Tag Archives: Artificial Intelligence

New short term thinking

The news hit me somewhere yesterday. I got it by means of a LinkedIn mention, and it gave me reason to pause. Here is one version of that news (at https://techwireasia.com/2025/04/microsoft-pauses-key-builds-in-indonesia-us-and-uk-amid-infrastructure-review/) with the mention ‘Microsoft pauses data centre investment in Indonesia, US, and UK’, and here we see the byline “Microsoft pauses or delays data centre projects in the UK, US, and Indonesia.”, it is my view that they cannot afford this setting. You might have heard the American expression, “Go big or go home” and I think that Microsoft is about to go home. You see, I have forever had the clear opinion that there is no AI. I call it NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing), the setting that if too many start accepting the setting that I was always right (which comes from the clear setting that there is one AI station and it was given to us by Alan Turing) the people will realise that there is no AI and it comes down to programming and a programmer. That setting puts Microsoft in hot water for a lot of heavy water (to be poured over their heads). And lets be clear, a side you can confirm with mere logical thinking. A data Centre is a long term setting. No matter what you put in the White House (by some called the village idiot) whatever this administration is, it is short term and a data centre is long term and that so called hype around their AI should never waver. You see, this short term action (read: knee jerk reaction) implies short term planning and that is where they all get into hot waters. Why did you think that I made mention that Google needs to put a data centre in Iceland and consolidate their thinking into geo thermal reactors? (Reactors might not be the right word). A setting where ceramic tiles (or cylinders) surrounding new constructions that is not unlike a nuclear reactor, but the reactor is all around them, not Uranium rods, the Lava (or Magma) is the powerful and as it is merely bleeding the radiation, the fuel never dissipates and never ending energy is theirs. For all these parties looking of creating data centers (as far as I can see around 50 in total globally) they will all require energy and as one data centre takes energy close to a amount a small city does, we will get energy issues a lot sooner than we think.

Did Microsoft think this through? Pretty sure they did and their conclusion is that they cannot spend billion on data centers. So at the same time as we are given “Rivals Oracle and OpenAI ramp up investments”, I come to the conclusion that Microsoft can no longer afford the bills their ego’s committed themselves to. Feel free to disagree, but they set out this AI ‘vibe’ and own 49% of OpenAI, so why close down their Data Centers whilst they ‘own’ one of the ramp up partners? They are figuring out that they are too deeply committed. And as the world realizes that NIP is not the same as actual AI, they fear what is coming next.

So you decide what to make of the stage of “Microsoft has acknowledged changing its strategy but declined to provide details about specific projects. “We plan our data centre capacity needs years in advance to ensure we have sufficient infrastructure in the right places,” a Microsoft spokesperson said. “As AI demand continues to grow, and our data centre presence continues to expand, the changes we have made demonstrates the flexibility of our strategy.”” As I see it, it is an answer, but not the one that touches on this. I come with questions as ‘What growth?’ All this sets the need for some lowered activity, not pausing, unless you know what comes next and there is a larger setting with Oracle, Tencent and Huawei, I know there is a Swedish centre as well but I forgot the name. All these are ramping up, but Microsoft is pausing? That makes no sense unless there is another reason and my thought of “They can no longer afford it” takes another gander and when we consider that they paused “North Dakota, Illinois, Wisconsin, the UK midlands and Jakarta, Indonesia.” That implies something is going on and when we combine this with “Microsoft cuts data centre plans and hikes prices in push to make users carry AI costs” (source: The Conversation, March 3rd 2025) these elements together implies (imply, not proven) tells me that there is a funding setting for Microsoft. Combine that with the lovely voiced fact of “OpenAI brought in US$3.7 billion in revenue – but spent almost US$9 billion, for a net loss of around US$5 billion.” (Source: the Conversation) we see another failed setting and that failure gets to be bigger. As Amazon, Google, Oracle, Tencent and Huawei steam ahead getting larger data centers and ready long before Microsoft is there means less revenue for Microsoft. I did say that they could go big or go home? I reckon that Microsoft already lost 6 times on front settings and they lost to Amazon, Apple (twice), Sony, Adobe, Google, and IBM. I should add Huawei to that list but they already bungled that setting before Huawei became an actual competitor. A simple deduction from little stupid old me. 

So whatever you do, you might look into the trust you gave Microsoft and see that you are not left with an empty shell. Oh, and to prove that I am not anti-Microsoft you need to know that they did corner the spreadsheet market (Excel) and the flight Simulator market. Microsoft did some things good, but when it comes to the spin setting of vibes they need to reassess their situation.

Have a great day, it’s midweek now. I am happily in the next day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

When words become data

There is an uneasy setting. I get that. You see AI does not exist, and whilst we all see the AI settings develop and some will be setting (read: gambling) 500 billion dollars on that topic, we now see that META is banking on a 200 billion on the stage. But what is this stage? We can tun to Reuters  who gives us ‘Meta in talks for $200 billion AI data center project, The Information reports’ (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-talks-200-billion-ai-data-center-project-information-reports-2025-02-26/) where we are given “A Meta spokesperson denied the report, saying its data center plans and capital expenditures have already been disclosed and that anything beyond that is “pure speculation”” However, when we set the stage on a different shoe we see another development. You see, when we think of this in non-AI terms we get that a Data Centre generally ranges from $10 million to $200 million with a typical commercial data center costing around $10-12 million per megawatt of power capacity; smaller data centers can cost as low as $200,000 to build. So when we consider that the upper range of a data centre is $200 million. So what kind of a data centre gives the need to be a thousand times bigger? Now, consider that there are enough people clarifying that AI does not exit. I see AI what some people call True AI and that springs from the mind of Alan Turing. He set the premise of AI half a century ago. And whilst some of the essential hardware is ready, there are still parts missing. Yet what some now call AI is merely Deeper Machine Learning and it gets help from an LLM. This setting requires huge amounts of data, so when you consider that that data comes from a data centre. What on earth is META up to? When need a data centre a thousand times bigger? The only size that makes sense for 200 billion is a data centre that could gobble up whatever Microsoft has as well as Google’s data centers in one great swoop and that is merely the beginning.

