Tag Archives: Anthropic

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 Finance, IT, Law, 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 10, 2026 · 22:16

Is it the water level?

Yup, we are all in that setting, but are we merely waving to the music of Debbie Harry or are we watching the waves from the shorelines. That is merely two options, but when some say that the tide is high, they might be referring to bubbles, the AI bubble to be more precise. I am not some economist saying that bubbles are blasphemy and I am no economist, but I have looked at numbers for decades and the numbers we are given do not add up, and when I was watching Inside Job something hit me, there was a familiar pattern evolving, not evolving, repeating is a better word and I have been saying this for some time. Yet today, a mere 10 minutes ago I see ‘UK Places Microsoft, Google, Amazon And Oracle Under Financial Oversight’ (at https://www.businesstoday.com.my/2026/07/10/uk-places-microsoft-google-amazon-and-oracle-under-financial-oversight/) where we see “The UK has placed Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Oracle under direct regulatory oversight after designating the cloud service providers as critical third parties to the country’s financial system. Reuters reported that effective July 13, the designation covers Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, Google Cloud EMEA Ltd, Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, reflecting the financial sector’s growing dependence on cloud infrastructure”, so whilst the story ends with “The designation will bring the four technology firms under direct regulatory oversight as part of efforts to safeguard the stability and continuity of the UK’s financial sector.” And it comes after we were given (at https://m.au.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/oracle-stock-shrugs-off-sp-downgrade-to-bbb-but-120b-debt-shadow-looms-4526441) where we see ‘Oracle stock shrugs off S&P downgrade to ’BBB-’, but $160B debt shadow looms’ where we see “Oracle Corp. (NYSE:ORCL) shares managed to gain 2.7% on Thursday, defying a credit rating downgrade from S&P Global Ratings. While shares edged slightly lower from their midday highs, the tech giant still traded firmly in positive territory. Investors chose to focus on Oracle’s staggering $638 billion backlog of cloud contracts rather than the immediately apparent threat to its balance sheet: S&P downgraded Oracle’s long-term issuer credit rating to ’BBB-’ from ’BBB’, retaining a stable outlook.”

Now, I am not having anything against Oracle. They have always been on the foreground of technology and innovation in its field and it is unlikely to ever change. But there is a larger setting, the entire AI bubble as I see it, it will hit them too. They all over invested in that setting and they are likely the biggest catchers of the implosion of that event. But I am still in arms over ““The official position of the Secretary and the U.S. Treasury is that Artificial intelligence will be a key driver of America’s new Golden Age,” the spokesperson said. “AI has the potential to deliver unprecedented productivity gains, expand economic opportunity, and empower American workers and businesses.”” You see, there is no golden age, there is no AI, not yet at least. There is DML and LLM and they are great, they can hand innovation and prosperity in several ways. It merely isn’ AI and that needs to be said, because soon the class actions will go for the “It’s AI and we cannot really predict what AI does” but it isn’t, it is DML and that requires a programmer, it requires data and these two hinder stones are the backdrop for prosecution. Only last week we were given ‘Anthropic Faces a New $75 Million Lawsuit for Pirating Books to Train Claude AI’ and less than 24 hours ago Harvard Business Review ‘You Outsourced the AI—but you still own the risk’ where we see “As enterprises increasingly embed third-party systems into their workflows, technological risk has led to new legal and operational responsibilities. Leaders may have little visibility into how a model was trained or how it changes, yet when it discriminates, mishandles data, or harms a customer, regulators and plaintiffs often look first to the company that deployed it. Peloton learned how that exposure can arise. Visitors to its website see a familiar invitation to “chat,” powered by a third-party vendor. According to a class-action complaint, the vendor recorded and stored conversations and used the data to improve its machine-learning models. Peloton neither built nor trained the system. Even so, a California federal judge allowed a claim against the company to proceed. The parties later jointly dismissed the case, without publicly disclosing the terms.”

Now consider the amalgamation of these factors (apart from some saying there is no bubble) there is (allegedly) “Worldwide spending on AI is forecast to reach $2.5 trillion. Venture capital and private corporate investments in AI firms sit near $258.7 billion globally, with over $750 billion in dedicated infrastructure and data center capital expenditure from major tech hyperscalers” we then see that the big players (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Oracle) are basically overextended, facing class actions and all of them are looking at all sorts of financial hardship, because at some stage all these players will be made to rephrase the simple truth that AI is not DML/LLM, it requires more and when the programming is put under a loop that setting comes crashing down. I saw it two years ago that this is the only outcome in some sales people overselling what they had and the simplest setting is not a mere Quantum computer. It requires shallow circuits and what I tend to call The Epsilon processor. True AI cannot exist in a binary setting. The last one is my interpretation of it all and some might disagree. But the Epsilon processor allows for Null, False, True, Both and it is the Both part that makes true AI possible and of course a matching operating systems will be required as well a data carrier and in that case Oracle and Snowflake have the grounds for success. As I see it, all others will fall behind these two. 

