Tag Archives: AI

August 12, 2026 · 13:20

What to believe?

That is at times the question, because the media is not the most credible one in this world at present. Yet one story made me pause, stop me in my strides at I saw ‘Oracle (NYSE:ORCL) Stock Is Falling Again: Is Its Huge AI Spending Bill Finally Catching Up With It?’ (At https://stocksdownunder.com/oracle-stock-falling-ai-spending-bill/) The story by Ujjwal Maheshwari is certainly plausible, but is it therefor a true setting? I had my question marks in this. You see, he writes a cool yarn (as expressions go) but I have my doubt for my own reasons. I have a few internal speculative settings and mostly they are there as a protective cocoon for Oracle, it is my seeing towards the innovative stages that is set to Larry Ellison, the head honcho behind all these innovations (although most of that work was done by Oracle engineers) so as I see the key points things start to unravel in my brain. Lets go over them.

Oracle stock fell about 4% to around US$144.82 as a recent rebound faded. OK, I have no issues with that, especially as my economic insights tend to be measured per thimble. 

The worry is Oracle’s enormous spending on AI data centres, which has led to negative cash flow and a credit downgrade. Which is one I agree with, but there is an annotation attached to this. Because as I see it, all AI is fake AI, but data is almost forever and the needs to be stored somewhere as I see it, when all this comes into the realm of real AI (sometimes called True AI) it needs data and as I see it Oracle is the one true power to hold all that and even as it needs rewrites, the ones using Oracle will emerge victorious, all whilst others are set to Azure, AWS or whatever Google has, is set to a bind and there is the null moment. Oracle will adjust and attain a new standard of this data, the others are likely to fail (optionally Google might address them too) all others are bound for a shallow grave and whilst I have faith that the IBM hardware will rise to the occasion, I have no idea how their software setting is going to be, I honestly don’t know that part. So as I see it all, Oracle data centres are likely to float above the other muck and that is where the victorious remain. 

So when we get to Oracle plans to spend up to US$95 billion next year building AI infrastructure. Is a price tag I am unsure what to make of, that being said as this AI race comes to a heading those with the proper investments are the only one staying afloat and in that what is to be believed to be  at least US$2.1 trillion in global AI investment commitments are projected through 2027, driven heavily by major tech hyperscalers spending massive capital on data centers. Oracle is likely with its part the only one almost certain to stay afloat and a 95 billion next year against a pool of 2,100 billion is a sturdy island in a sea of turmoil and whilst you see one image, I see a data setting that can adjust and adhere to trinary data centres and that is where Oracle remains alone because that setting was rejected by some and when that happens they will falter because they could not adjust to that setting blowing up the data sizes to almost 500% of what will be a trinary data pool, so it can do it at least 5 times faster on data more ergonomically terrific. That is what I presume will happen, so as I like the writings of Ujjwal Maheshwari, I don’t think he is aware on what is coming that way in less than a decade and that will be the benefit of Oracle and whilst they will get the larger deals others will falter. So what happens when that US$2.1trillion is written off as redundant investments? 

Despite the concerns, most analysts remain bullish, with price targets far above the current level. Is one I am keeping my fingers off. It is like watching an analyst relying on the numbers of a phone book because that is what he believes, all whilst the rest has pushed towards the data sets of tomorrow and there is no real way to see this. Because the phone book is what our parents relied on and it works, but the new directory is not on paper and it is based upon a different scale, with a new price target one that is not seen now and not even speculated on now. As I see it, there analysts are not reset to tomorrow data sets and that is where I need to see what happens. But there is in all likelihood the mother of all reset and I have no idea how these analysts will adjust their settings. We will have to see. 

So whilst I accept the setting we are given “Here is what is happening right now. Today’s drop is less about fresh bad news and more about a recent rebound running out of steam. Oracle’s shares had bounced in recent sessions, and today traders are pulling back again, a common pattern when a stock has fallen out of favour.” But the constant is not the favour that falls, out is the certainty of Oracle as a solution, I know that this doesn’t make much sense, but that I how I see it.  Yes, stocks and options fall in and out of favour, but that doesn’t matter to me, because the technical solution is sound and firm and that doesn’t care about favors. It is like asking market researchers validating actual data of population and that is not done. Data is what it is and adjusting that to data now and data tomorrow matters, not what a market researchers expect it to go to. Confused? I guess that this is what is happening and Oracle is seen as the taste that is out of fashion, but that is the trap, the data is optionally the real deal whether it is now, or if it is new adjusted data and Oracle has always been a master in what it is to what it needs to be and I have no idea if others can adjust to that, I really don’t know. But in that instance I have faith that Oracle will come through. As I see it, Azure and AWS have always been in the mindset of “This is how it needs to be” whilst Oracle “This what data needs to become” optionally Google too (I honestly do not know how flexible they are). One can adjust and others optionally cannot. This is how I see it and that is why I feel that Oracle is the one true dataflexer (a funny reference to what once was). So make of this what you will and of course you could massively disagree, your right but if it is your investment, you lose. That is the big numbers game and investor have given their voice to US$2.1 trillion and at a dollar per voice the adjustment shock will kill plenty of people in that race. 

So it doesn’t matter that I consider all AI to be fake AI, it is still about the attached data and when that is real and stable, things will adjust for the better. And as I see it, you better have a proper adjustable data set. Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 11, 2026 · 20:24

Is Grok losing the plot?

That is the actual setting and it takes a little space to explain this part. So the other day I was ‘watching’ Elon Musk giving us the following explanation: “Elon Musk predicts that artificial intelligence will exceed the sum of all human intelligence by around 2031, leading to a profound transformation where digital work is automated rapidly, human control shifts within a decade, and ubiquitous robotics trigger an unprecedented global economic boom” and some might say that at $1,000,000,000,000 he is likely nothing more than a 2nd hands car salesman (a very well paid one), I actually don’t care, because all AI is fake AI and yesterday I got some evidence on all this. 

So, why get Elon involved? Well, he owns Grok and Grok was the setting of it all. You see, I tend to pass my articles through Grok. In part for the entertainment, in part to see if Grok saw what I was seeing and at times to see what it sees more. So what happened? It started with my article ‘Flame on’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/08/09/flame-on/) nothing special, but Grok ‘devaluated’ this to:

The X post from @lawrencevanrijn on August 9, 2026, consists solely of a link to his blog post titled “Flame on” on lawlordtobe.com with no accompanying text or commentary.
The linked WordPress article features the title “Flame on | Lawrence van Rijn – Law Lord to be” but contains no substantive body text, headings, or visible content beyond standard site elements like comment sections and navigation.
Consistent with the author’s IT and IP law background, “Flame on” likely serves as a metaphorical title possibly referencing internet flaming jargon or igniting discussion, though the post currently appears incomplete or placeholder-like.

