Tag Archives: Bard

Evolution is essential

You might not realise it, but it is. Gaming evolution is on the forefront of my mind, because that is how we push the limits of gaming. Not by buying it (Microsoft anyone), but by creating new frontiers in games. For the longest of times it has been on my mind, mainly because streaming is the next evolution, not the the PS6 (I love my PS5), not any system, but the evolution of an architecture. Some might say that Alan Wake 2 is the new frontier, but it is not. It looks great, awesome and it pushes boundaries unlike any game this year (not Spiderman 2, and I love the first one). But frontiers is where it is. It is in that mindset that I took a sentimental journey. You see, if there is one side that does seemingly not evolve it is the story. The story is too often set in stone. But what if that was not the case? What if the evolution of any story is next? It is there that ChatGPT might have an option (an option, not a given). Consider Emperor of the North (1973) where you have to survive a train ride as a hobo. But that would be too two dimensional. Trains have been the setting of many movies. Silver Streak, Unstoppable, Pelham 123, Runaway Train and that lis goes on. There was Strangers on a train. Now consider that you (as a time traveller, which is my easy way out) need to survive a whole onslaught of train trips, but the setting of you changes with EVERY train. So you get the red wire across all trains and every train has its own goals. Complete that and you get the clue for the red wire. Now we add salt and pepper. The order of trains changes with every life you lose. You start from scratch and that sounds frustrating, but gaming is not a vanilla setting of happiness. It gives you an achievable goal and a obstruction to pass. You see, this would require some serious story programming. The other part is that YOUR role on the second visit to that same train could be different (Murder on the orient express) and that is how evolution comes into play. I want a new setting of stealth and casual gaming, a new setting of melee, stealth and casual gaming easing people from role to role. Now consider how to create this storyline and with streaming ChatGPT (or an alike alternative like bard) becomes an option and it is something gamers have NEVER faced before. The story remained mostly the same. So what happens when we take that away and create a story on a shifty changing narrative? That is where streaming gaming has the advantage over ALL other gaming and as I see it, it is not used. Not on the Luna, and unlikely on the Tencent handheld and that I what could set these two apart from all others. Giving gamers something they never faced before. 

So what do you do to create this? I used a previous example using a matrix founded on Sudoku, but that was merely one example. You see Sudoku has 6,670,903,752,021,072,936,960 options. You cannot draw them all, but you can use such an engine to create something new, something never seen before, and those trillions are more than random, it is a setting of never ending uniqueness. The idea that two gamers playing the same game get very different stages should be overwhelming showing us who the gamer is and who is the read the solution online achiever. The idea of how to switch between lives comes to mind and the support system (something like Quantum Leap) is also coming into vision, but that is nothing compared to the story. And it sounds like fun to make this a story about Hollywood. A story of intrigue, sex (I am here Olivia Wilde) 😉 and greed. Hollywood without greed is not Hollywood. What if the underlying story is a rogue AI, the rogue AI is interacting with all other systems and you need to find the evidence that the AI is rogue so that the media DETACHES from it, and with that the other AI’s. The AI took the train to push its own narrative as it was a mobile system on tracks, but that is the delusion and you as the player needs to find the clues that leads to the evidence and give that to the world (a wink to A mind forever voyaging by Infocom). We are the gamers through what was and Infocom was important at one stage, it created more than Zork and gave us gaming, pushed us into new frontiers and now we get a much larger frontier. It is only natural that streaming leads that way and we should always remember where we came from.