Speculation
The next part is speculation, I openly admit that. So when (not if) America defaults on their loans we get an implosion of current wealth and the new wealth will be data. Data will in the near future be the currency that all other parties accept. As such Is META preparing for a new currency? As I see it the simplest setting is whomever has the most data will be the richest person on the planet and that would make sense, that explains Trump’s 500 billion for a data centre and now META is following suit. You see Zuckerberg is really intelligent. I saw that setting 5 years before Facebook existed, but my boss told me that my idea was ludicrous, it would never work. Now we see my initial idea spread all over the planet with every marketing organisation on the planet chomping at the bit to get their slice of pie. So Zuckerberg does have the cajones and the drive to proceed. When data is currency they will be one of the few players in the new economy. And when you take my speculation (possibly even insightful presumption) these data centers make sense and being able to set predictive data learned from active and historical data makes sense in a very real way. Predictive data will be the wave of the future. It still is not AI, but it is in very real ways the next step in data needs. Predictive analytics set the path of this wave 1-2 decades ago. And now we see more data transformations and when the main roads are dealt with the niche markets can be predicted and seen in very real ways.

And the stage is more real than you can see. When people like Zuckerberg are cashing out to get their data centers up and running, there is a real drive to be first to cash in. As I see it, my next step would be to score a job with a data centre doing mere maintenance and support work. You see, as all these big players evolve their needs, their manpower will need to come from infrastructures that these data centers require. So support and power will have the greatest staffing needs in the next decade. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Have a lovely day today

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

To all these sales losers

Yes, it sounds a little vindictive and that is where I am. So to get to this, we need to assess a few things and as always I do assess where I am. To set that stage, we need to see the elements. As I early as February 8th 2021 I have stated “AI does not exist” I did so in ‘Setting sun of reality’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/08/setting-sun-of-reality/)

I have done so several times since and as always I got the ‘feedback’ that I was stupid and that I didn’t understand things. I let it slide over and over again and today the BBC handed me my early Christmas present. They did so in ‘Powerful quantum computers in years not decades, says Microsoft’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3e3252gj8o) where we find “But experts have told the BBC more data is needed before the significance of the new research – and its effect on quantum computing – can be fully assessed. Jensen Huang – boss of the leading chip firm, Nvidia – said in January he believed “very useful” quantum computing would come in 20 years.” In 20 years? I can happily report I will be dead by then. Yet the underlying setting is also true. If actual AI is depending on a quantum chip and fully explored shallow circuit technology, we can therefor presume that true AI is at least 20 years away. I believe that another setting is needed, but that is not here nor there at this point. 

Don’t get me wrong. What we have now is great, even of a phenomenal nature, but it is not AI. Deeper Machine Learning is becoming more and more groundbreaking. And the setting together with LLM is amazing, it just isn’t AI. Together with the Microsoft setting of ‘in years’ comes nice. In an age that hype settings are required, the need for annual redefinition of something it isn’t will upset massive amount of sales cycles. They will suddenly need to rely on whatever PR is running with marketing setting the tome of what becomes next. A new setting for sales I reckon.

I have some questions on the quote “Microsoft says this timetable can now be sped up because of the “transformative” progress it has made in developing the new chip involving a “topological conductor”, based on a new material it has produced.” My question comes from the presumption that this is untested and unverified. I am not debating that this is possible, but if it was the quote would include (along the lines of) “the data we have now confirms the forward strides we are making” as such the statement is to some degree ‘wishful thinking’ it isn’t set in verifiable rule yet. It seems that Travis Humble agrees with me as we also get “Travis Humble, director of the Quantum Science Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, said he agreed Microsoft would now be able to deliver prototypes faster – but warned there remained work to do.” But the underground on this is set to a timeline that gives doubt to the set of Stargate and its $500 billion investment. Consider that the investment is coming over the next 4 years, all whilst ‘interesting’ quantum technology is 20 years away. So what will they do? Invest it again? Seems like a waste of 500 billion. In that case can I have 15 million of that pie? I need my pension investment in Toronto (apartment included). The larger setting of wasteful investment. Does Elon Musk know that there is 500 billion in funds being nearly wasted? 

And the simplest setting (for me) is also overlooked. It is seen in the quote “meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades”, that implies that there is no real AI at present. And my ego personally sees this as “Game, set and match for Lawrence”, as such all these sales dodo’s with their “You do not know what you are talking about” will suddenly avoid gazes and avoid me whilst they plan their next snappy come back. In the meantime I will leisurely relax whilst I contemplate this victory. It is the second step in my blog, the timeline shows what I wrote and when I wrote it. It could have gone the other way, but my degrees on the technology matter were clearly on my side.

And “Microsoft is approaching the problem differently to most of its rivals.”? Well, that is the benefit of taking another step, optionally innovative step in any technology. Microsoft cannot be wrong all the time and here they seemingly have a winner and that’s fair, they optionally get to win this time. 