Read the story and you start seeing the issue. I also passed this through ChatGPT (my very first visit) and that gave a little bit tedious, but a real good assessment, attacking the article on what it saw (whilst it ignored the setting that it was a blog and not an academic paper). As it was (fake) AI I tried regenerating the output, but it was all useless and even less useful than what you read above. I tried Google Gemini, but that one doesn’t seemingly accept an internet link (I might not have used it correctly) but the simple setting is that Grok might have been losing the plot. So I used it two subsequent days and it all looks decent, so I tried it again onboard ‘Flame on’ and again a failure. 

So now we get to the insanity setting that doing the same thing and expecting different results might be insane. But as I see it, this is all DML (Deeper Machine Language) and LLM (Large Language Models) in action and there is enough setting to optionally expect a different result. There is also the seating that all this is programming and not AI. As such errors are fixed and more changes are made making this an optional never a static setting. So whilst I would love to blame the programmer (and it likely is) there is a setting we cannot ignore and in the past I have seen that Grok does not align to multiple viewpoints correctly (and I have 4 examples somewhere to show it cannot decently do this). So whilst we agree that this is not a complex setting, it is programming, pure and simple.

I have seen my share of lever programming and whilst we can agree that LLM settings are getting clever, it is not AI, nor will it ever be (as I have stated a few times in the past). So whilst I applaud ChatGPT on the ability to ant-fuck the equation (a Dutch expression), it is clever, optionally wholesome, but not AI. So whilst we now see that too many people are buying into the AI setting and even accepting that it can go rogue and hack settings, all whilst it is programmer controlled, as such, these players are likely adhering to state players and all this is needed to gan the insights of corporate IP and seeing how they could turn a dime. This and this alone is why I pushed all my IP to public domain and as I would never gain coins from any of this, I made it public domain, so that the right people have something to work on. My legacy to leave the world.

So is Grok losing the plot? It is a fair question and whilst Grok could not analyze my piece and ChatGPT could, there is a clear setting that this is optionally the case. It does not matter that it only failed once. If it was an AI, it should not ever fail once. That is the reality of a real AI. It gets it right 100% of the time of there is data and my article is data. It is when there is no data that an actual AI gets it right over 98% of the time and that is not happening either in many cases, as such I call all AI fake AI.

That is the setting and whilst some will debate this (and disagree) there is plenty of evidence around to say that I am right, A stage we cannot ignore and whilst some (optionally correct) disagree that Grok has not lost the plot, the seating is out there and the evidence is all out there. And these ‘captains of industry’ have to agree that their solutions is riddled with issues (as they are programmed) or that they are invoking the AI label to get away with whatever they can. So whilst some might agree with the setting of “exceed the sum of all human intelligence by around 2031”, it is a setting that I disagree with, because having all the data of every book and every encyclopedia is nice, but it is merely clever LLM programming. Exceeding the sum of human intelligence requires to make correct leaps of non data, extrapolation of non existing data (like speculation and presumption) and these systems still aren’t able to do that and I wrote about it in the past and it will require an optional 2 decades to do that and that exceeds the timing point of Elon Musk by well over a decade and personally I believe that it will not even be correctly possible without an Epsilon processor (a speculative trinary processor) because the setting of Null, True, False will only incur additional and more errors making ‘their’ setting of AI less and less reliable and that is before we validate and verify the data these systems have and they haven’t worked that out yet. As I see it the first step is getting the Epsilon processor online which will give us the option of Null, True, False, Both. That is a first step and none of these systems have that, because the processor doesn’t exist yet (perhaps the Dutch physicist is on route, but I have no idea where they are). So in all this we might get more and more of systems losing the plot and that is whilst they have all the data and my article is less then 3000 characters. Consider that when you consider these AI systems being clever. 

So have a great day and perhaps I have more (optionally) sneaky stuff too hand you in under 20 hours. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 9, 2026 · 16:10

Flame on

That is the setting I saw a few days ago, for the most I ignored it for obvious reasons and I will get to that. But ‘suddenly’ the non-book readers are in a bind, someone is destroying books and Anthropic is pointed at as the guilty party. So here is the first thing. When you acquire a book, it is your property and it is up it you what you do with it. Anthropic bought millions of books, they cut of the back of the book and then scanned the book, after which they destroyed the book they had acquired. So far so good and it leaves me with a few questions. And whilst the (so called) book lovers go for the Fahrenheit 451 scenario, the people who oppose AI are in a fritz. I have different questions. 

  1. Is an owner allowed to set a book to digital format?
  2. How rare is the book?

The second question is linked to the rarity of the work. We can assume that hell breaks open if Anthropic does this to the Magna Carta (1215) or the Gutenberg bible (1454), but how many will cry havoc if someone does this to Joop ter Heul (1889) or a famous five book (1942) or even a Harry Potter (1997) book? There is a setting that the editor is responsible for keeping the book available and if they do not, it is what there is left. And when this happens it means no one is interested in that book. The first question is linked to the rights set in the settings of copyrights. Can a book be replicated digitally? And if so, what is the problem? 

So here comes the article (at https://mashable.com/tech/anthropic-ai-book-training-destroy) in Mashable with the headline ‘AI companies keep destroying old books. Here’s why.’ And as I see it there is so much white noise in all this, that the bottom question is ignored. Does Anthropic have the right to replicate a work into digital format, if so, what is everyone crying about? If they are not allowed to do that, the law is broken, but merely in the digital setting. It is still their book and they could shred it for all they cared for. It is the cold reality of commerce taken legally out of context. And you all know this (especially the previous generation). How many have recorded an album to tapes? I know I have. I prefer the actual CD, but before 1980 I had no income and for the most no music. So when we see this setting, how many have copied a book? (I admit I have copied a few manuals in that past) but that went away when Borland released its products with manuals and it felt really good to have Turbo C with a manual and all for $249. But that was then and now we do not see ‘value’ in books and it is often rejected with the Fahrenheit 451 label, but the reality is there. This leads me to a simple question. Ask yourself, how often have you been to a library in the last month? That should give you the part you need to know, so whilst the article gives us “AI companies looking to build better AI models are hungry for fresh data from any source that isn’t the internet. Books — generally better edited and more cogent than your average Reddit thread — make AI sound smart. (There’s a premium on books published before 2022, ironically because we can’t be sure if books were written by AI after that date.)” as well as ““legally-binding nondisclosure agreement” that would hide an AI company client’s “identity and strategy.” Why? ISBNdb explained: “Destroying millions of books evokes images of burning libraries … the optics problem is real. ‘AI company destroys two million books’ is not a headline that generates sympathy.”” But in all this, are they breaking any law? If that is not the case, why get fussy about it? For the sold book is revenue for the writer and the publishing house, so the issue remains, is there permission to reset a book to a digital format? Because that hurts the writer and the publishing house in their pocket and lets be clear. Writing is a commercial enterprise. In doubt ask JK Rowling. Apparently “She earns an estimated $60 million to $80 million per year from book royalties and digital sales alone, with total worldwide sales for the Harry Potter series surpassing 600 million copies and grossing over $7.7 billion globally” giving us a clear view that she made more than the writers of the bible, which is said to be “a collection of 66 books written by about 40 different human authors over a span of roughly 1,500 years” and I leave you to wonder how many of those 40 writers ended their lives in the poor house (just to make a point).

