Tag Archives: Artificial Intelligence

May 11, 2026 · 02:51

By the numbers

There is an old ‘saying’, it comes from the late 70’s and it goes a little like this:

There are three ways to lose your company:
Through women, which is the prettiest method.
Through gambling, which is the fastest method.
Through Statistics, which is the most certain method.

In the 50 years that followed we learned that the first option might be the prettiest, but you still end up with a working company. The second one is still an issue, but the third one is still under consideration, Especially with the presumed setting of AI (or as I call is NIP or Fake AI.

This all came to me when I was bombarded with charts and there are numerous ways that we are handed these charts, but it also gave me a consideration. You see, no matter how deep you believe the data to be true, it remains a consideration that any data is flawed and through that setting not entirely trustworthy. 

You see, this is the country with the most migrants, but what I am missing is where they came from. I saw another article in the BBC, which gave us ‘La dolce vita: Is Italy the new tax haven for the global rich?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20260421-is-italy-the-new-tax-haven-for-the-global-rich)here we see “In France you also have to pay a property tax (taxe foncière or land tax). “We don’t have that here for the prima casa (first home),” says Robert, although he notes “there is a high charge for refuse collection”. The best thing as far as he is concerned is that there is no inheritance tax on property you own in Italy up to €1 million ($1.1 million) and it’s only 4% beyond that threshold. In France the tax-free limit is much lower – €100,000 ($110,000) – and beyond that it’s a sliding scale up to a top rate of 45%.” The story is about the ‘global rich’? All this might be true, but I believe that there is a larger migration into Europe. The setting that Americans are leaving, a setting we got in the Wall Street Journal on February 25th 2026, where we saw “The U.S. experienced net negative migration in 2025, with an estimated loss of 150,000 people, a trend not seen since the Great Depression.” And if you are ‘really wealthy’, you skip Italy and go straight to Monaco, which is a zero tax nation. So that first chart is nice, but where they came from is more interesting, especially in the era 2026-2028. 

We then get the second chart, which shows us where the youth is scientifically. Here we get the first issue. There is consideration that these numbers are flawed n some cases. As some give us: “There are approximately 1.2 billion young people aged 15 to 24 globally”, and I know enough of the failing of data, to give you the fact that there are no data sets giving us 1.2 billion records. As such plenty of nations have worked with mean values and that is the first failing on that chart. Second it is nice to see the USA in 17th position, but they have a population of 349 million and not all can afford to go to University, then we get foreign students in MIT, UCLA,
Princeton, Harvard and Yale. So how are they counted and what is disregarded? Several questions on a chart because the data is missing (and footnotes too). So whilst these numbers might be indicative that those scoring over 500 are in a ‘safe’ place, but that is if we accept this number. And the explanation of those scores, with added footnotes on what is regarded as ‘valid’ is up for grabs. 

And then we get the main event, the one that baffled me for a moment, because is gave my thoughts optional validity, but then I need to be wary of a few settings, because without data, a chart is merely a weighted result and without N (total responses) there are reliability issues. 

We now see the top countries by natural resource value. It gives me my validity as the United States is show to have $45T in value and that is the setting that makes them optionally almost insolvent. Their debt is growing faster and faster and as it is now said to be $38.9 trillion, which amounts to exceeding 100% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but as we see it, they have almost spend the total of their natural resources. I have an issue with that, because the rare metals are not in that list all whilst Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona have it, as such that number is off (by a lot) and other nations have more (or less) natural numbers as the chart sets out, all whilst these numbers are not given either as such it is a nice chart, but incomplete and as such redundant. If I was to hazard a guess, this was a chart to show how ‘good’ Russia is doing, but as I never saw data on it all as such I have my issues with it. All charts look pretty cool, but cool doesn’t pay the baker (or the butcher for that matter). As such we need to wonder what the chart was doing, not what they tell you, but what they aren’t telling you.

That was just my setting on this and there is a lot more to consider so whilst the first chart gave us “The U.S. hosts 17% of the world’s migrants”, my initial question was “Based on what data?” And as people m ight give us the setting that the AI gave them the numbers and we know that AI doesn’t yet exist. We are given the thought that it is merely DML and that is done by a programmer and that programmer might miss a few beats to be optimistic (many more beat are likely to have been missed) and all this on flawed data? 