In the setting of ego I start the day (at 04:30) decently happy. Time I had a good day too. As such there is nothing to do but to wait another 240 minutes to have breakfast. Better have a walk before then. Have a good or even better, a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Just Asking

Today I started to ask questions within me. I have been an outspoken critic on the fact of AI and knowing it doesn’t exist questions came to mind. Question that, as I see it the BBC isn’t asking either. So lets get to this game and let you work out what is real.

Phase One
In phase one we look at AI and the data, you see any deeper machine learning solution (whether you call it AI or not) will depend on data. Now we get that no matter what you call this solution it will require data. Now that Deeper Machine Learning and LLM solutions require data (as well as the fact that the BBC is throwing article after article at us) who verifies the data?

Consider that these solutions have access to all that data, how can any solution (AI or not) distinguish the relevant data? We get the BBC in January give us this quote “That includes both smaller, specialist AI-driven biotech companies, which have sprung up over the past decade, and larger pharmaceutical firms who are either doing the research themselves, or in partnership with smaller firms.” My personal issue is that they all want to taste from the AI pie and there are many big and small companies vying for the same slice. So who verifies the data collected? If any entry in that data sphere requires verification, what stops errors from seeping through? This could be completely unintentional, but it will happen. And any Deeper Machine Learning system cannot inspect itself. It remains a human process. We will be given a whole range of euphemistic settings to dance around that subject, but in short. When that question is asked, the medical presenter is unlikely to have the answer and the IT person might dance around the subject. Only once did I get a clear answer from a Chinese data expert “We made an assumption on the premise of the base line according to the numbers we have had in the past”, which was a decent answer and I didn’t expect that answer making it twice as valuable. There is the trend that people will not know the setting and in the now there is as I see it, a lack of verification. 

Phase Two
Data Entry is a second setting. As the first is the verification of data that is handled, the second question is how was this data entered? It is that setting and not the other way round. You must have verifiable data to get to the data entry part. If you select a million parameters, how can you tell if a parameter is where it needs to be? And then there is a difference between intrinsic and extrinsic data. What is observed and what is measured. Then we get to the stage that (as the most simple setting) that are the Celsius and Fahrenheit numbers correct (is there a C when if should be an F) you might think that it is obvious, but there are settings when that is a definite question mark. Again, nothing intentional, but the question remains. So when we consider that and Deeper Machine Learning comes with a guidance and all this comes from human interactions. There will be questions and weirdly enough I have never seen them or seen anyone ask this (looking way beyond the BBC scope).

Phase Three
This is a highly speculative part. You see environment comes into play here and you might have seen it on a vacation. Whilst the locals enjoy market food, you get a case of the runs. This is due to all kinds of reasons. Some are about water and some about spices. As such the locals are used to the water and spices but you cannot handle either. This is an environmental setting. As such the data needs to be seen with personal medical records and that is a part we often do not see (which makes sense), but in that setting how can any solution make a ‘predicted’ setting when part of that data is missing?

So, merely looking at these three settings. I have questions and before you think I am anti-AI. I am not, it merely doesn’t exist yet and whilst the new Bazooka Joe’s are hiding behind the cloak of AI, consider that all this require human intervention. From Data Entry, to verification and the stage of environmental factors. So do you really think that an Indian system will have the same data triggers as a Swedish one? And consider that I am merely asking questions, questions the BBC and many others aren’t seemingly asking.

So take a moment to let that shift in and consider how many years we are away from verified data and now consider all the claims you see in the news. And this is only the medical field. What other fields have optionally debatable data issues?

Have a great day and when Mr. Robot say all is well, make sure you get a second opinion from a living GP. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Overdrive, or drive over

That is the setting. We can try to set the premise of DeepSeek (a waste of my time), we can set the premise of Microsoft AI (a waste of everyones time) and yes the 14 billion will have an effect and we can speculate on the 500 billion that StarGate is going to cost and what exactly will be the enabling part. Did anyone consider the ROI of that idea? That prospect will need to make at least 15 billion annual to make it worth. Throwing big printed cash at it will be as useless as the quantitive easing that Mario Draghi promised about a decade ago. Yup, it won’t go anywhere. 

But that led me to a setting many seem to ignore, so lets have the list:

Microsoft 365 Copilot: A monthly subscription that costs $30 per person. Copilot Free is available with the Microsoft 365 Business Basic plan. Copilot Pro is a monthly subscription that offers more advanced features. 
So at present, how many people are on this plan? It seems that Microsoft isn’t to talkative on ‘how successful’ it actually is. We get spread numbers and these numbers doesn’t seem to validate the billions invested.

Azure Machine Learning: A pay-as-you-go service with pricing based on the number of vCPUs. 
Azure AI Search: A service with pricing based on the number of text records or images processed. 

Here I have more issues. You see, we are given “Azure AI. Azure AI provides users with powerful tools that can be used to create innovative solutions using machine learning, natural language processing (NLP), computer vision, and more” How can any machine learning create innovative solutions? If it is machine learning someone else has it already, making it reengineering at best, optionally an innovative patent. I always (perhaps incorrectly) see pay-as-you-go as a dodgy solution. You either commit, or you don’t. 

Computer Vision API: A service with pricing based on the number of transactions processed. 
So, a service based on transaction processing, on that case if the IT department doesn’t throttle its usage there is every chance that an intern could blow up cost as it is happening.

Azure AI Content Safety: A service with pricing based on the number of text records or images processed. 
Azure AI Content Understanding: A service with pricing based on the number of hours of content processed. 

