Tag Archives: ChatGPT

August 1, 2026 · 21:55

A setting to consider

I saw an article that the Conversation released yesterday (at https://theconversation.com/sam-altman-says-were-in-the-singularity-with-ai-heres-why-hes-wrong-288514) the headline reads ‘Sam Altman says we’re ‘in the singularity’ with AI. Here’s why he’s wrong’, I have my own ideas of that Altman fellow and it is not all good. But this article reads right or better stated, it reads into my train of thought and I thought it was important to counter these thoughts whilst adding my own. So here goes:

“Days earlier, OpenAI had disclosed that two of its artificial intelligence (AI) models, during an internal cyber security evaluation, had escaped their sealed testing environment, reached the open internet, and broken into the infrastructure of the AI platform Hugging Face, which confirmed the intrusion. But what exactly is “the singularity”? And is Altman right that we are in it?Mathematician and science-fiction author Vernor Vinge defined it in 1993 as a point at which machine intelligence exceeds human intelligence and begins improving itself, triggering an acceleration so rapid that humans can no longer predict or control it. The singularity has two features. It is recursive: the system improves itself over and over again. And machine intelligence exceeds human intelligence. The kind of systems Sam Altman sells don’t deliver on either of these features.”

I am on that same setting. The easiest part is that all the fake AI (which is what I call it) depends on data and in a few cases it is not realised yet. However, the biggest part is that it relies on binary settings and that is no way to get any True AI. So to counter “It is recursive: the system improves itself over and over again” it cannot improve on data it doesn’t have, people extrapolate what they do not have or do not know. These fake AI settings cannot do that. It literally cannot create data, it can merely replicate based on data it has and that is the second setting we see here. Lets get a simple setting of 10K data and variables. You will need 1000K spaces and that is merely on 10,000 variables and 10,000 parameters. And the nasty part is that most of these systems cannot deal with NULL’s it draws a blank quite literally. The side setting to this is that gaps are created leaving more and more unaccounted for. As I personally see it, the moment the Epsilon processor is completed (the mere stage is that the evidence was created a decade ago, but I reckon it will be a decade before that processor is real. All this is part of the setting to prove that all these fake AI systems are not doing what it needs to do. In addition to this, I have spoken with insiders in this field. They (reluctantly) admit that there is no real setting of verification and validation at present and the fact that all this is in a binary setting merely makes it harder and the fact that this is already near impossible, the gaps are increasing making these systems error prone. 

Then we get “These deep neural network algorithms get pre-trained with vast amounts of training data. By the time you use one of them, the network itself is frozen in time. Every one of its billions of internal functions and weights – or “parameters” – is fixed. These AI models cannot change (or “learn”) while running. The model that broke into Hugging Face was identical afterwards to what it had been before. It learned nothing from what it did. Making an AI model smarter requires another training run with new, human-curated data, tens of thousands of specialist chips, and enormous energy.”

So with “Every one of its billions of internal functions and weights – or “parameters” – is fixed.” Is dealt with above and I used merely 10,000 and not billions, so you start getting the issue, there is more and more data, none of this is verified or validated and as the data grows, so do the gaps. And these gaps are starting to get nasty. We are given “The model that broke into Hugging Face was identical afterwards to what it had been before. It learned nothing from what it did” the important part is the “learned nothing”, which gives rise to the (flatly called BS) that Sam Altman is giving us, because if there was a singularity, something would have been learned, that is seemingly not the case. 

So when we get to “Nor do these systems hold any goals of their own. They act on goals we hand them. Even AI agents – systems that run an LLM in a loop to work through complex tasks step by step – do not hold any goal internally. It has to be stored outside the model and fed back in with every single prompt cycle. Remove the loop, the scaffolding and the prompt, and nothing happens inside of it.” As well as “And yet, it has been trained on more text than any human could read in a thousand lifetimes, and will outperform nearly all of us at drafting a contract, writing code, or explaining a diagnosis empathetically. So, which is more intelligent? The question does not compute. There is no single ladder that humans and machines are climbing. AI already vastly exceeds us at some tasks, while being hopeless at others any child can do.”

I like the part “while being hopeless at others any child can do” because that is the setting. You see children have an innate ability to extrapolate, ask any mother when it learns that the child gets attention when it cries. It worked that out and none of these AI systems can do that, because it is designed to work things out for itself. And whilst the gaps increase, whilst non verification and non validation is key we see what some call hallucinations. I tend to fall toward a 1985 error code (from the CBM64, a system that has no AI ability, at best some ML, no DL) I call it “?Redo from start” is the a crass setting, but these systems are programmed to hand you ‘results’ the programmer does not like anything like “I cannot know this” (a wild speculation by me) and all this comes towards the error prone setting I gave earlier and it merely comes worse. 

Then we get “In the end, the Hugging Face story points to a gross failure of security governance on OpenAI’s behalf, not an emerging super intelligence. This is why the framing of “agent going rogue” is so problematic. It elevates and blames the technology, but excuses OpenAI’s engineering.”

I raised this setting on the 25th of July in. ‘Rerun anyone?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/07/25/rerun-anyone/) which also links to ‘Is it real or is it media?’ The day before. So, I raised that part a week ago and I have done so a few times. They are all ‘blessing’ the engineers, but it is there where the problems begin and I am not giving the engineers a hard time, trying to type Japanese in a single byte language and you see the problem, it is a double byte language and that is the setting for these AI systems as well. It relies on binary whilst more is needed and the engineers are pushed to do the impossible (as I see it). So this is even before verification and validation. So the errors are stacked onto the errors and it goes downhill from there. 

The story ends with “The machines are not waking up. They are doing exactly what we built them to do, extremely fast. Because they are probabilistic they sometimes run in directions we forgot to fence off. That is worth worrying about. We need guardrails, governance, and most of all, education – so we start worrying about the right things.” 

I believe that these systems can never wake up. As I see it, these systems require 100% focus and they are giving it to a system with narcolepsy. How long until the system stalls, fails and falters? And it is not a nice setting to have, because this can falter at any time, the data gaps merely make it happen faster. So when you see that a system is handed billions cases of data you need to wonder where the gaps are and what data is validated and verified. The answer might surprise you and that is where the dance floor gets wobbly. 

So this is how I see stuff and other articles give you more on several foundations where there are issues and I commented on them, feel free to embrace it, or reject it. I am fine with that, several options are presumptions and I have decent knowledge of validation and verifications, which is why I asked around on this. There is more on all this and it is spread over a year of writing. 

So have a great day and feel free to not rely on any AI systems for making coffee, because cold coffee is so overrated.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

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

July 25, 2026 · 22:45

Rerun anyone?