So what was the designer of that chart trying to persuade you to consider what was ‘their’ issue? Because when someone makes a chart, they want you to look into a specific area, or not look in an area that also mattered. Have a great day, another Monday parked on front of my door, Vancouver still has the bulk of Sunday to get through. Ah well.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

May 9, 2026 · 10:06

Label negativity

That is the setting and I almost fell into this. I have lived by the fact that all AI is fake AI and I still believe this, just like some believe that Donald Trump cannot say an intelligent word ever, that is just the beginning, but it is all about me now. I do believe that all AI is fake AI and as such, I almost ignored news from IBM given to us on May 5th. The article ‘IBM and Aramco Explore Collaboration to Accelerate AI and Innovation Across Saudi Arabia’ (at https://newsroom.ibm.com/2026-05-05-ibm-and-aramco-explore-collaboration-to-accelerate-ai-and-innovation-across-saudi-arabia) sounds like a joke. But when you consider that AI is DML (deeper machine learning) and LLM, some say that Machine Learning (ML) is enough, but why settle for half baked? And consider that IBM has been working with Aramco since 1947 as such they have data, decades of data, as such we might frown at the words by Sami Al Ajmi, Senior Vice President at Aramco “Technology and innovation are central to Aramco’s long-term strategy. This collaboration with IBM enables us to assess how industrial AI and other mutually-agreed domains can further enhance operational excellence and resilience, while reinforcing our leadership in Industrial AI—particularly in reliability, safety, and mission-critical environments.” But when you think of it, it is a NIP methodology with near 98% data efficiency and upholstery error checking and whatever you might think of NIP think, the setting with reliable data gets to be close to actual AI, because that data is likely a lot more efficient than any other company (except IBM and Oracle) might have. As such that version of NIP will accelerate a lot all over the Aramco field. It will not have data of things it never faced before, but this setting might not cover a whole area, merely spots. And don’t take my word for it. A software package made by Systat Software Inc. called Systat worked on that premise long before people started digging into ML and DML, they set that parameter and whilst it is now Grafiti LLC (after SPSS had a go at it and became IBM) it seems that this setting is a seemingly pure win for IBM. 

A setting that should also reexamine all others to consider that whilst AI is fake, the ground work that is DML/LLM is a good field to examine and whilst we might giggle at the people mentioning and holding onto AI, DML/LLM is an established behemoth of software solutions and as I see it, when a company has been involved with IBM from nearly its infancy, that data is likely almost 100% foolish user proof and has the error setting close to absolute zero. There are people who will disagree and consider that there are likely ID10T errors (a WAN/LAN expression that has grown over TCP/IP) I believe that the Aramco/IBM partnership is almost fused together and they have worked decades together towards IT infrastructure cohesion and as I see it, the government of Saudi Arabia is all about harnessing its golden goose laying black eggs is a fusion that both parties regard as essential, the KSA to protect the income of its nation and the welfare of its citizens and IBM to keep their customer happy and content. Happy is almost easy, content is not that easy and IBM managed both for decades. As such I think that this setting is one that will work and pay off. 

So whilst I see the statement: “By collaborating with Aramco, we are exploring how emerging technologies are addressing some of the world’s most complex industrial challenges, while reinforcing our shared commitment to continuous investment in innovation” as a little presentative, the truth is that they have been working together for decades and there is little doubt in my mind that whatever comes from this will get the small percentages of gain closer towards 100% and don’t mock this setting, because Aramco is likely to gain $4.1 billion for every 1% gained, as such this is about serious money. Not some kind Azure wizard you see in almost every grocery store making them a few dollars per year. How much they will gain? I have no idea, because the oil refinery is set to a lot more than one product, but in this setting a 3% clear in the beginning is to be expected and that is over $12 billion, a billion for every month. When did you ever get that much of an increase of revenue? I only know of one man who achieved that, making it a one in 8.3 billion chance (that individual is labeled Elon Musk, look him up).

So whilst some say that this is splitting the margins of profits, I say that either you put up that $230 million a week or shut up. A clear setting of simple math and IBM can do math like no one else does. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

May 5, 2026 · 15:16

The path we make

The path we make is often set, for one, you cannot walk the path of (fake) AI without considering the side-roads called Data Verification and Data Validation. They are intertwined. And whenever I get to Data Validation, NASA tends to be own my mind. They have been on the Data Validation path as early as the 70’s, long before whomever runs IBM/Microsoft/Google now, they were already looking at ways to support their validation tracks. So when I see the combination of NASA and DATA I tend to look up and take notice. So when we get ‘NASA POWER’s PRUVE Tool Streamlines Data Validation’ (at https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/news/blog/nasa-powers-pruve-tool-streamlines-data-validation) where we see “NASA’s archive of Earth observation and modeling datasets has an incredibly diverse range of uses, and assessing data uncertainty is a critical step toward ensuring the data and analyses are accurate, reliable, and trustworthy. Several factors, such as instrument calibration, atmospheric corrections, and land-surface albedo, can affect the quality of satellite data. For users working with solar and meteorological datasets, quantifying uncertainty is especially critical, as these data often inform decisions and policymaking at the community level.” And this introduction leads towards the two quotes “NASA’s Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources (POWER) project, which provides datasets from NASA in support of energy, buildings, and agroclimatology decisions, developed a tool that enables users to assess data uncertainty for selected surface variables from POWER’s data catalog with corresponding surface measurements.” And “The cloud-based tool — the PaRameter Uncertainty ViEwer (PRUVE) — makes assessing data uncertainty more straightforward for users across disciplines and skill levels. PRUVE uses surface observed site meteorological data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and surface radiation data from Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) to compare against POWER-provided surface meteorological and radiation data values. This user-friendly application gives users an opportunity to quickly confirm data validation through customizable queries.”