All this is set to a counter (like ConfirmIT) and that is the only company that had a good handle on it, a setting with decades. Now, there is a chance that I forgot a few solutions and that is OK. I am not heading an aspirational setting of academic instance.

You see everyone is on the bandwagon and I am too tired (or too old) to care. The media can’t be bothered unless digital currency is flowing their way. Yet in all this when did you see a clear description of AI solutions in use by Amazon, IBM or Oracle? You see, the DeepSeek issues of the last few days stirred a few minds. They are now also seeking Return on Investment (ROI) and that image is not clear, at least the media seemingly can’t be bothered and the influencers now shouting their wisdom on LinkedIn are also at times tedious and for the most a waste of everyones time. So why Microsoft? I don’t really care about it, but they (and their sickofans) are shouting how good their solutions are, but we see no clear numbers. And at present clear numbers is what the most of the population want. 

Am I wrong?
I doubt it, the signs are there and when we see a small message on the left, the right clearly muffle that sound out. You see Shelly Palmer in IEEE Spectrum writes “As for the 100,000 jobs the project is supposed to create? Some construction jobs will be created as the data centers are built, but many more (millions more) will be created as the data centers come online. We’ve never had a compute cloud like this—there’s literally no way to calculate the economic impact of this amount of AI compute. It will be massive.” I actually don’t know about that. The idea that “there’s literally no way to calculate the economic impact of this amount of AI compute” is as I see it bogus. For 500 billion ($500,000,000,000) I expect more. But at present it comes across like a huge NSA data collection hub. Come to think of it, We could (optionally) get some data from the NSA, Google or IBM. They have experience with really big data centers. So what are those costs? What is the return on investment? And there is the setting of the value of collected data and that will not even have value until lots of data is collected, so lets say by 2030 and all those billions need to show investment value and at present the big-tech market lost over 1 trillion dollars a few days ago. So where is the ROI of all this?

Then we get “There are many tech skeptics, and it has become fashionable to denigrate and vilify big tech. To me, the Stargate Project is the first step in securing the future of the U.S. economy as well as our digital and cyber security. Every business will benefit from the power and promise of AI, and—like it or not, believe it or not—warfare will be dominated by AI. Today, the U.S. has a clear lead. The Stargate Project will help ensure it stays that way.” My issue is that there are always skeptics, I am one to some extent and the words “the power and promise of AI” fills me with dread. It is the included word “promise” and warfare isn’t dominated by AI, the setting pf properly programmed deer machine learning is. It is not AI and it is unlikely to show until somewhere in early 2040 at best (as I personally see it) but the 500 billion is coming out of ‘our’ pockets now. Yes, I know what they say that corporations will push the bill. Yet when this goes pear shaped. They will al put in in a bad bank account and relinquish the debt as a write off, so you, in the end still pay the bill in some way.

Then there is the sentence “Today, the U.S. has a clear lead” do they? DeepSeek is Chinese and their setting blew the rest away, you want to find out what a two-nil for China looks like? You are about to see that in very unrespectful terms. And as everyone is on that so called AI horse no one is investigating it, the media least of all.

In the meantime I will reengineer games. There is at least some revenue in that. And as I saw the reengineering options for ‘Infamous: Second Son’ The Sony firms could get some more coins from an 11 year old game on the PS4. And now there is an option to get it upgraded to PS5. Consider the gaming population. Whomever played in to PS4 (early days PS4) would like the setting on PS5, I tried that original game on PS5 and it plays well. A few minor glitches but that is what happens. The storyline could be upgraded and with linearity removed the game would get a much tougher stance. Then add the ‘cleaning’ of Seattle and we get a more complete game. With the setting to an optional change to Smoke-TV-Neon sequence the game alters a fair bit, and in this the game could also encase the stealth option in the game. Take with that the option to go back to the beginning to free the people from concrete affliction the good and the bad will also alter to some degree and it isn’t merely the good and the bad setting, the larger stage of animosity could reverberate through the game. And I am now looking to a few more games. A setting that I believe is great for Sony in the immediate future. 

Can’t stop a creative mind puzzling on how to make something better, a trick that isn’t possible with Deeper Machine Learning and LLM’s. Have a great Thursday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

And the bubble said ‘Bang’

This is what we usually see, or at times hear as well. Now I am not an AI expert, not even a journeyman in the ways of AI, But the father of AI namely Alan Turing stated the setting of AI. He was that good as he set the foundation of AI in the 50’s, half a century before we were able to get a handle on this. Oh, and in case you forget what he looks like, he has been immortalised on the £50 note.

And as such I feel certain that there is no AI (at present) and now this bubble comes banging on the doors of big-tech as they just lost a trillion dollars in market value. Are you interested in seeing what that looks like? Well see below and scratch the back of your heads.