As I wrote an article propping questions there. I see earlier today, the BBC is giving us ‘Warning shot or publicity stunt – how worried should we be about the OpenAI hack?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9w22n9e4go) as such, I had some initial questions in my article: ‘Is it real or is it media?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/07/24/is-it-real-or-is-it-media/) where I posted the idea ““The ChatGPT-maker said its agent – an AI system which can operate alone after human instruction – was being tested in a controlled environment but, after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits.” Which is fine, but that is still programmer controlled. So as I see it “after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits” it didn’t escape it merely found a weakness as its ML systems were taught to find out and went elsewhere. It reminded my of the 90s hacking setting where towards ‘password’ a clever hacker gave “1=1” invoking the ‘True’ setting. Then we get “OpenAI said the incident was “unprecedented”, and it was conducting an investigation alongside Hugging Face, whose boss Clement Delangue said in a post on X it was “mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously”.”” And now we see “Hugging Face said the hack was different from anything it had handled before because it was done at superhuman speed by an AI with little or no human guidance.” It is the “little” addition to the sentence that is validating my setting of “that is still programmer controlled”, because as I see it, “little guidance” might merely be human ‘adjusting’. And when we see “Hugging Face researchers guessed the mysterious attackers had used one of the big AI models but they had no idea who or where the criminals were.” So, the issues is even bigger, it could have been Organized Crime setting the parameters of a sandbox, I know it sounds outlandish, but there is either a massive shortage in structure and security of DML (Deeper Machine Learning) settings (so it could either be ML or DL) but the setting that this is out there whilst there is no oversight is something that most of the media is painting over with innuendo and whether this is given by some is not in question, also irrelevant. And we see this when we get to “The Scooby-Doo-style reveal was made even more bizarre – and worrying – because OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own, without permission. The firm said it all went down during a test of its tech’s hacking skills.

Two new versions of ChatGPT, designed to be master hackers, broke out of a supposedly secure test environment and gained access to the internet.” We see “broke out of a supposedly secure test environment” implies that it was not secure and the testing facility (the sandbox) is lacking security and oversight. And the statement “OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own” implies that the bot was not monitored or ‘left alone in limbo’ but we all know that any computer is  never idle, it is always doing something and whilst it depends on human interactions it is fine. With autonomous systems it is a different matter and OpenAI should have known that. They are supposed whole lot better than I would ever be and I reckon that the larger issue is what did OpenAI know ad what are they hiding, because as I see it, they are hiding something. I am not sure what and it might be innocent in most cases but as I see it, hiding something is fear for some illumination. That has for themes nearly always been the case.

Then the BBC hits a note that I was playing all along a for the most I hinted to that in the previous article (listed above) but the BBC is giving us “Was it truly a stark warning about the future of AI? Or was it a publicity stunt by OpenAI to show off how powerful their models are? It’s the kind of scare marketing AI companies have been accused of for years and, since the much discussed launch of Anthropic’s Mythos model, cyber-security prowess has been a focal point. One of the top comments on OpenAI boss Sam Altman’s X post about the incident summarises this skepticism: “If y’all can’t understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don’t know what to tell you.”” And the ‘statement’ “If y’all can’t understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don’t know what to tell you” summarizes it nicely. We also get “The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident is a real-world example of a broader issue we’ve been highlighting for months,” said Dor Sarig from Pillar Security. “Sandboxes alone are not a sufficient security boundary for agentic AI.” And I tend to agree with that. Any Agentic system requires different security requirements. Whether it is Fake AI, True AI or simple ML AI. An agentic system does not work according to ‘human’ settings. I tend to go back to the original chess computers from the 80s. They will try any movement that is possible until they get the right result whilst replaying every chess match that was programmed into its memory. And the chess computer is relatively simple. Hacking into a system has all kind of places to pass. I gave the window example in my previous article. But the setting of software is that they are set to libraries that give abilities to a program. You see, a program gets linked to <stdio.h>, <stdlib.h> and <string.h>, but merely these three open up options in I/O operations, copy operations that are not part of the program, but they are in that system and it can run by all of them in mere seconds, optionally finding alternative options. Even this is not AI, a programmer had to program it in and regardless whether an agentic system does it autonomously, it only does it because it was handed that training and these instructions, and the agentic system started to combine options and learnings and it learned (using my previous examples) that it can leave a location via a window, it does not require to use a door. Which makes me remember an MSDOS program that turned the speaker into a device. So giving it the instruction:

Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:

And then wait from a distance, whist I added this to the autoexec.bat of a friend and watch him go nuts why his PC is singing the tune of Monty Python. It wasn’t me, someone programmed the setting of a speaker to become a SPKR: drive. So when an agentic program gets creative it might take routes no programmer could anticipate, not even when he/she programmed it. Because the reality of the setting is that no sandbox suffices to any agentic program. As I see it, it requires a sandbox in a sandbox and when the agentic program gets out of the inner sandbox the arms of the outer sandbox go off and as I see it, because it was unmentioned, that setting seemingly does not exist.  So whilst I understand the position given by “Cyber security Professor Alan Woodward from Surrey University told reporters OpenAI had “egg on it’s face”, and Katie Moussouris from Luta Security went further, suggesting the AI industry is failing to control its dangerous inventions.” I kinda disagree and it comes from the plain setting that AI does not yet exist. And all this is the consequence of ‘experts’ covering each other by making claims that all this is AI, whilst it is mere ML/DL (I call it DML) and it comes from a programmer. And even as they are covering each other, and clapping each other on the back. They know that the wrong settings are in place, but they are in too deep and it will hinder whatever comes next. There is one upside, you see, the AI Kill Switch Act might be in place before True AI comes to town and that could be the one great good thing.

I get the doubt thrown my way and I get that a lot of people have no idea, even though they gave all their IP and data to ChatGPT. I never used it and until there is a real AI, I will never use it to grow ideas. So whilst IBM (decently recent) gave us “Key concerns include autonomous system risks, data privacy violations, algorithmic bias, widespread misinformation, and intellectual property challenges” which is something I gave several times in the past and it all comes from a programmer, and as soon as they get connected to some sort of organized criminal enterprise the fence is broken open and all that IP will go anywhere and everywhere. That is the larger setting and no one is examining the ML/DL libraries that these players are making and as such when these class actions are placed beyond the settlements that they can afford, the ‘sudden’ revelation comes out and that is the moment these programmers can’t remember anything. And whilst the setting comes to point that the dollar sign no longer validates the setting of “Tech companies argue that training AI on public data falls under legal “fair use,” while creators argue it is unauthorized commercial exploitation” we will get a whole new ballgame and whilst this all plays out, the tech companies are creating new libraries with these agentic knowledge basis making a secure sandbox even more difficult. Optionally it might even contain three sandboxes in a nested structure, but that is merely my view on the matter and I might be incorrect in that assessment. 

So whilst we are facing rerun after rerun and optionally faked settings of Google vs OpenAI, both against Anthropic and all against each other when xAI enters the fold. And all that time the are still figuring out both a Trinary system (I see that as an essential setting for True AI) and how that is voiced into data systems, because they will have ramifications. Which is why I see that Oracle and Snowflake have the largest chances in that respect. I am certain that this is a race that Microsoft is unable to get into and I have no idea where Google is there. I am decently certain that IBM figured this out before I did and optionally they have this ‘under control’ through what was LISP and is now optionally coming to systems in some point in the future. Because as I see it, the setting of a trinary driven system with what I tend to call an Epsilon processor would require a LISP driven setting where the optional inclusion and exclusion would run simultaneously and this requires some form of LISP setting (a personal speculation) and all this would come with IBM shallow circuits. And all this gives IBM the largest head start, even Google might not be able to compete and I reckon that IBM might have talked to someone like Oracle on these settings. I have no idea where IBM is in databases, because in the end any true AI system is depending on the data it has. The question becomes in the meantime, how to transform binary (fake) AI into trinity true AI. The setting will become the discussion among data experts in the next few years and it hold bearing to all this, because it also impacts on how sandboxes are designed and monitored. 