Just a thought as Friday is about to start for me, the rest of you can follow later. Enjoy whatever day you are in.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Science

The choice of options

Part of this started yesterday when I saw a message pass by. I ignored it because it seemed trivial, yet today ( a few hours ago) I took notice of ‘Google rushes to develop AI search engine after Samsung considers ditching it for Bing’ from ZDNet (at https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-rushes-to-develop-ai-search-engine-after-samsung-considers-ditching-it-for-bing/) and ‘Alphabet shares fall on report Samsung may switch search to Bing’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/4/17/alphabet-shares-fall-on-report-samsung-may-switch-search-to-bing). In part I do not care, actually this situation is a lot better for Google than they think it is. You see, Samsung, a party I disliked for 33 years, after being massively wronged by them. Decided to make the fake AI jump. It is fake as AI does not exist and when the people learn this the hard way, it will work out nicely for Huawei and Google. There is nothing like a dose of reality being served like a bucket of ice water to stop consumers looking at your product. I do not care, I refuse any Samsung device in my apartment. I also dislike Bing, it is a Microsoft product and two years ago I got Bing forced down my throat again and again through hijack scripts, it took some time blocking them. So I dislike both. I have no real opinion of ChatGPT. As we see the AI reference. Let’s take you to the Conversation (at https://theconversation.com/not-everything-we-call-ai-is-actually-artificial-intelligence-heres-what-you-need-to-know-196732) I have said it before and they have a decent explanation. They write “AI is broadly defined in two categories: artificial narrow intelligence (ANI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI). To date, AGI does not exist.” You see, I only look at AGI, the rest is some narrow niche for specific purpose. We are also given “Most of what we know as AI today has narrow intelligence – where a particular system addresses a particular problem. Unlike human intelligence, such narrow AI intelligence is effective only in the area in which it has been trained: fraud detection, facial recognition or social recommendations, for example” and there is an issue with this. People do not understand the narrow scope, they want to apply it almost everywhere and that is where people get into trouble, the data connected does not support the activity and adding this to a mobile means that it collects massive amounts of data, or it becomes less and less reliable, an issue I expect to see soon after it makes it into a Samsung phone. 

For AI to really work “it needs high-quality, unbiased data, and lots of it. Researchers building neural networks use the large data sets that have come about as society has digitised.” You see, the amount of data is merely a first issue, the fact that it is unbiassed data is a lot harder and when we see sales people cut corners, they will take any shortcut making the data no longer unbiassed and that is where it all falls apart.

So whilst the ‘speculators’ (read: losers) make Google lose value, the funny part is that when the Samsung connection falls down Google stands to up their customer base by a lot. Thousands of Samsung customers feeling as betrayed as I was in 1990 and they will seek another vendor which would make Huawei equally happy. 

ZDNet gives us “The threat of Bing taking Google’s spot on Samsung phones caused “panic” at Google, according to messages reviewed by The New York Times. Google’s contract with Samsung brings in an approximate $3 billion annual revenue. The company still has a chance to maintain its presence in Samsung phones, but it needs to move fast” I see two issues here, the first is that the NY Times is less and less of a dependable source, they have played too many games and as ‘their’ source’ might not be reliable, as such is the quote also less reliable. The second source is me (basically) they weren’t interested in my 5 billion revenue, as such why would they care about losing 3 billion more? For the most, there is an upside, when it falls down (an I personally believe it will) Samsung could be brought back on board but now it will cost them 5-6 billion. As such Samsung would have to be successful without Google Search for 3 years and it will cascade into a collapse setting, after that they will beg just to return to the Alphabet fold, which would also make this Microsoft’s 6th failure. My day is looking better already.

Am I so anti-Whatever?
No not really. When it is ready and when the systems are there AI will change the game and AGI is the only real AI to consider. As I stated before deeper machine learning is awesome and it has massive value, but the narrow setting needs to be respected and when you push it into something like Bing, it will go wrong and when it does it will not be noticed initially until it is much too late. And all this is beside the setting that some people will link the wrong parts and Samsung will end up putting its IP in ChatGPT and someone will ask a specific question that was never flagged and the IP will pour straight into public domain. That is the real danger for Samsung and in all this ChatGPT is free of blame and when certain things are found the entire setting needs to be uploaded into a new account. When we consider that a script with 65,000 lines will have up to 650 issues (or features, or bugs), how many will cause a cascade effect or information no one wanted, least of all the hardware owner? Oh, and that is when the writers were really good. Normally the numbers of acceptability are between 1300-2600, as such how many issues will rise and how long until too many patches will make the system unyielding? All questions that come to mind with an ANI system, because it is data driven and when we consider that the unbiassed data isn’t? What then? And that is before we align cultural issues. Korea, India, Japan and China are merely 4 of them and seeing that things never aligned in merely 4 nations, how many versions of data will be created to avoid collapse? As such I personally think that Google is not in panic mode. Perhaps Bard made them road-wise, perhaps not. 

