Well, that is the setting we are given however, it is time to give them some relief. It isn’t just Microsoft, Google and all other peddlers handing over AI like it is a decent brand are involved. So the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24zdel5j18o) giving us ‘Microsoft boss troubled by rise in reports of ‘AI psychosis’’ Is a little warped. First things first. What is Psychosis? Psychosis is a setting where we are given “Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. During an episode of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not.” Basically the settings most influencers like to live by. Many do this already for for the record. The media does this too.
As such people are losing grips with reality. So as we see the malleable setting that what we see is not real, we get the next setting. As people lived by the rule of “I’ll believe it when I see it” for decades, this is becomes a shifty setting. So whilst people want to ‘blame’ Microsoft for this, as I see it, the use of NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) is getting a larger setting. Adobe, Google, Amazon. They are all equally guilty.
So as we wonder how far the media takes this?
I’ll say, this far.
But back to the article. The article also gives us “In a series of posts on X, he wrote that “seemingly conscious AI” – AI tools which give the appearance of being sentient – are keeping him “awake at night” and said they have societal impact even though the technology is not conscious in any human definition of the term.” I respond that giving any IT technology a level 8 question (user level) and it responds like it is casually true, it isn’t. It comes from my mindset that states if sarcasm bounces back, it becomes irony.
So whilst we see that setting in ““There’s zero evidence of AI consciousness today. But if people just perceive it as conscious, they will believe that perception as reality,” he wrote. Related to this is the rise of a new condition called “AI psychosis”: a non-clinical term describing incidents where people increasingly rely on AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Grok and then become convinced that something imaginary has become real.” It is kinda true, but the most imaginative setting of the use of Grok tends to be
I reckon we are safe for a few more years. And whilst we pour over the essentials of TRUE AI, we tend to have at least two decades and even then only the really big players can offered it, as such there is a chance the first REAL AI will respond with “我們可以為您提供什麼協助？” As I see it, we are safe for the rest of my life.
So whilst we consider “Hugh, from Scotland, says he became convinced that he was about to become a multi-millionaire after turning to ChatGPT to help him prepare for what he felt was wrongful dismissal by a former employer.” Consider that law shops and most advocacies give initial free advice, they want to ascertain if it pays to go that way for them. So whilst we are given that it doesn’t pay, a real barrister will see that this is either lawless, trivial or too hard to prove. And he will give you that answer. And that is the reality of things. Considering that ChatGPT is any kind of solution makes you eligible for the Darwin award. It is harsh, but that is the setting we are now in. It is the reality of things that matter and that is not on any of these handlers of AI (as they call it). And I have written about AI several times, so it it didn’t stick, its on you.
Have a great day and don’t let the rain bother you, just fire whomever in media told you it was gonna rain and get a better result.
That is the setting I just ‘woke’ up from. A fair warning that this is all PURE speculation. There are no hidden traps, there is no revelation at the end. All this is speculation.
You see, some will recall the builder.ai setting and there we see “Builder.ai was a smartphone application development company which claimed to use AI to massively speed up app development. The company was based mostly in the United Kingdom and the United States, with smaller subsidiaries in Singapore and India.” At this time we are given “The real catalyst wasn’t technical failure — it was financial mismanagement. According to reports, Builder.ai was involved in a round-trip billing scheme with one of its partners. Essentially, they were allegedly booking fake revenue to make the business look healthier than it was.” And the fact that Microsoft was duped here makes it hilarious. But was it? You see, as I see it AI doesn’t exist (not yet at least) so this setting didn’t make sense, it still doesn’t. Apart from the fact that there were 700 engineers involved (which made the setting weird t say the least) and that was set in a larger space. But what if there was no ‘loss’ for Microsoft? What if builder did exactly hat was required of them? When I got that thought, another beeped up. What if this setting was a mere pilot? You see, there are data issues (all over the place) and Microsoft knows this. What if these 700 engineers were setting the larger premise. What if this is the premise that Sam Altman needs? What if the enablement the is caused between Sam Altman and Satya Nadella and their needs? What if that setting isn’t merely data, but programmers? What if OpenAI is capturing all the work created by programmers? You see, data can be collected, capturing the work of programmers is a little different and OpenAI gets at present “OpenAI is set to hit 700 million weekly active users for ChatGPT this week”, as far as I can tell 90% is simple rubbish, but that 10% are setting their fingerprints on the programming of the future. And whilst this is going on, the ChatGPT funnels are working overtime. As such these programers are pushing themselves out of a job (well not exactly) they still have jobs in several places, but the winners here is team Altman/Nadella. They are about to clean house and when the bulk of the programmers is captured, automated program settings are realised. It isn’t AI, but the people will treat it as much. And this setting is really brilliant. We all contributed to a new version of Near Intelligent Parsing. One that has the frontlines of the crowds, millions of them. And no-one is the wiser as such.
Perhaps some are and they do not care. They will have their own partitions on this all and the setting will regurgitate their logic and as such they will be the cash makers in the house. So, we are pricing ourselves out of a jobs, out of many jobs. But as I said, this is merely speculative and I have no evidence of any kind. Yet this was the setting I see coming.
Now, let see if I can dream lovely dreams involving a lovely lady, not an Grok imaginative lady of the night. You know what I mean, Twitter is filled with them at present.
Have a great day, it’s 5:00 in the morning in Vancouver, I’m almost seeing Monday morning, less than 2 hours to go.
That is the setting we need to move towards and that moment will be now. It started with a simple setting, the map of Europe and the alleged accusation is seen below.
I cannot vouch for the setting, but as you see, in most languages it makes little sense. So when any AI fumbles (and that WILL happen) the ball the damage will be a lot bigger. We hear all these ‘delusional denials’ like ‘We will prepare for that’ and ‘it can’t happen to us’ you merely need to look at the Builder.ai setting and how they used 700 engineers to allegedly ‘fool’ Microsoft who backed it to the extent of a billion dollar plus. So when the ‘bigger’ players also get caught with their pants on their ankles we will have a totally new setting. As such I thought of going back to the roots of technology. Optionally as an educational setting, an optional simulator to inspire the youn to think and become creative for themselves without any AI system fumble their thinking patterns. It might not be the most eloquent setting, but creativity cannot be set in AI, as AI doesn’t exist (yet) and before it is too late, we need to create other outlets for creativity to emerge. I still like the setting that Ubisoft gave us with Assassins Creed Origins. In one of the expansions you are taken to the Tours: Beer & Bread. It shows that Egyptians ‘perfected’ the fermentation process. In my youth (a very long time ago) I went to the Open-air Museum in Arnhem (Netherlands) and this one building still reverberates in my mind over half a century later. It was a paper mill.