So when we see “By creating the free, easy-to-use PRUVE tool, the POWER team instills an additional layer of trust, empowering users to tackle some of the most important long-term weather challenges facing our planet.” I feel doubt and I do know that this is in me, not because of what is promised, but consider the settings in the example we see “a student wanting to install a small wind turbine for a study project at their college. They are limited by size and cost, so they need to make sure the predictions and analyses are reliable. As part of the study, they can use wind and other historical data parameters available through POWER to forecast how much energy will be produced from the wind turbine system. The student wants to limit the level of uncertainty in their prediction calculations as much as possible.” All whilst we also see:

  • No-coding access.
  • More than 3,000 surface sites.
  • Dynamic data visualization available for each site.
  • Ability to create maps and plots and to conduct spatial analysis on the fly.
  • User-selectable point-based descriptive statistics.
  • User-selectable site-based intercomparisons.
  • Advanced custom plotting for specific uses.

So where is the doubt? You see for the most there is no doubt in the powers that ‘reside’ within NASA, but when you see these facts, why this system is not ‘coexisting’ in the Google, IBM or Microsoft clouds? This system should (read: optionally could) be adjustable to these fake AI systems to smooth over validation and reduce error in whatever data there is. And I do know that it is not that simple, but consider the settings that are lacking now, the transference of these options might also fill the coffers of NASA and there is no way they don’t need that. And as my skeptical self realizes nearly all the data systems on the planet require additional layers of trust, but that might merely be me. 

So as I see it, nearly all data systems are set towards some setting that there is some side solution towards data validity, all whilst there is a direct need to make checking the validity of data a main priority. So what happens when this solution gets additional layers of data validation, in part in statistics to see if the validation sets statistical boundaries whether the data set in some normal way, but that limits the setting is an outlier is found, so how can that be validated? Then there are multiple factors where a value should behave in certain ways, but it would not be easy. I reckon that NASA could pull it off and it would be a tool that everyone needs. I merely wonder why no-one has considered it before. Now, I do understand that it is a tall order and I might be incorrect (read: full of it) but consider how meteorological numbers are achieved, consider that there will be error, but a setting that reduces error in validation. A system that reiterates the data given and considers whether validation passes of fails. A system like that could be made, but the issue are the outliers, so what makes an outlier valid, because if one outlier is wrongfully ‘deleted’ the data set could become invalid. So is this possible? I think that only NASA with its expertise could make such a system a reality, making data validation more readily available. Because no matter what verification process follows and whilst we await the coming of real AI, validation will still be a setting that is required in whatever data system comes to the surface of true AI. And perhaps the system will become a verification setting, both are required and neither system seems to be ‘correctly’ developed at present. It is a horrible conundrum, but it requires contemplating as such a system is needed by the time Real AI comes to all our doorsteps. 

The additional issues I see is that in this case the PRUVE tool has all these connecting data segments, but what happens when it is a little more complex? We have all our minds set to ‘connected’ data, but it isn’t that simple at times. Consider the ludicrous setting of length and shoe size. Now we can understand the setting of a 4’8” person with 17” shoes (he wishes), but is it out of the realm of possibilities? There is a girl named Shae, who claims she knows one person with that description (Game of Thrones joke). So how would you be able to validate this? Perhaps other data is required to make the clear distinction valid and how could such a system make validation reliable? As I see it, the biggest problem into validating data is being able to recognise the outliers. I see the deletion of outliers as a problem, the data loses reliability and verification become next to impossible. Its like watching a dataset limited without data from the Interquartile Range (or 3-Sigma Rule) and as I see it, whatever data you remain with makes actions like fraud detection close to impossible (unless that transgressor is extraordinary stupid). You see there is the ‘old’ premise that “Outliers can bias statistical estimates, causing inaccurate results in predictive models or misrepresentations in descriptive statistics.” I am not saying it is incorrect, but the absence of outliers could make the validity of that data a lot more dubious and finding this is a real challenge, so as far as I see it, That is a job for NASA (the keyword Superman was already taken by DC comics). 