I think 2024 will be a great Google year with or without Samsung and when Microsoft achieves disappointing yet another company its goose will be royally cooked on both sides of the goose no less. We have choices, we have options and we can mix them, but to let some fake AI make those choices for us is not anything at all, but feel free to learn that lesson the hard way.

I never liked Samsung for personal reasons, and I have been really happy with my android phone. I have had an Android phone for 13 years now and never regretted having one. I hope it stays that way.

Enjoy the day and don’t trust an AI to tell you the weather, that is what your eyesight can do better in the present and the foreseeable future.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Data dangers

Data has dangers and I think more by accident then intentional CBC exposed one (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/whistle-buoy-brewing-ai-beer-robo-1.6755943) where we were given ‘This Vancouver Island brewery hopped onto ChatGPT for marketing material. Then it asked for a beer recipe’. You see, there is a massive issue, it has been around from the beginning of the event, but AI does not exist, it really does not. What marketing did to make easy money, the made a term and transformed it into something bankable. They were willing to betray Alan Turing at the drop of a hat, why not? The man was dead anyway and cash is king. 

So they turned advanced machine learning and data repositories added a few items and they call it AI. Now we have a new show. And as CBC gives us “let’s see what happens if we ask it to give us a beer recipe,” he told CBC’s Rohit Joseph. They asked for a fluffy, tropical hazy pale ale” and we see the recipe below.

Now I have two simple questions. The first is is this a registered recipe, making this IP theft, or is this a random guess from established parameters, optionally making it worse. Random assignment of elements is dangerous on a few levels and it is not on the program to do this, but it is here so here you have it and it is a dangerous step to make. But I am more taken with option one, the program had THAT data somewhere. So in a setting we acquired classified data through clandestine needs and the program allowed for this, that is a direct danger. So what happens when that program gets to assess classified data? The skip between machine learning, deeper machine learning, data assessment and AI is a skip that is a lot wider than the grand canyon. 

But there is another side, we see this with “CBC tech columnist and digital media expert Mohit Rajhans says while some people are hesitant about programs like ChatGPT, AI is already here, and it’s all around us. Health-care, finance, transportation and energy are just a few of the sectors using the technology in its programs” people are reacting to AI as it existed and it dos not, more important when ACTUAL AI is introduced, how will the people manage it then? And the added legal implications aren’t even considered at present. So what happens, when I improve the stage of a patent and make it an innovative patent? The beer example implies that this is possible and when patents are hijacked by innovative patents, what kind of a mess will we face then? It does not matter whether it is Microsoft with their ChatGPT or Google with their Bard, or was that the bard tales? There is a larger stage that is about to hit the shelves and we, the law and others are not ready for what some of the big tech are about to unleash on us. And no one is asking the real questions because there is no real documented stage of what constitutes a real AI and what rules are imposed on that. I reckon Alan Turing would be ashamed of what scientists are letting happen at this point. But that is merely my view on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Huh? Wha? Duh!

I was a little baffled today. The article that I saw in Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/8/google-shares-tank-8-as-ai-chatbot-bard-flubs-answer-in-ad) had me. I saw the headline ‘Google shares tank 8% as AI chatbot Bard flubs answer in ad’. So I got to read and I saw “Shares of Google’s parent company lost more than $100bn after its Bard chatbot advertisement showed inaccurate information”, now there are a few issues here and one of them I mentioned before, but for the people of massively less intelligence, lets go over it again.