On the outside it doesn’t seem like much, a lot like a really old building, but that is the hidden part. Inside there is a completely operational paper mill and it is fueled by waterpower. Now you might think that this is too old.
But consider that Nobel invents Dynamite for the simple need of mining, Apparently Viagra had a completely different stage. It takes one mind to think “What if we did this?” and that is the ball game. That is the setting that creates new technologies. We need to get back to the old ways. And I use the paper mill as an example. Consider the Amish (all over America) who have been doing it there way for centuries. Consider how they have no fridges, or non electrical ones. We need to reconsider what we know and what is possible without some idiot telling us how to do it, because these people will come out of the woodworks pretending to voice the deities they pretend to follow (for their personal good).
Consider that paper mill and what to do when water stops flowing. A wind vane? Giving people the idea to take the next step. And at some point power will become an issue. We see now new ways to tarmac roads making them safer, the Netherlands are exploring illuminating forms of tarmac, making electricity less of a essential need. We see all kinds of innovations and as you think it is all covered, consider that in Australia ‘relied’ on ChatGPT (as one source stated) to phrase the law and it used non-existing cases. So how do you like your chestnuts boiled in that gravy?
The one option is to revert to earlier settings and consider what is possible without others telling us what to do. A lot will not work, but some will be true innovative steps. And that is the ballgame. As what some call AI is telling us where to go and especially where not to go we lose the creativity we have, or merely fashion it in the way other want it to be fashioned.
That is not innovation, that is pack mentality.
So what stages in other fields were short cut, because it never supported the then innovative choosers? We need to protect ourselves and the evidence is all over the historical buildings. The romans had two tiered bathhouses making hot water. So even as we now think that we do better, consider what happens when electricity falls away because 500,000 systems took it away fueling their AI systems taking over 250,000 times more energy than one simple brain does.
We need to protect what is and what was, before others remove that way of thinking from us and we can go about it in different ways, I ikon that none of them are incorrect. Another example can be seen in the old pyramids. We were given (in YouTube) “Ancient Egyptian “pyramid basalt roads” refer to a network of paved roads, including the world’s oldest known paved road, that connected basalt quarries in the Fayum region to the pyramid fields like Giza. These roads, often paved with sandstone, limestone, and even petrified wood, were used to transport massive basalt blocks, likely for paving the pyramid complexes and temples. One significant road, leading from the Widan el-Faras quarry to the shores of a now-vanished lake, represents a major engineering feat from the Old Kingdom period.” I don’t believe the hype behind it, but these roads and pavements are massive undertakings that even today are unlikely to be this perfect, apart from the settings that they seemingly lacked the tools to create these slabs and make them fit this perfectly. I am not all onboard of this, but like the Game of thrones ‘Wildfire’ we see that this reflects on what was Greek Fire and it came from Byzantine. “With the decline of the Byzantine Empire, their recipe for the production of liquid fire was lost, the last documented use of Byzantine fire was in 1187. After Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, several attempts to imitate the Greek Fire were made, but none replicated the original.” So something created 1000 years ago can no longer be reproduced? I reckon that this is one of the most direct forms of creativity lost. And the fact that it has military applications implies that plenty of governments tried to get it on their side.
As such I think we need to create genuine systems to invoke creativity in the next generation before it is all lost and we all go ‘Duh!’ At the next innovation blaming it on magic and as Vernon Dursley once said “there is no such thing as magic” as I see it, magic is blamed when we no longer comprehend the technology (like the White House and 5G technology, which comes with a small giggle from me).
So the short setting is Protect the next generation now as there is no longer any later.
That is at time the saying, it isn’t always ‘meant’ in a positive sight and it is for you to decide what it is now. The Deutsche Welle gave me yesterday an article that made me pause. It was in part what I have been saying all along. This doesn’t mean it is therefor true, but I feel that the tone of the article matches my settings. The article (at https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-expands-use-of-palantir-surveillance-software/a-73497117) giving us ‘German police expands use of Palantir surveillance software’ doesn’t seem too interesting for anyone but the local population in Germany. But that would be erroneous. You see, if this works in Germany other nations will be eager to step in. I reckon that The Dutch police might be hopping to get involved from the earliest notion. The British and a few others will see the benefit. Yet, what am I referring to?
It sounds that there is more and there is. The article’s byline gives us the goods. The quote is “Police and spy agencies are keen to combat criminality and terrorism with artificial intelligence. But critics say the CIA-funded Palantir surveillance software enables “predictive policing.”” It is the second part that gives the goods. “predictive policing” is the term used here and it supports my thoughts from the very beginning (at least 2 years ago). You see, AI doesn’t exist. What there is (DML and LLM) are tools, really good tools, but it isn’t AI. And it is the setting of ‘predictive’ that takes the cake. You see, at present AI cannot make real jumps, cannot think things through. It is ‘hindered’ by the data it has and that is why at present its track record is not that great. And there are elements all out there, there is the famous Australian case where “Australian lawyer caught using ChatGPT filed court documents referencing ‘non-existent’ cases” there is the simple setting where an actor was claimed to have been in a movie before he was born and the lists goes on. You see, AI is novel, new and players can use AI towards the blame game. With DML the blame goes to the programmer. And as I personally see “predictive policing” is the simple setting that any reference is made when it has already happened. In layman’s terms. Get a bank robber trained in grand theft auto, the AI will not see him as he has never done this. The AI goes looking in the wrong corner of the database and it will not find anything. It is likely he can only get away with this once and the AI in the meantime will accuse any GTA persona that fits the description.
So why this? The simple truth is that the Palantir solution will safe resources and that is in play. Police forces all over Europe are stretched thin and they (almost desperately) need this solution. It comes with a hidden setting that all data requires verification. DW also gives us “The hacker association Chaos Computer Club supports the constitutional complaint against Bavaria. Its spokesperson, Constanze Kurz, spoke of a “Palantir dragnet investigation” in which police were linking separately stored data for very different purposes than those originally intended.” I cannot disagree (mainly because I don’t know enough) but it seems correct. This doesn’t mean that it is wrong, but there are issues with verification and with the stage of how the data was acquired. Acquired data doesn’t mean wrong data, but it does leave the user with optional wrong connections to what the data is seeing and what the sight is based on. This requires a little explanation.
Lets take two examples In example one we have a peoples database and phone records. They can be matched so that we have links.