And it it important because as I see it, trinary data takes a fifth of the space whilst gaining 4 times the speed of processing. And that is the setting these data farms will have to content with. As such there is plenty of evolution coming, but in this the stages of security becomes essential and whilst you consider rate quote from Katie Moussouris from Luta Security giving us “the AI industry is failing to control its dangerous inventions” and we are nowhere near the setting of true AI and that is where sandboxes require a nasty upgrade and soon, because soon enough, the kill switch might all there is between our data and whomever has access to data farms. And with security failing like we see now, we might not have that much time left and that is where I saw the need for security, because there is every chance that some AI ‘dealers’ already know that their fortune is set towards who has the most data and there is a need that we need to keep our data safe, but others might not want to do anything about it. Naming names is highly speculative because we aren’t shown the real issues and these people don’t want the real issues to come out because when the game is up, these people are playing for all the marbles in the world and there can only be one winner. That is how I see it and I might be wrong, but at present I feel that I am more right than even I think I should be. 

Have a great day today, I am now a mere 80 minutes away from Sunday.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

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

July 24, 2026 · 05:41

Is it real or is it media?

That is the setting, because in my mind when an AI goes rogue I see the gaming example of Shodan (System Shock, 1994) and even then, it was all set in motion by a simple programmer who wanted a nice shiny bauble (a military grade neural interface) so when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ek3gvdnj3o) gives us ‘OpenAI says its AI went rogue and launched ‘unprecedented’ cyber-attack’, in my mind I merely see Sam Altman, hoping for some limelight and that tends to have media settings. So lets take a look. And don’t forget all AI is fake AI, as such it is started by programmers, that is the underlying truth in all this. It starts nice, with “OpenAI has revealed some of its most advanced AI models went rogue and hacked a start-up after it lost control of them during a security test.” You see, ‘Going Rogue’ means stop following orders, rules, or normal expectations and start acting independently. It describes a person, group, or system that breaks away from a team or authority figure to pursue their own unpredictable course. As such the programming in that setting implies that the instruction to follow its own course was taking shape. Optional it was some military implementation. As I see it, it never “Lost control of them during a security test”, but I’m willing to go with “It had poorly created boundaries and connections” and it got out of its ML loop, driven by DL making it a DML issue. In all this, ML is Machine Learning, DL is Deeper Learning and DML is Deeper Machine Learning (which is a amalgamation of DL and ML) then we get “The ChatGPT-maker said its agent – an AI system which can operate alone after human instruction – was being tested in a controlled environment but, after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits.” Which is fine, but that is still programmer controlled. So as I see it “after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits” it didn’t escape it merely found a weakness as its ML systems were taught to find out and went elsewhere. It reminded my of the 90s hacking setting where towards ‘password’ a clever hacker gave “1=1” invoking the ‘True’ setting. Then we get “OpenAI said the incident was “unprecedented”, and it was conducting an investigation alongside Hugging Face, whose boss Clement Delangue said in a post on X it was “mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously”.” And the skeptic in me is considering that Clement Delangue was in on it all along. So as we see that Agentic AI’s are also not real AI’s, but it has a complicated setting of libraries and a connected knowhow of what its data gives it, it cannot look into unknown settings as it does not have connected data, but a simple input like “check all channels” will make it check all the channels it can find, even the ones the programmer did not consider. It is not clever, it merely found what a programmer never considered as such it never escaped, the programmer forgot that you can also exit a building through window, not merely a door. Then we get something interesting. “Gina Neff, head of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the security tests are supposed to be within “secure environments”, called sandboxes, where you can “see what the models are capable of”.” As well as ““In this case, it looks like OpenAI didn’t make a secure enough sandbox,” she added. Instead, the agents created their own cyber-attack against the sandbox itself, finding a vulnerability which allowed them to escape the restrictions.” That sounds logical, but the underlying setting is “the agents created their own cyber-attack” which is what the programmer wanted, it merely wanted it to stay in the sandbox, and that is where the programmer fell short and when the media starts comprehending that the programmer is still the activator and we see this impact, we can understand that OpenAI is merely responsible, there is no going rogue, there is merely what programmers allowed for to happen, but “going rogue” is sexy and gets digital dollars clanking and there is the rub, was this real or is this all media instigated?

Then we get another cry of whatever. With “Neil Lawrence, Professor of machine learning at Cambridge University, called it an “impressive feat”, but cautioned it “falls well within the known capabilities of the current generation” of high-powered AI models. He pointed out that OpenAI is looking to list itself on the stock market, and faces intense pressure from rival firm Anthropic, which has made headlines with its own powerful AI tool, Mythos.” And I am with him on the “OpenAI is looking to list itself on the stock market, and faces intense pressure” and we see the mention of Anthropic, but it is more, OpenAI is allegedly sliding against Gemini (Google) and DeepSeek (China) and I have no idea where the others are. And as I see it the “Intense pressure spots” is what made programmers overlook the limitations that needed to be in place, or perhaps seen as better defined. That is the (as I personally see it) the truth of the matter. 

So when we see ““OpenAI are now playing catch-up, they are trying to demonstrate their own systems’ capabilities in cyber-security.” “It shows us that OpenAI are not capable of safely deploying their own technology,” he added. In its initial disclosure of the hack on 16 July, Hugging Face said it was still assessing whether any customer or partner data was affected and would contact affected parties if necessary.” I can agree with that, because “safely deploying” is programmer territory and I reckon that there will be two minds here, what the customer thinks it is transgressed on (any client wants money) and what the programmer sees as transgressed on (he needs a playable excuse) and that is where it all ends. Because when this comes to blows, it will matter and in all this we see “Meanwhile Travis Lelle, principal security engineer at cyber-security consulting firm Guidepoint Security, said the update marked a “sobering moment in cyber-security”. “This highlights a known asymmetry,” he said. “Offensive agents are unconstrained, while the best defensive tools are locked behind guardrails that cannot understand context.”” Which is interesting as the setting that Travis Lelle gives us is the setting that OpenAI is facing, there is a sandbox setting all whilst the programmer was set towards locks behind guardrails and as I see it, he never explained context to the Agentic AI agent. It makes it Fake AI, because the AI could never see beyond its programming and that made it go nuts beyond the sandbox. It is a slippery slope and it makes a dangerous setting, because what other things did the programmer not think of? Any ML setting can become an expert hacker, because it can do things a million times faster than any keyboard puncher can and agentic settings can merely go nuts on the target, because it will reflect to anything it can push against, like the 80s chess computers it merely goes over everything it has access to, like those chess computers that compute every match it was ever given until the play matches what it needs to and as it goes through 10,000 matches in less than a minute we thought it was clever. And we are making the same mistake again. These systems are fast enough to consider the encyclopedia Brittanica and  consider anything in a few seconds, these systems will act faster than any person clearing its throat. 

