Tag Archives: data verification

December 1, 2025 · 22:32

It’s starting to happen.

This is a decently great day for me. The BBC, gave me ‘news’ that shows that I was right all along (one of many times), of course that is a debatable setting, but it comes with benefits for me. You see, on November 9th 2024 I wrote ‘The easy lesson’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/11/09/the-easy-lesson/) and some disagreed, some always do. But I saw the potential of that device and I wrote about it, I also gave the direct setting that Ubisoft could benefit greatly from this. Now the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0mjvr33/experience-life-aboard-the-titanic-like-never-before) shows us all a different approach to that same solution. It allows the people to see life abroad the Titanic (that one that sank in 1912) and it looks nice and spiffy, I think it could be better, but this might have been a beta. I reckon that under Unreal Engine 5 it becomes truly magic, but that takes serious cash to develop and that might have been out of reach (for now), but the important part is that this is being implemented now. After Apple lost his marbles and thoughts for innovation, Meta with the Meta Quest 3 is all that remains and they have the setting to sweep the board. I reckon that they will optionally make a few side ventures or buy the Stadia, but then the entire solution will be under the hands of Meta (say: Facebook) a setting I saw a year ago and now as things are starting to move, those claiming to be innovators are left in the rubble of their own spin. As I see it, it is about to become a clear win for Meta and others could benefit too.

They merely need to talk to Ubisoft and see what is possible, and that comes with a massive influx of revenue, so whilst all the winner (soon to be losers) are aiming for AI, other settings are developing and they are left in the field looking for their golf balls in the mud. So whilst others are trying to reinvent the wheel, there are a small numbers of people who are starting actual innovative waves.

People like Karl Blake-Garcia are setting new boundaries. Personally I never thought of the Titanic in that way and that makes it wondrous. Others are on the same shoes as I am, but see different applications and that is fantastic. In that meantime He saw the idea of a ship and he might have been influenced by James Cameron and that is OK. I saw the implementation of languages and the teaching vibes the world needs and that is OK too, I also saw an implementation (in the pre dump Apple Vision Pro days) where Apple had options and saw a game as well, but it seems that Meta has all the marbles in its corner now. I wonder if Ubisoft is making the jump from games to education, but that might be asking for too much, someone needs to talk to Yves Guillemot and Mark Zuckerberg is the most likely person he wants to talk to.

The important part is that the world is looking into the AI corner (the one that doesn’t exist yet) and they are wondering when it is coming, all whist the realist are stating that there is no real revenue coming before 2028, which is nice but the interest on 4 trillion dollars will be due at some point before that. Still as we are shown “Over the next decade, Auto-ML will become even more user-friendly and accessible, allowing people to create high-performing AI models quickly without specialized expertise. Cloud-based AI services will also provide businesses with prebuilt AI models that can be customized, integrated and scaled as needed.” Over the next decade? That will bring it to 2035 and I’ll most likely be dead at that point. Thank the lord that people like Karl Blake-Garcia (and myself too) exist who are looking to alternative money makers, preferably venues not dependent on AI. Its too bad that Apple wasted all that time and effort without looking forward. But still Meta saw this venue and now while some wait for the Meta Quest 4, the previous generation is ready now and the systems are being adjusted to future that solution. To the best of my knowledge there are close to a billion people ready to globally start learning languages and that solution could soon be shown to classrooms and homeschoolers. Innovation is all in the mind and where it takes you. No AI was required. The real AI is between your own two ears, time to use it to show others what is possible.

So when others are seeing that there is a marker in Data validation and Data verification the BI industry might open up to a much larger field, we can only hope so because if I have to read another produced article on shipping where we see “standard deviation is a statistical measure of how spread out a set of data is from its mean (average)”, whilst the actual setting is “the difference between true North and magnetic North” I am gonna bloody lose it. And it could have been avoided if Data verification was actually working, but shipping is so out of touch with reality, isn’t it?

So whilst some might see this as a excellent setting to see what the Titanic actually looked like, there is a tidal wave of applications coming into that realm, I wonder who is seeing the options to innovate.

Have a great day, and as I see it, taking the plane (especially an airbus) might have its own lack of innovative applications according to some. So have a safe flight.