Here we have a customer database. It is a cumulative phonebook. All the numbers from when Herr Gothenburg got his fixed line connection with the first phone provider until today, as such we have multiple entries for every person, in addition to this is the second setting that their mobiles are also registered. As such the first person moved at some point and he either has two mobiles, or he changed mobile provider. The second person has two entries (seemingly all the same) and person moved to another address and as such he got a new fixed line and he has one mobile. It seems straight forward, but there is a snag (there always is). The snag is that entry errors are made and there is no real verification, this is implied with customer 2, the other option is that this was a woman and she got married, as such she had a name change and that is not shown here. The additional issue is that Müller (miller), is shared by around 700,000 people in Germany. So there is a likelihood that wrongly matched names are found in that database. The larger issue is that these lists are mainly ‘human’ checked and as such they will have errors. Something as simple as a phonebook will have its issues.
Then we get the second database which is a list of fixed line connections, the place where they are connected and which provider. So we get additional errors introduced for example, customer 2 is seemingly assumed to be a woman who got married and had her name changed. When was that, in addition there is a location change, something that the first database does not support as well as she changed her fixed line to another provider. So we have 5 issues in this small list and this is merely from 8 connected records. Now, DML can be programmed to see through most of this and that is fine. DML is awesome. But consider what some called AI and it is done on unverified (read: error prone) records. It becomes a mess really fast and it will lead to wrong connections and optionally innocent people will suddenly get a request to ‘correct’ what was never correctly interpreted.
As such we get a darker taint of “predictive policing” and the term that will come to all is “Guilty until proven innocent” a term we never accepted and one that comes with hidden flaws all over the field. Constanze Kurz makes a few additional setting, settings which I can understand, but also hindered with my lack of localised knowledge. In addition we are given “One of these was the attack on the Israeli consulate in Munich in September 2024. The deputy chairman of the Police Union, Alexander Poitz, explained that automated data analysis made it possible to identify certain perpetrators’ movements and provide officers with accurate conclusions about their planned actions.” It is possible and likely that this happens and there are intentional settings that will aide, optionally a lot quicker than not using Palantir. And Palantir can crunch data 24:7 that is the hidden gem in this. I personally fear that unless an accent to verification is made, the danger becomes that this solution becomes a lot less reliable. On the other hand data can be crushed whilst the police force is snoring the darkness away and they get a fresh start with results in their inbox. There is no doubt that this is the gain for the local police force and that is good (to some degree). As long as everyone accepts and realizes that “predictive policing” comes with soft spots and unverifiable problems and I merely am looking at the easiest setting. Add car rental data with errors from handwritings and you have a much larger problem. Add the risk of a stolen or forged drivers license and “predictive policing” becomes the achilles heel that the police wasn’t ready for and with that this solution will give the wrong connections, or worse not give any connection at all. Still, Palantir is likely to be a solution, if it is properly aligned with its strengths and weaknesses. As I personally see it, this is one setting where the SWOT solution applies. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats are the settings any Palantir solution needs and as I personally see it, Weakness and Threats require its own scenario in assessing. Politicians are likely to focus on Strength and Opportunity and diminish the danger that these other two elements bring. Even as DW gives us “an appeal for politicians to stop the use of the software in Germany was signed by more than 264,000 people within a week, as of July 30.” Yet if 225,000 of these signatures are ‘career criminals’ Germany is nowhere at present.
Have a great day. People in Vancouver are starting their Tuesday breakfast and I am now a mere 25 minutes from Wednesday.
A term I got introduced to last week. It stands for “the Saudi nationalization scheme and also known as Nitaqat, is a policy that is implemented in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the Ministry of Labor and Social Development, which requires companies and enterprises to fill their workforce with Saudi nationals up to certain levels” I think it is a great idea. I think more countries need to embrace such a scheme for a few reasons. I believe it is essential that skills are moved locally to avoid being at the massive risk of an American need and that is a bad idea on a few levels. Now, this is not an anti-America sentiment, but the media (America too) have left us with the notion that we cannot be certain of almost anything and there is the larger setting that it goes to other countries too. Perhaps there is an Emiratization, an optional Indonesization (these two words might not exist) and several others (Pakistan, Bangladesh) and so on. So why is there not an open video channel with options on both YouTube and TikTok handing these skills? If I merely push this to myself. There is the option to train people (non-Arabic) in IBM Statistics (formerly known as SPSS) I trained people for over a decade and that is a skill that can be taught. Edit the movie with a localised soundtrack and you have a solution to optionally train dozens of people.
If we create a few hundred videos we could optionally train a whole legion of people and as the elder generation (including me) could leave a footprint handing this knowledge out to others we continue training people after we are gone. I also worked in call centers and whilst the world is filled with silliness and chases after AI, the skills that are out there will be lost soon enough. As such we (read: some) need to create the stages for the next generation. Whilst all are on the AI train we might see a setting of dwindling down sources and in a decade when AI misses its target the world will suddenly see that they lost more than they bargained for. As such a video station that allows Saudization to grow into the people who cannot see what they need and can freely learn to grow their own future is a proper way to harvest talents where they freely grow.
So you might think that this comes for free and that might be the case. Yet the older generations feels that they can contribute to any setting that will listen. As such these skills will require verification so that quality will prevail. Yet is it such a hardship on the older generation? They contribute to all kinds of non profit organisations. Is it so hard to believe that they would assist in creating the future generations? The world is not what big corporations believe it to be, it is what the next generation wants it to be and as such this idea stands a chance. In the setting we see now it might benefit Saudi Arabia. Yet when these movies get a larger setting in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and other places, we grow the knowledge in all kinds of directions and as it should be offered free knowledge will emboss all people, not just the ones who can afford it.
It is just a little idea I am playing with, but I reckon that some governments will embrace what hundreds of people could contribute to their national causes.
I saw a message fly past and it took me by surprise. It was CNBC (aka Capitalistically Nothing but Crap) and the accusation was ‘Microsoft and Amazon are hurting cloud competition, UK regulator finds’ (at https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/31/uk-cma-cloud-ruling-microsoft-amazon.html) with “The regulator is concerned that certain cloud market practices are creating a “lock-in” effect where businesses are trapped into unfavorable contractual agreements.” So, that’s a thing now? The operative word is concerned. So, is this the way former Amazon UK boss, Doug Gurr, on an interim basis is showing the world that he released the chain and necktie from Amazon?