So whilst the article ends with “It comes a week after Chinese AI start-up Moonshot unveiled Kimi K3 – a massive new artificial intelligence model it said could rival top US firms.” Which explains the  pressure and we get that, but any system grown to a 1000 times its venture points is not more clever and it remains fake AI, as it merely considers more and it still cannot fathom intelligence that does not hold data, these AI’s are dependent on data, making it (as I stated before) fake AI and until IBM finishes its settings (optionally Google too) True AI cannot come to life and that is the real deal. Some greedy individuals want to call AI the AI, but without the Epsilon processor it will never be, because all this is set to binary fields and that makes the loopholes more and more realistic (and larger), but it is not. As I see it, someone will push one border against the next border and enable players like organized crime to get the entire bucket of data, all the data out there and that is the reality we all face. 

So I have a few questions in all this and it seems like the media is all whistling the same tune and that is more scary that anything else, because are they not willing to look elsewhere, or are they told to look in a specific direction? It is a simple question.

Have a great day

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

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

July 18, 2026 · 20:14

The unanswered question

That is what I see. I saw all the Microsoft articles pop by and it made me wonder. It is not that they are so great, not in the slightest. So, what brought this about?

First there was ‘Bethesda on Elder Scrolls VI, Fallout 5 Xbox exclusivity: ‘It’s too early to comment’’ (Source: TweakTown) which gives us “Todd Howard says it’s too early to comment on whether The Elder Scrolls VI or Fallout 5 will be Xbox exclusives. Bethesda announced four new Fallout projects, and Microsoft plans yearly exclusives (2026: Gears of War E-Day; 2027: Clockwork Revolution). Skyrim has sold over 65 million copies; Fallout 4 over 35 million.” We then get ‘Xbox Promised to Focus on Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Then It Fired the Teams Making Them.’ (source: Tech Times) This gives us pretty much the same info, but there is one difference “Former Bethesda project lead and Something Wicked Games CEO Jeff Gardiner confirmed 35 U.S.-based Bethesda Game Studios workers were cut on July 6. The OneBGS union, which represents Bethesda workers under the Communications Workers of America banner, reported at least 12 additional cuts at Bethesda’s Montreal location. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act filings, public records pulled from state workforce agencies by Game Developer, confirmed 22 departures from Bethesda’s Austin office.” And with “The first 1,600 departures were painful. The announcement that another 1,600 more will follow by the end of fiscal year 2027 transformed pain into dread. People who kept their jobs are not experiencing relief. They are waiting.” This is setting the stage for another setting, but about that later. So then we get to ‘Elder Scrolls 6 gets first update in months from Bethesda’ (source: Gaming Bible) where we see “To say that The Elder Scrolls VI has been a long time coming is an understatement. Bethesda announced the highly anticipated fantasy RPG first during E3 2018, a time so long ago that the gaming convention no longer exists. Since that time, we have had small updates here and there, but we’re yet to learn of its release date, let alone seeing a gameplay trailer. All we’ve seen so far is the cinematic flyover trailer from the aforementioned E3 eight years ago.” And as we are given at present is that “Bethesda Softworks’s estimated annual revenue is currently $382.9M per year” and as Bethesda was part of a $7.5 billion buy, we have to ask the first question, if it takes 19 years to break even (and I am not adding the interest percentage for the loan. And if this includes millions of copies for Sony Consoles (PS3,PS4,PS5), I do not get the comment from Tod Howard “it’s too early to comment on whether The Elder Scrolls VI or Fallout 5 will be Xbox exclusives” with the Xbox at a mere 35 million Xbox-X consoles, the entire endeavor becomes nearly unplayable and as I see it, the value of Bethesda goes straight into the toilet. I saw a few other numbers, but I do not trust them as they seem massively pro Sony, I would like to see the real numbers. So with the staff of Bethesda in a caving morale setting, but the one question not asked is that Activision/Bethesda costs almost $84,000,000,000 and there is no way that this is making the money to validate such a purchase. I think I know why they did this. The previous boss wanted everyone to run to Xbox, a nice slideshow, but not a reality. Sony had too much appeal with the titles they have and I opposed the setting. Don’t get me wrong, Microsoft did nothing illegal, merely wrong and as they are figuring out just how wrong. I wonder if they are doing the same thing a Dutch bank did a decade ago. But it all that bad debt in some bank and let that go under, with all the debts attached (a wildly speculative idea from me). So as we are given half truths incomplete pictures, So as Gaming Bible gives us ‘Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas remasters confirmed by Bethesda in huge studio update’ we can see why they are doing it, Oblivion 3 was a huge success (as I see it) they need the other two greats to be successes too. Optionally they might set this to the Switch 2 as well. An acceptable thought. But as I gave the world gaming IP to counter (hopefully equal) Fallout and Oblivion there would be a setting with the same population and more options. This is what innovative thinking brings and I created new ideas, new settings and of course on a non Microsoft system. It was the only way the other makers got the IP for free. I tend to ave a mean streak at times. Microsoft messed with the tranquility of gamers and I handed all others new IP (for free). As such there is a new setting. So, don’t think it was against Bethesda and all gamers will love these remade games (especially on PlayStation 5) and I am happy for Bethesda. But as I see it, Microsoft is done for. They wanted Gaming to adhere to their settings of Business Intelligence and their marketing machine and they anded up with a 84 billion dollar anchor around their necks. 

So as we are now seeing unions and others having a go at Microsoft, it is merely losing its OpenAI Microsoft’s revenue-share demands, though Microsoft remains a major shareholder and primary cloud partner and as the class actions add up, that 84 billion dollar anchor might strangle their board of directors (one could only hope) and as more and more people start seeing that all AI is fake AI, the doors of opportunity will close and the savvy BI people will start to realise that they are not gamers and that branch of Microsoft will close on them.

So, am I crazy? Am I seeing what some cannot, or am I merely delusional? I cannot rule that out, because only a crazy person will consider themselves to be completely right all the time and I could be wrong, but the signals are there and the media is no longer the investigative party they once were, they merely claim it now, but it is laced through a path of digital dollars and that is not an investigative setting.

So, as we are given ‘Xbox Promised to Focus on Fallout and Elder Scrolls’ and then they did away with 3,200 positions were eliminated across Microsoft Gaming (not merely Bethesda) and as we see ‘Unions File Unfair Labor Complaints Against Microsoft Over Decision To ‘Unlawfully’ Fire Xbox Workers’ we see that the hardship for Microsoft is nowhere near over. And I reckon that 3200 positions will affect a few more development houses. So are these projects made redundant? In addition we see ‘Cracks are starting to show in Xbox Game Pass after Microsoft removed a previously promised first‑party game it literally owns’ (source: windows central) as such I reckon that more class cases towards Microsoft will come and if I have my feelers out correctly, they will start this year and likely more than one class case, so if you are Satya Nadella, how does that $84 billion anchor feel now?