The start of something bad

That is how I saw the news (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/dubais-10000-ai-firms-goal-to-redefine-competitiveness-power-uaes-startup-vision) with the headline ‘Dubai’s 10,000 AI-firms goal to redefine competitiveness, power UAE’s startup vision’ there is always a risk when you start a new startup, but the drive to something that doesn’t even exist is downright folly (as I see it) and now it is driven to a 10,000 times setting of folly. That is what I perceive. But lets go through the setting to explain what I am seeing.

First there is the novel setting and it is one that needs explaining. You see AI doesn’t yet exist, even what we have now is merely DML (Deeper Machine Learning) and it is accompanied at times with LLM (Large Language Models) and these solutions can actually be great, but the foundations of AI are not yet met and take it from me it matters. Actually never take my word, so lets throw some settings at you. First there is ‘Deloitte to pay money back to Albanese government after using AI in $440,000 report’ and then we get to ‘Lawyer caught using AI-generated false citations in court case penalised in Australian first’ (sources for both is the Guardian). There is something behind this. The setting of verification is adamant in both, You see, whatever we now call AI isn’t it and whatever data is thrown at it is taken almost literally at face value. Data Verification is overlooked at nearly every corner and then we get to Microsoft with its ‘support’ of builder.ai with the mention that it was goo. It lasted less than a month and the ‘backing’ of a billion dollar went away like snow in a heatwave. They used 700 engineers to do what could not be done (as I personally see it). So we have these settings that is already out there.

Then (two weeks ago) the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/08/bank-of-england-warns-of-growing-risk-that-ai-bubble-could-burst) ‘Bank of England warns of growing risk that AI bubble could burst’ with the byline “Possibility of ‘sharp market correction has increased’, says Bank’s financial policy committee” now consider this setting with the valuation of 10,000 firms getting a rather large ‘market correction’ and I think that this happens when it is the least opportune for the UAE. This take me to the old expression we had in the 80’s “You can lose your money in three ways, first there are women, which is the prettiest way to lose your money, then through gambling, which is the quickest way to lose your money and third way is thought IT, which is the surest way to lost your money” and now I would like to add “the fourth way is AI, which is both quick and sure to lose your money” that is the prefix to the equation. And the setting we aren’t given is set out in several pieces all over the place. One of them was given to us in ABC News (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-20/ai-crypto-bubbles-speculative-mania/105884508) with ‘If AI and crypto aren’t bubbles, we could be in big trouble’ where we see “What if the trillions of dollars placed on those bets turn out to be good investments? The disruption will be epic, and terrible. A lot of speculative manias are just fun for a while and then the last in lose their shirts, not much harm done, like the tulips of 1635, and the comic book and silver bubbles of the late 1980s. Sometimes the losses are so great that banks go broke as well, which leads to a frozen financial system, recession and unemployment, as in 1929 and 2008.” As I personally see it, America is going all in as they are already beyond broke, so they have nothing to lose, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia have plenty to lose and the American first are good to squander whatever these two have. I reckon that Oracle has its fallback position so it is largely of, but OpenAI is willing to chance it all. And that is the American portfolio, Microsoft and a few others. They are playing bluff with as I see it, the wrong players and when others are ignoring the warnings of the Bank of England they merely get what is coming for them and it is a game I do not approve of, because it is based on the bluff that gets us ‘we are too big to fail’ and I do not agree, but they will say that it is all based on retirement numbers and other ‘needly’ things. This is why America needs Canada to become the 51st state so desperately, they are (as I personally see it) ready to use whatever troll army they have to smear Canada. But I am not having it and as I see “Dubai’s bold target to attract 10,000 artificial intelligence firms by 2030 is evolving from vision to execution, signaling a new phase in the emirate’s transformation into a global technology powerhouse. As a follow-up to earlier announcements positioning the UAE as the “Startup Capital of the World,” recent developments in AI infrastructure, capital inflows, and global partnerships show how this goal is being operationalised — potentially reshaping Dubai’s economic structure and reinforcing its competitive edge in the global digital economy.” I believe that those behind this are having the best interests at heard for the Emirati, but I do not trust the people behind this drive (outside of the UAE). I believe that this bubble will burst after the funds are met with smiles only for these people to go out of business with a bulky severance check. It is almost like the role Ryan Gosling played in the Big Short where Jared Vennett receives a bonus of $47 million for profits made on his CDSs. It feels almost too alike. And I feel I have to speak up. Now, if someone can sink my logic, I am fine with that, but let those running to this future verify whatever they have and not merely accept what is said. I am happy to be wrong but the setting feels off (by a lot) and I rather be wrong then be silent on this, because as I see it, when there is a ‘market correction’ of $2,000,000,000,000 you can consider yourself sold down the river because there is a cost of such a correction and it should 100% be on the American shores and 0% of the Arabic, Commonwealth or European shores. But that is merely my short sighted view on the matter.