AI does not exist
Yes, it sounds funny but that is the short and sweet of it. AI does not exist. There is machine learning and there is deeper machine learning and these two are AWESOME, but they are merely an aspect of an actual AI. We have the theory of one element, which was discovered by a Dutch physicist, the Ypsilon particle. You see, we are still in the binary age and when the Ypsilon particle is applied to computer science it all changes. You see we are users of binary technology, zero and one. No and Yes, False and True and so on. The Ypsilon particle allows for a new technology. It will allow for No, Yes, Both and Neither. That is a very different kind of chocolate my friends. The second part we need and we are missing for now are shallow circuits. IBM has that technology and as far as I now they are the only ones with their quantum computer.  These two elements allow for an ACTUAL AI to become a reality. 

I found an image once that might give a better view, the image below is a collection of elements that an AI needs to have, do you think that this is the case? Now consider that the Ypsilon particle is not a reality yet and Quantum computers are inly in its infancy at present.

Then we get to the next part. Here we see “The tech giant posted a short GIF video of Bard in action via Twitter, describing the chatbot as a “launchpad for curiosity” that would help simplify complex topics, but it delivered an inaccurate answer that was spotted just hours before the launch event for Bard in Paris.” This is a different kind of candy. Before we get to any event we test and we test again and again and Google is no different, Google is not stupid, so what gives? Then we get the mother of all events “Google’s event came one day after Microsoft unveiled plans to integrate its rival AI chatbot ChatGPT into its Bing search engine and other products in a major challenge to Google, which for years has outpaced Microsoft in search and browser technology”, well apart from the small part that I intensely dislike Microsoft, these AI claims are set on massive amounts of data and Bing doesn’t have that, it lacks data and in some events it was merely copying other people’s data, which I dislike even further and to be honest, even if Bing comes with a blowjob by either Laura Vandervoort or Olivia Wilde. No way will I touch Bing, and beside that point, I do not trust Microsoft, no matter of ‘additions’ will rectify for that. It sounds a bit personal but Microsoft is done for and for them to chose ChatGPT is on them, but does not mean I will trust them, oh and the final part, there is no AI!

But it is about the error, what on earth was Google doing without thoroughly testing something? How did this get to some advertisement stage? At present Machine learning requires massive amounts of data and Google has it, Microsoft does not as far as I know, so the knee-jerk reaction is weird to say the least. So when we read “Bard is given the prompt, “What new discoveries from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) can I tell my nine-year-old about?” Bard responds with a number of answers, including one suggesting the JWST was used to take the very first pictures of a planet outside the Earth’s solar system, or exoplanets. This is inaccurate, as the first pictures of exoplanets were taken by the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in 2004, as confirmed by NASA” this is a data error, this is the consequence of people handing over data to a machine that is flawed (the data, not the machine). That is the flaw and that should have been tested for for a stage that lasts months. I can only guess how it happened here, but I can give you a nice example.

1992
In 1992 I went for a job interview. During the interview I got a question on deviation, what I did not know that statistics had deviation. I came from a shipping world and in the Netherlands declination is called deviation. So I responded ‘deviation is the difference between true and magnetic north’, which for me was correct and the interviewer saw my answer as wrong, but the interviewer had the ability to extrapolate from my answer (as well as my resume) that I came from a shipping environment. I got that job in the end and I stayed there for well over 10 years. 

Anyway the article has me baffled to some degree. Google is better and more accurate all of the time, so this setting makes no sense to me. And as I read “A Google spokesperson told Reuters, “This highlights the importance of a rigorous testing process, something that we’re kicking off this week with our Trusted Tester programme.”” Yes, but it tends to be important to have rigorous testing processes in place BEFORE you have a public release. It tends to make matters better and in this case you do not lose $100,000,000,000 which is 2,000 times the amount I wanted for my solution to sell well over 50,000,000 stadia consoles for a solution no one had thought of, which is now solely the option for Amazon, go figure and Google cancelled the Stadia, go figure again.

The third bungle I expect to see in the near future is that they fired the wrong 12,000 people, but there is time for that news as well. Yes, Wednesday is a weird day this time around, but not to worry. I get to keep my sanity playing Hogwarts Legacy which is awesome in many ways. And that I did not have to test, it was seemingly properly tested before I got the game (I have not spotted any bugs after well over 20 hours of gameplay, optionally merely one glitch).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science