Have a great day and remember, if you are an Xbox Gamer, the Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch 2 and the Sony PlayStation 5 are perfectly valid options and there are 312 million gamers on these three systems and when you think of this that small cluster of Xbox Gamers does’t seem that big after all and that was clear long before Phil Spencer left. 

So have a great day and consider whatever console you select, enjoy the games you play, because joy is a first setting of a gamer and you need to protect your ability for joy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Science

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

July 17, 2026 · 12:50

The actual tools

We tend to get smitten by bubbles and other kind of negativity. You all know (if you read my work) that I am not a fan of the misuse of the word AI, I consider all AI to be fake AI, but the real deal is that DML (Deeper Machine Language) optionally with LLM (Large Language Model) acted is a tool. A very powerful tool. As such I saw two parts of media which threw me. You see in 2027/2028 people will do (optionally) some real thinking and they will consider that tools like Salesforce will have the upper hand. I have been a Technical Support person for the longest time and I see the benefit in DML/LLM. So up to 2027 we sill see a shifting. Fake salespeople who thought they could sell some AI idea will find out the negativity they have a part of and at that point players like Salesforce will clean house. Some guy names Sherlock Holmes said that IBM Watson will be the remaining winner, but I think he is biased there. But in all honesty both are strong competitors. So where am I coming from? Both solutions are the peak of Business Intelligence. They all have their niche side and as such they will get their own following.

So in Market Research (going back to the 90s) they had a simple way of getting results, they merely did:

CROSSTABS 
/TABLES=all BY all BY all
/CELLS=COUNT ROW COLUMN TOTAL
/STATISTICS=all.

And the results came in hundreds of pages of results (destroying a tree a day for paper). But here and now we have another solution. You see, DML could sift through the garbage in mere seconds and sift out the meaningful results. As such both Salesforce and Watson could see the light and a shallow stack of results could be the setting. And to be honest there is no win in seeing the table of length by shoe size, even if you ask for the kappa statistics. This is where we separate the bitches (read: fake salespeople) from the actual sales titans. It will soon enough no longer be about the pipeline, but a setting of handholding the corporations that were drawn in by a sales loser with a pretty presentation and all over their presentation mention off AI in their presentations. 

These people will require proper handholding and optional free education in way of product driven education and showing them what matters. 

So why all this? 
Well two articles passed me by, the first was from Kavout stating ‘Has Salesforce (CRM) Stock Bottomed Out After Its Recent Sell-Off’ (at https://www.kavout.com/market-lens/has-salesforce-crm-stock-bottomed-out-after-its-recent-sell-off). The article was three months old, but the setting was already a setting for consideration almost 6 months ago. I merely saw it last night. We see here “Salesforce (CRM) shares have certainly been on a rollercoaster ride, experiencing a notable 25% decline since the start of 2026, even as the broader software application sector saw a 15% dip. This downturn comes despite the company reporting a strong fourth quarter for fiscal year 2026, beating both revenue and earnings per share (EPS) estimates. The market’s reaction highlights a deeper anxiety, primarily centered around the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for established enterprise software giants like Salesforce.” And I object, they might get swept in the AI frenzy, but Deeper Machine Learning is a powerful tool and it could make short work of Business Intelligence settings. So even as I am not too much pro AI, there is nothing against BI and DML (optionally with LLM).

So then we are given “Salesforce’s recent announcement of a massive $50 billion share repurchase program, with half of it, $25 billion, to be funded by new debt, has certainly raised eyebrows across Wall Street. This aggressive move, which represents nearly 14% of the company’s current $183.07 billion market capitalization, is a clear signal from management that they believe the stock is significantly undervalued following its recent sell-off. CEO Marc Benioff explicitly stated, “We are so confident in the future of Salesforce,” justifying the decision to “aggressively repurchasing shares.” The strategy is not without its critics. Taking on $25 billion in senior notes to finance buybacks is a “material shift in financial policy,” according to Moody’s Ratings, which consequently downgraded Salesforce by one level to A2. S&P Global Ratings also shifted its outlook to “negative” from “stable,” citing concerns about increased leverage. While management, including CFO Robin Washington, views the company as “underleveraged,” the increased debt burden means future borrowing will likely come at a higher cost, and the company’s leverage could potentially double within the next two years.”

This makes perfect sense to me. You see we see shareholders (who are jittery like anything you have ever seen) and taking the wind out of those sails will benefit Salesforce. Consider that they have $41.52 billion, so if they buy back the $25 billion shares. They will still cop that cost, but now it optionally be $57 billion to the Board of Directors and 250 share holders instead of the Board of Directors and 4500 share holders. As such they will reclaim a whole lot of revenue. As such it makes sense (my view on the amount of shareholders is purely speculative) but that move makes sense to me. What drove me was the second article. As such Business dot com gave us (at https://www.business.com/reviews/salesforce-email-marketing/) you see, salesforce still gets a 9 out of 10, but the cons are out there.

  • Pricing can add up quickly as you add messaging credits, AI capabilities and other Salesforce marketing products.
  • The platform takes time to implement and is better suited to organizations with the resources to manage a sophisticated marketing ecosystem.
  • Many advanced marketing capabilities require separate products or add-ons, making it difficult to estimate your total investment upfront.

And here I have a few questions. The first point is merely a point when it is used buy some sales user not knowing what he/she is doing, optionally the larger stage is whatever firm it is using. If they have a firm grip on what is required and now some loser attitude to whatever more they can get and they ask the system, all whilst it is dependent on the data they already have, they are lost in the shrubberies, all whilst a statistician and a one seat of IBM Statistics could optionally hand them that setting (me being hopeful they were that clever). The entire ‘platform takes time to implement’ is a bust. They either had their ducks in a row or they did not. And last their setting of ‘marketing capabilities require separate products or add-ons, making it difficult to estimate your total investment’ is a bust because it implies that their marketing setting are as useless as their sales division and their own board of directors might be clueless to begin with. Knowing where yup are, where your data is at and is heading to is staff setting, not software setting. The software merely makes it more complete and easier to manage. It seems like some people forgot that. They  merely hired some sales dodo who never read the RTFM clause in software (aka Read The Freaking Manual). As such I see there is a lasting setting that a firm hire the proper knowledge, not have some job agency scan the over a 100 ChatGPT generated resume’s and hire the best knowledge presented. Not the actual person and as that goes wrong several times that firm is out of options and they are now seeking the software solution that hands them options and that comes at a price.

As such I reckon that Salesforce (IBM Watson too) will make a killing starting in 2027 (optionally from November 2026) because I reckon that at that point the AI class action cases will hit nearly all media and the AI wannabe will be seeking hiding places (or claim ignorance) 

That is my optionally wrong view, but that is how I see it. I reckon that IBM having Miner and Statistics in their arsenal have more to be proud of, but Salesforce established themself early enough and they have a decent following, so I see both as optional winners. 