There is ‘some’ clustering and as the setting is advocated by some the score at present is “AWS holds approximately 29-31% market share, while Microsoft Azure has around 22-24%, and Google Cloud holds about 11.5-12%” The only surprising thing here is that Google is remarkably behind Microsoft by a little over 10%. Nothing to be worried about, but still the numbers set this out. The infuriating setting by the the CMA giving us “The CMA recommended a further investigation into Microsoft and Amazon under a strict new U.K. competition law to determine whether they have “strategic market status.” I am not ‘attacking’ the CMA, but as the old credence goes “Innovators create corporations, losers create hindrance for others” I suggest you take that as it goes.
Yet there is more behind this all. Forbes gave us last week ‘Microsoft Can’t Keep EU Data Safe From US Authorities’ (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2025/07/22/microsoft-cant-keep-eu-data-safe-from-us-authorities/) where we see “Microsoft has admitted that it can’t protect EU data from U.S. snooping. In sworn testimony before a French Senate inquiry into the role of public procurement in promoting digital sovereignty, Anton Carniaux, Microsoft France’s director of public and legal affairs, was asked whether he could guarantee that French citizen data would never be transmitted to U.S. authorities without explicit French authorization. And, he replied, “No, I cannot guarantee it.”” And this is how Microsoft faces a near death sentence by the American administration. So much so that Microsoft seemingly is creating a data centre solely for the EU. Julia Rone gave us last year (late 2024) “It has been well acknowledged that the European Union is falling behind the US and China when it comes to cloud computing because of its lack of technological capabilities. In a recently published article, however, I argue that there is another important and often overlooked reason for EU’s laggard status: the persistent disagreement between different EU member states, which have very different visions of EU cloud policy.” I take that at face value, as I am considering (through mere speculation) that these member states are connected to American stake holders in media trying to hinder the process, but that is another matter.
So as we see ““Microsoft has openly admitted what many have long known: under laws like the Cloud Act, US authorities can compel access to data held by American cloud providers, regardless of where that data physically resides. UK or EU servers make no difference when jurisdiction lies elsewhere, and local subsidiaries or ‘trusted’ partnerships don’t change that reality,” commented Mark Boost, CEO of cloud provider Civo.” It makes me wonder how America is different from the accusations that America threw in the face of Huawei. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. And this also gives wonder where the accusation against Amazon and Microsoft ends, because the cloud field is seemingly loaded with political players. They all see that data is the ultimate currency and America (as it is near broke) needs a lot of it to pay for the lifestyle they can no longer afford. In Europe the one that stands out (at least to me) is a firm I looked at in 2023 and it is growing rapidly. It is Swedish and not connected to any of the three and could become the largest in Europe. Its long-term vision involves operating eight hyper-scale data centers and three software development hubs across Europe by 2028, employing over 3,000 people. By 2030, the company aims to operate 10 hyper-scale data centers and employ over 10,000 people. There is too much focus on 2030, as I see it the American economy collapses on itself no later than 2028 and as I speculatively see it, it will drag Japan down with itself. That setting required a larger acceleration in both Europe and Asia as America will not play nice as per late 2026. At that point too many people will see where showboat America is heading too and the reefs in that area will be phenomenal. So, as I see it, the entire political swarm behind data centers and fictive AI will require a whole new range of management and I reckon that players like Amazon and Microsoft have never been dealt these cards before, so I shudder to think what will happen when it faces accusations from the EU, the CMA and others. This aligns with the accusation (from one source) giving us “An antitrust complaint filed by Google to the European Commission in September 2024, alleging that Microsoft’s licensing terms unfairly favor its own Azure cloud platform, making it difficult and expensive to use Microsoft software like Windows Server and Office on competing clouds.” I wonder, didn’t Microsoft played a similar game with gaming?
So whilst the infighting is going on on a continued setting, I wonder where Oracle will end up being? As I see it this is rather nice, but I am accusing myself at this point that we aren’t face with a tidal wave, but merely with 5 cups of tea all stating there is a storm happening and whilst the teacups are talking to each other and showing how bad the storm is, the reality is that it is not smooth sailing, but seemingly as close to it as possible. For that you need to see where Evroc is standing, where it is going and how fast it is achieving this. The second market is Oracle, how it is progressing and who it is partnered with (pretty much everyone) and these two elements show us that there are governmental captains stating that their pond is in a dreadful state (whilst presenting their cup of tea as a much larger pool then it is) the corporate captain stating there is a storm brewing, but absent of evidence and the media is flaming every storm it can so that they can get their digital dollars. But consider that Oracle is presenting good weathers and there are alternatives whilst the media actively avoid illuminating Evroc, with only TechCrunch giving us in March “Amid calls for sovereign EU tech stack, Evroc raises $55M to build a hyper-scale cloud in Europe” there were a few more and they are all technical places. The western media is largely absent as there are no digital dollars to be made here.
So consider what you see and try to see the larger picture, because there is a lot more, but some players don’t want you to see the whole image, it distorts their profit prediction. So did you see the little hidden snag? Where is Huawei cloud? Whilst this is going on ‘Huawei hosts conference on cloud technology in Egypt’ where we see that “the event drew more than 600 government officials, business leaders, and ecosystem partners from over 10 countries and regions”, as I see it, this is a classic approach to the “While two dogs are fighting for a bone, a third runs away with it” expression. So consider that part too please.
That is the setting as I personally believe it to be. The problem isn’t me, the problem is that politicians are clueless and as such the people will end up suffering. As we get the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/30/zuckerberg-superintelligence-meta-ai) telling us ‘Zuckerberg claims ‘super-intelligence is now in sight’ as Meta lavishes billions on AI’ the dwindling situation is overlooked. This is not on Meta or on Mark the innovator Zuckerberg, well, perhaps it is a little on him. But the setting of “Whether it’s poaching top talent away from competitors, acquiring AI startups or proclaiming that it will build data centers the size of Manhattan, Meta has been on a spending spree to boost its artificial intelligence capabilities for months now”. So, what are you missing? It is easy to miss it and unless you are savvy in data, there is absolutely no blame on you. I will blame politicians shoving the buck to a pile that has no representation and I do see that the political mind is merely ‘money savvy’, it does not have an alleged clue on data verification. There is a second point, it was given to me by someone (I don’t remember who) who gives us “All AI startups are their own shells linking to ChatGPT” I see the wisdom of that, but I never investigated that myself. You see, all these shells have issues with verification and these startups don’t have the resources to properly verify the data they have, so you end up having a bucket with badly arranged and misliked data. You would think that if they all link to ChatGPT it is a singular issue, but it is not. Language is one, interpretation of what is, is another side and these are merely two sides in a much larger issue. And hiding behind “build data centers the size of Manhattan” is nothing else than a massive folly. You see, what will power this? Most places in this world have a clear shortage of power and any data centre relying on power that isn’t there will crash with some regularity and these data links are maintained in real time, so links will go wrong again and again. And that link is seen by ‘some’ as “A new study of a dozen A.I. -detection services by researchers at the University of Maryland found that they had erroneously flagged human-written text as A.I. -generated about 6.8 percent of the time, on average” that implies that 1 in 15 statements are riddles with errors and there is no way around it until the verification passes are sorted out. Consider that one source gives us “monthly searches to more than 30.4 million during the last month”, this gives us that AI events resulted in 2,026,666 possible erroneous results and when that happens to something that was essential to your needs? When technical support and customer care fails because the number, aren’t right? How long will you remain a customer? That is the folly I am foreseeing and when all these firms (like Microsoft) are done shedding their people and they realise that the knowledge they actually had was pushed out of the side door? Where does this leave the customers? Will they remain Microsoft, Amazon, IBM or Google customers? This is about to hit nearly every niche in America business. The ones that held on the their people knowledge base tend to be decently safe, but the resources needed to clean up the mess that this created will scuttle the European and American economies as they overextended the new they spun themselves and when reality catches up, these people will see the dark light of a self created nightmare.