And last month we were given that “400 newspapers sued OpenAI and Microsoft for scraping their content without permission or compensation to train artificial intelligence programs” even my data has been scraped. So how many will be successful? How many will fail? I have no idea, but the odds are decently stacked against these salespeople. And as the courts rule against these Fake AI bringers (as I see it) there will be a rush of people making a case, all who were sold AI (without clear DML/LLM settings in their contracts) are seeing their pupils transform into dollar signs and they will try to clean house. So when all these settings happen, is the stage for a bubble that far fetched? 

I am watching and watching and noting what is due. I reckon that at some point I get the one piece of evidence that will allow me to do just that, 2700 (out of nearly 4000) article scraped seemingly give me an optional case for some dollars (five million plus would be great). And I am not the greediest player in town. So at what point will the investors of $2.5 trillion ring the bell wanting to see payment for their investments? Goldman Sachs gave us last month ‘The AI Investment Boom: When Will It Pay Off?’ With “The economics of artificial intelligence are more questionable today than two years ago, says Goldman Sachs Research’s Jim Covello, as enterprise buyers, model companies, and hyperscalers have yet to show returns on their spend. In a conversation with Alison Nathan and George Lee on Goldman Sachs Exchanges, Covello discusses where we’ve seen economic value accrue to date and why semiconductor companies can’t continue to be the sole beneficiaries of the AI buildout.” As such we see people with serious economic skills worrying and wondering what comes next and I was there at least a year ago. So when will others see the doubt that I am seeing? The money people call the bubble a blasphemy, but they have vested interests. I do not. I merely see the flaws on technology that is at least 15-20 years away, data that is largely unvalidated and unverified and at this juncture people are investing trillions? Makes me all tingly that too many people are greed driven and too much vested to be part of a boom that does not exist, just like the settings of 2008, Inside Job showed that clearly and it seems that we have a similar setting evolve at least two times the previous caper. So if you consider that with all the reserves that hit took the economy 2 decades to fix and at present the reserves are gone, so what will happen now? Why aren’t others taking the stand the UK is making? Because others are in the believe that “America’s new Golden Age” is here? When you realize that it will take close to two decades to arrive, how long until too many investors pull the plug and go somewhere else? What will happen then? That is what I see coming, because at some point more and more people wake up, this is bound to happen, it always does.

So is the water high enough? Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

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

June 27, 2026 · 21:00

The next stretch

In continuation of yesterday’s story, it is time to die you the next part. There is no news. As I personally see it, the news has become a much larger soapbox for big business and politicians. As such I can weave my own yarns and likely more entertaining. So where was I? I ended yesterday with 

“His mind felt around the direction where the pulse was from. He was feeling something, but he had not felt this in centuries. It was time to find what was happening.”

The sensation was coming from the north north east, far beyond Ad Durar Street. He walked towards Yas Mall and decided to walk into IKEA. He walked into the restaurant and ordered the Salmon Teriyaki with Mango salsa, sparkling mineral water and a large coffee. He put 4 notes of 20 dirham in the hands of the lady and got some coins back. He needed and sat at a table by the window. There was not anything owe could do, but now he had a better feel of what was happening and the mall was not in the way of any interrupting feelings. He concentrated and viewed the people with his other sight. There was nothing out of the ordinary of anyone he could see, whatever this was, it would have a dark aura, optionally bordering on black. With every bite and sip he took, he was looking to the people in the back, even there, there was nothing to show him what was the cause. The weird thing what that he had not felt this feeling in over 15 centuries.  And this kind of power does not usually hide. It was more common in the 5th century when the Jinn were a lot more common than they are now. But they might be hiding in the folds of safety. Still. He had not felt this way for a long time and if there is a new player in town, he had to know. 

By the end of the meal, he had another blip, it felt like to was around Noya Luma. As such he decided to walk there. It took him around 45 minutes. He was taking his time to scan and see the people he did notice. It was more of a community, so the people were weary of him, they had not seen him before and after a while a person walked up to him and said “hal yumkinuk musaeadati min fadlika?” Apparently the man needed help. He nodded and followed him, his mind saw that there was no one to see and no cameras. The man wielded a knife and pointed it at him “Your money, now” He saw this coming a mile away and he smirked, the man pushed the knife towards his chest and he grabbed the hand holding the knife with his left hand, his right hand went around the neck of the man. His concentration told him that he was out of sight in every way. He felt the ring on his right hand. And he squeezed a little more and the next second the man was turning to ash, the power of his strength had evolved over the centuries, as such he was very blessed to turn this man to ash, even the bones dissolved, the calcium lost its coherence on the spot and he went away in a cloud of ash, the ash fell to the ground, but he knew that the smallest breeze and some water would be all that was needed to remove whatever evidence ever existed. He saw a few items, which he left where they were. The knife he would cast in some trashcan the first moment he found one. He continued on his route and when he arrived, he saw nothing of worthy, but he noticed a Starbuck sign and decided to sit down, have a sandwich and more coffee and feel the surroundings. 

