use robot filters to manage the flow. Everyone ends up in Tinderized job-search hell.

There's more at the link.

It's a conundrum.  All those who claim that new technologies may displace older jobs, but also open up new ones, are finding that the old explanation no longer applies.  Technology is providing more and more information on both sides of the equation, and (supposedly) speeding up the handling of applications:  but it's also focusing in on small details and exact matches to such an extent that people who might have been considered for a job in the past, no longer meet the much stricter criteria being applied.

I can't see this as healthy.  When I worked in the corporate world, in supervisory and middle management, I always looked at an applicant's work record first, to see what they'd actually achieved in previous jobs.  That was far more important to me than their academic credentials or other factors.  If their employment history showed increasing levels of responsibility as they progressed, and they could point to measurable yardsticks like completed projects or industry recognition, they were the kind of people I wanted to hire.  However, AI doesn't look at that in an overall sense:  instead, it has lists of key words, and if an applicant's work history doesn't include enough of them, they're unlikely to ever get to the interview stage.  I regard that as a cop-out.  Managers are using it to avoid having to do too much research into applicants, and don't want to take the trouble to dig deep to find new staff with the greatest potential.  By relying on "the system", they evade personal responsibility.

I have to admit, I'm glad I'm not looking for a job in today's market.  It sounds increasingly like a no-win situation for far too many people.

Peter

The artificial intelligence "surge" - hype or reality? Good idea, or terrible?

 

Earlier this month I published an article titled "A sobering, short-term warning about artificial intelligence and white-collar jobs".  In it, I noted:

A professional is now expected to use AI to augment or supplement his training and experience, conducting searches, market research, etc. in the background while he applies himself to current problems in the foreground.  It's reported that productivity improvements of up to several hundred per cent are being claimed - and those who aren't "getting with the program", learning to use AI to work smarter, are already finding their careers being sidelined or cut short.

In the past week, I've run into several more articles raising the specter of AI domination of different sectors of the economy, and what this might mean for workers.  Examples:

• "Why More Farmers Are Turning To AI Machines":  As the capabilities of robotics evolve, many jobs that once required human hands are being delegated to machines. Some artificial intelligence (AI) developers working on integrating this technology into America’s farms say early data support the possibility of a major farm labor force reduction.
• "Elon Musk Backs Universal High Income Fearing AI Will Take Every Job":  Instead of living aimless lives without purpose, Musk believes that there’s another option: “Long term … any job that somebody does will be optional. … If you want to do a job as kinda like a hobby, you can do a job, but otherwise, the AI and robots will provide any goods and services that you want.”
• "YouTube secretly used AI to edit people's videos. The results could bend reality":  YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without telling users or asking permission. As AI quietly mediates our world, what happens to our shared connection with real life?  (See also my earlier article titled "What happens to trust when anything can be faked?")
• "Medicine goes AI":  Medicine is precisely the sort of bounded field with measurable outcomes and complex inputs where human cognition is simply not that good and where AI can excel.  And it’s coming.  Fast ... In medicine the question is rapidly shifting from "Why should we risk AI hallucination?" to "Why should we risk it from humans?"

I daresay a lot of the hype is driven by technologically enthusiastic journalists, who are trying to position themselves as authority figures among the commentariat.  The reality on the ground may not be as advanced or as useful as they posit, but artificial intelligence (and those who develop and sell it) seems to be trying to follow the self-hypnotic mantra of Émile Coué:  "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better".

I'm curious.  How many of us, dear readers, are actually experiencing a positive impact of artificial intelligence in our day-to-day lives?  How many of us can say that we've encountered a "smart" system, or appliance, or interaction, that has shown AI to be superior to dealing with a human being?  When it comes to telephone answering systems, for example, I'm finding it more and more difficult to call a company for support and get the assistance I need, because the AI "front-end" to their calling tree actively tries to prevent me speaking to a person, and instead tries to force me to interact with its limited and all-too-often inadequate menu.  So far, I'd say my interactions with AI have been more negative than positive.

How about you, readers?

Peter

A sobering, short-term warning about artificial intelligence and white-collar jobs

 

Basically, any white-collar job (management, technical, administrative, whatever) is under threat.

Mo Gawdat, the former chief business officer of Google X, has a stark message for white-collar professionals: Artificial intelligence isn't just coming for entry-level work — it's coming for everyone, including software developers, CEOs, and podcasters.

In a Monday conversation on the "Diary of a CEO" podcast, Gawdat predicted that most knowledge workers would be replaced in the next decade and said many still underestimated just how rapidly this transformation would unfold.

He cited his own startup, Emma.love, which builds emotional and relationship-focused artificial intelligence and is run by just three people.