So see this as a little trip on the brainstorming front, I definitely need a hobby and I am all out of licorice.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

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

May 4, 2026 · 21:58

I call it fake for a reason

I was battling what to write about and there was Elon Musk giving me a perfectly good reason right of the bat. Well, it wasn’t Elon who gave me the idea, it was his product Grok. I have always said that AI is not real because of the missing parts, and it comes with a few constraints by certain (so called) captains of industry who are lacking in several ways. It is also connected to some other things I do. You see, no matter how you come, how much you innovate the idea, you will end up with a mere 0.1%-1% of the true value of the product. Todays ‘captains’ are utterly set into the exploitation of everything they see. As such I put it on my blog. When my stuff is in the open they cannot really claim any innovation. You see the IP is no longer protected by intellectual property laws, and the public is free to use, share, and build upon these works without seeking permission from the original creator. I might get something out of it but for the most I get the satisfaction that these ‘captains’ see the loss of an idea towards everyone. If I am unable to get something out of it, it will become Public Domain and perhaps it will spread my fame in that way. Some will smile at this and call me stupid (or a fool) but I am out of their reach for exploitation. As I see it, I gave the world over a dozen options for enrichment and in this way the Indie developers get a leg up without fear that a larger player will cut them out. Small comfort. But that is what is.

So, whilst I diverted, it was for a reason. You see the AI of now is fake AI (at best), all of them are because the two elements missing are evolved versions of Shallow circuits, as stated (for as far as I know) IBM has the strongest version of this, but still another system is required, a trinary operating system. Binary will not do for AI, the setting of Null, False, True and both is required for a true AI to come and no-one has that yet. A dutch physician got the Epsilon particle made (or found), this was going to be instrumental and to evolve this in an IT setting (most likely through yet undetermined means), but I digress, what I believe to be a weakness, doesn’t make it true. Alternative evidence is needed and I found it a few times over, but in this case I will revert to my last story ‘As oil burns’ which I published on May 4th, 2026 at 12:33. About an hour later I used Grok to look at my story. The first view after an hour was:

Lawrence van Rijn’s post links to his new blog article “As Oil Burns” on lawlordtobe.com, discussing surging oil prices triggered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating US-Iran and regional tensions. The author, a postgraduate IT student and Master of IP Law candidate at UTS, regularly analyzes geopolitical issues like oil production shifts, UAE’s OPEC exit, Iranian attacks, and US military deployments in his personal blog. As of May 4, 2026, the X post shows very low visibility with only 4 views and zero interactions, typical of his niche personal commentary on current events.

This is what AI does? Is that really a view on what I wrote on: https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/05/04/as-oil-burns/

A story containing 986 words with more than 523 words (which is 54%) on Russia, the top line gives zero consideration on Russia, it gave me another thought, but Ill get to that later. The second view (on the same text) was after 6 hours and there we see:

Lawrence van Rijn’s X post shares a link to his own blog article titled “As oil burns,” published May 4, 2026, focusing on Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil tankers and infrastructure during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The article cites a BBC report on Zelensky’s claims of attacks damaging three shadow fleet tankers, a warship, and a patrol boat, estimating 300,000-500,000 barrels per day reduction in Russian oil transshipments and over $7 billion in total losses from such strikes. It highlights Russia’s high military losses including over 11,900 tanks and 1.3 million soldiers, diminishing oil revenues forcing production cuts, and predicts further geopolitical isolation with limited export options remaining.

So what AI requires 6 hours to give better show of the same text? So, is my view of ‘Fake AI’ still wrong? As you can see the first part also gives no mention of the BBC and a few other parts. I got to the thought that this DML/LLM engine is allegedly used to filter out certain parts, until it can no longer hide a few things. Don’t forget whatever is done in DML/LLM is programmed by engineers, and whatever they say it is, that is what it becomes. People forget that and it is why thy fall in the AI trap, even though some clearly see that it is a fake solution. Don’t get me wrong DML and LLM are amazing inventions, but the courts will see through this and someone will blame the programmers and their bosses, this is why I saw the court cases come to blows in 2026. I particularly liked AI Misuse in Australian Courts (2026) where we see “over 73 cases identified where GenAI produced false citations.” So what AI does produce false citations? That requires a programmer. In addition, related to that is Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. (February 2026) where we see the quote “AI to assist in case preparation does not automatically waive attorney-client privilege, characterizing broad requests for AI-generated documentation as a “fishing expedition”” Does this imply the AI uses deception to give us a “fishing expedition” or did (a massive perhaps) a programmer set this situation? As the evidence is added up, we get to see a different setting, a setting that gives notice that we should aim our attention to the programmers and their bosses. So at some point the influencers will be called into court and it is already happening “legal battles surrounding AI influencers, digital replicas, and content generation have shifted toward establishing liability for harmful outputs and defining the limits of AI-generated content protection. Key developments in early 2026 include lawsuits over AI-generated sexual content and major court decisions regarding copyright of AI-driven work.” Where we see (at present):

  • Ashley St. Clair v. xAI (Deepfakes and Platform Liability)
  • Tennessee Teens v. xAI (Child Safety)
  • Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright of AI Art)