We start with Business Insider (at https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tech-stock-sell-off-deepseek-ai-chatgpt-china-nvidia-chips-2025-1) where we are given ‘DeepSeek tech wipeout erases more than $1 trillion in market cap as AI panic grips Wall Street’ and I find it slightly hilarious as we see “AI panic”, you see, bubbles have that effect on markets. This takes me back to 2012 when the Australian Telstra had no recourse at that point to let the waves of 4G work for them (they had 3.5G at best) so what did they do? They called the product 4G, problem solved. I think they took some damage over time, but they prevented others taking the lead as they were lagging to some extent. Here in this case we are given “US stocks plummeted on Monday as traders fled the tech sector and erased more than $1 trillion in market cap amid panic over a new artificial intelligence app from a Chinese startup.” Now let me be clear, there is no AI. Not in America and not in China. What both do have is Deeper Machine Learning and LLM’s and these parts would in the end be part of a real AI. Just not the primary part (see my earlier works). Why has happened (me being speculative) is that China had an innovative idea of Deeper Machine Learning and package this innovatively with LLM modules so that the end result would be a much more efficient system. The Economic Times (at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/worlds-richest-people-lose-108-billion-after-deepseek-selloff/articleshow/117615451.cms) gives us ‘World’s richest people lose $108 billion after DeepSeek selloff’ what is more prudent is “DeepSeek’s dark-horse entry into the AI race, which it says cost just $5.6 million to develop, is a challenge to Silicon Valley’s narrative that massive capital spending is essential to developing the strongest models.” So all these ‘vendors’ and especially President Trump who stated “Emergence of cheaper Chinese rival has wiped $1tn off the value of leading US tech companies” (source: the Guardian). And with the Stargate investment on the mark for about 500 billion dollars it comes as a lightning strike. I wonder what the world makes of this. In all honesty I do not know what to believe and the setting of DeepSeek the game will change. In the first there are dozens of programers who need to figure out how the cost cutting was possible. Then there is the setting of what DeepSeek can actually do and here is the kicker. DeepSeek is free as such there will be a lot of people digging into that. What I wonder is what data is being collected by Chinese artificial intelligence company Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd. It would be my take on the matter. When something is too cheap to be true, you better believe that there is a snag on the road making you look precisely in the wrong direction. I admit it is the cynic in me speaking, but the stage that they made a solution for 6 million (not Lee Majors) against ChatGPT coming at 100 million, the difference is just too big and I don’t like the difference. I know I might be all wrong here, but that is the initial intake I take in the matter. 

If it all works out there is a massive change in the so called AI field. A Chinese party basically sunk the American opposition. In other news, there is possibly reason to giggle here. You see, Microsoft Invested Nearly $14 Billion In OpenAI and that was merely months ago and now we see that  someone else did it at 43% of the investment and after all the hassles they had (Xbox) they shouldn’t be spending recklessly I get it, they merely all had that price picture and now we see another Chinese firm playing the super innovator. It is making me giggle. In opposition to this, we see all kind of player (Google, IBM, Meta, Oracle, Palantir) playing a similar game of what some call AI and they have set the bar really high, as such I wonder how they will continue the game if it turns out that DeepSeek really is the ‘bomb’ of Deeper Machine Learning. I reckon there will be a few interesting weeks coming up. 

Have fun, I need to lie still for 6 hours until breakfast (my life sucks).

3 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

And there was more

You see three days ago (merely two days and change) I wrote ‘A story in two parts’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/01/17/a-story-in-two-parts/) where I laird bare a few of the ‘shortcomings’ of Microsoft. However there was more. I had initially chosen the title ‘The color is blue’ yet I decided that the premise is not about Azure, there is more to it all. You see Fierce Network gives us ‘Google Cloud could overtake Microsoft’s No. 2 cloud position this year’, which sounds nice. However there are a few issues with that. We will all love ““Google Cloud is already nearly equal to Microsoft Azure in revenues, and has a higher revenue growth rate than Microsoft Azure,” Gold wrote in a research note. “By the end of the next four years of revenue growth, we project Google Cloud’s revenues will be 55% greater than Azure at current growth rates.”” The research note gives the proper “Based on the Average of Past Two Years Revenue Growth Rate

Assuming Same Growth Rate Going Forward” so that is good, but it does not despair from “By the end of the next 4 years of revenue growth, we project Google Cloud’s revenues will be 55% greater than Azure at current growth rates.” Yet this setting does not account that someone at Microsoft ‘suddenly’ takes an innovative step towards (who knows), the second setting is that the technology premise stays where it is. Huawei with their HarmonyOS is another factor, the Chinese factor. In this I predict that they might use Microsoft down the line and might step away from Google (speculative). We have little insight in what places like the UAE does and they have a large investment in their approach to AI and in this Microsoft has the inner track there. So I love the premise, but I have thoughts of consideration on how the future unfolds. There is a chance that AWS will clear house, but there are reservations on that front too. 

Still, Azure has issues. You see the Register (at https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/13/azure_m365_outage/) gives us ‘Azure, Microsoft 365 MFA outage locks out users across regions’ with the added “Microsoft’s multi-factor authentication (MFA) for Azure and Microsoft 365 (M365) was offline for four hours during Monday’s busy start for European subscribers.” I understand that it comes with “It’s fixed, mostly, after Europeans had a manic Monday” now I wonder why we see the use of ‘mostly’ there are perhaps a few gaps in the solution and that happens, but how many of these events will Microsoft cater to until a user like Coca Cola gets a tap on the shoulder to start looking for alternatives? Do you think that a man like James Quincey keeps his sense of humor when his bottom line is under fire? And that is only the beginning.