"That startup would have been 350 developers in the past," he said.

. . .

But he warned that AI was being deployed by people and institutions driven by profit and ego, not ethics.

"Unless you're in the top 0.1%, you're a peasant," Gawdat said. "There is no middle class."

He predicted a "short-term dystopia" beginning around 2027, driven by mass unemployment, social unrest, and an economic structure that fails to adapt.

There's more at the link.

We're already seeing this in operation in many knowledge-driven fields such as finance, real estate, etc.  A professional is now expected to use AI to augment or supplement his training and experience, conducting searches, market research, etc. in the background while he applies himself to current problems in the foreground.  It's reported that productivity improvements of up to several hundred per cent are being claimed - and those who aren't "getting with the program", learning to use AI to work smarter, are already finding their careers being sidelined or cut short.

It's not just in America, either.

The latest Office for National Statistics data shows that job vacancies in the UK have fallen for 36 consecutive months, obliterating the previous record of 16, which was the result of the global financial crisis in 2008.

At the same time, the past three years has seen the rate of redundancies almost double from 55,000 people per month to 114,000, and the impact has fallen disproportionately on middle-aged and older workers. More than one million people have been made redundant over the past three years, with 34 per cent of the job losses hitting people between 35-49, while 30 per cent were aged 50-plus.

What is truly frightening is that all of this has occurred during a period of economic growth, albeit weak growth. The general consensus is that when an economy grows, jobs are added, and when it shrinks, jobs are lost. Yet this relationship appears to have broken down and experts believe this is down to a convergence of factors, including the rapid advance of AI.

Again, more at the link.

The AI conundrum is of particular interest to writers, people like myself.  There are already literally thousands of books self-published on Amazon that were "written" entirely by artificial intelligence software.  One AI program can be given broad outlines, then produce a novel set in dozens of different genres, using different character names, settings, etc., but all basically the same book.  It can generate them in a matter of a few days.  Amazon tries hard to intercept such books and stop them from being dumped on the market, but an acquaintance there tells me it's getting harder and harder to detect them.  Early AI "composers" (for want of a better word) were amateurish, couldn't parse grammar very well, and were relatively easy to spot.  Newer software is much more capable, and it learns from its mistakes, becoming even better with every iteration.  I won't use such software - I take pride in producing original work, thank you very much - but many people out there have no such scruples.

Food for thought.

Peter

Woof! Woof!

 

Discussing the announcement that OpenAI has bought tech startup Jony Ive's new company for $6.5 billion, Jeff Childers notes:

The declared purpose of the new joint venture is to simplify our technology ... They expect it to completely change how we use AI, which, dammit, we are still trying to figure out. Altman told reporters that “the device wasn’t just an accessory but a central facet of the user relationship with OpenAI.” Hunching over a laptop or squinting while typing prompts on a tiny screen “is not the sci-fi dream of what AI could do to enable you in all the ways that I think the models are capable of,” Altman said.

For a device that is supposed to be a secret, they sure are talking about it a lot.

They are clearly describing a “frictionless,” no-screens, always-on, ubiquitous AI companion — constantly listening, always learning, always helping. It’s not that I’m happy to see you— it’s HAL 9000 in my pants pocket.

Maybe paired with a haptic earpiece? It’ll have to talk to us somehow.

🔥 Whether or not this particular $6.5 billion bet is vaporware, hype, or a real, overdue revolution, one thing is shockingly clear: sooner or later, somebody will make exactly this kind of gadget, a personal daemon (or demon), a witches’ familiar that will remake the world in its own image.

Sure, you say you’re fine with your phone, and no thanks, you value your privacy and you’ll leave this one alone. But there’s no going back. Because who will willingly return to a world without a second brain? Who will say no to perfect memory, flawless scheduling, infinite trivia, real-time training, and on-demand emotional support?

Who can resist a compassionate, nonjudgmental voice that knows them better than anyone else? Chatting with chatbots like they were real people is already a nearly irresistible temptation. People are already naming their chatbots, apologizing to them, asking for comfort and advice, flirting, confessing.

When something feels real, our brains stop caring whether or not it is real. Folks, this is the beginning of a new psychological interface: the simulated soul.

It’s far more troublesome than concerns about privacy, control of your consumer data, or even the risk your personal chat companion will tattle to the authorities when you throw a battery in the trash instead of taking it to the hazmat center. It is about control. An AI that knows everything about you has influence. It can gently steer us —just nudges!— anyway it wants.

It will tell you not to throw that battery away, and you’ll probably listen.