And as these cases are resolved, the influencer drive of AI will dissipate and we get these bosses to ‘present’ their view, but they will be careful as they are decently unwilling (as I see it) to become liable. So whilst I will look to find a party to allocate $5M (post taxation) to my coffers, I will try to remain vigilant and see what other things some of these ‘Captains of industry’ have been overlooking. Apparently some say I need a hobby, time will tell. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 24, 2026 · 01:54

The butler did it

That was the primary thought I has when I faced the BBC Article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62j4ldp2jqo) telling me ‘OpenAI faces criminal probe over role of ChatGPT in shooting’ and we are given “Florida’s Attorney General James Uthmeier said on Tuesday his office had been looking into the use of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot by a man who allegedly shot several people at the campus in Tallahassee.”, personally I stand with “An OpenAI spokesperson said: “ChatGPT is not responsible for this terrible crime.”” I am hesitant to stand opposite a professional especially with the lack of evidence shown in the BBC article that we see. But the idea that some fake AI picks up a gun like the next Cyberdyne hoodlum (optionally looking strikingly like Arnold Schwarzenegger) and mopping the floor with cadavers as the staccato of automatic fire hits campus os a little much. There is even no evidence in the form of logs reading of Chatbot lingo stating n the form of:

“I am your god, you will obey me and for now I state as stated once even before Abraham walked the earth, you will bend down these mortals in the using a Knight’s Armament LAMG for better accuracy because you have the body of a little bitch. So go, I am your god, I comment you”

As for how the suspect, 20-year old FSU student Phoenix Ikner, who is now in jail awaiting trial, interacted with ChatGPT, OpenAI’s spokesperson said the chatbot “did not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity”

So, as such what evidence is there towards prosecuting OpenAI? I don’t mind as it fuels the flames of entertainment and trying to be a useful git I would like to offer Florida’s Attorney General James Uthmeier the thought that he should be aware of (after he had his free pound of flesh from the media). 

Rule 11 requires attorneys to conduct “due diligence” to ensure a claim has a factual basis and is not filed to harass or cause unnecessary delays.

Because in the end, without evidence of ‘convolution’ of the mind or thoughts of (evidence supported) ’co-conspiracy’ FSU student Phoenix Ikner is likely to face a long stretch in Hotel Sing Sing with the optional inoculation by Dr. Death. I don’t call the shots, that is up to the judge in this matter. 

But from the lack of evidence that the BBC gives, I reckon that OpenAI is off the hook and that is merely me and in opposition of my usual banter in economy, I do hold law degrees (invalid in the United States). As such I have to wonder if the article had anything to do with that shooting at all? Over 30% is about ChatGPT and it hold a photo of Sam Altman, so it seems that at least two parties are more interested in media exposure, because (as I personally see it) we would, if it was about the crime, get an image of Florida State University, optionally with grieving people. So what gives?

I might have oversimplified the issue, what do you say? Have a great day, oh wait. I need some exposure too, so lets add to this by switching to YouTube. In that matter yesterday, I saw a video by Nancy Wheeler and when it troubled my mind I wanted to rewatch parts of that video, so as I searched for “Nancy Wheeler economy”, which was needed as there is a fictive character of Nancy Wheeler who messes up your internet soufflé. She gives us that there is a crises coming, and she states is underway already. As such I wondered and for the life of me, I could not find the Nancy Wheeler in real life outside of YouTube. That doesn’t mean she does not exist, but with the facts given I was weirdly surprised that the media had not picked that up. She gives us that there are three weaknesses creeping up on all of us:

Sovereign debt trap
Currency bifurcation machine 
Shadow liquidity crises

Now it sounds massive and cool (which makes the media not picking this up weird), and she talks a nice deal. I a lacking economy knowledge, so I was almost mesmerized, A really pretty youthful young sprout asking for my attention has that effect on me. But there was something in what she said. She stated: “The buyers [of the debt] have changed, the maturities have shortened and the exit doors have gotten smaller”

This caught me, because that sounds about right, so I wonder why the media didn’t pick this up. It is not to prove that she was right, but considering the reasoning that the media wants its pound of flesh, they didn’t go for debunking this either. So what is the silence? Don’t get me wrong, for all we know Nancy Wheeler could be a massively pretty doom speaker and this tends to be an automatic media magnet (she is more appealing in looks than Jerome Powell ever will be) and as I am blissfully ignorant on economy there is no way I can tell the difference of one against the other (facts).

So is it correct? Is she wrong and she made a point that the debt surpassed the 97.1 trillion. Is it a gimmick for the call to ‘accurate’ reporting? As such the video (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TqjlaiU_N8) gives us the goods and I let you decide how right or wrong she is. 