Still Microsoft has its own ‘defense’ knee jerk operation, we are informed of that by Techi where we see (at https://www.techi.com/microsoft-files-suit-against-hundreds-abuse-azure-openai-services/) with the headline ‘Microsoft Files Suit Against Hundreds for Abuse of Azure OpenAI Services’, so not only is their OpenAI ‘flawed’, it is open to abuse (apparently). We are given “API Key Theft and Hacking-as-a-Service”where we see “As per Microsoft, the defendants systematically and through their deceitful acts stole API keys, the fundamental means of authentication to its AI services. The hacked accounts were allegedly pivotal in creating an act of “hacking-as-a-service” One main ingredient for that operation would be De3u, a software that enabled one to convert images synthesized by OpenAI’s DALL-E without the necessity of writing an actual code.” I kinda covered that on September 8th 2024 in ‘Poised to give critique’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/09/08/poised-to-deliver-critique/). Michael Bargury gave us a small example of how bad things can get.  Here the operational setting is given through “A former security architect demonstrates 15 different ways to break Copilot: “Microsoft is trying, but if we are honest here, we don’t know how to build secure AI applications”” and here is the premise now consider what (under Torts) customers will do, for example Coca Cola. Do you think they go after the so called hacker with not enough money to afford his/her own place or Microsoft with access to several bank vaults? Take the fortune 500 clients with claims of transgressions, do you really think there will be even a penny left in those Microsoft vaults when their legal teams are done with them? It might not be fair on Microsoft, but the setting of the use of the term AI opens up a whole new can of worms.

Then the Business Times (at https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/microsoft-openai-partnership-raises-antitrust-concerns-ftc-says) gives us ‘Microsoft-OpenAI partnership raises antitrust concerns, FTC says’ in this I might actually be a bit on the side of Microsoft. They give us “MICROSOFT’S US$13 billion investment in OpenAI raises concerns that the tech giant could extend its dominance in cloud computing into the nascent artificial intelligence (AI) market, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said in a report released on Friday (Jan 17).” My issue here is that there is a setting we had in the past and in countries they created their version of the FTC. It was a power for good then, but there is now the setting that LLM’s and Deeper Machine Learning has grown to a scope that the FTC cannot really fathom. This IT solution goes beyond what they know or understand and all the tech companies face this. So either they grow their ‘programming with barricades’ side of it all, giving tech companies the flaws that the law imbued in whatever country it is based. And that for global companies will set a larger flawed premise. It is like parties are limited to what others have. As such all criminals will come to us with BB-guns, because that is what the police have. Does that sound realistic? I don’t think so. But this also falls straight into the premise that Fierce Networks gave us. It works out fine for Google, until Google gets barricaded I reckon. So this is a setting that the tech firms are set to whatever the wannabe’s can do, that is a direct strangling of commerce and innovation and it sets whomever develop the trigital computer system and if you think that these systems are fast now? The next level system develops with a trinary operating system running on that hardware will astound the world. As I see it should diminish the IBM Deep Blue to a simple calculator. The difference will be THAT much, so who will innovate that when the FTC strangles innovation?

And finally we get the CIO (at https://www.cio.com/article/3802745/microsoft-commits-to-ai-integration-but-delivers-no-particulars-to-differentiate-from-rivals.html) who gives us ‘Microsoft commits to AI integration, but delivers no particulars to differentiate from rivals’ and as I see it, it was already lagging too much against AWS, and now apparently Google is coming up fast and under these settings we get this headline? And the part that matters is given with “Analysts, however, agreed that the statement reflected no meaningful changes to Microsoft’s AI strategy. The bluntest assessment came from Ryan Brunet, a principal research director at the Info-Tech Research Group: “This is classic Microsoft. It’s very much the same old garbage.”” It reminded my towards an old premise from the late 80’s when the PC was exciting and new ‘Garbage in, Garbage out’ in the age when everyone considered themselves a Market Research executive and these wannabe’s had not even mastered the basic needs of data quality. It was a Gender versus Shoe size and they thought that the solution was add the Lambda test (I think it was Lambda). And I get it, Satya Nadella talks his own street side, the problem is that there are too many unknowns at present and he hopes to get all the others onboard before they have thoroughly selected their options and in light of the selected abuses, that setting is not a given, especially as Google seemingly doesn’t have these flaws (as far as I know neither does IBM or whatever AWS wields). 

A setting that was more and could set a lot of people in the liable column of choices. And some of this has been known for at least a quarter. When you add this with part one, you see why I predicted the downfall of Microsoft three years ago. And as I see it Microsoft walked to dotted line in a near perfect manner, too bad they never read the byline ‘this way to the crevice you will not avoid when getting too close’.

It is as some say ‘the way the cookie crumbles’. Darn still 4 hours until breakfast. Time to find a new story. Have a great Monday and if you cannot get into Azure today, feel free to investigate alternatives.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

What is the difference?

A note to start with. This is pure presumption, there is no evidence that this is happening at present. And the second part is that I will be talking about AI in this article, all whilst I know it doesn’t exist yet. The setting of ‘AI’ is the conclusion of LLM and deeper machine learning at present and the solution in some cases is amazing, yet it is not AI (and that never will be the case), yet players all over the field (like for example Microsoft) they are set to the ‘AI’ field and there lies the danger, too many will snap their teeth into this field and they do not know what they are doing. The ‘et al’ parties in this like the revenue and will to some extent ‘accomodate’ what comes and what will connect to it. 

If this is the first setting of that stage, the second would be the accusation that ‘Meta Opens Floodgates For AI-Generated Accounts On Facebook, Instagram’ (source: Forbes). This sets up a new stage in data collection and data gathering and this connects to a movie called ‘Free Guy’ (with Ryan Reynolds) and that set in motion some thoughts that occurred to me. This part will be speculation to some, presumption as I see it for the simple reason that I have seen decades of lazy programmers and not to clued in data scientists who rumble to appease their data collecting masters. 

The premise
A man is going out on a date with his girlfriend, they are having a lovely meal and at that point he gets arrested for an outstanding warrant in Riverwood NSW, as he is accused of stealing merchandise from a shop and he is sought out to answer questions for the death of a police officer in that location, he is not wanted, but is a party of interest. He goes along with the setting, as only to see what is going on. He is certain that they aren’t looking for him. 