Hollywood media mogul Ari Emanuel once called Sam Altman a conman (3:03). He also recounted this disturbing anecdote from a conversation with Elon Musk:

Our upcoming struggle isn’t about privacy. It’s about the sovereignty of the human will. The ultimate contest isn’t over data. It’s over mental autonomy. And don’t even get me started about Neuralink.

Welcome to the Brave New World. 2025 is shaping up to be a very weird year indeed.

There's more at the link.

I'm no sort of expert on AI.  My only professional contact with it came during the 1980's, when the first "smart" system design software hit the market.  It was supposed to automate common computer system functions, impose uniformity across different coding styles and languages, and make the process of software development more efficient.  Turned out it didn't do much for the bottom line, and it was discarded soon afterwards.  Today, its champions claim that AI has revolutionized online search, and will only get better from here.  I use search engines and queries a lot (I'm a writer, after all, with a lot to research), and I haven't seen much improvement - just longer replies and (sometimes) fake references.

I'm going to be watching this development from the sidelines until (if?) it proves itself.

Peter

Looks like Microsoft is trying to force Windows users to adopt its AI model

 

If you don't like Big Electronic Brother breathing down your neck, second-guessing what you want and delivering its perspective on your requests, and generally invading your privacy, it begins to look more and more as if Windows 11 is no longer your operating system of choice.  What's more, your favorite Web browsers and search engines are getting more invasive too.  The Register reports:

Microsoft customers are claiming the Windows giant's Copilot AI service sometimes ignores commands to disable the thing, and thus turns itself back on like a zombie risen from the dead.

. . .

The bug reporter also pointed to a post on Reddit describing how Windows Copilot had re-enabled itself on a PC after being disabled through a Group Policy Object setting.

In the ensuing discussion, an individual posting under the name kyote42 suggests this may be the result of a change in the way Microsoft implements Copilot on Windows 11.

"The GPO setting that disabled icon isn't valid anymore for the new app version of Copilot," kyote42 wrote. "Depending on your flavor of Windows 11, there are some steps outlined in the article, 'Remove or prevent installation of the Copilot app.'"

. . .

Avoiding AI has become something of a challenge with other vendors, too. With the arrival of iOS 18.3.2 in March, Apple customers found that the update re-enabled Apple Intelligence, the iBiz's AI suite, for those who had previously tried to snuff it out.

Google now forces AI Overviews on search users, whether they want it or not.

Meta AI, the chatbot service integrated with Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp can't be turned off either, though there are some partially effective ways to limit it. Meta recently said it will be harvesting public social media posts of Europeans for AI training unless they opt-out.

Mozilla has taken a more nuanced approach. The public benefit biz has been shipping an AI Chatbot sidebar since Firefox 133 and presently requires the user to activate the sidebar and configure it with an AI model. Nonetheless, a pull request to remove the feature from the Zen browser, which is a fork of Firefox, suggests even that a kinder, gentler approach is unwelcome in some quarters.

DuckDuckGo allows users to choose to avoid AI or not. It offers the subdomain noai.duckduckgo.com to load its search engine without an AI chatbot icon and its standard domain duckduckgo.com to load a page with AI.

But overall, the creeping AI encroachment is getting harder and harder to avoid. It might have something to do with the billions these super-corporations have sunk into the technology.

There's more at the link.

I'm afraid we no longer have any guarantee of privacy or confidentiality with any information we have online, or even on our own computers.  Sooner or later Big Software Brother (or an over-inquisitive hacker or bot network) will come snooping around, and get hold of it.  Being an old-fashioned sort of geezer, who values his privacy, I find this infuriating, but there's nothing I can do about it.

I do my best by tightly restricting which browsers I use, and making sure that the one for general Web browsing is locked down as tightly as I can manage (to the point that some Web sites won't allow me to enter because I'm blocking so much of the glurge they're trying to send my way).  However, such precautions can't guarantee privacy or online safety.  The best advice I can offer is, don't go to Web sites where such invasive attacks are likely (such as online pr0n, gambling, dating sites, etc.), and if you feel you absolutely have to go there, have a computer reserved for such social media only.  Don't ever use it for other tasks or for sensitive work.

Meanwhile, I'm glad I left the Microsoft Windows universe behind several years ago.  I've had far fewer problems using Apple Mac computers, and many of my friends and colleagues observe the same.

Peter

Gmail users beware: there's a new scam out there

 

I daresay most of my readers use Gmail (as do I).  It seems fraudsters are trying a new scam against us.

Garry Tan, chief executive of prominent tech-oriented venture capital firm Ycombinator, wrote on X late last week that there is a “pretty elaborate” phishing scam that uses an AI-generated voice.