So when we get to “Omar Sultan Al Olama, Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy, and Remote Work Applications, said the goal reflects the UAE’s determination to lead globally in frontier technology. “Dubai’s target to attract 10,000 AI companies over the next five years is not a dream — it is a commitment to building the world’s most dynamic and future-ready digital economy,” he said. “We already host more than 1,500 pure AI companies — the highest number in the region — but this is just the beginning. Our strategy is to bring in creators and producers of technology, not just users. That’s how we sustain competitiveness and shape the industries of tomorrow.”” I am slightly worried, because there is an impact of these 1,500 companies. Now, be warned there are plenty of great applications of DML and LLM and these firms should be protected. But the setting of 10,000 AI companies worry me, as AI doesn’t yet exist and the stage for Agentic programming is clear and certain. I would like to rephrase this into “We should keep a clear line of achievements in what is referred to as AI and what AI companies are supposed to see as clear achievements” This requires explanation as I see whatever is called as AI as NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) and that is currently the impact of DML and LLM and I have seen several good projects but that is set onto a stage that has a definite pipeline of achievements and interests parties. And for the most the threshold is a curve of verifiable data. That data is scrutinized to a larger degree and tends to be (at times) based on the first legacy data. It still requires cleaning but to a smaller degree to dat that comes from wherever.

So do not dissuade from your plans to enter the AI field, but be clear about what it is based on and particularly the data that is being used. So have a great day and as we get to my lunch time there is ample space for that now. Enjoy your day.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABC, AI, America, Arabic, Artificial Intelligence, big short, builder.ai, Canada, Commonwealth, data cleaning, data verification, DML, Dubai, Europe, Jared Vennett, Khaleej Times, LLM, Microsoft, Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Near Intelligent Parsing, NIP, Omar Sultan Al Olama, OpenAI, Oracle, Ryan Gosling, Saudi Arabia, technology, the Guardian, UAE, Writing

September 14, 2025 · 06:23

The massive problem with AI

Yes, I have said that on several occasions, there is no AI and whatever there is has verification issues. Today I illustrate this YET again and here in this case Google is as much to blame as many others.

So we have two images, the first one gives us

That there are risks. I was taken a little back, The UAE is one of the safest places on the planet. So I decided to ask the same question a little different and I added the term “in 2025” so as we see the second setting

We see the initial feeling I had about the country. And there are an abundance of articles showing the safety of the UAE (and Abu Dhabi), as such I want to kindly wake Sergey Bring the fuck up and I am wondering whether he needs to address his Gemini settings a little. Perhaps American tourism decline settings is altering the verification settings?

As such there is one little situation, the setting that whatever bigtech calls AI cannot be trusted (which I already knew). The setting of verification that is up and about and that is the major handle in whatever that (AI) is. We need to realise that there is no AI. There is DML (Deeper Machine Learning) and there is LLM (Large Language Models) and they are awesome, but they are depending on the programmers you throw at them and it is not foolproof, there are issues (as you can see).

This is not a large article. I have said it before and now within 5 minutes I had the setting I needed. I reckon that all of you want to make a separate ‘judgment’ on whatever these people call AI and whether it might show your local environment in a limelight you could check. And just for fun (I tend to be a whacky person) I am adding the ‘American Tourism decline’ here too.

Just to set the premise, consider that this was given 4 weeks ago: “In June, Canadian residents returned from 2.1 million trips to the United States, representing a 28.7% decrease from the same month in 2024 and accounting for 70.8% of all trips abroad taken by Canadian residents in June 2025.” And the story here becomes verification. You see, who (or what) is feeding the AI models? When the data cannot be verified, how is the data conceived? Because this data is fed, by whom becomes the story and the media (as a whole) becomes less and less reliable.

Have a great day, almost time for me to take a walk towards my brekky.

Just Asking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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