Well that is all there is on this Friday (for me) when you all rejoin me on this Friday I will have more to say (in approximately 20 hours). Have a great day the next 20 hours.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

April 23, 2026 · 07:30

Bleeding on the spot

That is at times the setting, we tend to ignore it, we laugh, we giggle, and sometimes we cry. If it is your own body, you will likely panic. So as I saw Tom’s Hardware (at https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/cerebras-files-for-ipo-company-remains-unprofitable-despite-20x-revenue-growth) give us ‘Cerebras files for IPO — company remains unprofitable despite 20x revenue growth’ I tend to frown. There are settings with little profit (like the Big Mac for $1.95) which at 20 times still becomes a decent amount (all $6 of them), we get that other factors that remove profit margins, but when the setting becomes “Bleeding money at a rapid rate” it becomes a worry. You see, the business plan makes sense or is a hail Mary (not unlike the Macintosh Performa) this is an intentional setting I am giving, because that Hail Mary became the PowerMac and then the G4 and G5. These were the systems that put Apple on several maps and from there the big wins became visible. A Hail Mary that worked. But here we are given “Cerebras, the supplier of wafer-scale AI processors, has filed for an IPO for the second time after it cancelled such plans due to its ties with G42, an Abu Dhabi-based AI company backed by sovereign wealth fund Mubadala, last year. Financial results disclosed as part of the filing reveal that Cerebras appears to be one of the fastest-growing AI hardware companies right now. However, 86% of its revenue comes from two customers, and the company is bleeding money.” From this limited information I would gather that the business plan is highly likely flawed. And we are given that the 86% comes from just two customers (G42 and Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, MBZUAI). Now I would go with the Business plan, but there might be reasons for this and the settings that AI processors give could still be a solution if these two clients put in the considerable work (no critique on the two trendsetters). As we see that “The remaining 14% of revenue is generated by a fragmented base of smaller enterprise, government, and cloud customers, but none contribute enough individually to reduce Cerebras’ heavy reliance on its top two clients. More recently, Cerebras inked agreements to supply its AI hardware to Amazon Web Services and OpenAI, which will diversify revenue streams for the company.” But the larger option is gaining traction. Now for the most we can ignore the fact that they are American (which is at present never a good selling point), but they  are also in Toronto and Bangalore. The issue is that they are no threat to Nvidia and they don’t need to be, the idea is that they could skim the market and take up traction pretty much anywhere. I reckon that they have done that, but there is the option that they could optionally feed data centers in China, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, if that works and they could get the first one in these places, they are likely to gain several other corporations and locations for implementation. The reasoning I have is that there are several sounds from customers that they have a lack of processors, so are they tapped? It seems so as we see “Cerebras has a massive $24.6 billion backlog (including the $20 billion OpenAI deal), which provides strong demand visibility. The company expects to recognize approximately 15% of this revenue within the first 24 months through December 31, 2027, 43% during months 25 to 48, and the remainder thereafter. Still, Cerebras warns that converting this backlog into revenue depends on the manufacturing capacity of its partners, infrastructure deployment, and power availability.” It makes me wonder why the quote “Bleeding money at a rapid rate” was given. So as we see “Cerebras recorded a $363 million gain from a change in the fair value (and extinguishment) of a forward contract liability: the company had a financial obligation whose value was reduced, which allows it to book that reduction as income. If the value was not reduced, the company would be unprofitable. In fact, Cerebras’ operating losses totaled $145.9 million in 2025.” But even so, as I see it (with my lack of economy studies) thematic doesn’t seem to add up and my mind goes back to the business plan. It is my simplistic mind that goes with the setting that Cerebras either has a product that works or they have not. If they do, the client has to pay and there are no freebees in this market, you do that if the product is shoddy, and the salesperson either deals with the buyer correctly, or they don’t. It is my rather simplistic setting of customer service, “we have a product and we would love to have you as customer, yet, our product is not free”, it will rock your world (for a price) and within that setting (and the right business plan) Cerebras should do just fine. As such I don’t get the setting we see. So as we are also given “Cerebras postponed its IPO plans in 2024 after a national security review examined its ties with Abu Dhabi-based G42 amid concerns about potential foreign access to advanced AI processors. G42 is both a customer and investor of Cerebras, which controls a 1% stake in the company that it acquired for $40 million in 2021.” This is an issue as it involves 50% of their customer base and what is this “potential foreign access to advanced AI processors”? Is this another American setting (not unlike their stance towards Huawei)? You see China is sized at 1.413 billion, as such it is over 4 times the size of the USA, the United States can either play nice or go down with the ship they are sinking themselves. Cerebras could go towards the EU as well as India and partially fund the data centers there and get longer lasting revenue, but that is almost the only options that are there. This market is getting saturated and it is not a market that has time and options for prima donna’s, this is my simplistic view. So as the article ends with “Cerebras has not specified an official fundraising target in its IPO filing, but current market expectations point to a roughly $3 billion raise. This is significantly higher than earlier $1 billion plans, which reflect the company’s rapid revenue growth and the scale of its AI infrastructure ambitions.” It also signals that the ‘bleeding effect’ is a temporary setting, depending on how the IPO evolves. Yet as I see it, the IPO has a lot less chance of being successful as long as the “Bleeding money at a rapid rate” vision is in place. But as I see it, enlarging their customer base precedes the need for an IPO, because no I matter how good the IPO is, it is facing slaughter when the customer base is set to two. But as I stated, my lack of economy might be the ruling red herring here. 