So in retrospect consider “Behind the hype of Microsoft backing and a $1B+ valuation, the company reportedly inflated numbers, burned through ~$450M funding, and collapsed into insolvency.” This setting was hyped on every channel and praised as a solution. It took less then a year to go from a billion to naught. How many even have a billion? Considering that Microsoft backed it, implies that they were unaware how they were, driven by a simple setting that should have been verified before they even backed it to over a $1,000,000,000 plus.
Now, we can feel sorry for Zuckerberg, not for the money, he probably has more in his wallet, but the ones wanting in on such a ‘great endeavor’ are bound to lose everything they own. This is a very slippery slope and as governments are seeing what some call as AI as a solution to solve a expensive setting in a cheap way are likely to lose the ownership of data of their entire population and these systems do not care who the owner is, they copy EVERYTHING. So where will that data end up going? I wonder who looked at the ownership of collected data and all the errors it has within itself.
The fear is not what it costs, but for billions of people is where their information will end up being and these politicians sell ‘sort of solutions’ which they cannot back with facts and in the end it will end up being the problem of a software engineer and that setting was too complicated to understand for any politician who was too eager to put his name under this and merely will shrug saying ‘I’m sorry’ whilst he is exiting through any side door with his personal wallet filled to the brink to a zero tax nation with a non-extradition treaty.
A setting we will see the media repeat time after time without seriously digging into the mess as they told us “Wall Street investors are happy with the expensive course Zuckerberg is charting. After the company reported better-than-expected financial results for yet another quarter, its stock soared by double digits.” All whilst the statement “Zuckerberg did not provide any details of what would qualify as “super-intelligence” versus standard artificial intelligence, he did say that it would pose “novel safety concerns”. “We’ll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source,”” is trivialized to the largest degree and in all this there is no setting of verification. Weird isn’t it?
So feel free to enjoy you cub of toffee and don’t worry about the jacked setting of demonstration which was tracked by the original AI as “enjoy your cup of coffee and don’t worry about the impact of verification” because that is the likely heading of the coming super-intelligence
That is at times the issue, I would add to this “especially when we consider corporations the size of Microsoft” but this is nothing directly on Microsoft (I emphasize this as I have been dead set against some ‘issues’ Microsoft dealt us to). This is different and I have two articles that (to some aspect) overlap, but they are not the same and overlap should be subjectively seen.
The first one is BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdnz1nlgyo) where we see ‘Microsoft servers hacked by Chinese groups, says tech giant’ where the first thought that overwhelmed me was “Didn’t you get Azure support arranged through China?” But that is in the back of my mind. We are given “Chinese “threat actors” have hacked some Microsoft SharePoint servers and targeted the data of the businesses using them, the firm has said. China state-backed Linen Typhoon and Violet Typhoon as well as China-based Storm-2603 were said to have “exploited vulnerabilities” in on-premises SharePoint servers, the kind used by firms, but not in its cloud-based service.” I am wondering about the quote “not in its cloud-based service” I have questions, but I am not doubting the quote. To doubt it, one needs to have in-depth knowledge and be deeply versed in Azure and I am not one of these people. As I personally see it, if one is transgressed upon, the opportunity rises to ‘infect’ both, but that might be my wrong look on this. So as we are given ““China firmly opposes and combats all forms of cyber attacks and cyber crime,” China’s US embassy spokesman said in a statement. “At the same time, we also firmly oppose smearing others without solid evidence,” continued Liu Pengyu in the statement posted on X. Microsoft said it had “high confidence” the hackers would continue to target systems which have not installed its security updates.” This makes me think about the UN/USA attack on Saudi Arabia regarding that columnist no one cares about, giving us the ‘high confidence’ from the CIA. It sounds like the start of a smear campaign. If you have evidence, present the evidence. If not, be quiet (to some extent).
We then get someone who knows what he in talking about “Charles Carmakal, chief technology officer at Mandiant Consulting firm, a division of Google Cloud, told BBC News it was “aware of several victims in several different sectors across a number of global geographies”. Carmakal said it appeared that governments and businesses that use SharePoint on their sites were the primary target.” This is where I got to thinking, what is the problem with Sharepoint? And when we consider the quote “Microsoft said Linen Typhoon had “focused on stealing intellectual property, primarily targeting organizations related to government, defence, strategic planning, and human rights” for 13 years. It added that Violet Typhoon had been “dedicated to espionage”, primarily targeting former government and military staff, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, higher education, the media, the financial sector and the health sector in the US, Europe, and East Asia.”
It sounds ‘nice’ but it flows towards the thoughts like “related to government, defence, strategic planning, and human rights” for 13 years”, so were was the diligence to preventing issues with Sharepoint and cyber crime prevention? So consider that we are given “SharePoint hosts OneDrive for Business, which allows storage and synchronization of an individual’s personal work documents, as well as public/private file sharing of those documents.” That quote alone should have driven the need for much higher Cyberchecks. And perhaps they were done, but as I see it, it has been an unsuccessful result. It made me (perhaps incorrectly) think so many programs covering Desktops, Laptops, tablets and mobiles over different systems a lot more cyber requirements should have been in place and perhaps they are, but it is not working and as I see, it as this solution has been in place for close to 2 decades, the stage of 13 years of attempted transgression, the solution does not seem to be safe.