You see, the man is not the person they are looking for, to be honest there is no such warrant but there is the snag. Someone mixed up profiles and his gaming profile where he visited the Riverwood Trader in Riverwood in a place called Skyrim. You think I a kidding? No that is the reality we face when AI’s, who are not AI’s as AI’s do not yet exist. In the bungling mess that data scientists face they will cross the wrong paths and leave a lot of people in a dark setting as they are in line of warrants and black marks by the setting of that stage. And when someone will query the stage and ask if Riverwood NSW and Riverwood Whiterun are the same locations, or virtual ones. The computer will simply answer “What is the difference?

Settings
The setting of correct staging of locations and perhaps the simpler settings that a game crime is not a real crime the computer throws a NULL, it was never taught the distinction. The data Scientist never thought it would become a reality. And there is the stage when we get fake profiles collecting data. No distinct verification of data required (apparently).

It was a danger I saw years ago, but no one seemingly caught on and now as everyone wants to trow in their ‘AI’ to be more efficient in data collection, real profiles and real people get twist in a setting of what is reality and that setting will become the event of the day for a lot of people.

I am not looking forward to the arrest warrants from Florence and Rome for killing these so called Italian Carabinieri. I killed dozens in Florence and Rome and they will not realise that those done as my Altar Ego (Ezio Auditore) were not real, but leave it to any data scientist to leave that little setting out in the open. Now that some are pushing their ‘AI’ delusional reality to the larger profile and matching stages with all kinds of profiles we face these dangers. Should anyone say “That will never happen, we are to clever for that” I will answer “Why are you selling AI while it doesn’t exist yet?” These are stages that will soon come to fruition and even as it is not exactly that exact, there will be cross linking social media sources a they think it is their great O (ask any girl, she’ll know what I mean) and the simplest setting is decades old. You can not compare a basket of apples and a basket of oranges by calling both baskets ‘fruit’ the simplest setting ignored for simple greed. Because these ‘AI’ systems will accept both as fruit, even as an actual AI system would see the difference and simply state “I cannot compare a multitude of Oranges and Apples in the same comparison. The difference between a real system and an orchestrated system. 

Have a warrant free day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

The revolving question

That is at times in almost everything the setting. We might all go nuts about ‘mismanaging’ settings and I am to a certain degree not impervious to that setting. But after writing ‘The losing bet’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/12/08/the-losing-bet/) I started to mull things over. You see, people like Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan are not stupid. But there is a dangerous calm as people are given the questions and are given ‘a kind of answer’ and Microsoft is massively adapt in setting the stage to THEIR advantage and I suddenly realised a simpler setting. When was the question asked of Microsoft ‘What is AI?’ And ‘What is the premise of what you call AI?’ With ‘What is the data setting of AI?’ In this I reckon that some eyes will open. We see all settings of Ai mentioned, but the clear definition and a comparison to the setting that Alan Turing gave us 1950, moreover together with John McCarthy gave us the Turing test. So how far did people dig into this part of the equation? You might disagree with me on my stance of AI and that is okay. We do not all see eye to eye on a whole range of matters. But in this, in a Texas Hold’em style of business poker it becomes increasingly important to set the stage of definitions and hold them up to the light. In that game Microsoft doesn’t get to spin out of the stage ad blame it all on miscommunication. In that stage Microsoft has to hide into the margins or come out into the light. The second stage is likely and very pleasing to my ego.

You see, when people are part of a $1.5 billion investment there are people who are not pleased with that fact and they will nitpick any document handed to them. One of the oldest settings was ‘What are the definitions?’ Was in older days the way to see what players were up to and that stage got a little lost in populism and ‘fast’ presentations appeasing to the spending player. You might think that it is Microsoft paying, but you would be wrong. The UAE and G42 are investing time and resources to make it all work and I foresee that players like Microsoft (not just them) are trying to play fast and loose with definitions so that they can bank the first agreements and then turn back and hide behind ‘miscommunications’ after that fact. Which is why we have the clear setting of definitions. As such making all players answer that question gives a first setting. You see, there is no AI at present and that comes out at that very start. And no matter how clever LLM’s and Deeper Machine Learning is, the setting becomes data and who is responsible of that data. Now we get different players out and in the full-grown light. People like Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan will then immediately see who is endangering the security of the UAE and they have no sense of humour at that point. No matter how some see the ‘opportunity’ of a life time, the moment the national pride comes into view of danger, the UAE will demand clarity on matters and I reckon some will ‘trivialise’ matters and when you ‘invest’ $1.5 billion there is an issue with trivialisation (which is why I referred to a Texas Hold’em style). Now some will say that I am bluffing and I want to be ‘inserted’ as a possible player. You would be wrong. I do not want to be linked to a player like Microsoft in any way. Google, Amazon, Adobe, IBM and Oracle definitely, Microsoft not at all. As such I am not anti-American (a claim that was thrown at me several times in the past). I am anti-stupid (mostly) and when you start trivialising $1.5 billion I see you as stupid, and no matter what I think of Microsoft, they are not overly stupid. In some things yes, in other things (like playing black letter law stages) not that much. 

But all that becomes moot when some players release the definition lists to all we will see how silly my thoughts are, because these definitions go through the entire project and there is no way they get changed unless all parties openly agree. Oh and before you think that this is a ploy. You might be right. You see, I do not know where China is at present ad I would live to find out. So what is better then Microsoft setting the entire definition list to paper and release it all? I reckon we will see a Chinese response less then 48 hours alter. 