When he got his coffee with a dynamite chicken sandwich and sat down, he could relax for now and feel what more could be coming his way. He was sitting for at least an hour when he felt the air change. It was what he expected, it seemed to be a jinn, but not a normal one. Darker and a lot more dangerous than he had ever seen. He saw none of the people that gave the vibe, but then he saw it, the aura was none existent, a weird setting, but it made sense now. It was not a Jinn at all, it was an afreet and not a normal one. He was seemingly a lot stronger than anything anyone in his larger family had ever faced. As such, he was not going to approach it now. He watched the man and saw the man was fitting in, not wanting to stand out. He liked that, because an afreet is normally full of chaos and destruction. This one was different, but he was not taking any chances. He then felt a larger different pulse, not anything he had ever felt, it felt Egyptian in origin, but he had no idea who it was, merely that it was massively old, older than he had ever felt. Optionally older than his grandfather, which was the weirdest of feelings. His grandfather was here before mankind was, so if it was older. What was it?

He binned his trash and walked back. Time to get back to the hotel, but the idea of getting food at that Rainforest cafe. The lamb mandi meal radiated with appeal and he was getting hungry. He was walking towards the Mall when he suddenly felt weird, his senses alerted him and he felt the afreet right behind him. No-one had approached him unfelt for centuries. He stopped and turned around. The man looked at him. Who are you? He asked. I go by the name Lavrinthi. And you? Let me introduce my self. I am Al-Malik al-Aswad, I am also known as the black king. I noticed you Olympian, but you are not really Olympian, are you? There is something different about you. Lavrinthi looked at the man. The other filing was not you, was it. Lavrinthi shook his head. I seems Egyptian, but I never felt anything like that before. The man nodded. I will let you leave now, the afreet turned around and walked away. Lavrinthi looked at the afreet walking of and went towards the Mall. Time for some diner and time to consider what he had experienced. He considered his options and decided to take another path. He decided to see if the afreet would approach him, or if he would keep his distance. After his meal he stopped at a coffee place and had another coffee. Time to get back to that Warner Brothers hotel, he was so looking forward to the breakfast they serve, but that will come after the night he has coming and it would be time to erect a very different kind of protection, because he had not experience anxiousness in many centuries and getting approached unseen was a really new experience for him.

What happens next? See another day, the next installment might come in the next few days.

Well this part is also for ADTV (or its parent Abu Dhabi Media). Perhaps they like it, perhaps not. I am getting my creative soul fed and that is good for me, a lot better than weeding out BS from optional BS, which is how I see a lot of the media exposure. And when the Financial times is giving us ‘Trump administration asks OpenAI to stagger release of new model to vet users’ as well as ‘Trump administration allows some access to Anthropic’s Mythos’, so whilst some people are considering that “Unease over Washington’s ad hoc regulatory approach remains.” And in all that time no one is considering that it opens up the European markets for DeepSeek and whether the next part is real ‘Microsoft Now Wants Users To Adopt Chinese DeepSeek AI After Failure Of Copilot’ (source: Channel News) is unknown, but that is opening a few Chinese walk ins into the west. The status? I have no idea, I honestly don’t. But some are saying that the race between China and the western AI markets are much harder to see and I get it, but what happens to that famous ‘Big Beautiful Stargate’? Consider that this is a $500 billion market being poured in a second or third placement and as I see it (and written about several times) set for a non-existing AI, or as I prefer to call it a fake AI. So we see a massive public-private AI infrastructure venture aiming to invest up to US$500 billion to build the world’s most powerful AI data centers and Europe and optionally the Commonwealth as well are setting up Chinese walls (a happy coincidence expression) against United States data centers. So, investing that much in data centers that are keeping track of a population of 349 members of the United States? I very much doubt that and I reckon that these centers will be avoided by China and several others as well. Did anyone consider what happened to the $500 billion? Just a questions to ask. 

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Stories

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

June 26, 2026 · 07:07

On the lighter side

We all have that at times, the setting of a lighter side. You know the average romcom with sex, a little violence, the setting of blackmail and of course, some piece of software. The average day in the life of an fake AI. So I was ‘rudely’ awakened by news (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyklykn5dwo) where we see ‘Anthropic accuses Chinese rival Alibaba of illicitly extracting AI capabilities’. So it made me laugh, b because this comes at the near start of a bubble heading straight for the HQ of Anthropic. Now let me show you what I was having in mind with all this and best I use graphics for that setting.