And the end quote “Meanwhile, Storm-2603 was “assessed with medium confidence to be a China-based threat actor””, as such, we stopped away from ‘high confidence’ making this setting a larger issue. And my largest issue is when you look to find “Linen Typhoon” you get loads of links, most of them no older than 5 days. If they have been active for 13 years. I should have found a collection of articles close to a decade old, but I never found them. Not in over a dozen of pages of links. Weird, isn’t it?
The next part is one that comes from TechCrunch (at https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/22/google-microsoft-say-chinese-hackers-are-exploiting-sharepoint-zero-day/) where we are given ‘Google, Microsoft say Chinese hackers are exploiting SharePoint zero-day’ and this is important as a zero-day, which means “The term “zero-day” originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so “zero-day software” was obtained by hacking into a developer’s computer before release. Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them.” This implies that this issue has been in circulation for 23 years. And as this implies that there is a much larger issue as the software solution os set over iOS, Android and Windows Server. Microsoft was eager to divulge that this solution is ‘available’ to over 200 million users as of December 2020. As I see it, the danger and damage might be spread by a much larger population.
Part of the issues is that there is no clear path of the vulnerability. When you consider the image below (based on a few speculations on how the interactions go)
I get at least 5 danger points and if there a multiple servers involved, there will be more and as we are given “According to Microsoft, the three hacking groups were observed exploiting the zero-day vulnerability to break into vulnerable SharePoint servers as far back as July 7. Charles Carmakal, the chief technology officer at Google’s incident response unit Mandiant, told TechCrunch in an email that “at least one of the actors responsible” was a China-nexus hacking group, but noted that “multiple actors are now actively exploiting this vulnerability.”” I am left with questions. You see, when was this ‘zero day’ exploit introduced? If it was ‘seen’ as per July 7, when was the danger in this system solution? There is also a lack in the BBC article as to properly informing people. You cannot hit Microsoft with a limited information setting when the stakes are this high. Then there is the setting of what makes Typhoon sheets (linen) and the purple storm (Violet Typhoon) guilty as charged (charged might be the wrong word) and what makes the March 26th heavy weather guilty?
I am not saying they cannot be guilty, I am seeing a lack of evidence. I am not saying that the people connecting should ‘divulge’ all, but more details might not be the worst idea. And I am not blaming Microsoft here. I get that there is (a lot) more than meets the eye (making Microsoft a Constructicon) But the lack of information makes the setting one of misinformation and that needs to be said. The optional zero day bug is one that is riddles of missing information.
So then we get to the second article which also comes from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdv68gejm7o) given us ‘OpenAI and UK sign deal to use AI in public services’ where we get “OpenAI, the firm behind ChatGPT, has signed a deal to use artificial intelligence (AI) to increase productivity in the UK’s public services, the government has announced. The agreement signed by the firm and the science department could give OpenAI access to government data and see its software used in education, defence, security, and the justice system.” Microsoft put billions into this and this is a connected setting. How long until the personal data of millions of people will be out in the open for all kinds of settings?
So as we are given “But digital privacy campaigners said the partnership showed “this government’s credulous approach to big tech’s increasingly dodgy sales pitch”. The agreement says the UK and OpenAI may develop an “information sharing programme” and will “develop safeguards that protect the public and uphold democratic values”.” So, data sharing? Why not get another sever setting and the software solution is also set to the government server? When you see some sales person give you that there will be ‘additional safeties installed’ know that you are getting bullshitted. Microsoft made similar promises in 2001 (code red) and even today the systems are still getting traversed on and those are merely the hackers. The NSA and other America governments get near clean access to all of it and that is a problem with American based servers and still here, there is only so much that the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) allows for and I reckon that there are loopholes for training data and as such I reckon that the people in the UK will have to set a name and shame setting with mandatory prosecution for anyone involved with this caper going all the way up to Prime Minister Keir Starmer. So when you see mentions like ““treasure trove of public data” the government holds “would be of enormous commercial value to OpenAI in helping to train the next incarnation of ChatGPT”” I would be mindful to hand or give access to this data and not let it out of your hands.
This link between the two is now clear. Data and transgressions have been going on since before 2001 and the two settings when data gets ‘trained’ we are likely to see more issues and when Prime Minister Keir Starmer goes “were sorry”, you better believe that the time has come to close the tap and throw Microsoft out of the windows in every governmental building in the Commonwealth. I doubt this will be done as some sales person will heel over like a little bitch and your personal data will become the data of everyone who is mentionable and they will then select the population that has value for commercial corporations and the rest? The rest will become redundant by natural selection according to value base of corporations.
I get that you think this is now becoming ‘conspiracy based’ settings and you resent them. I get that, I honestly do. But do you really trust UK Labor after they wasted 23 billion pounds on an NHS system that went awry (several years ago). I have a lot of problems showing trust in any of this. I do not blame Microsoft, but the overlap is concerning, because at some point it will involve servers and transfers of data. And it is clear there are conflicting settings and when some one learns to aggregate data and connect it to a mobile number, your value will be determined. And as these systems interconnect more and more, you will find out that you face identity threat not in amount of times, but in identity theft and value assessment in once per X amount of days and as X decreases, you pretty much can rely on the fact that your value becomes debatable and I reckon this setting is showing the larger danger, where one sees your data as a treasure trove and the other claims “deliver prosperity for all”. That and the diminished setting of “really be done transparently and ethically, with minimal data drawn from the public” is the setting that is a foundation of nightmares mainly as the setting of “minimal data drawn from the public” tends to have a larger stage. It is set to what is needed to aggregate to other sources which lacks protection of the larger and and when we consider that any actor could get these two connected (and sell on) should be considered a new kind of national security risk. America (and UK) are already facing this as these people left for the Emirates with their billions. Do you really think that this was the setting? It will get worse as America needs to hang on to any capital leaving America, do you think that this is different for the UK? Now, you need to consider what makes a person wealthy. This is not a simple question as it is not the bank balance, but it is an overlap of factors. Consider that you have 2000 people who enjoy life and 2000 who are health nuts. Who do you think is set to a higher value? The Insurance person states the health nut (insurance without claims) or the retailer the people who spend and life live. And the (so called) AI system has to filter in 3000 people. So, who gets to be disregarded from the equation? And this cannot be done until you have more data and that is the issue. And the quotation is never this simple, it will be set to thousands of elements and these firms should not have access, as such I fear for the data making it to the outer UK grounds.
