Conversation | Lawrence van Rijn

Tag Archives: Conversation

April 18, 2023 · 19:45

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.

The shoddy essay

I actively dislike certain people, especially as they use their position to merely lash out at others. This is seen (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/saudi-arabia-yemen-un-human-rights-investigation-incentives-and-therats) when we see Stephanie Kirchgaessner have another go at Saudi Arabia. I honestly think that is all she does. So here is my take. The article ‘Saudis used ‘incentives and threats’ to shut down UN investigation in Yemen’ Of course my first reaction was ‘What UN investigation in Yemen?’ And the article starts off with “Political officials and diplomatic and activist sources describe stealth campaign”. I go into the article and I am treated to “according to sources with close knowledge of the matter”, “Riyadh is alleged to have warned Indonesia”, and lets not forget ““You could see the whole thing shift, and that was a shock,” said one person familiar with the matter”, so what people were familiar to the matter? What actually happened? It is a fair question, especially when we are given “The resolution was defeated by a simple majority of 21-18, with seven countries abstaining”, it is in this case that I am apparently a much better investigator. So, lets take a look.

First lets look at some headlines ‘UN calls on Yemen’s Houthis to release detained staff’, ‘UN: Houthi rebels impeding aid flow in Yemen’, ‘Yemen: Houthi Terrorism Designation Threatens Aid’, and these are just three headlines from dozens in the last two years. In this, the UN and other parties (like essay writers) have been really active in silencing any actions that included Houthi and Iranian forces in Yemen. The article has two mentions on Houthi, one in a photo and none (read: Zero) mentions of Iran. We see one mention of all in “committed by all sides”. The article is that one sided and that much of a hack job. The situation in Yemen is large, much larger then this essay writer makes it out to be.

I am not making some claim that Saudi Arabia is innocent, but I can tell you it is definitely not that guilty either. Houthi and Iranian forces have at least part of that blame (well over 50%) and we seem to forget that all this started by Houthi forces, The Saudi coalition was asked to come and no one seems to notice that. So whilst the Guardian hides behind “the Saudis appear to have influenced officials”, I merely wonder if there isn’t a much larger picture. We see mention by John Fisher giving us “It was a very tight vote. We understand that Saudi Arabia and their coalition allies and Yemen were working at a high level for some time to persuade states in capitals through a mixture of threats and incentives, to back their bids to terminate the mandate of this international monitoring mechanism”, here we see the stage, but we ignore the lighting. In addition to that stage, what evidence is there for “through a mixture of threats and incentive”, you see Iran and Houthi Yemen do not want any monitoring for a few reasons, and they are non-mentioned parties, why is that? Shovelling BS all on one pile is nice at times and we love to see all that BS piled up at Strasbourg, but that will not happen either will it?

You think that this I the end, but it is time to add flavour to it all, because in all fairness, Stephanie Kirchgaessner is not in this alone, the stakes against Saudi Arabia are much larger. That is seen when we add the Conversation (at https://theconversation.com/jobs-are-no-excuse-canada-must-stop-arming-saudi-arabia-171792) where we see “Jobs are no excuse — Canada must stop arming Saudi Arabia”, and I would state ‘Yes, handing more revenue to China is the way to go!’ I would love to get a larger billion dollar stake holding a 3.75% bonus setting. Even as we are given “The bulk of Canadian arms exports to the Saudis are light armoured vehicles, known as LAVs”, We see the attack using ‘Human Rights’ all whilst Saudi Arabia is under actual attack, Houthi (apparently Iranian operated drones) are attacking civil targets in South Saudi Arabia, so whilst we are given “Canada has twice been named by the United Nations Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen as one of several world powers helping to perpetuate the conflict by continuing to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia”, and we are not given the clear involvement of Iranian and Houthi settings, it is all a one sided attack and it matters, these people attack one sided for a larger need, an ego driven need and the media is helping them do this. But feel free to state I am wrong, and I am happy to be wrong, especially if $12,000,000,000 going to China might fetch me a nice 450 million dollars (I can dream, can’t I?). when the numbers are this high 3.75% makes a very nice number. And the world is making this happen, so when we see project after project fail in Europe and the US because the moral high ground came at a price, consider the names of people who made that happen. Hunger on the moral high ground is not rare, it usually is linked to all kinds of revenue that they never got. This is not a perfect world, I never claimed it to be, but a commerce world needs to sell all kinds of stuff, also stuff that seems to be wrong, there is no denying that. And when it comes to that side, these two articles leave Houthi and Iranian actions in the dark. You should wonder why that is, because a nation does not spend 12 billion in any one sided event. If it was truly one sided one billion would have been more than enough. Did you consider that?

The US and the EU have at presently dropped 48 billion in revenue, revenue that they desperately needed and now that von der Leyen revealed the ‘300 billion euro answer to China’s Belt and Road’, how will that be paid for? Not from the revenue that Saudi Arabia required to defend its borders. That revenue will support China’s Belt and Road projects, a nice pickle they got themselves in and no one is wondering how this farce can go on, because soon there will be no money left, the overdrawn credit cards from the US, the EU, France, Germany and the UK makes any economic action close to impossible. And soon (in about 3-5 weeks) when the US has another debt ceiling, consider all the things that the US could have done to stop the new stress settings; the EU and the UK as well, now that these funds are going to China, the stage changed, the electricity bill can no longer be paid and there is no fighting ring, there is no event to watch, it is just a dark room in a dark location and that I the setting we all had to avoid. But rejoice, you then know one element that Yemeni people face, they have no electricity either, the Houthi forces made sure of that.

Tag Archives: Conversation

The choice of options

The shoddy essay

Recent Posts

Archives