So we see the application on the left, the data on the right and in the middle we get the setting of that fake AI, you see it has DML and LLM, which I represented as a separate stage, but it could be one big thing, the coding is in the middle and there is interaction between the three like any application would have. So the middle part could be part of the application (it likely is), but for the clarity I wanted to show it like this. Because the picture fits better for the explanation. So the question becomes (the sound of dramatic horns in my mind)

“US artificial intelligence (AI) giant Anthropic has accused Chinese e-commerce and technology firm Alibaba of “brazenly” and “illicitly” extracting its Claude AI model’s capabilities.” How is this possible? I am not saying that it cannot be true, because that requires evidence, but if we see these parts, how blazingly stupid is anthropic to let someone else have a go at this. Beside this, what EXACTLY is “extracting its Claude AI model’s capabilities”? You see, when you see the image, the capabilities are shown in the application and cannot proceed without data (or less likely so), so as we are in the bubble setting this so called move sounds like a joke and with the added “In a letter sent to two members of the US Congress, the San Francisco-based company said operators linked to Alibaba carried out almost 29 million exchanges with Claude using thousands of fraudulent accounts in what it called the largest extraction campaign of its kind.” It seems like there is a massive security lack in all this (that is, if there is a transgression stage). But the setting that we see with “operators linked to Alibaba carried out almost 29 million exchanges” so as I see it, in 2014 we had the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where Facebook got ‘relieved’ of a whole lot of data. Doesn’t anyone learn from that experience, as such we get a repetition of all this? But I hope the story is clear. How was this even possible? As I see it “According to Anthropic, the campaign was carried out through what are known as “distillation attacks”, which extracted answers from a stronger AI model to train a weaker one.” This is a debatable setting (not stating it cannot happen), but the image I ‘created’ shows that a distillation attack requires a lot of information that requires insider knowledge to be successful. 

As such, I am not saying that Alibaba and the 40 fighters for the Palestinian cause is innocent, but I have doubts on the entire setting. I personally see this as a Dutch SNS setting. Where the massive mortgage (the invested dollars in Anthropic) are written of by putting it into a bad bank and letting that bad bank collapse. As such you need to be aware that I could be wrong, it is based on expected behavior and speculative settings, so do not take my word on it, but consider that at present the BBC is spinning you a yarn by presenting the data from others. Just so you know.

So, this is how I got my 05:00 wake up call, thank you BBC. Now it is time to get some coffee and optionally have breakfast afterwards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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

June 25, 2026 · 15:40

Expect bubbles

That is what I was introduced to (really early) this morning and I saw a few articles, but one gave me an interesting option. So lets take a look. (At https://stocksdownunder.com/ai-bubble-chip-stocks-crash/) we are given ‘Is the AI Bubble Bursting? Why Nvidia, Micron and Chip Stocks Are Crashing’ it holds a lot of record, but I was taken with this setting ‘Is the AI Bubble Bursting or Just a Healthy Reset?’ With the text “Here is the honest answer: it could be either, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. The bear case is simple. Micron has more than tripled in value this year, and a run like that leaves very little room for disappointment. The bull case is that demand for AI memory and data centres is still strong, and analysts note the selling looked more like a rush for the exits than a real change in the companies’ earnings. We lean towards this being a crowded trade getting stress-tested, not the end of the AI story. But if the selling spreads well beyond chip stocks, that view needs to change quickly” (and at this point I learned that whoever was working on this is a noob and an idiot for his CSS settings as they are all over the place) But that is matter for another day. The “It could be either” and a third setting was the one I referred to a few days ago when simply Wall Street put out an unsigned piece that Palantir could be overvalued for well over 20%, as such this market has some people in it that would like to short stock as that is where their dollars come flying. And as we see in the article “Investors simply pay less for today for profits that may not arrive for years.” And as I see it, some investors are not beyond shorting stock if it fuels their profits, so a third reason is found. I am still on the side of the AI bubble shorting, but n that case a healthy reset of trillions is not out of the scope of things and the marshmallow field of fictive unicorns is rearing its ugly head that comes with the “late arrival of profits” and now that the investors are wondering what they got into, some will see that they are fueling a stock market that cannot survive delay upon delay and with AI not yet existing that is where it is all heading. So it is time to get another view and we see this in Clean Technica (at https://cleantechnica.com/2026/06/24/trillion-dollar-ai-bubble-on-verge-of-popping/) where we see ‘Trillion-Dollar AI Bubble On Verge Of Popping?’ And I am not adding it, because this is in part the view I have, what we see is “Yann LeCun, one of the “Godfathers of AI,” is one of the notable people who think the industry has been far too overhyped and misunderstood. He’s been pointing out that AI costs could be much higher than the amount of money customers are willing to pay for it.” It comes (also) with “Labs like OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have to increase prices, they’re going to have to cut costs, or there’s going to be a big bubble explosion,” and ““In their pursuit to boost productivity, become less reliant on human labor, and reassure investors that they’re riding the cutting edge of tech, some nagging issues are cropping up,” Futurism adds, and “over-relying on AI can prove disastrous for organizational knowledge, the critical business insights companies need to make strategic decisions.”” This is the setting that is actually fueling both the bubble burst as well as a healthy reset all at the same time and I reckon that for OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok and Microsoft that will most likely happen in the least interesting time and they will all ‘suffer’ for it, so consider when this bubble loses $4,000,000,000,000 – $5,000,000,000,000 (writing the word trillion makes it trivial) because that is likely to happen and the market is figuring out what I saw over 1-2 years ago, when you realise that all AI is fake, it is easy and let there be no mistake, all AI is fake. You see, what we are seeing is Deeper Machine Learning and Large Language Models and these are great tools and they will create markets for themself, but the people are expecting AI and that is just not true. So as AP News gives us “The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite fell 110.40 points, or 0.4%, to 25,476.64. A 2.3% drop in Microsoft was the heaviest weight on the market. Oracle slumped 4.6%. Many large tech companies have been behind Wall Street’s record-setting run throughout the year, but analysts have warned their valuations may have become stretched.” I personally reckon that someone is likely playing a stock short game with both Oracle and Palantir. You see, no matter how you slice it, the proper Data needs for DML/LLM solutions require data technology and these two are refined into the core of that and optionally there is Snowflake as well, but it might not yet be large enough to get the attention of the stock shorting DoDo’s (lets call them that).