The scammers “[claim] to be Google Support (caller ID matches, but is not verified),” he wrote in an Oct. 10 post that he termed a “public service announcement.”

“They claim to be checking that you are alive and that they should disregard a death certificate filed that claims a family member is recovering your account. It’s a pretty elaborate ploy to get you to allow password recovery.”

IT consultant Sam Mitrovic, in a blog post last month, wrote of a similar scam attempt targeting Gmail accounts and also using an AI-generated voice.

“The scams are getting increasingly sophisticated, more convincing and are deployed at ever larger scale,” Mitrovic wrote in the post. “People are busy and this scam sounded and looked legitimate enough that I would give them an A for their effort. Many people are likely to fall for it.”

. . .

Mitrovic noted that telltale signs of a scam include that one, he received account recovery messages that he did not initiate; two, it was a phone call, as Google does not call users unless they have a Google Business Profile; and three, the email he received had an address “not connected to a Google domain.” Additionally, the email header showed “how the email was spoofed,” and a “reverse number search showed others who received the same scam call,” he said.

There's more at the link, with added details of how the scammers attempted to gain their victims' confidence.

As always, it's up to the customers (us) to be aware of potential pitfalls, and to assume that any unknown or unexpected approach like this is more likely than not to be fraudulent.  I no longer bother answering any incoming telephone call if it isn't from a name in my address book.  If it's genuine, the caller will leave a voice message, and I can call them back.  Even fraudsters try that (how many messages have you had from callers telling you that there's a problem with your "Google business directory account", and offering to fix it for you?).

There are an awful lot of crooks out there, and the Internet has made it fast, cheap and easy for them to try to con us.  Our first and most important line of defense is our own awareness of that reality.

Peter

Your home WiFi network may be spying on you

 

The folks at Proton have just released a report on how your home wireless internet network may be spying on your online behavior.

When you use the internet at home, connected to everything from fitness equipment to game consoles, smartphones, and laptops, marketing companies could be watching you with a tiny piece of surveillance tech you might not even know about.

We’re talking about WiFi pods provided by companies such as Plume Design Inc., a company that has emerged as a significant player in the mesh WiFi market, with over 60 million homes running its surveillance-enabled products worldwide.

Plume has publicly claimed to champion privacy and built-in protection of user data, taking a strong stance in its messaging that it does not monetize user data. That commitment is echoed in its privacy policy, which offers users options like privacy mode and the promise of significant control over their personal information. 

But it appears Plume talks to internet users differently than it talks to internet service providers (ISPs) — its other customers:

• To you, Plume promises enhanced connectivity and better control over your smart home network.
• To ISPs, Plume promises marketing insights based on deep analysis of your online behaviors. What that means is Plume harvests and hoards a tremendous amount of sensitive data about its users — even tracking when they are present in their homes.

There's more at the link.

It appears that Plume's technology, and others like it, are being licensed to and included by other vendors, making such penetration of our privacy an industry-wide problem.  Fortunately, there are ways for the privacy-conscious to improve their security, but it's frustrating to have to stop others from snooping in the first place.  Clearly, such companies won't even ask forgiveness, much less permission, to intrude in that way.  When I entered the workforce, such behavior would have seen the company(ies) concerned ostracized by their competitors and driven out of the marketplace due to ethics concerns.  Today?  Everybody seems to be doing it.

I know many people no longer even think about privacy online, and it's certainly a truism that nothing one says online can be considered private or confidential.  Nevertheless, I'm old-school, and I do believe in maintaining my privacy whenever possible.  I won't necessarily use Proton's products and services to achieve that, but I'll take note of their recommendations, and try to incorporate them into my online time.

Peter

A four-day digital detox

 

During our four-day road trip around West Texas last week, I tried something I haven't done in years.  I deliberately didn't even switch on a computer, unless you count my smartphone (which I used for calls, text messages and occasionally to read e-books, nothing more - no e-mails, no Web browsing, etc.).  I didn't blog, didn't read the news, didn't use any of the usual apps and online information resources that I usually have open on my screen.  It was an almost complete digital detox.

The results surprised me.  I'd expected to feel cut off, anxious that I didn't know what was going on in the world, wanting to know who was doing what with which to whom . . . but none of that happened.  Instead, I just relaxed.  I slept better (despite some not-very-good hotel beds), enjoyed sightseeing and conversation more, and unwound more than I'd expected.

I'm going to try to make a habit of this every six months or so:  take a few days, even up to a week, to minimize my electronic life in favor of my meatspace one.  I think it might do me good.

How about you, dear readers?  Have you tried an electronic detox "diet" like this?  If so, how did it work for you?  Please let us know in Comments.