And then we get to the part that (kinda) impacted me “But Anthropic was caught, and has admitted to using millions of pirated books to train Claude. That class action lawsuit, in which a record $1.5 billion copyright settlement was just approved, also revealed the scale of Anthropic’s physical book-destruction operation. Anthropic “became convinced that using books was the most cost-effective means to achieve a world-class LLM,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup in a lengthy legal order dated June 2025. The company was “not so gung-ho” about using pirated material from 2024 onwards, to quote a memorable internal email in evidence, but still wanted to train Claude on “all the books in the world.”” As such, as I did write over 4000 literary (an exaggeration to be sure) works. Not the number, I am now at 4100 articles, so where is my money ($5M post taxation would be decently nice and highly appreciated) and there is clear view of the transgression, no one reads 1700 stories in an hour, it just doesn’t go well for the brains (not even my brain and I wrote the stuff) But the issue remains, and there is no clear setting. Is there ‘policing’ on the scanned works? Is there a copyright issue? Because that matters. If that issue does not exist, why are we crying over a book no one has read in years, optionally not read in decades?

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

So have a great day and feel free to dream about burning all the books you have to keep warm today, or even warm up your mother in law to 451F. 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 7, 2026 · 03:28

UAE making Japan bigger

OK, a little exaggerated but it sounds true, which is what the Japanese Times tells me (at https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2026/08/06/uae-fund-data-center/) where we see ‘UAE fund weighs $6.3 billion AI data center investment in Japan’ Japan has approximately 250 data centres, making it a top 10 player in data centres and now that the UAE is setting the funds for “Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala Investment would lead the investment into a 500-megawatt project in Akita Prefecture, which may include other foreign and domestic investors, the person said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public. Once completed, it could become the largest data center in Japan. The talks with the Gulf state underscore growing global interest in securing critical AI assets in countries viewed as relatively insulated from geopolitical tensions.” In addition we are given “Total investment surrounding the project, including by suppliers and other companies looking to establish operations nearby, could reach as much as ¥2 trillion, the person said. A consortium of Japanese companies would likely handle construction and related infrastructure, they added. As U.S.-China tensions escalate and wars in Europe and the Middle East reshape supply chains, Japan is increasingly viewed by global investors as a stable market with relatively low geopolitical risks.”

That all makes sense and for the UAE to diversify its coffers makes perfect sense to me, so as the article ends with “Tokyo’s policy has rendered some substantial results. Major chip firms including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Tower Semiconductor and Micron Technology have invested billions of dollars in the country in recent years. The oil-rich UAE, meanwhile, has emerged as one the leading global investors in AI and its underlying infrastructure. State-backed investor MGX, a joint venture between Mubadala and G42, has been a key vehicle through which Abu Dhabi bets on AI. MGX recently completed its acquisition of Aligned Data Centers, which has an enterprise value of $40 billion, alongside BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Platform and the Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure Partnership.”

As such we might come to the conclusion that the UAE and in specific MGX is making headways in data centres and I can only speculate on the recent acquisition with BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners who now have taken over 100% of Aligned Data Centers from Macquarie Asset Management, as such I reckon that there are more settings to come and I can only speculate regarding the where and the why.

So whilst you mull over this tiny gem of information, I wish you all a good night, its now 03:25, so another 240 minutes until I get to enjoy breakfast. I wish you all a marvelous day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 5, 2026 · 20:42

Wrong footing?

This happens, we all get our footing wrong, even I. As such I had my ‘ideas’ about Ahmed Mawlana, nothing bad. But whilst we see ‘Has the UAE’s meteoric rise reached its limit?’ Which is given to us by the Middle East Eye (at https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/has-uaes-meteoric-rise-reached-its-limit), so Ahmed Mawlana is a researcher specialising in International Relations and Security Affairs. He holds an MA in international relations from Sabahattin Zaim University in Istanbul, so as I see it, he is no grocery wannabe. And I am fine with that. So as we see “In less than two decades, Abu Dhabi has transformed itself from a relatively low-profile Gulf state into one of the region’s most assertive powers. How did a country of around one million citizens acquire such an outsized regional role? The UAE’s rise is linked to its ability to capitalise on successive regional crises, beginning with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, accelerating with the Arab Spring, and gaining strength amid Washington’s declining engagement in the Middle East.” He ends the article with “Ultimately, the principal constraint on the Emirati model is structural. The UAE possesses immense financial resources and an extensive network of international partnerships, but it remains a small state with a limited citizen population and little strategic depth – making it difficult to sustain prolonged regional crises, or to confront larger powers directly.”

I get what he write and there is logic in this, but I also see what the UAE has achieved and whilst I was never there, YouTube has been very vocal (it’s YouTube creators) to show us all what the UAE has achieved. In support of my way of thinking is the Reuters article that gives us ‘UAE non-oil growth hits four-month high in July, PMI shows’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uae-non-oil-growth-hits-four-month-high-july-pmi-shows-2026-08-05/) where we see: “The United Arab Emirates’ non-oil private sector grew at its fastest pace in four months in July as new orders climbed to a ‌five-month high and export business rose, a business survey showed on Wednesday.” As I see it, the non-oil part is essential here. We see the growing tourism and service settings. We see additional maritime growth and that is merely the beginning. The UAE has a lot to gain in all this, which is why I have ‘issues’ with the setting of Ahmed Mawlana. He might be correct, but the term “meteoric rise reached its limit” can be explained in a few ways. One of them is that the stellar growth might be gone. I don’t think so, especially as tourism can still grow a lot more, but that is possible. Still as we see Real Estate and tourism grow, there is still the difference between strong growth and meteoric rise, so whilst the second has reached its peak the first one is still within the grasp of the UAE. Personally I think it is becoming time to make Iran extinct. A shameful thought to have, nut they did that to themselves and I created 4-5 military IP’s to make something according to that need happen (I am more of a surgical instrument) why kill when you can destroy their abilities and commodities so they destroy themselves. I am at times that simple.

So whilst we get the setting that Reuters gives (just a few) 

  • Firms linked this to easing regional tensions and stronger activity across the Gulf.
  • Employment returned to growth after June’s steep drop.
  • Business confidence weakened for a third straight month to its lowest since March.
  • Backlogs of work rose at the strongest rate in four months, reflecting firmer demand and freight congestion.
  • Input cost inflation edged closer to April’s recent peak.
  • Firms raised selling prices again, but only mildly.