A setting coming from overlaps and none of this is the fault of Microsoft but they will be connected (and optionally) blamed for all this, but as I personally see it the two elements that matter in this case are “Digital rights campaign group Foxglove called the agreement “hopelessly vague”” and “Co-executive Director Martha Dark said the “treasure trove of public data” the government holds” will be of significance danger to public data, because greed driven people tend to lose their heads over words like ‘treasure trove’ and that is where ‘errors are made’ and I reckon it will not take long before the BBC or other media station will trip up over the settings making the optional claim that ‘glitches were found in the current system’ and no one was to blame. Yet that will not be the whole truth will it?
So have a great day and consider the porky pies you are told and who is telling them to you, should you consider that it is me. Make sure that you realise that I am merely telling you what is out in the open and what you need to consider. Have a great day.
That was the setting I found myself in. There is the specific on an actual AI language, not the ones we have, but the one we need to create. You see, we might be getting close to trinary chips. You see, as I personally see it, there is no AI as the settings aren’t ready for it (I’ve told that before), but we might be getting close to it as the Dutch physicist has had a decade to set the premise of the proven Epsilon particle to a more robust setting and it has been a decade (or close to it) and that sets the larger premise that an actual AI might become a reality (were still at least a decade away), but in that setting we need to reconsider the programming language.
Binary
Trinary
NULL
NULL
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
BOTH
We are in a binary digital world at present and it has served our purpose, but for an actual AI it does not suffice. You can believe the wannabe’s going on about we can do this, we can do that and it will come up short. Wannabe’s who will hide behind data tables in data tables solutions and for the most (as far as I saw it) only Oracle ever got that setting to work correctly. The rest merely grazes on that premise. You see, to explain this in the simplest of ways. Any intelligence doesn’t hide behind black or white. It is a malleable setting of grey, as such both colors are required and that is where Trinary systems with both true and false activated will create the setting an AI needs. When you realise this, you see the bungles the business world needs to hide behind. They will sell these programmers (or engineers) down the drain at a moments notice (they will refer to it as corporate restructuring) and that will put thousands out of a job and the largest data providers in class action suits from start to up the wazoo.
When you see what I figured out a decade ago, the entire “AI” field is driven to nothing short of collapse.
My mind kept it in the back of my mind and it worked on the solutions it had figured out. So as I see it something like C#+ is required. An extended version of C# with LISP libraries (the IBM version) as the only one I also had was a Borland program and I don’t think it will make the grade. As I personally see it (with my lack of knowledge) is that LISP might be a better fit to connect to C#. You see, this is the next step. As I see it ‘upgrading’ C# is one setting, but LISP has the connectors required to make it work and why reinvent the wheel? And when the greedy salespeople figure out what they missed over the last decade (the larger part of it) they will come with statements that it was a work in progress and that they are still addressing certain items. Weird, I got there a decade ago and they didn’t think I was the right material. As such you can file their versions in a folder called ‘What makes the grass grow in Texas?’ (Me having a silly grin now). I still haven’t figured it all out, but with the trinary chip we will be on the verge of getting an actual AI working. Alas, the chip comes long after we bid farewell to Alan Turing as he would have been delighted to see that moment happen. The setting of gradual verification, a setting of data getting verified on the fly will be the next best thing and when the processor gives us grey scales that matter, we will see that contemplated ideas that will drive any actual AI system forward. It will not be pretty at the start. I reckon that IBM, Google and Amazon will drive this And there is a chance that they all will unite with Adobe to make new strides. You think I am kidding, but I am not. You see, I refer to greyscales on purpose. The setting of true and false is only partially true. The combination of the approach of BOTH will drive solutions and the idea of both bing replaced through channels of grey (both true and false) will be in first a hindrance and when you translate this to greyscales, the Adobe approach will start making sense. Adobe excels in this field and when we set the ‘colorful’ approach of both True and False, we get a new dimension and Adobe has worked in that setting for decades, long before the Trinary idea became a reality.
So is this a figment of my imagination? It is a fair question. As I said there is a lot of speculation through the date here and as I see it, there is a decent reason to doubt me. I will not deny this, but those deep into DML and LLM’s will see that I am speaking true, not false and that is the start of the next cycle. A setting where LISP is adjusted for trinary chips will be the larger concern. And I got to that point at least half a decade ago. So when Google and Amazon figure out what to do we get a new dance floor, a boxing square where the lights influences the shadows and that will lead to the next iteration of this solution. Consider one of two flawed visions. One is that a fourth dimension cases a 3D shadow, by illuminating the concept of these multiple 3D shadows the computer can work out 4D data constraints. The image of a dot was the shade of a line, the image of a 2D shape was the shadow of a 3D image and so on. When the AI gets that consideration (this is a flaky example, but it is the one that is in my mind) and it can see the multitude of 3D images, it can figure out the truth of the 4D datasets and it can actually fill in the blanks. Not the setting that NIP gives us now, like a chess computer that has all the games of history in its mind, so it can figure out with some precision what comes next. That concept can be defeated by making what some chess players call ‘A silly move’, now we are in the setting of more as BOTH allows for more and the stage can be illustrated by an actual AI to figure out what should be really likely to be there. Not guess work, but the different images make a setting of nonrepudiation to a larger degree, the image could only have been gotten by what should have been there in the first place. And that is a massive calculation, don’t think it won’t be deniable, the data that Nth 3D images gives us set the larger solution to a given fact. It is the result of 3 seconds of calculations, the result to a setting the brain could not work out in months.
It is the next step. At that point the computer will not take an educated guess, it will figure out what the singular solution would be. The setting that the added BOTH allows for.
A proud setting as I might actually still be alive to see this reality come to pass. I doubt I will be alive to see the actual emergence of an Artificial Intelligence, but the start on that track was made in my lifetime. And with the other (unmentioned) fact, I am feeling pretty proud today. And it isn’t even lunchtime yet. Go figure.