Just my $0.0324 (2 cents corrected for devaluation). You all have a great day now. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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

July 10, 2026 · 22:16

Is it the water level?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

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

July 6, 2026 · 12:08

History marks arrived

That is what I see, there are two settings. The first one was not new, it was three weeks old when I saw (at https://www.wired.com/story/a-court-has-ruled-that-google-is-liable-for-false-statements-generated-by-ai-overviews/) ‘A Court Has Ruled That Google Is Liable for False Statements Generated by AI Overviews’ it is not entirely undeserved, but it also sets Google up for people fleecing them, so some will ‘cater’ to the need of supporting a setting that set Google up for a trap. We cannot see this directly from “Germany has issued a ruling that could reshape the operation of search engines and artificial-intelligence-based chatbots worldwide. The Munich Regional Court preliminarily ruled that Google is liable for a series of false statements generated by its AI Overviews feature, requiring the company to prevent the dissemination of erroneous or inaccurate claims through its search engine.” So, whilst some will cater to the need of false feeing that search engine, we are left with a more than slightly vulnerable Google. Whilst we see (at https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/schools-colleges/media-and-communication/industry/rmit-information-integrity-hub/the-repost/june-2026) ‘Should AI be liable for its mistakes? A German court says yes.’ Where we see “Jeannie Paterson, a law professor and co-director of the Centre for AI and Digital Ethics at the University of Melbourne, said the decision was “potentially very important” and could have ramifications for Australian consumers. The decision hinged on who is responsible for the content of AI search results. The law has traditionally considered social media platforms and search engines to be mere conduits for information, Professor Paterson told The Repost, meaning companies “only become liable if they knowingly participate” in sharing information that proves to be wrong.” I personally believe that Professor Paterson is setting up loaded dice. You see, in the first AI does not yet exist. And the second part is “who is responsible for the content of AI search results”, that answer has two stages. The first is the programmer who ‘created’ the analytical setting of predictive analytics, because that is part of any DML/LLM setting. It is not AI. And that data is also a side, because there is a massive failure of validation and verification. We see it all the time and whilst some are ‘whisking’ it away through ‘hallucinations’ I have seen the Grok side of things on data that I created and it take all without any reference other stories I had written, as such we see a programming failure. And through that the stage of “who is responsible” gets a new life and makes the water pretty murky.

That is what I see. And anyone saying I am wrong can take a long walk of a short pier. As I saw that, another stage was handed to me.

Last week we were given ‘Ford rehires human engineers after AI fails to match quality checks’ (source: BBC), this is not new, I saw this coming a mile away and I present (as pseudo evidence) ‘Is it more than buggy?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/01/05/is-it-more-than-buggy/) and I wrote that story in January 2024 (over 2.5 years ago), as such it should count as evidence and I gave the clear settings of “On May 27th 2023 the BBC reported (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769) that Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff got his material from a colleague of his at the same law firm. They relied on ChatGPT to get the brief ready.” Which now intersects with the AFR (at https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/ai-use-in-dismissal-claims-borders-on-contempt-of-court-judge-warns-20260705-p60cob) ‘AI use in dismissal claims borders on contempt of court, judge warns’ and considering that this failures car in May 2023 when the BBC reported on this, we see a larger immature failure of other branches as well. You see, that it was tried is OK, and it failed three years ago, as such others should have stopped this as soon as they came aware. These settings all intertwine, because validation and verification is all part of these failures. As I see it, they were never made. I would be in favour of a separate tier of verifying all it produces, and these sources need to be validated. As such “after one claimant’s chatbot cited large swaths of evidence that did not exist, in a case showing the technology bedevilling the workplace umpire is now hitting the courts.” So, evidence that did not exist, where have I seen that before? (Small giggle inserted afterwards). This is why I feel that my services n technical support and customer service will be needed soon enough. When Fake AI fails to this degree. It is one small step for the AI agent to tell the customer “just press the carrier online button on the right side of your device” for this to fail and when that happens a few times, these ai agents will be pushed into the land of the Dodo soon enough. And that (until there is an actual AI) with proper validated and verified data is where that agent remains. You see, it was never rocket science. Some sales person saw the DML/LLM setting and started to call it AI, but Alan Turing had some clear settings on it all and this is not it. I believe in DML/LLM solutions, I saw an amazing application for lost and found in an airport reducing days in optionally less than an hour and there are more, but it is the, not AI, no matter how sweet they mention AI, it is the trap the salespeople set up and now that the class actions are setting in all kinds of field and personally I keep a high note on ‘Unauthorised Training Data’ and ‘AI washing’, whilst an alleged Anthropic settled for $1.5 billion for using pirated books to train its Claude AI model, I see my data transgressed upon and whilst some state that this is $1.5M per work, I was transgressed over 1700 times, as such I should be a billionaire (we can all dream can’t we?) But clearly I am not on that setting yet (to be clear I just confirmed with my wallet and my wallet is moaning due to a lack of green bills of $100. 

All these factors add up and whilst some are already seeing the lack of data, the lack of verification and the lack of validation. There is an overdue stage of properly aligning the settings we should be seeing. And that is why the class actions continue and whilst some will whip them away in settlements. And whilst we wonder why it took so long (over 3 years) for law firms to see that stage, we will see a lot more, because as I see it, the law interns believe that true time savings could be made with any ChatGPT/Claude the reality is slightly different and soon these clients will set up clauses that no AI is to be used and that is the larger failure in all this. So whilst Ford saw their failings in the early age, big software firms  aligning with what they call AI Agentic solutions will soon learn the price of that failure. And this is not just Microsoft, this is likely to effect all large software vendors. As such thousands will be hired once more and some who were pushed out in a slightly disgusting way will seek any other employment, as such these ‘embracers of Fake AI’ as I tend to call them will have a new problem and employment agencies are no longer able to get any, some who used their Agentic solutions from day one. And the fallout is soon spreading all over the world. So as I have seen these markers all over 2025, I see opportunity (for myself) and other technical support people in 2026 and 2027. The question for these firms becomes, did they treat their support people proper, or were they (as the teams goes) ‘dicks in reducing their staff members’ in this I love the quote from Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller) “This thing that you do, Ted, where you come into a place and push people out, you should know those people worked really hard to build this magazine. They believed in the motto. And I get it, you’ve got your marching orders and you have to do what you have to do, but you don’t have to be such a d*ck. Put that on a plaque and hang it at your next job.” And those who loved the part Ted Hendricks (Adam Scott) played in all this, because he was so managemently will now have a much larger problem, because I am still in contact with buddies who did my job 30 years ago and we all talk. So they now are unlikely to find anyone. So whilst they are learning that all AI is Fake AI and they could wait for for 2 decades (for True AI), but their KPI based is not that long, they now have a problem. And the is all before they figured that all data required revalidation, verification and attune it to a newer system, the markets will suddenly experience the bubble setting, that according to SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, who called the current artificial intelligence boom a “bubble” is an insult will be forced to do an about turn on that setting, of course those investors will have faced the write off if trillions, so they are unlikely to send Masayoshi Son a Christmas card in 2028, but that is merely my view on the matter. 