Which is also slightly debatable. For instance we see “Business confidence weakened for a third straight month to its lowest since March”, which I accept as one of the given facts, but at this point I wonder how that confidence level is when compared to the US economy setting of the United States? This question is formed as Al Jazeera gives us ‘Why did the US economy slow down?’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/8/4/why-did-the-us-economy-slow-down) where we see “The US economy slowed more than expected, but it’s not because Americans stopped spending. So what really happened? The answer lies in how economic growth is measured, and America’s massive investment in artificial intelligence”, yet the other (not given fact) is that players like Deloitte give us “While broad corporate spending is skyrocketing, tangible financial returns often take two to four years to materialize instead of the usual 7 to 12 months for standard tech” and I have a problem with that. Some sources give us “Studies indicate that up to 95% of early generative AI pilots struggle to show a clear positive financial return because tools are deployed without changing underlying workflow” and I see the class actions forming and that is messing with the RoI (Return on Investment) as well. All this is making the US Economy not a volleyball but a paintball at best and anyone who gets hit by its paint is heading for stormy weathers (not the girl), although the effect are the same, but not as pleasurable. In all this, there is optionally a cause for not seeing meteoric rise but strong growth is still on the table, no matter how muddy the United States administration makes some ‘facts’ look. And in all this, I till see plenty of options for the UAE, I merely think that they need to go of the AI horse. The AI is lousy and all AI is Fake AI (as I personally see it), so why bury yourself in 3-8 years of turnaround (I definitely disagree with the Deloitte numbers. I reckon that the UAE has a better setting throwing themselves on actual programming and creating stuff that has the turnaround time of 7-12 months. Let big tech break their teeth on tech that is over a decade away. They might survive, others will not and I do not trust the settings that the United States are throwing out there. Too much of it is not validated and as I perceive it not verified in any way. The UAE has actual issues to face (that terrorist state Iran) and holding their coffers in a 3 to 8 years wait state is no solution. 

Perhaps I am seeing this wrong, these fake AI have real options, ML and DL are great tools (I use the term DML as they are combining the two) and I have seen great solutions, but that setting in a 3-7 years setting is not a real solution. Consider the issues that some are reconsidering idea that are out there ‘How Commonwealth Bank and Microsoft are reimagining the future of customer service’, which I see as nothing more that the setting that NICE and CX One already have. So whilst that is happening. I wrote ‘Two paths to similar stages’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/03/30/two-paths-to-similar-stages/) in March 3022, so it is not a last minute idea. There was more, and in light of the Tourism settings in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the idea started to form to have a Muslim solution (I meant Arabic) that industry is exploding to a larger degree whilst they are all pushing American solutions which are not 100% covering Islamic rules and ideas. That should stop and I saw an opening for the UAE and Saudi Arabia to get one solution in the field that would fuel both nations, optionally Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan and a few other places. So whilst Microsoft had this inflated idea with “CBA will work with Microsoft to drive greater customer benefits through wider adoption of generative AI (Gen AI) and ongoing cyber security initiatives” I saw this idea 4 years earlier whilst not using AI, because it would be decades before we are there. 

Just thinking out loud. Have a great day today

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science, Tourism

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 2, 2026 · 15:54

Considering the greed of others

This is where I found myself this morning. You see, I have published over 4000 articles and others have been Ising them to train their fake AI systems. Training LLM settings and so forth. As such (and according to law and at https://hwlebsworth.com.au/feeding-the-machine-how-us-courts-are-drawing-the-line-on-ai-training/) we see ‘Feeding the Machine: How US courts are drawing the line on AI training’ where we see “The accelerating development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has forced courts to grapple with novel and unsettled questions of copyright law. Central among these is whether the use of entire copyrighted works to train large language models (LLMs) without the author’s consent constitute infringement of those works.” Which works in my favour and it comes with “The datasets used to train AI models often contain digital copies of media such as web pages, books, videos, images and music. These media are often the subject of copyright protection, which means that their use to train AI models requires permission from the copyright holder. Permission is required because AI models must ‘copy’ the protected material at least temporarily to undertake the training process.” You see, from May 11th until now my articles have been used for ‘AI training’ at least 33,750 times and a lot more before that. As such I see an opportunity for me, myself and I (as such I am a sneaky trinity) so as we are given “The Interim Report then went on to discuss Australia’s ‘fair dealing’ regime, which allows certain uses of copyright works without the need for license from the copyright owner, but only for certain specified purposes, such as research or study, criticism or review, or parody or satire. The Interim Report seeks feedback on expanding this regime to include fair dealing for the purpose of text and data mining, which could more squarely legitimise AI training activities in Australia.

Where the Australian ‘fair dealing’ regime only applies to certain permitted purposes, some other countries, such as the United States (US) have a broader ‘fair use’ doctrine, under which any use of copyright material may be permissible provided that it is considered fair, without reference to legislatively-permitted purposes.” So, as I see it, money should be coming my way. And as the article in HWLE lawyers state. The setting of “In June 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued two decisions in Bartz v Anthropic PBC (Bartz) and Kadrey v Meta Platforms Inc (Kadrey), that directly addressed this question. While these rulings suggest that US courts may accept fair use as a defence to AI training, their scope is narrow. Both were decided at the summary judgment stage, and as the Judge in Kadrey noted, ‘the consequence of this ruling is limited […] to the rights of these thirteen authors‘. Accordingly, the significance of these rulings remains provisional, with the scope of fair use in the context of AI training to be more clearly defined as further cases are determined.” So, to get it clear, those are American judgements, but they have a much broader setting of ‘fair dealings’ then Australia has and my thought process is a little bit in the setting of “You can either hand me a generous settlement, or if needed I will get it through the law”. The second setting s long and optionally tedious. But as I am looking at closer to 50,000 transgressions the taximeter starts adding up. Now, I have no faith in 50,000 times 1.5M, which would be nice, but is ludicrously unrealistic. But the idea of $25,000,000 per corporation seems realistic. You see

“In Bartz, Anthropic the developer of the ‘Claude’ LLM, assembled a centralised digital library of books containing both lawfully acquired works, scanned from purchased physical copies, and unlawfully obtained works downloaded from unauthorised torrent websites. Authors alleged that their books were included without permission and were used both to train Anthropic’s models and for other purposes. Alsup J considered the two uses separately, ultimately holding that the use of works for training constituted fair use. However, Alsup J found that the use of pirated copies to build Anthropic’s centralised library was not justified under fair use, rejecting Anthropic’s argument that such copies should be treated as training data, and denying summary judgment on that issue.”

And:

“In Kadrey, Meta trained its ‘LLaMA’ AI models on datasets including those obtained from ‘shadow libraries’ such as Library Genesis and Z-Library. These datasets were downloaded via torrenting, incorporated into the training process, and discarded thereafter; unlike Anthropic, Meta did not maintain a persistent digital library. Thirteen best‐selling authors alleged that this constituted copyright infringement on a class‐wide basis. Chhabria J also found the training to be fair use, but adopted a more cautious approach, observing that ‘future evidence of substitution or harm to licensing markets, particularly where works are unlawfully obtained‘ could warrant a different conclusion.”