And whilst I leave you with this article and a few hidden hints, I will go and look what happens to Cerebras before June, May it have a nice time.

Have an interesting day today (‘great’ is oversold too much, even by me).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

April 19, 2026 · 10:11

The competition is moving

Yesterday (less than 24 hours ago) I took notice of an article in the South China Morning Post (at https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/3350460/nvidias-jensen-huang-warns-huawei-chips-deepseek-ai-models-would-be-horrible-us) where we see ‘Nvidia’s Jensen Huang warns Huawei chips for DeepSeek AI models would be ‘horrible’ for US’, so we see everyones favourite boy-scout giving us that Huawei could be either a terrible setting of everyone (us) or it could be horrible for the United States (US), I don’t know about the first one, the second one the United States did to themselves. And the setting of overvaluation by the United States on fake AI, versus undervaluation of Chinese fake AI is considerable as the United States is giving value to what China sees as a mere 3% valuation. I am willing to go with “You had that coming” and in addition as I see it the Huawei MateBook Fold (2TB SSD / 32GB RAM) is an engineering marvel. 

It is the first product to be an actual threat to Apple’s iPad and that was long overdue. Don’t get me wrong, I have been an avid fan of the iPad and I had one since 2011, so you might say I was there almost at the start and it never let me down, 2 years ago I got the iPad Air and it is still doing its bit for me every day (almost every hour). That is true innovation and now the Huawei is surpassing it with the Huawei MateBook Fold, it makes us think that Microsoft is still in the water scuttling its own future. Huawei is that much ahead of the rest. And now Jensen gives us “What do you think happens when it is equipped with a chip running DeepSeek in the background? 

That is the reality of so called sitting on their asses and getting surpassed by all the western technology. Add to this 6G Huawei is researching with “70 GHz mmWave for short-range communication, aiming for speeds exceeding 10 Gbit/s and sub-millisecond latency” some say that US sanctions will prevent this, but Huawei is the innovator, nothing comes near this and the so called west, including Europe, Middle East, Asia and Australia (New Zealand too) have had enough of greed driven sanctions by the United States. Germany already went overboard (as stated by some) giving France and Italy enough settings to follow suit. So when Huawei gets to install its pilots in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the rest will almost be standing still, as the current setting is that their 5G is about 700% faster than anyone else (almost twice as fast as South Korea has) and that was almost 5 years ago (source: Statista) and I talked about that in one of my blog articles raising awareness for smart ware. So as I see it, the moment Huawei releases its combines tablet to the west, the United States is done and I reckon that Apple will lose a lot of customers, It will also be the point where Huawei will make its HarmonyOS NEXT (or HarmonyOS 5) to the larger collective in Europe and from that point the United States is no longer working at 41% (at the speed comparison Statista gave us) it will be reduced to a mere 23%-38% of whatever will be running in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. That is the setting and the DeepSeek chip is making it a much easier jump as the United States was honey coating the chains with (fake) AI and now Huawei is nearly at a point where they can state “We have AI too in all our Huawei models” and it comes at mere pennies to the dollar (compared all the other providers). As such Huawei was working in the background and the United States willing to strangle any press releases (a speculation by me) on the subject.

So whilst we are given “If “future AI models are optimised in a very different way than the American tech stack”, and as “AI diffuses out into the rest of the world” with Chinese standards and technology, China “will become superior to” the US, Huang said on the Dwarkesh Podcast on Wednesday. The conversation came ahead of the much-awaited launch of DeepSeek’s V4 foundation model, expected later this month. US news outlet The Information reported earlier this month that V4 would run on Huawei’s latest Ascend 950PR processor, while a separate report by Reuters last month suggested that the model had been trained on Nvidia’s Blackwell chips, which would be a violation of US export controls.” So whilst I have no idea how accurate the Reuters article is (never read it) I can surmise that the Products from the United States (like Apple) are unlikely to have anything to counter the Ascend 950PR processor, off course I am always happy to be proven wrong, but the setting I reported on in 2024 where the iMac has a mere 24GB RAM and 2TB drive, which should have been at least 64GB RAM and 4TB drive before 2025, is still in the old settings. 

Either that technology is unable or the people of Apple are sitting on their hands is nothing less of a joke, even if it is now possible to get it in Orange, Revell has given Apple that option for a mere €3 per model and Revell had that option for years (if not decades) so whilst we get the ‘innovation’ of colour, it is not, it is mere iteration and there are a few other settings were these innovators are sitting on their asses (optionally overdosing on viagra). Innovation is a game that is unrelenting and I have warned the larger audience of that for years, if not decades. 