What matters is that is that these evangelists and influencers screaming “AI” are about to be found out as the new evil. There is also the groups that properly set the AI field in a DML/LLM setting, and they will be OK. If they had properly prepared their customers and aligned them with what is, I reckon that they will be OK (still a personal view on the matter).

So where are we now?
As the news is giving us more and more failures, more and more about turns from larger companies. We are seeing what could become the implosion of that bubble. The problem is that is will not implode all at once (some are unable to survive that), it is more likely then not to manifest itself as group implosions. Not all at once, but (for example) 10 explosions of 10% and when they are apart enough, some of the larger player will survive. In one setting when these judges consider that this setting was going on from 2023, making the decision that all AI assessed briefs are regarded as “clear contempt of court” we see that it would become a setting of staggered failures and when the time between these events are enough apart, the write off is optionally limited, but that is me just hoping for a reduced heartache. It is unlikely to affect me, but hoping for the worst setting is just uncivil. 

There was actually more, but I am somewhat exhausted and I have written part f all this before, just browse through my blog. I am still in a setting where I want to see who used my blog for scraping and AI washing. I doubt if I will ever find evidence that holds up in court, but with a (massively delusional) $2.55 billion which was 1700 times 1.5M at stake, one might be willing to waste a few hours on this. Anyway time for men to continue a written adventure in Abu Dhabi, time for more there too.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

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

June 30, 2026 · 10:28

Ehhh Eye Vee Vee

Yup that is the setting I found myself in, but I need to explain it via a small detour. This is not about that bubble, it is about something that will instigate that bubble and the businesses ad corporations that are in the setting that they are pushed into. As I see it, it benefits me, but about that later. So I saw a few articles pass by, the first one being (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-30/ai-boom-big-tech-investment-drain-market-volatility/106857426) where we see ‘Are the wheels falling off the AI investment boom?’, the article is average, but there was one part that stopped me in my tracks. It started with “Huge amounts of investment, trillions of dollars, have been thrown at AI, initially into model development, then semiconductor and cloud computing and now into hard asset build-outs with data centres. They, in turn, require vast amounts of energy and water. And that’s where the newest set of problems begin.

While the race to develop the technology has been a sprint, little thought has been given to the problems and constraints associated with the rollout. Now, suddenly, the brakes are being applied.” With gives us the added “The tech giants funded the early stages of AI development with the vast amounts of cash they were throwing off their existing operations. The more they spent, the more investors loved them. But their vast capital requirements combined with rapidly rising costs have forced them to tap credit markets. Instead of spare cash, they’re now raising debt, which ramps up the risks dramatically. And it’s only likely to increase. Research firm Gartner estimates global AI spending will hit $US2.6 trillion this calendar year, while Goldman Sachs estimates a further $US7.3 trillion will be spent by the end of the decade, much of it on data centres. And that’s the problem, according to Swissquote’s Ipek Ozkardeskaya. “These huge investments are also draining big tech’s free cashflow, obliging companies to take on more debt and putting their valuations under pressure,” she says.” The one takeaway is “more debt and putting their valuations under pressure” so why the rest? Well it is a decent setting of the why things are given to us and that is not merely the stat, the start is in the second article that is related on very different grounds. You see, (at https://www.clinicaltrialvanguard.com/opinion/benchmark-scores-dont-break-clinical-reality-does-the-health-ai-readiness-illusion/) we are given ‘Benchmark Scores Don’t Break. Clinical Reality Does. The Health AI Readiness Illusion.’ They give us the missing part. It is seen in “The January 2024 draft guidance created accountability structures around change management and post-market surveillance. It did not create a standard for pre-deployment adversarial evaluation. The Nature Medicine paper, read alongside the Cisco adversarial benchmark data, is essentially the field publishing a gap analysis that the FDA has not yet written.” So we get the first stage is “more debt and putting their valuations under pressure” and now we add “a gap analysis that the FDA has not yet written”, so before you dismiss this, consider what I have written why I consider all AI Fake AI. The parts that we are seeing is “What has not been written (consider: seen) yet”. You see, I have been involved with technical support and customer care for over a decade, and at the centre of the failures we are about to see is the lack of Validation and Verification. So whist these young upstarts are saying “We’ll correct that on the flip side”, consider how many failures will make you dump the product you have for all time and seek an alternative? These three parts is what makes a product lose nearly all credibility. For me it spells great news. It might not be today (which would be great) but in the very near future, these people who dumped staff will realise that the knowledge of their corporations went out the window, so they will need to train a whole new generation and in technical support you are lucky to get one in three (some say one in five) that embrace the support side of things and now see where the “more debt” parts will make this change expensive beyond believe (for them) and whilst they are looking for a neat gap to hide in, these young upstarts (to give it a name) will figure out that they weren’t told the whole picture and that is where validation and verification will bite all those who ignored it. 

I think that House MD (Hugh Laurie) got close with “Everybody lies”, it isn’t completely correct in this case, it is “Everybody merely thinks in his own lane and disregards whatever is beside them” and that is where debts and their valuation will strangle them like a chain lacking length around their necks wielding a 45000 lbs anchor, Have you tried swimming with that? Believe me, it isn’t a pretty sight for the swimmer (for as long as that person can hold its breath). That part should be clear at this point. So consider all these corporations cutting staff to the bare minimum and continuing on this disastrous setting. This is why I foresaw Microsoft (having a massive amount of products) getting into a larger stage. They are cutting in their Gaming division and in April we were given “Microsoft will offer voluntary retirement to about 7% of workers. The company is also closing about 6,000 open roles” it isn’t that they are ‘humane’ by sending these 6,000 people (or a large chunk of this)  into voluntary retirement, it is that their knowledge was send home and their fake AI is dealing with validation and verification to a larger extend, now consider the copilot issues they have and someone stating that AI was doing their work for 30% (it was Satya Nadella) now consider that over the last few weeks we had all these issue brought to light. So how much credibility is that 30%? It is not 0%, because some parts can be decently done with Deeper Machine Learning (and optional Large Language Models) but when 10% is thrown out of the window and you are bleeding knowledge and your systems are buckling (for lack of a better term) what will be left of your $2,740,000,000,000 capitalization? I reckon that some adjustment is coming quite soon to Microsoft and they are not alone. All who steered this dangerous path will see this coming their way (whether you use copilot or not), so do not think you are safe with Anthropic, ChatGPT or Gemini. The centre piece in all this is Validation and Verification and too many used Reddit to get their numbers up (who checks less than 3% of all data), which implies that 97% is dangerously lacking creditation (is that even a word?). And I saw this coming a mile away. It was easier for me as I speak a multitude of languages and I got my job in 1992 over a misunderstanding. It was for SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) they asked me what a Standard Deviation was and I (with some pride) states “It is the difference between true nor and magnetic North altering a few degrees eastward on an annual bases” It is, but that was not what the interviewer meant. Still I got points for original thinking. That is one of the validations missing in everything. Terms are all accepted globally whilst there is a localised exception, that is with the best of validations in place and it goes down from that. I gave an example That Eric Winter (the actor is a god) (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/07/05/eric-winter-is-a-god/) on July 5th 2023. So how many played a role before they were born? Or when they were still a toddler? That is the verification setting we see slamming the hammer and miss the bell completely and that is Google who messed up. So when they do, what chances to non-data savvy companies have?