Jawlah, a prominent Arabic digital media platform and news organization focused on venture capital (VC), startups, and the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Saudi Arabia and the broader MENA region (Middle East/ North Africa) gives us (at https://jawlah.co/en/59212) where we see ‘Fears of an AI bubble burst after a sharp tech stock sell-off’, which I reckon is fair enough. But the interesting part is where we see “The decline followed a near-800% surge in Micron’s stock over the past year, driven largely by rising demand for memory chips needed to run AI globally — gains some analysts believe may have overestimated expected returns”, as well as “Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson, explains the volatility: “The market swings between a wave of optimism that AI will change everything and renewed skepticism that it is just an expensive bubble whose returns do not justify the current spending.”.” And I am here in opposition, it is not “renewed skepticism”, it is the mere setting that those willing to hand out trillions should never have been so optimistic without proper case files and validation, so whilst they might get their cash back in 2045 when actual AI comes into play, the rest until then will be massively overvalued.  As I, as a non-believer, see it, someone listened to a sales person with the mindset of a second hand car salesman that stated “Look, we have AI” and the rest followed like crazy to get those coins rolling their way and now we are optionally seeing the start of an AI bubble. I am trodding carefully because there is disagreement whether it is an actual bubble popping. I reckon it requires an actual econometrist to call that for real and I ain’t one of those actuary types (nowhere near).

What we see is that we are given “it has erased approximately $2.7 trillion in market value across AI-linked companies”, all whilst the reasoning is “massive debt-funded data center expansions, mounting hardware costs, and growing investor scrutiny over artificial intelligence’s actual return on investment” which (as I personally see it) is only partially true. As I see it, the data sovereignty in Europe and the Commonwealth is setting the drain on the Return on Investments (ROI) towards these massive debt-funded data center expansions and that will hit business in the United States a lot harder than anywhere else. You see the United States has over 4,000 data centers. So how many are still under debt? And when a response group of over 700 million people walk away from that, with an additional optional population of up to 2.7 billion people (that is the complete Commonwealth), so it will not be that much, but I reckon at least 50%, that is 4,000 centers that will now lose close to 2 billion people (or 2,000 million), so where is that unused potential going? That is what I saw almost a year ago (actually a lot earlier, but until President Trump come, most people let the states quo continue) and that has now changed. So as others players (like DayOne) and there is someone in Sweden who saw this coming a few years ago and put his money where his thoughts were. I forgot that players name, but they are likely to make massive gains. All out off the hands of the United States. That part is not represented in any of these articles, but it is a factor in all of this.

So, we are expecting bubbles and I reckon a few other setting will rear its ugly heads, but the markets will all attribute this towards bubbles, because some is massively unhappy to attribute the other losses towards an US Administration that should have known better, but that is merely me looking at other factors in all this. The larger issue in all this is that some solutions are likely to be rather good and I hope that they are allowed to continue, because investors and speculators will want their returns at whatever expense they can get and some will suffer because of that greed driven taint in all this. But I might be the next village idiot in all this. Just like that seer in the 3rd century that saw large walls of stone with thousands of people and it was written off as a lying loon (he saw the Altiero Spinelli building in Brussels) but that is a story for another day.