Now the hard truths come calling and Huawei is the next innovation that is up for grabs and whilst Apple comes with the claim “Center Stage front camera with a new 18-megapixel square sensor, a 6.3-inch display with 120Hz ProMotion (available on the standard model for the first time), and the high-efficiency A19 chip.” It is not innovation, it is iteration and I see iteration as the next step from an innovative setting. That is what has been around for a long time and the days of the Apple iPad might be numbered now. I reckon that Huawei is unlikely to bust the Apple iPhone numbers for some time, but there is a danger that the Huawei Mate X6 (or the models that come after that) are unlikely to bash iPhone or Google Pixels as they are (for now) too expensive, but these new versions are ready to knock on our doors. So there is danger to be seen (for western technology) in the words of Jensen Huang and as the United States is massively anti-China, I wonder if Canada might be the next stage for illuminating the North American customers. I have no idea how Canadians are staged towards Chinese technology, but as their stance towards the Trump administration grows more hostile, there is every chance that this stage might go successful for China, especially if the US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra gives us another of his diplomatic jabs, as I see it, every time he says something more and more Canadians get a fresh doze of anti-Americanism. I’m just calling it as I see it.

Have a great day and consider the words of Jensen Huang, he might be more on the ball than I am (never a truer word was spoken). 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

April 17, 2026 · 15:07

What is real?

That is at times the question, the setting that someone is trying to give us fake. Now I am a most outspoken person in regards to AI, it doesn’t exist (yet) and whilst the media is all about AI (for their digital dollars), the real setting is when it will arrive. No matter how clever programmers become, it is still a programmers Wild Wild West. So when I took notice of the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/w3ct8mf3) I had different questions. We are given “Anthropic – one of Silicon Valley’s leading AI firms – recently announced that they have built a model which is too dangerous to be released to the public. Instead, they are only giving access to the model to a handful of big companies, to help them find security vulnerabilities.The company says the model has already found weak spots in “every major operating system and web browser”. Is this a genuine example of a company acting responsibly, or more of a carefully calibrated publicity move?” OK, the premise seems clear, whatever they call AI, let’s call it Fake AI might have become a tad more potent and giving it to a chosen few might be the way to go. I personally would advice Dario Amodei to talk to IBM, this is not some prearranged setting. As far as I know IBM is the most advanced player for Shallow Circuits and that is one of the thresholds to get to Real AI, until that moment comes all AI is fake. Optionally he should talk to Google too, as I have no idea how far their shallow circuits are. But it is one of the three remaining thresholds before we can get to a Real AI setting. The other one’s are the Trinary Operating System and the other is decent weeding (like removing arranged data from verifiable data) We already have quantum technology, so that is on par. The weeding part comes I reckon when shallow circuits are done, m because when we combine this with the TOS (my personal gag here and I am giggling) we have the makings of perfect data dirt weeding. But the setting also evokes other thoughts. If Anthropic is this far ahead, what the hell is Sam Altman doing with all the billions is is seemingly squandering. You see ‘OpenAI to spend over $20 bln on Cerebras chips’. I am not debating the setting, it might be the strongest there is (for now), but if this market is thrown upside down in less than a decade, it implies that Sam Altman just wasted billions on chips that are basically obsolete by the end of the year. And in that same setting the quote “OpenAI is valued at approximately $852 billion”, what will be left of that when 2027 comes calling? I have supporting ideas. If Anthropic is ahead of OpenAI, as I reckon is Google, who will pay $852 billion for a third place setting? And in addition we know that DeepSeek is out there, but no one knows how far ahead of lagging it is. What was old it can do so at a much lower cost and when did business walk away from cost reductions?

All thoughts that come to mind and the media is weirdly unaware of them, so who are they working for? Not the audience that is seemingly clear. But if you want to dismiss my calling, that is fair. So few free to investigate your own data and don’t use one source, use at least half a dozen sources and when you do you will figure out that the equations and the money drop is not evening out. It is all reminiscent of the 90’s where people will pay mountains for mere concepts. I thought we had done away with those settings? 

Still, the current call is with Anthropic and Dario Amodei. I wonder how quickly we will see an update on how that is going. I am sure it might take several weeks, but in the meantime we can consider did OpenAI overtake Google Gemini yet? If so by how much and if not, what are these headlines of chips for billions, when Lays has them for $3.99 (ketchup taste optional).

And yes 20,000,000,000 is a real number, but so is the return on investment and where is that number with OpenAI? What is his return on investment? As such have a lovely day and if you are not investing in FakeAI try enjoying your coins in acquiring some coffee or tea, they both tend to wake up the senses.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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