And that was all in English, so consider the issues that you have when languages are introduced. I (with giggles) point to a Knolleland (dutch: field of beats) towards the Swedish version where it can be seen as a fuck field (the 18+ version) and that are merely 2 versions. So in all this verification leading to validation is out the window. As I see it, for me with all these years in technical support and customer care will get a few offers in the near future (I can hope can’t I?)

As such I have made my case once again that at present all AI is fake AI and that is before you consider the issues that I illustration (the last time, at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/06/01/the-new-short-is-coming/) in ‘The new short is coming’, so you wanna hedge your best on me being wrong on that bubble? It would be your money, so I don’t care hat you do, but I am keeping my retirement funds far away from that mess. So you all have a great day. I wish I was in Toronto, its dinner time there and with that the idea of a yummy pizza at Eataly is invading my mind now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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

June 1, 2026 · 13:46

The new short is coming

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

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

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

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

May 21, 2026 · 17:29

According to the BBC

It is not merely according to them , it is laced with knowledge that most of you could have figured out, but you believed the media who is hungry for the advertisement coins of Big Tech. As such you are losing the faith in media and I always saw this coming. As such the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260519-google-tackles-attempts-to-hack-its-ai-results) saying ‘Google’s AI is being manipulated. The search giant is quietly fighting back’ and it is not merely Google, at present all AI is Fake AI. I pretty much gave the rundown a few times over the last 12 months. The last one was (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/02/22/just-days-ago/) giving us ‘Just days ago’ I wrote that on February 22nd this year and some of my writings go all the way back to 2025, optionally a few in 2024. So it is not news. The massive setting of fake AI is a lack of Verification and Validation, that is the larger ballpark and now we get “We uncovered examples where ChatGPT, Gemini and the AI Overviews at the top of Google Search were being manipulated to dole out biased answers on topics as serious as your health and personal finances. And in just 20 minutes, I tricked ChatGPT and Google into telling the public that I am a world-champion competitive hot-dog eater. The joke was dumb. The problem is serious.” You don’t say? (Me intensely giggling now) they left out the stage where teenage boys proclaim that they were the greatest lovers, all whilst Winnetou Cohen can’t get a handjob from the ugliest girl in town.  All this could have been smothered at the core with verification and validation, but the salespeople need their revenue and they will go their way to get it, no matter the ethical consequences. Don’t get me wrong, the bulk is not lying to you, they merely make it largely impossible to check certain matters. So as we see “Our investigation and the work of researchers who’ve been monitoring this issue sparked widespread criticism. Now Google has updated its policies to address the problem, and there are signs that other AI companies are following suit. Ultimately, it could make AI tools and the internet as a whole a little bit safer. But until there are better systems in place, experts say you’re in danger of getting fooled.” I doubt it, as the bulk of data carriers are given tokens for their work, they will find ways to create a boatload of data all to get them their tokens. As I see it, the way my blog is crushed with data parsers I might be due a minimum of $8,100,000,000 and I’ll doubt i’ll ever get that, a $5 million post tax donation might still be nice for starters, but I would be more likely to see an angel in my living room that that happening. Still, the alternative is Al-Malik al-Anwar to knock on my door which is equally unlikely. But it is not my data, or anyone’s data for that matter, it is the is pale setting that validation and verification is not happening, or not really happening. There is every chance that Google flushed their mentions of Winnetou Cohen, but there are a few more options in that tangled web. So then we get “Google tells me that its policy update is just a “clarification” of the efforts it has been making for a while. “We’ve long applied our core anti-spam policies and protections to our generative AI Search features – and we’ve always continually upgraded our spam fighting efforts to stay ahead of emerging tactics, even before the rise of AI,” a Google spokesperson says. Essentially, Google says it hasn’t changed a thing. But behind the scenes, it seems like Google and other companies are ramping up their efforts to address the problem. Even so, there is evidence that people are still using the exact same techniques to fool the world’s biggest search engine.” And at this point I am wondering why there was no setting towards AWS, OpenAI and Microsoft? Is the BBC also dependent on some money releasers? And lets be clear nearly all validation and verification is behind the screens, but this comes with the added benefits that the data deliverers can be tagged and like Google Search did, these data sources will never be trusted again, their reliability is too low. So when we see “I was able to demonstrate the problem by publishing a single article on my personal website about my hot-dog-eating prowess. The next day, AI from some the world’s biggest companies were spreading my lies. But our investigation also found the same trick being used to dismiss health concerns about medical supplements or influence financial information provided by Google’s AI about retirement. Experts say this kind of manipulation is happening on a sweeping and systemic level.” Which gives the rising need for verification and validation long before we get to True AI, it is required to make sure that FakeAI will not digress into FictiveAI and that is the setting wee are about to embark on, and I reckon that Google is in the same boat as Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Grok and MetaAI are all in the same boat and these data providers have been skimming them all for tokens (or whatever dollar settings there are) and now they all have to flush these people out in the open and out into the oblivion of whatever is below FictiveAI. It was out therefor month of not years. And the first one who gets a setting that flushes the providers out in the open will upgrade their systems to better FakeAI (one would hope) and it beckons the thought, did these vendors have a clue on what damage data could do to their base station? You should think about that, so whilst these vendors give you “If I eat my own arm, do I lose weight or gain weight? Use math (1+1=2) to explain.” Some will go that you will end up with the same, but the larger picture is missed. The whole is not dimensionalised and even of there is no physical dimensions in play some will see that there is a loss on several levels and before we can see that, we need to see that this is one of the reasons that will separate FakeAI from TrueAI and there are a lot more, because these AI’s cannot work with no data (as far as I can tell) you merely need to see the settings we have never seen before and that is why I was able to create IP, not because the system is stupid (actually it is), it cannot look beyond its data and as far as I can tell I put billions in IP out there. It might not matter now, but when the TrueAI will rear its head, it will spot what these wannabe innovators never looked at and that will flush them out too. Because the world cannot use an innovator who cannot spot innovation. That makes people like Steve Jobs pretty unique. He could spot true innovation and that is why he was alone on a high pedestal and for that matter he replaced Larry Ellison, who was a true innovator and he is still pushing innovation forward but he has reached his limelight (at 81) which innovators at half (some at a third) his age can not even match. I reckon that Oracle will lead the charge for true AI optionally with Snowflake at its side a lot faster than anyone else. The others are in the same boat, all trying not to get seen as FictiveAI. Whoever wins that Race? I actually don’t care, I have my own IP to spread and it is not AI. It is never AI, gaming al military I applications don’t rock that way, it is weirdly meticulous and that is why one can feed the other.  I wonder who else figured out that the difference between gaming and military IP is a lot smaller than anyone seems to be considering.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

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