So whatever you do, don’t rush into or out of anything without clearly seeing the ramifications. Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 1, 2026 · 13:46

The new short is coming

Saw there articles today, which gives me the willies. The people are that dumb to believe this? But to give you the goods, lets strata the beginning. The first one was CNBC giving us (at https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/28/anthropic-open-ai-startup-value.html) where we see ‘Anthropic tops OpenAI as most valuable AI startup, nears $1 trillion valuation in latest round’ it is here that we are given “The newest round was led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks and Sequoia Capital, and almost triples Anthropic’s valuation from February, when it was worth $380 billion. The financing also includes $15 billion of previously committed investments, including $5 billion from Amazon, the company said. Anthropic’s biggest competitor OpenAI was valued at $852 billion in late March after closing a record-breaking $122 billion funding round.” But these people need to give us the why, so we are given ““Claude is increasingly indispensable to our growing global community of customers, and we work tirelessly to make tools like Claude Code and Cowork more helpful, more powerful, and more adaptable to their needs,” Anthropic Chief Financial Officer Krishna Rao said in Thursday’s press release. “This funding will help us serve the historic demand we are experiencing, stay at the research frontier, and bring Claude to more of the places where work happens.” Anthropic’s latest round comes as the leading AI model makers prepare to go public.” So, after this introduction into this blatant presentation, it is time for TechTalk to give us (at https://www.techtimes.com/articles/317467/20260531/samsung-hbm4e-ships-first-record-756-profit-surge-triggers-analyst-upgrades-ai-memory-lead.htm) where we are headed off with ‘Samsung HBM4E Ships First: Record 756% Profit Surge Triggers Analyst Upgrades on AI Memory Lead’, so all this fake AI has been going around for some time and I reckon that there is a misrepresentation with the 756% profit surge. So if my feelings are right, we need to look at the story and it is here that we are given “Samsung Electronics began shipping the world’s first 12-layer high-bandwidth memory 4 Extended (HBM4E) samples to major global customers on Friday, May 29, 2026 — putting the South Korean chipmaker at least six months ahead of rivals SK Hynix and Micron in the race to supply next-generation AI accelerators, and triggering a wave of analyst upgrades that pushed Samsung’s market capitalization past 2,000 trillion won for the first time in history. The milestone arrived just three months after Samsung began mass-producing its predecessor chip, HBM4, and came on the same day Samsung shares surged 5.84% to close at 317,000 won.” And here my gut feeling is satisfied. So can anyone give me how a 756% profit surge validates a mere 5.84%? Something does not add up. It doesn’t matter that Samsung is bigger than this, a 756% profit surge should validate more than an almost 6% surge. Some people are playing with your senses. 

So before I get to the third article. A little lesson. It is not the lesson you like and it isn’t even the lesson you will appreciate, but here goes. All AI is fake. There I not exception to this no matter what dance mr Oldman gives on stage, his ChatGPT was surpassed by Gemini and Anthropic some time ago and there is no guarantee that this will go his way. Google Gemini (and I love Google) is just as bit as fake as the others. Then we get all the others, all fake. Why? The stage is that all these are driven by DML/LLM and they are strong and good engine, they just aren’t AI. AI requires a few more components, some are ready but still in their early stages (like Quantum computing) then there is the need for Shallow circuits and I only know that IBM has come far in this field and they are working on this 10 years ago, are they ready? I guess not, because the media would be full of that if it were, but the are advancing and then there is the Epsilon chip. We have seen the theory, we have seen the evidence (some have seen this), but it does not yet exist in a chip, not yet and I have no idea when that will happen. So then we get the Trinary operating system, that is the last part. I particle think that IBM and Oracle are quietly working on this, but that is a gut feeling, all these parts combined are still 15 years away (my speculative feel). Oh, and in none of this Microsoft turns up, because it might take longer then. So this is what I know through the settings of decades of IT work and a decade of writing. But it matters, because now we get MSN with Larry Fink giving us (at https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/larry-fink-says-pensions-will-help-fund-10t-ai-buildout/ss-AA24sE6Z?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds) that ‘Larry Fink says pensions will help fund $10T AI buildout’, so whilst all your retirements are set into this bubble, this fictive bubble, better be rare that this last story was “Curated by AI” a mere 20 hours ago. I reckon that no one at MSN wants to put his or her name under this setting. We are given “Fink estimates $10 trillion will be needed for AI infrastructure by 2036, with $7 trillion for data centers alone.” And in addition we are given “Index fund-heavy retirement accounts are increasingly concentrated in AI-focused tech giants leading the spending.” And it comes with the warning that “Experts warn that overexposure to one sector could threaten retirement security if AI growth stalls.” In short, we are being set up. As I see it, over exposure would lead to the end of our pensions when the bubble of fake AI comes calling and even this late, at 64 when you see your pensions being squandered by hot headed job chasers claiming AI is this, or is that and we do not see a clear ROI, you know somethings up. This feels like the movie the Big Short, a 2015 American biographical comedy drama film directed by Adam McKay from a screenplay by McKay and Charles Randolph. Based on the 2010 book by Michael Lewis, it depicts how the 2008 financial crisis was triggered by the United States housing bubble. This is how it went everyone comes with the setting ‘you have to be in it to win’ and they are all gambling like it is some Texas holder game whilst they all have a version of a beer hand (7-2 offsuit) and they want to continue their rounds of gambling, hoping that the other players will fold, but they are all in it to over their necks, so they are all desperate. This is how I see it and when you get the numbers, especially on proven ROI, you will see that filling this 10 trillion gap with pensions is folly. I intend to call my pension that AI investments are off limits. I would rather put it in ADNOC or IHC. Three stories that make my blood grow thick in fear, they are now pushing the safety boundaries for millions of people and I am worried that no one is speaking up, it is that kind of a day and still there are no options for me, so I am beyond caring. 