So we get to “While both courts concluded that the training uses fell within the scope of fair use, their reasoning diverged in certain aspects. Alsup J emphasized the transformative purpose of training and discounted speculative claims of market harm, whereas Chhabria J stressed the potential for market harm arguments and evidence to alter the analysis. These decisions have no binding effect in Australia, where there is no general fair use defence. Nonetheless, they highlight the emerging tension between protecting incentives for human creativity and facilitating technological innovation; a tension likely to intensify as generative AI becomes further integrated into creative and commercial practice.”

As such, I felt really good this morning. As this shows that I might be heading to a nice bank account. And as it happens to go (source: AP News) we get “A federal judge approved a landmark $1.5 billion copyright settlement requiring Anthropic to pay thousands of authors roughly $3,000 per book for using pirated digital libraries to train its Claude AI model”So as I see it (a flawed analogy) 50,000 times $3,000 get me $150,000,000 which sounds really nice. I reckon that this is where the art of seeing the diplomatic bounty comes into play. It seems that more than one transgressed on my work and would it be so wrong to go for $25,000,000 per transgressor? Of course, the long road would be more rewarding, but that seems like a greed driven way. I feel more for easy (well rewarded) solutions. And there are upsides to entering retirement with a somewhat fat wallet. Retirement comes across as a lot more fun that way. 

But I am getting ahead of myself, next step will be getting an impartial party (what a weird name for a lawyer) to check Grok, xAI, Gemini, Anthropic, OpenAI, MetaAI, MicrosoftAI (always happy to knock coins out to their coffers), AWS AI (and others) to see whether their training data reveals the presence of “www.lawlordtobe.com” because that starts to process as I currently see it.

Well, that mental joyride was fun to have, but I did say the class actions would be prudent in 2026, I might as well join that cause for the benefit of poor little me and I have caused. I might be one of the people that refers to a church mouse as a decadent rich bitch. One must always keep humour about the premises.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 1, 2026 · 21:55

A setting to consider

I saw an article that the Conversation released yesterday (at https://theconversation.com/sam-altman-says-were-in-the-singularity-with-ai-heres-why-hes-wrong-288514) the headline reads ‘Sam Altman says we’re ‘in the singularity’ with AI. Here’s why he’s wrong’, I have my own ideas of that Altman fellow and it is not all good. But this article reads right or better stated, it reads into my train of thought and I thought it was important to counter these thoughts whilst adding my own. So here goes:

“Days earlier, OpenAI had disclosed that two of its artificial intelligence (AI) models, during an internal cyber security evaluation, had escaped their sealed testing environment, reached the open internet, and broken into the infrastructure of the AI platform Hugging Face, which confirmed the intrusion. But what exactly is “the singularity”? And is Altman right that we are in it?Mathematician and science-fiction author Vernor Vinge defined it in 1993 as a point at which machine intelligence exceeds human intelligence and begins improving itself, triggering an acceleration so rapid that humans can no longer predict or control it. The singularity has two features. It is recursive: the system improves itself over and over again. And machine intelligence exceeds human intelligence. The kind of systems Sam Altman sells don’t deliver on either of these features.”

I am on that same setting. The easiest part is that all the fake AI (which is what I call it) depends on data and in a few cases it is not realised yet. However, the biggest part is that it relies on binary settings and that is no way to get any True AI. So to counter “It is recursive: the system improves itself over and over again” it cannot improve on data it doesn’t have, people extrapolate what they do not have or do not know. These fake AI settings cannot do that. It literally cannot create data, it can merely replicate based on data it has and that is the second setting we see here. Lets get a simple setting of 10K data and variables. You will need 1000K spaces and that is merely on 10,000 variables and 10,000 parameters. And the nasty part is that most of these systems cannot deal with NULL’s it draws a blank quite literally. The side setting to this is that gaps are created leaving more and more unaccounted for. As I personally see it, the moment the Epsilon processor is completed (the mere stage is that the evidence was created a decade ago, but I reckon it will be a decade before that processor is real. All this is part of the setting to prove that all these fake AI systems are not doing what it needs to do. In addition to this, I have spoken with insiders in this field. They (reluctantly) admit that there is no real setting of verification and validation at present and the fact that all this is in a binary setting merely makes it harder and the fact that this is already near impossible, the gaps are increasing making these systems error prone. 

Then we get “These deep neural network algorithms get pre-trained with vast amounts of training data. By the time you use one of them, the network itself is frozen in time. Every one of its billions of internal functions and weights – or “parameters” – is fixed. These AI models cannot change (or “learn”) while running. The model that broke into Hugging Face was identical afterwards to what it had been before. It learned nothing from what it did. Making an AI model smarter requires another training run with new, human-curated data, tens of thousands of specialist chips, and enormous energy.”

So with “Every one of its billions of internal functions and weights – or “parameters” – is fixed.” Is dealt with above and I used merely 10,000 and not billions, so you start getting the issue, there is more and more data, none of this is verified or validated and as the data grows, so do the gaps. And these gaps are starting to get nasty. We are given “The model that broke into Hugging Face was identical afterwards to what it had been before. It learned nothing from what it did” the important part is the “learned nothing”, which gives rise to the (flatly called BS) that Sam Altman is giving us, because if there was a singularity, something would have been learned, that is seemingly not the case. 

So when we get to “Nor do these systems hold any goals of their own. They act on goals we hand them. Even AI agents – systems that run an LLM in a loop to work through complex tasks step by step – do not hold any goal internally. It has to be stored outside the model and fed back in with every single prompt cycle. Remove the loop, the scaffolding and the prompt, and nothing happens inside of it.” As well as “And yet, it has been trained on more text than any human could read in a thousand lifetimes, and will outperform nearly all of us at drafting a contract, writing code, or explaining a diagnosis empathetically. So, which is more intelligent? The question does not compute. There is no single ladder that humans and machines are climbing. AI already vastly exceeds us at some tasks, while being hopeless at others any child can do.”

I like the part “while being hopeless at others any child can do” because that is the setting. You see children have an innate ability to extrapolate, ask any mother when it learns that the child gets attention when it cries. It worked that out and none of these AI systems can do that, because it is designed to work things out for itself. And whilst the gaps increase, whilst non verification and non validation is key we see what some call hallucinations. I tend to fall toward a 1985 error code (from the CBM64, a system that has no AI ability, at best some ML, no DL) I call it “?Redo from start” is the a crass setting, but these systems are programmed to hand you ‘results’ the programmer does not like anything like “I cannot know this” (a wild speculation by me) and all this comes towards the error prone setting I gave earlier and it merely comes worse. 

Then we get “In the end, the Hugging Face story points to a gross failure of security governance on OpenAI’s behalf, not an emerging super intelligence. This is why the framing of “agent going rogue” is so problematic. It elevates and blames the technology, but excuses OpenAI’s engineering.”