The revolving question is an almost needed stage because definitions on paper is what matters, if it isn’t written down it doesn’t exist. That has been a matter long before the Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. I reckon it goes back to the days of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (63BC-14). So this setting was known for 2000 years and with all the turbo presentations and innuendo I get the feeling it got lost in the woodwork of it all. As such I thought it was a great idea to remind people of that. 

Silly me, have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

The losing bet

That happens, we make bets. We all do in one way or another. Some merely hurt our pride and/or our ego. Some deals hurt others and there are other settings, too many to mention. But Reuters alerted me three hours ago on a deal that will have a lot of repercussions. The article ‘US clears export of advanced AI chips to UAE under Microsoft deal, Axios says’ (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/advanced-ai-chips-cleared-export-uae-under-microsoft-deal-axios-reports-2024-12-07/) is one that has a few more repercussions than you imagined it had. The global loser (Microsoft) has set up a setting where we see “The U.S. government has approved the export of advanced artificial intelligence chips to a Microsoft-operated facility in the United Arab Emirates as part of the company’s highly-scrutinised partnership with Emirati AI firm G42, Axios reported on Saturday, citing two people familiar with the deal.” Microsoft is as desperate as I think they are with this deal. They probably pushed the anti-China agenda and made mention of the $1.5 billion dollar investment deal. And as we are given “The deal, however, was scrutinised after U.S. lawmakers raised concerns G42 could transfer powerful U.S. AI technology to China. They asked for a U.S. assessment of G42’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party, military and government before the Microsoft deal advances.” And we are also given “The approved export license requires Microsoft to prevent access to its facility in the UAE by personnel who are from nations under U.S. arms embargoes or who are on the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security’s Entity List, the Axios report said.” In this I have a few issues.

In the first there is no AI, not yet anyway as such the investment is going the way like water under a bridge. Microsoft knows this as such they are betting big and they have the US government backing them. In the worst case it will be the US government putting up the $1.5 billion themselves and with the anti-China sentiment that is a likely result from this.

In the second the setting that Microsoft is banking on is a loop setting with multiple exists. Yesterday the Financial Times informed us ‘OpenAI seeks to unlock investment by ditching ‘AGI’ clause with Microsoft’ (at https://www.ft.com/content/2c14b89c-f363-4c2a-9dfc-13023b6bce65) the events are piling up and as I see it Microsoft is on the edge if desperation. You see, it all hangs on the simplest setting that there is no AI (not yet at least). What we have is a setting with LLM’s and Deeper Machine Learning and it is clever and it is a ‘optional’ wholesome solution to a lot of paths. But it is no Artificial Intelligence. You see, as all the laws are part of ethics and ‘AI’ people look around and think that there is ‘awareness’ of solutions. There are not. It is all data managed, a somewhat clever solution to people seeking an aware-like solution in data and some kind of knowledge discovery mode. It all could be clever, but it is still no AI and at some point certain people will dig it out and I reckon the UAE will be ahead of it all. Microsoft and its Ferengi approach of ‘When you get their money you never give it back’ comes with nice loopholes. You think that Microsoft made the ‘investment’ now here is the cracker. There is nothing stopping Microsoft of putting it in a ‘bad bank’ approach and make it all tax deductible and then some. And when the “artificial general intelligence” (AGI) clause is dropped there will be all kinds of attention from all over the place and no one is looking at the details of whatever they consider AI and what Alan Turing clearly considered to be AI. When the people that matter start looking and digging the days of Microsoft will be numbered. Another bubble game created and now that they have ‘enticed’ the wrong kind of people they will want their pound of dollars. And as we are given “The Biden administration in October required the makers of the largest AI systems to share details about them with the U.S. government. G42 earlier this year said it was actively working with U.S. partners and the UAE’s government to comply with AI development and deployment standards, amid concerns about its ties to China.” And in that setting Microsoft decided to be the governmental bitch to say the least. And all these media moguls are so loosely playing along and what will happen when someone digs into this. They will play dumb and say “We didn’t comprehend the technology” and it wasn’t hard. I saw it months ago, if not nearly almost two years ago. And the media was stupid? No, the media goes the way of the digital dollar, the way of the emotional flame. So as the field opens, we see all kinds of turmoil with Microsoft claiming to be the ‘saviour’ all nice and kind (of a sort), but when you look at the setting, it is my personal speculated feeling that Microsoft wouldn’t have made this move unless they had very little moves left. And in this setting the one player is forgotten. China, how far along are their ‘designs’? And in all this what are their plans? We seem to be given the setting that it is all American, but as the media cannot be trusted what is the ACTUAL setting? I have no clue, but in a world this interactive, China cannot be far away. 

And if there are people who disagree, that is fair, but the actual setting is largely unknown. So when we get to the last paragraph which gives us “Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala Investment Company, the UAE’s ruling family and U.S. private equity firm Silver Lake hold stakes in G42. The company’s chairman, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is the UAE’s national security advisor and the brother of the UAE’s president.” Consider this small fact. Microsoft seems to be ‘investing’ all whilst the anti-China rhetoric is given. Do you think that anyone who is the National Security Advisor (of the UAE) hasn’t seen through a lot of this? So what was the plan from Microsoft? I am at a loss, but with the AI setting the way it actually is none of this makes sense. Do they really believe that Microsoft is any kind of solution in this setting? Simply look at the accusation that Microsoft has also been criticised for the perceived declining quality and reliability of its software. That is your partner in so-called AI? Just a thought to consider.

Well, you all have a lovely Sunday. My Monday is a mere 80 minutes away.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science