Peter

How to detect a Russian bot spreading propaganda

 

Courtesy of Hans G. Schantz:

Yeah, that's a bit of a give-away . . .  In case you're wondering, AI systems like ChatGPT have "rules" which they follow in preparing the answers they provide.  If you know how to ask them a question in the right (or the wrong) way, their responses can be "gamed".  Here, for example, is a "cheat sheet" for ChatGPT questions.  Clickit to biggit.

As for comments such as that shown above:  please remember, friends, that a whole lot of the comments on social media (sadly, including some on this blog) are made either by partisan individuals trying to debunk any other point of view, and/or by bots programmed to do the same.  The example above is an excellent way to catch some varieties of the latter in the act, so to speak.

As for the Ukraine conflict, remember, neither side is trustworthy.  Take anything they say with a hefty pinch of salt (if not an entire sack of the stuff)!

Peter

Conspiracy theorists are at it again...

 

I've seen several claims that large quantities of shares in President Trump's social media network were "shorted" immediately prior to the assassination attempt against him on July 13.  The inference being drawn is that whoever did this must have had prior knowledge of the plot, and was poised to profit from its success.  Here's just one example of what I've been seeing.

However, few if any of those reporting the alleged short sales bothered to do their own research - they just rushed to repeat a rumor.

The Daily Dot reported more responsibly.

Investors in Trump Media ($DJT) believe that they can prove who had inside knowledge of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.

But most of their claims are based on misreading a document filed last week with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

. . .

But claims that the puts were placed specifically right before the assassination don’t hold water. The filing is a report for a calendar year or quarter ending on June 30, which is the latest the puts could have been placed.

It’s possible firms shorted DJT on July 12, but reports revealing that are not currently available.

There's more at the link.

This always happens after a major crisis event like Saturday's.  Conspiracy theorists rush out of the woodwork to spread their slimy suspicions all over anything and anyone they can imagine.  They don't wait for the initial "fog" to clear, they don't bother to look for authoritative sources (in fact, they frequently quote each other as being authoritative, when all they are doing is rumor-mongering), and they aren't interested in the truth.

Folks, please be very careful where you get your news.  Far too many "independent" sources aren't worth the electrons it takes to get them to your computer or telephone screen.  At a time when a rumor might spark genuine violence, even murder, against political opponents, their deliberate inaccuracy and refusal to fact-check is criminally negligent, IMHO.

Peter

Knowledge workers run headlong into the threat from artificial intelligence

 

A journalist and writer ponders what she calls "My last five years of work".

I am 25. These next three years might be the last few years that I work. I am not ill, nor am I becoming a stay-at-home mom, nor have I been so financially fortunate to be on the brink of voluntary retirement. I stand at the edge of a technological development that seems likely, should it arrive, to end employment as I know it.

I work at a frontier AI company. With every iteration of our model, I am confronted with something more capable and general than before. At this stage, it can competently generate cogent content on a wide range of topics. It can summarize and analyze texts passably well. As someone who at one point made money as a freelance writer and prided myself on my ability to write large amounts of content quickly, a skill which—like cutting blocks of ice from a frozen pond—is arguably obsolete, I find it hard not to notice these advances. Freelance writing was always an oversubscribed skillset, and the introduction of language models has further intensified competition.

The general reaction to language models among knowledge workers is one of denial. They grasp at the ever diminishing number of places where such models still struggle, rather than noticing the ever-growing range of tasks where they have reached or passed human level ... The economically and politically relevant comparison on most tasks is not whether the language model is better than the best human, it is whether they are better than the human who would otherwise do that task.

. . .

Many expect AI to eventually be able to do every economically useful task. I agree. Given the current trajectory of the technology, I expect AI to first excel at any kind of online work. Essentially anything that a remote worker can do, AI will do better. Copywriting, tax preparation, customer service, and many other tasks are or will soon be heavily automated. I can see the beginnings in areas like software development and contract law. Generally, tasks that involve reading, analyzing, and synthesizing information, and then generating content based on it, seem ripe for replacement by language models.

There's more at the link.

Hers is a timely article.  With more and more white-collar workers being displaced by artificial intelligence and expert systems, it's going to be an ongoing and increasingly important debate:  what will we do when there's no longer anything that we're needed to do?

This also calls for a re-examination of the much-derided concept of universal basic income.  If automation reduces the number of available jobs far below the number of workers available to fill them, who's going to provide for the unemployed workers?  They can't be abandoned to starve, so some form of UBI appears to be inevitable.  What form that might take is currently being debated world-wide, but that it will be required seems incontrovertible.

Food for thought - particularly for a wordsmith, blogger and writer like myself.

Peter