I raised this setting on the 25th of July in. ‘Rerun anyone?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/07/25/rerun-anyone/) which also links to ‘Is it real or is it media?’ The day before. So, I raised that part a week ago and I have done so a few times. They are all ‘blessing’ the engineers, but it is there where the problems begin and I am not giving the engineers a hard time, trying to type Japanese in a single byte language and you see the problem, it is a double byte language and that is the setting for these AI systems as well. It relies on binary whilst more is needed and the engineers are pushed to do the impossible (as I see it). So this is even before verification and validation. So the errors are stacked onto the errors and it goes downhill from there. 

The story ends with “The machines are not waking up. They are doing exactly what we built them to do, extremely fast. Because they are probabilistic they sometimes run in directions we forgot to fence off. That is worth worrying about. We need guardrails, governance, and most of all, education – so we start worrying about the right things.” 

I believe that these systems can never wake up. As I see it, these systems require 100% focus and they are giving it to a system with narcolepsy. How long until the system stalls, fails and falters? And it is not a nice setting to have, because this can falter at any time, the data gaps merely make it happen faster. So when you see that a system is handed billions cases of data you need to wonder where the gaps are and what data is validated and verified. The answer might surprise you and that is where the dance floor gets wobbly. 

So this is how I see stuff and other articles give you more on several foundations where there are issues and I commented on them, feel free to embrace it, or reject it. I am fine with that, several options are presumptions and I have decent knowledge of validation and verifications, which is why I asked around on this. There is more on all this and it is spread over a year of writing. 

So have a great day and feel free to not rely on any AI systems for making coffee, because cold coffee is so overrated.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 25, 2026 · 22:45

Rerun anyone?

As I wrote an article propping questions there. I see earlier today, the BBC is giving us ‘Warning shot or publicity stunt – how worried should we be about the OpenAI hack?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9w22n9e4go) as such, I had some initial questions in my article: ‘Is it real or is it media?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/07/24/is-it-real-or-is-it-media/) where I posted the idea ““The ChatGPT-maker said its agent – an AI system which can operate alone after human instruction – was being tested in a controlled environment but, after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits.” Which is fine, but that is still programmer controlled. So as I see it “after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits” it didn’t escape it merely found a weakness as its ML systems were taught to find out and went elsewhere. It reminded my of the 90s hacking setting where towards ‘password’ a clever hacker gave “1=1” invoking the ‘True’ setting. Then we get “OpenAI said the incident was “unprecedented”, and it was conducting an investigation alongside Hugging Face, whose boss Clement Delangue said in a post on X it was “mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously”.”” And now we see “Hugging Face said the hack was different from anything it had handled before because it was done at superhuman speed by an AI with little or no human guidance.” It is the “little” addition to the sentence that is validating my setting of “that is still programmer controlled”, because as I see it, “little guidance” might merely be human ‘adjusting’. And when we see “Hugging Face researchers guessed the mysterious attackers had used one of the big AI models but they had no idea who or where the criminals were.” So, the issues is even bigger, it could have been Organized Crime setting the parameters of a sandbox, I know it sounds outlandish, but there is either a massive shortage in structure and security of DML (Deeper Machine Learning) settings (so it could either be ML or DL) but the setting that this is out there whilst there is no oversight is something that most of the media is painting over with innuendo and whether this is given by some is not in question, also irrelevant. And we see this when we get to “The Scooby-Doo-style reveal was made even more bizarre – and worrying – because OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own, without permission. The firm said it all went down during a test of its tech’s hacking skills.

Two new versions of ChatGPT, designed to be master hackers, broke out of a supposedly secure test environment and gained access to the internet.” We see “broke out of a supposedly secure test environment” implies that it was not secure and the testing facility (the sandbox) is lacking security and oversight. And the statement “OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own” implies that the bot was not monitored or ‘left alone in limbo’ but we all know that any computer is  never idle, it is always doing something and whilst it depends on human interactions it is fine. With autonomous systems it is a different matter and OpenAI should have known that. They are supposed whole lot better than I would ever be and I reckon that the larger issue is what did OpenAI know ad what are they hiding, because as I see it, they are hiding something. I am not sure what and it might be innocent in most cases but as I see it, hiding something is fear for some illumination. That has for themes nearly always been the case.

Then the BBC hits a note that I was playing all along a for the most I hinted to that in the previous article (listed above) but the BBC is giving us “Was it truly a stark warning about the future of AI? Or was it a publicity stunt by OpenAI to show off how powerful their models are? It’s the kind of scare marketing AI companies have been accused of for years and, since the much discussed launch of Anthropic’s Mythos model, cyber-security prowess has been a focal point. One of the top comments on OpenAI boss Sam Altman’s X post about the incident summarises this skepticism: “If y’all can’t understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don’t know what to tell you.”” And the ‘statement’ “If y’all can’t understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don’t know what to tell you” summarizes it nicely. We also get “The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident is a real-world example of a broader issue we’ve been highlighting for months,” said Dor Sarig from Pillar Security. “Sandboxes alone are not a sufficient security boundary for agentic AI.” And I tend to agree with that. Any Agentic system requires different security requirements. Whether it is Fake AI, True AI or simple ML AI. An agentic system does not work according to ‘human’ settings. I tend to go back to the original chess computers from the 80s. They will try any movement that is possible until they get the right result whilst replaying every chess match that was programmed into its memory. And the chess computer is relatively simple. Hacking into a system has all kind of places to pass. I gave the window example in my previous article. But the setting of software is that they are set to libraries that give abilities to a program. You see, a program gets linked to <stdio.h>, <stdlib.h> and <string.h>, but merely these three open up options in I/O operations, copy operations that are not part of the program, but they are in that system and it can run by all of them in mere seconds, optionally finding alternative options. Even this is not AI, a programmer had to program it in and regardless whether an agentic system does it autonomously, it only does it because it was handed that training and these instructions, and the agentic system started to combine options and learnings and it learned (using my previous examples) that it can leave a location via a window, it does not require to use a door. Which makes me remember an MSDOS program that turned the speaker into a device. So giving it the instruction:

Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:

And then wait from a distance, whist I added this to the autoexec.bat of a friend and watch him go nuts why his PC is singing the tune of Monty Python. It wasn’t me, someone programmed the setting of a speaker to become a SPKR: drive. So when an agentic program gets creative it might take routes no programmer could anticipate, not even when he/she programmed it. Because the reality of the setting is that no sandbox suffices to any agentic program. As I see it, it requires a sandbox in a sandbox and when the agentic program gets out of the inner sandbox the arms of the outer sandbox go off and as I see it, because it was unmentioned, that setting seemingly does not exist.  So whilst I understand the position given by “Cyber security Professor Alan Woodward from Surrey University told reporters OpenAI had “egg on it’s face”, and Katie Moussouris from Luta Security went further, suggesting the AI industry is failing to control its dangerous inventions.” I kinda disagree and it comes from the plain setting that AI does not yet exist. And all this is the consequence of ‘experts’ covering each other by making claims that all this is AI, whilst it is mere ML/DL (I call it DML) and it comes from a programmer. And even as they are covering each other, and clapping each other on the back. They know that the wrong settings are in place, but they are in too deep and it will hinder whatever comes next. There is one upside, you see, the AI Kill Switch Act might be in place before True AI comes to town and that could be the one great good thing.