Try to have a great day and try to keep your pension safe.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

April 28, 2026 · 19:53

Battle lines

As per yesterday several things occupy my brain, even a new technology (which I will discuss at a later stage) today is about OpenAI and Microsoft. I was ‘alerted’ to this yesterday through through Seeking alpha. I think I heard it before that, but I ignored it. Seeking Alpha (at https://seekingalpha.com/news/4579947-microsoft-falls-as-openai-partnership-evolves-says-it-will-no-longer-pay-revenue-share) gives us ‘Microsoft in focus as OpenAI partnership evolves, says it will no longer pay revenue share’ and we are given “Microsoft (MSFT) shares rose fractionally on Monday as the tech giant and OpenAI (OPENAI) said their partnership has continued to evolve, and OpenAI’s license will become non-exclusive. “Today, we are announcing an amended agreement to simplify our partnership and the way we work together, grounded in flexibility, certainty and a focus on delivering the benefits of AI broadly,” Microsoft wrote in a statement on its website. “The greater predictability in the amended agreement strengthens our joint ability to build and operate AI platforms at scale while providing both companies the flexibility to pursue new opportunities.”” In my mind I hear “Someone has figured out that this setting is based on shallow settings, the reality is dawning on them”, so whilst we are given “As part of the altered agreement, Microsoft will remain OpenAI’s primary cloud partner, and OpenAI products will ship on Azure first. However, there is now a tweak that says if Microsoft “cannot and chooses not to support the necessary capabilities,” OpenAI can go elsewhere. Julian Lin, Investing Group Leader for Best Of Breed Growth Stocks, said the deal is actually a “net positive” for Microsoft, despite the share price reaction.” I personally believe that OpenAI might present a hardcore liability for Microsoft and they are seeking to insulate from that fallout. And it might be merely my feelings in this and that is fine, but when you see the Anthropic setting, the DeepSeek setting there are several other elements that are roaring is near ugly heard and that has to go somewhere, something has got to break and it seems the ‘staged’ setting of evolutionary contract agree ments, might be part of all that. In retrospect I have no idea how OpenAI and Musk will battle their settings (and I partially do not care either). But the elements are there and whilst we are all about OpenAI, this concept selling setting rubs me the wrong way. So whilst we ‘might’ see ‘OpenAI Misses Key Revenue, User Targets in High-Stakes Sprint Toward IPO’, all whilst some say “do you guys even use ChatGPT/OpenAI anymore? I find myself preferring Claude/Gemini to be honest”, I take a different turn, I don’t use any of them. Basically because they are all fake AI. Real AI is about a decade away, if not 2 decades. I might die before real AI is released, so I kinda do not care.

ComputerWorld, only today (a mere few hours ago) gave us (at https://www.computerworld.com/article/4163971/microsoft-openai-change-contract-terms-again.html) ‘Microsoft, OpenAI change contract terms–again’ starts with “When the two firms announced a revised agreement on Monday, it reinforced the need for enterprise IT executives to work with as many major AI players as possible, given the constantly changing landscape.” I do not disagree, but remember that Microsoft went all out about 5 years ago and whilst we saw all kinds of ‘total wreck approaches’ the ‘partnership’ went on and now that we see “the need for enterprise IT executives to work with as many major AI players as possible”, we might accept that, but we see no DeepSeek, do we? So whilst we see that Microsoft increased its stake and solidified its position as a major investor less than 6 months ago, these plans are now changing. So does Microsoft see something, or do they fear something? And then ComputerWorld gives us “One key component within earlier versions of the Microsoft-OpenAI deal was the change in the relationship if OpenAI ever achieved artificial general intelligence (AGI), a term that eludes a concrete definition but generally refers to AI that equals or exceeds human capabilities.” I find it funny because of all these definitions across the fake AI field. Do they really not see that it is about to fall apart? (Story to follow likely tomorrow). And when this war of the fakers is seen (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic) there is every chance that OpenAI ends up in last position (see another ‘winner’ chosen by Microsoft), but this war setting is almost real, but until there is a real revenue stream coming in, there is unlikely to be a real winner. So whilst ComputerWorld focusses on the market changes with “Analysts and consultants generally agreed that this altered agreement will reinforce, and should extend, the current enterprise IT trend of hedging bets by striking arrangements with a variety of AI providers, including the major hyperscalers. Beyond future-proofing enterprises’ AI efforts, some of those agreements are for practical issues, such as the need to work with global AI firms specializing in different languages that the enterprise needs.” And you already know where this goes next. So, when was the last time you saw this kinda bla bla settings in the last 45 years? I tend to go back to the early 90’s where they all tried to sign businesses up to concept selling, all whilst there was no revenue stream detectable. We see it now here. I get that analysts are not the most revenue sturdy people, but consultants need their revenue streams. It is their bread and butter. And what was that “for practical issues” about? You see ComputerWorld writes a good story and revenue is mentioned four times, three is shown next “In addition, the company’s role as a major investor in OpenAI is driving a different revenue relationship, it said: “Microsoft will no longer pay a revenue share to OpenAI. Revenue share payments from OpenAI to Microsoft continue through 2030, independent of OpenAI’s technology progress, at the same percentage but subject to a total cap. ”” interesting how salespeople are not that fuzzed about revenue. It is their income and bonus setting. So what was this really about?

