That is at times in almost everything the setting. We might all go nuts about ‘mismanaging’ settings and I am to a certain degree not impervious to that setting. But after writing ‘The losing bet’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/12/08/the-losing-bet/) I started to mull things over. You see, people like Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan are not stupid. But there is a dangerous calm as people are given the questions and are given ‘a kind of answer’ and Microsoft is massively adapt in setting the stage to THEIR advantage and I suddenly realised a simpler setting. When was the question asked of Microsoft ‘What is AI?’ And ‘What is the premise of what you call AI?’ With ‘What is the data setting of AI?’ In this I reckon that some eyes will open. We see all settings of Ai mentioned, but the clear definition and a comparison to the setting that Alan Turing gave us 1950, moreover together with John McCarthy gave us the Turing test. So how far did people dig into this part of the equation? You might disagree with me on my stance of AI and that is okay. We do not all see eye to eye on a whole range of matters. But in this, in a Texas Hold’em style of business poker it becomes increasingly important to set the stage of definitions and hold them up to the light. In that game Microsoft doesn’t get to spin out of the stage ad blame it all on miscommunication. In that stage Microsoft has to hide into the margins or come out into the light. The second stage is likely and very pleasing to my ego.
You see, when people are part of a $1.5 billion investment there are people who are not pleased with that fact and they will nitpick any document handed to them. One of the oldest settings was ‘What are the definitions?’ Was in older days the way to see what players were up to and that stage got a little lost in populism and ‘fast’ presentations appeasing to the spending player. You might think that it is Microsoft paying, but you would be wrong. The UAE and G42 are investing time and resources to make it all work and I foresee that players like Microsoft (not just them) are trying to play fast and loose with definitions so that they can bank the first agreements and then turn back and hide behind ‘miscommunications’ after that fact. Which is why we have the clear setting of definitions. As such making all players answer that question gives a first setting. You see, there is no AI at present and that comes out at that very start. And no matter how clever LLM’s and Deeper Machine Learning is, the setting becomes data and who is responsible of that data. Now we get different players out and in the full-grown light. People like Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan will then immediately see who is endangering the security of the UAE and they have no sense of humour at that point. No matter how some see the ‘opportunity’ of a life time, the moment the national pride comes into view of danger, the UAE will demand clarity on matters and I reckon some will ‘trivialise’ matters and when you ‘invest’ $1.5 billion there is an issue with trivialisation (which is why I referred to a Texas Hold’em style). Now some will say that I am bluffing and I want to be ‘inserted’ as a possible player. You would be wrong. I do not want to be linked to a player like Microsoft in any way. Google, Amazon, Adobe, IBM and Oracle definitely, Microsoft not at all. As such I am not anti-American (a claim that was thrown at me several times in the past). I am anti-stupid (mostly) and when you start trivialising $1.5 billion I see you as stupid, and no matter what I think of Microsoft, they are not overly stupid. In some things yes, in other things (like playing black letter law stages) not that much.
But all that becomes moot when some players release the definition lists to all we will see how silly my thoughts are, because these definitions go through the entire project and there is no way they get changed unless all parties openly agree. Oh and before you think that this is a ploy. You might be right. You see, I do not know where China is at present ad I would live to find out. So what is better then Microsoft setting the entire definition list to paper and release it all? I reckon we will see a Chinese response less then 48 hours alter.
The revolving question is an almost needed stage because definitions on paper is what matters, if it isn’t written down it doesn’t exist. That has been a matter long before the Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. I reckon it goes back to the days of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (63BC-14). So this setting was known for 2000 years and with all the turbo presentations and innuendo I get the feeling it got lost in the woodwork of it all. As such I thought it was a great idea to remind people of that.
Silly me, have a great day.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 