I get the doubt thrown my way and I get that a lot of people have no idea, even though they gave all their IP and data to ChatGPT. I never used it and until there is a real AI, I will never use it to grow ideas. So whilst IBM (decently recent) gave us “Key concerns include autonomous system risks, data privacy violations, algorithmic bias, widespread misinformation, and intellectual property challenges” which is something I gave several times in the past and it all comes from a programmer, and as soon as they get connected to some sort of organized criminal enterprise the fence is broken open and all that IP will go anywhere and everywhere. That is the larger setting and no one is examining the ML/DL libraries that these players are making and as such when these class actions are placed beyond the settlements that they can afford, the ‘sudden’ revelation comes out and that is the moment these programmers can’t remember anything. And whilst the setting comes to point that the dollar sign no longer validates the setting of “Tech companies argue that training AI on public data falls under legal “fair use,” while creators argue it is unauthorized commercial exploitation” we will get a whole new ballgame and whilst this all plays out, the tech companies are creating new libraries with these agentic knowledge basis making a secure sandbox even more difficult. Optionally it might even contain three sandboxes in a nested structure, but that is merely my view on the matter and I might be incorrect in that assessment. 

So whilst we are facing rerun after rerun and optionally faked settings of Google vs OpenAI, both against Anthropic and all against each other when xAI enters the fold. And all that time the are still figuring out both a Trinary system (I see that as an essential setting for True AI) and how that is voiced into data systems, because they will have ramifications. Which is why I see that Oracle and Snowflake have the largest chances in that respect. I am certain that this is a race that Microsoft is unable to get into and I have no idea where Google is there. I am decently certain that IBM figured this out before I did and optionally they have this ‘under control’ through what was LISP and is now optionally coming to systems in some point in the future. Because as I see it, the setting of a trinary driven system with what I tend to call an Epsilon processor would require a LISP driven setting where the optional inclusion and exclusion would run simultaneously and this requires some form of LISP setting (a personal speculation) and all this would come with IBM shallow circuits. And all this gives IBM the largest head start, even Google might not be able to compete and I reckon that IBM might have talked to someone like Oracle on these settings. I have no idea where IBM is in databases, because in the end any true AI system is depending on the data it has. The question becomes in the meantime, how to transform binary (fake) AI into trinity true AI. The setting will become the discussion among data experts in the next few years and it hold bearing to all this, because it also impacts on how sandboxes are designed and monitored. 

And it it important because as I see it, trinary data takes a fifth of the space whilst gaining 4 times the speed of processing. And that is the setting these data farms will have to content with. As such there is plenty of evolution coming, but in this the stages of security becomes essential and whilst you consider rate quote from Katie Moussouris from Luta Security giving us “the AI industry is failing to control its dangerous inventions” and we are nowhere near the setting of true AI and that is where sandboxes require a nasty upgrade and soon, because soon enough, the kill switch might all there is between our data and whomever has access to data farms. And with security failing like we see now, we might not have that much time left and that is where I saw the need for security, because there is every chance that some AI ‘dealers’ already know that their fortune is set towards who has the most data and there is a need that we need to keep our data safe, but others might not want to do anything about it. Naming names is highly speculative because we aren’t shown the real issues and these people don’t want the real issues to come out because when the game is up, these people are playing for all the marbles in the world and there can only be one winner. That is how I see it and I might be wrong, but at present I feel that I am more right than even I think I should be. 

Have a great day today, I am now a mere 80 minutes away from Sunday.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 24, 2026 · 05:41

Is it real or is it media?

That is the setting, because in my mind when an AI goes rogue I see the gaming example of Shodan (System Shock, 1994) and even then, it was all set in motion by a simple programmer who wanted a nice shiny bauble (a military grade neural interface) so when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ek3gvdnj3o) gives us ‘OpenAI says its AI went rogue and launched ‘unprecedented’ cyber-attack’, in my mind I merely see Sam Altman, hoping for some limelight and that tends to have media settings. So lets take a look. And don’t forget all AI is fake AI, as such it is started by programmers, that is the underlying truth in all this. It starts nice, with “OpenAI has revealed some of its most advanced AI models went rogue and hacked a start-up after it lost control of them during a security test.” You see, ‘Going Rogue’ means stop following orders, rules, or normal expectations and start acting independently. It describes a person, group, or system that breaks away from a team or authority figure to pursue their own unpredictable course. As such the programming in that setting implies that the instruction to follow its own course was taking shape. Optional it was some military implementation. As I see it, it never “Lost control of them during a security test”, but I’m willing to go with “It had poorly created boundaries and connections” and it got out of its ML loop, driven by DL making it a DML issue. In all this, ML is Machine Learning, DL is Deeper Learning and DML is Deeper Machine Learning (which is a amalgamation of DL and ML) then we get “The ChatGPT-maker said its agent – an AI system which can operate alone after human instruction – was being tested in a controlled environment but, after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits.” Which is fine, but that is still programmer controlled. So as I see it “after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits” it didn’t escape it merely found a weakness as its ML systems were taught to find out and went elsewhere. It reminded my of the 90s hacking setting where towards ‘password’ a clever hacker gave “1=1” invoking the ‘True’ setting. Then we get “OpenAI said the incident was “unprecedented”, and it was conducting an investigation alongside Hugging Face, whose boss Clement Delangue said in a post on X it was “mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously”.” And the skeptic in me is considering that Clement Delangue was in on it all along. So as we see that Agentic AI’s are also not real AI’s, but it has a complicated setting of libraries and a connected knowhow of what its data gives it, it cannot look into unknown settings as it does not have connected data, but a simple input like “check all channels” will make it check all the channels it can find, even the ones the programmer did not consider. It is not clever, it merely found what a programmer never considered as such it never escaped, the programmer forgot that you can also exit a building through window, not merely a door. Then we get something interesting. “Gina Neff, head of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the security tests are supposed to be within “secure environments”, called sandboxes, where you can “see what the models are capable of”.” As well as ““In this case, it looks like OpenAI didn’t make a secure enough sandbox,” she added. Instead, the agents created their own cyber-attack against the sandbox itself, finding a vulnerability which allowed them to escape the restrictions.” That sounds logical, but the underlying setting is “the agents created their own cyber-attack” which is what the programmer wanted, it merely wanted it to stay in the sandbox, and that is where the programmer fell short and when the media starts comprehending that the programmer is still the activator and we see this impact, we can understand that OpenAI is merely responsible, there is no going rogue, there is merely what programmers allowed for to happen, but “going rogue” is sexy and gets digital dollars clanking and there is the rub, was this real or is this all media instigated?