Wouldn’t we like to know this? Just a few settings for todays stride in the coming week. And now I need to contemplate what I next write about the bad news, or the new technology. My conundrum  for the last 4 hours of the day.

Have a great one today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

April 25, 2026 · 23:45

Accusation without evidence

That is the path I saw today on the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqxgxx9nrqo), now hear me out. Even as we are being told ‘White House memo claims mass AI theft by Chinese firms’ we have to acknowledge that it comes from that same place that gave us that “‘someone’ claimed “$18 trillion” in new investments”, “prices are down” and “Ukraine for starting the war with Russia, suggesting they should have surrendered territory to avoid it” as such I am willing to disbelief this. Also China has DeepSeek and it does so (it’s speculations) at a fraction of the cost.

And whilst we are getting “The White House has said it will work more closely with US artificial intelligence (AI) firms to combat “industrial-scale campaigns” by foreign actors to steal advances in the technology. Michael Kratsios, Director of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in an internal memo that the administration had new information indicating “foreign entities, principally based in China” were exploiting American firms.” My mind goes not different directions. The first being:

If you have shattering IP valued at billions of dollars you have proper cyber security installed. That is merely my thought, others might have another opinion. 

My mind is racing towards a different setting. You see, OpenAI and its ‘co-conspirators’ are not delivering on the premise that gave too many people well over half a trillion dollars want to see return on investment and none is coming and now (not unlike the concept sellers in the 90’s) they need a blamable party. So what is easier than to blame China? Now, I am not saying that China is innocent, but in all this one might need evidence to make a case and none of it seems to be coming. As such we are given ““foreign entities, principally based in China” were exploiting American firms. Through a process called “distilling”, such firms are essentially copying AI technology developed by US companies, he said.” OK, I’ll bite, so where is the evidence? Why, if this distilling is a problem are these outputs not better protected, so there is no ‘distilling’? Simple question, perhaps when Oracle was needed, the cheapskates decided to rely on Azure? I have no idea, I am merely offering options as the evidence is clearly lacking. 

So whilst the article ens with “While Kratsios did not name any foreign entities, leading AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have said they are dealing with such distillation activity.” I reckon that the distillation culprits like House Spirits Distillery and Angostura Distillery were made exempt? 

You think that I am making a funny and I was, but this has been going on for months and these so called high priced (fake) AI corporations have been absent in their cyber security? How does this distilling happen? All things missing from the BBC article and are unlikely on the mind of the White House as the article seems to imply it comes from the very beginning where we saw “it will work more closely with US artificial intelligence (AI) firms to combat “industrial-scale campaigns” by foreign actors to steal advances in the technology” you see, the first part would be ‘How did they achieve this?’ Which we do not see and the state of cyber security we don’t see either, both seem rather obvious in that setting. 

So as I said China might not be innocent, but in that same setting we see that the United States and their (fake) AI firms are apparently clueless. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the scraps on this table and see where the crumbs aren’t dealt with and I see no part in all this that shouts ‘China is guilty’ that would require actual evidence. So if that is seemingly is not required counter the idea of this AI scheme to be the part of a scam to wipe out trillions on the exchange, which might be the case, but the setting of ‘no evidence’ is apparently in effect and that goes both ways. As I see it, someone wants to see evidence of AI and whilst they invested billions, there is a greed driven setting that the profits all go to China as they stole the plans, but is that really so? Even distilled plans need refinement and the source data is missing. So, how would they proceed? The setting does not make complete sense to me. Any innovation requires a foundation, even DeepSeek would like to have one, or it is simply a sifting solution and the power remains with these innovative wannabe’s (sorry, a paraphrased term).

So have a great day and wonder why the accusation was made, because that setting is likely to be in dollar numbers and where is that money now? Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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