This is a setting we are about to enter. It was never rocket science, it was simplicity itself. And I mentioned it before, but now Forbes is also blowing the trumpet I mentioned in a clarion call in the past. The article (at https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/07/11/hallucination-insurance-why-publishers-must-re-evaluate-fact-checking/) gives us ‘Hallucination Insurance: Why Publishers Must Re-Evaluate Fact-Checking’ with “On May 20, readers of the Chicago Sun-Times discovered an unusual recommendation in their Sunday paper: a summer reading list featuring fifteen books—only five of which existed. The remaining titles were fabricated by an AI model.” We have seen these issues in the past. A Law firm stating cases that never existed is still my favourite at present. We get in continuation “Within hours, readers exposed the errors across the internet, sharply criticizing the newspaper’s credibility. This incident wasn’t merely embarrassing—it starkly highlighted the growing risks publishers face when AI-generated content isn’t rigorously verified.” We can focus on the setting about the high cost of AI errors, but as soon as the cost becomes too high, the staters of this error will get a Trump card and settle out of court, with the larger population being set in the dark on all other settings. But it goes into a nice direction “These missteps reinforce the reality that AI hallucinations and fact-checking failures are a growing, industry-wide problem. When editors fail to catch mistakes before publication, they leave readers to uncover the inaccuracies. Internal investigations ensue, editorial resources are diverted and public trust is significantly undermined.” You see, verification is key here and all of them are guilty. There is not one exception to this (as far as I can tell), there was a setting I wrote about this in 2023 in ‘Eric Winter is a god’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/07/05/eric-winter-is-a-god/) there on July 5th, I noticed a simple setting that Eric Winter (that famous guy from the Rookie) played a role in The Changeling (with the famous actor George C. Scott). The issue is two fold. The first is that Eric was less than 2 years old when the movie was made. The real person was Erick Vinther (playing a Young Man(uncredited)) This simple error is still all over Google, as I see it, only IMDB has the true story. This is a simple setting, errors happen, but in over 2 years that I reported it, no one fixed this. So consider that these errors creep into a massive bulk of data, personal data becomes inaccurate, and these errors will continue to seep into other systems. The fact that Eric Winter at some point sees his biography riddled with movies and other works where his memory fades under the guise of “Did I do this?”. And there will be more, as such verification becomes key and these errors will hamper multiple systems. And in this, I have some issues on the setting that Forbes paints. They give us “This exposes a critical editorial vulnerability: Human spot-checking alone is insufficient and not scalable for syndicated content. As the consequences of AI-driven errors become more visible, publishers should take a multi-layered approach” you see, as I see it, there is a larger setting with context checking. A near impossible setting. As people rely on granularity, the setting becomes a lot more oblique. A simple example “Standard deviation is a measure of how spread out a set of values is, relative to the average (mean) of those values.” That is merely one version, the second one is “This refers to the error in a compass reading caused by magnetic interference from the vessel’s structure, equipment, or cargo.”
Yet the version I learned in the 70’s is “Standard deviation, the offset between true north and magnetic north. This differs per year and the offset rotates in eastern direction in English it is called the compass deviation, in Dutch the Standard Deviation and that is the simple setting on how inaccuracies and confusions are entered in data settings (aka Meta Data) and that is where we go from bad to worse. And the Forbes article illuminates one side, but it also gives rise to the utter madness that this StarGate project will to some extent become. Data upon data and the lack of verification.
As I see it, all these firms relying on ‘their’ version of AI and in the bowels of their data are clusters of data lacking any verification. The setting of data explodes in many directions and that lack works for me as I have cleaned data for the better pat of two decades. As I see it dozens of data entry firms are looking at a new golden age. Their assistance will be required on several levels. And if you doubt me, consider builder.ai, backed my none other than Microsoft and they were a billion dollar firm and in no time they had the expected value of zero. And after the fact we learn that 700 engineers were at the heart of builder.ai (no fault of Microsoft) but in this I wonder how Microsoft never saw this. And that is merely the start.
We can go on on other firms and how they rely on ai for shipping and customer care and the larger setting that I speculatively predict is that people will try the stump the Amazon system. As such, what will it cost them in the end? Two days ago we were given ‘Microsoft racks up over $500 million in AI savings while slashing jobs, Bloomberg News reports’, so what will they end up saving when the data mismatches will happen? Because it will happen, it will happen to all. Because these systems are not AI, they are deeper machine learning systems optionally with LLM (Large Language Modules) parts and as AI are supposed to clear new data, they merely can work on data they have, verified data to be more precise and none of these systems are properly vetted and that will cost these companies dearly. I am speculating that the people fired on this premise might not be willing to return, making it an expensive sidestep to say the least.
So don’t get me wrong, the Forbes article is excellent and you should read it. The end gives us “Regarding this final point, several effective tools already exist to help publishers implement scalable fact-checking, including Google Fact Check Explorer, Microsoft Recall, Full Fact AI, Logically Facts and Originality.ai Automated Fact Checker, the last of which is offered by my company.” So here we see the ‘Google Fact Check Explorer’, I do not know how far this goes, but as I showed you the setting with Eric Winter has been there for years and no correction was made. Even as IMDB doesn’t have this. I stated once before that movies should be checked against the age the actors (actresses too) had at the time of the making of the movie. And flag optional issues, in the case of Eric Winter a setting of ‘first film or TV series’ might have helped. And this is merely entertainment, the least of the data settings. So what do you think will happen when Adobe or IBM (mere examples) releases new versions and there is a glitch setting these versions in the data files? How many issues will occur then? I recollect that some programs had interfaces built to work together. Would you like to see the IT manager when that goes wrong? And it will not be one IT manager, it will be thousands of them. As I personally see it, I feel confident that there are massive gaps in the assumption of data safety of these companies. So as I introduced a term in the past namely NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) and that is the setting that these companies need to fix on. Because there is a setting that even I cannot foresee in this. I know languages, but there is a rather large setting between systems and the systems that still use legacy data, the gaps in there are (for as much as I have seen data) decently massive and that implies inaccuracies to behold.
I like the end of the Forbes article “Publishers shouldn’t blindly fear using AI to generate content; instead, they should proactively safeguard their credibility by ensuring claim verification. Hallucinations are a known challenge—but in 2025, there’s no justification for letting them reach the public.” It is a fair approach, but there is a rather large setting towards the field of knowledge where it is applied. You see, language is merely one side of that story, the setting of measurements. As I see it (using an example) “It represents the amount of work done when a force of one newton moves an object one meter in the direction of the force. One joule is also equivalent to one watt-second.” You see, cars and engineering use Joule in multiple ways, so what happens when the data shifts and values are missed? This is all engineer and corrector based and errors will get into the data. So what happens when lives are at stake? I am certain that this example goes a lot further than mere engineers. I reckon that similar settings exist in medical application, And who will oversee these verifications?
All good questions and I cannot give you an answer, because as I see it, there is no AI, merely NIP and some tools are fine with Deeper Machine Learning, but certain people seem to believe the spin they created and that is where the corpses will show up and more often than not in the most inconvenient times.
But that might merely be me. Well time for me to get a few hours of snore time. I have to assassinate someone tomorrow and I want it too look good for the script it serves. I am a stickler for precision in those cases. Have a great day.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 