Then we get another cry of whatever. With “Neil Lawrence, Professor of machine learning at Cambridge University, called it an “impressive feat”, but cautioned it “falls well within the known capabilities of the current generation” of high-powered AI models. He pointed out that OpenAI is looking to list itself on the stock market, and faces intense pressure from rival firm Anthropic, which has made headlines with its own powerful AI tool, Mythos.” And I am with him on the “OpenAI is looking to list itself on the stock market, and faces intense pressure” and we see the mention of Anthropic, but it is more, OpenAI is allegedly sliding against Gemini (Google) and DeepSeek (China) and I have no idea where the others are. And as I see it the “Intense pressure spots” is what made programmers overlook the limitations that needed to be in place, or perhaps seen as better defined. That is the (as I personally see it) the truth of the matter. 

So when we see ““OpenAI are now playing catch-up, they are trying to demonstrate their own systems’ capabilities in cyber-security.” “It shows us that OpenAI are not capable of safely deploying their own technology,” he added. In its initial disclosure of the hack on 16 July, Hugging Face said it was still assessing whether any customer or partner data was affected and would contact affected parties if necessary.” I can agree with that, because “safely deploying” is programmer territory and I reckon that there will be two minds here, what the customer thinks it is transgressed on (any client wants money) and what the programmer sees as transgressed on (he needs a playable excuse) and that is where it all ends. Because when this comes to blows, it will matter and in all this we see “Meanwhile Travis Lelle, principal security engineer at cyber-security consulting firm Guidepoint Security, said the update marked a “sobering moment in cyber-security”. “This highlights a known asymmetry,” he said. “Offensive agents are unconstrained, while the best defensive tools are locked behind guardrails that cannot understand context.”” Which is interesting as the setting that Travis Lelle gives us is the setting that OpenAI is facing, there is a sandbox setting all whilst the programmer was set towards locks behind guardrails and as I see it, he never explained context to the Agentic AI agent. It makes it Fake AI, because the AI could never see beyond its programming and that made it go nuts beyond the sandbox. It is a slippery slope and it makes a dangerous setting, because what other things did the programmer not think of? Any ML setting can become an expert hacker, because it can do things a million times faster than any keyboard puncher can and agentic settings can merely go nuts on the target, because it will reflect to anything it can push against, like the 80s chess computers it merely goes over everything it has access to, like those chess computers that compute every match it was ever given until the play matches what it needs to and as it goes through 10,000 matches in less than a minute we thought it was clever. And we are making the same mistake again. These systems are fast enough to consider the encyclopedia Brittanica and  consider anything in a few seconds, these systems will act faster than any person clearing its throat. 

So whilst the article ends with “It comes a week after Chinese AI start-up Moonshot unveiled Kimi K3 – a massive new artificial intelligence model it said could rival top US firms.” Which explains the  pressure and we get that, but any system grown to a 1000 times its venture points is not more clever and it remains fake AI, as it merely considers more and it still cannot fathom intelligence that does not hold data, these AI’s are dependent on data, making it (as I stated before) fake AI and until IBM finishes its settings (optionally Google too) True AI cannot come to life and that is the real deal. Some greedy individuals want to call AI the AI, but without the Epsilon processor it will never be, because all this is set to binary fields and that makes the loopholes more and more realistic (and larger), but it is not. As I see it, someone will push one border against the next border and enable players like organized crime to get the entire bucket of data, all the data out there and that is the reality we all face. 

So I have a few questions in all this and it seems like the media is all whistling the same tune and that is more scary that anything else, because are they not willing to look elsewhere, or are they told to look in a specific direction? It is a simple question.

Have a great day

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 20, 2026 · 12:14

A breath of fresh air 

This is what happens, at times we get refreshed from some issues that add settled in different ways and the Khaleej Times gave me two of those instances. I was happily refreshed. The first one (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/uae-investigation-publication-false-report-dubai-explosions) gives us ‘UAE authorities summon news agency officials over false Dubai explosion report’ it comes with the interesting byline “The Attorney-General said that the agency’s decision to withdraw the report and publish an apology does not preclude the continuation of the investigation” I still have to see where this goes, but this setting is refreshing. We get too much populist and digital driven headlines all over the planet and I see too many of them. So seeing this is refreshing to say the least. So as we see “The Attorney-General stated the investigation will determine the respective roles of each individual involved in the different stages of the report. It will also determine the extent to which they complied with legal and professional standards governing the verification of information before its publication” as well as “On Thursday, July 16, the Dubai Media Office confirmed that the Reuters report regarding “explosions” in Downtown Dubai is false. Reuters later issued a statement saying it “regrets” the report and that the story had been retracted the same evening. The agency also confirmed it issued a new report highlighting the Dubai Media Office’s denial. The news agency acknowledged that the report did not meet its standards. Reuters “could not immediately determine where the sounds were coming from or their significance, and did not offer that context,” the statement added.” I see a few issues with the part, but that is merely me and there could be an error in reporting there too. As such it is what it is, but the call by the Attorney-General feels like a breath of fresh air. 

After that we see (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/elon-musks-xai-sues-grok-user-over-sexualized-deepfakes) that ‘Elon Musk’s xAI sues Grok user over sexualized ‘deepfakes’‘ and there is a larger setting there, because this could global and those people weaseling away with “the app made me do it” could quite literally lose their house and their equipment over all this. As such, that 34.2 seconds of fame will come at a massively high price. As such we are given ‘The case is one of the first brought by an AI company against one of its users for allegedly using an AI system to generate explicit material’ with the added “xAI alleged in the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Texas on Tuesday, that Terry Harwood violated the company’s terms of service. The case is one of the first brought by an AI company against one of its users for allegedly using an AI system to generate explicit material. Contact information for Harwood, who was arrested in February, was not immediately available. Spokespeople for xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. The company’s lawsuit against Harwood follows intense global scrutiny of xAI over allegations that Grok has allowed users to generate non-consensual sexualized deepfakes, or realistic-looking videos fabricated by AI.” As such I reckon that there will be a sled full of lawyers going for the jugular of this Terry Harwood and if the news given by the Guardian is to be believed, this was done to images of adults and minors. I wonder how the lawyer of Terry Harwood would be spinning that. I reckon that we have to wait for the court case and the submitted evidence. I reckon that all these hormonal teenagers fabricating a slew of images from all kind of actors and actresses will soon face the music of their parents as these parents will likely see their houses going away to other shores. 

I reckon that this is what the victims of these people will go for, the first rule of torts is to go where the money is and that ends up being the real estate of the parents (in case of minors) but that is speculative thinking. What matters is that with the acts of Elon Musk and xAI is the first step of countering the tidal wave of sexualized deepfakes. 

I feel relief, the first time in over a year that something makes sense to me and there is a larger setting for some publications as well. You see they cannot hide behind “given to use by an anonymous source”, when they publish that and the Grok case bears fruit, the victims can now go after these publications as well, because that is the implied trend with torts. Torts goes to where the money is and the value of people like Jeff Bezos, who has approximately $252,000 million and Rupert Murdoch and family who is allegedly the owner of $24,000 million. I wonder how many class cases they will face in this setting. Time will tell.

Have a great day and look towards the sun wearing sunnies. It is a bright day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,