Tag Archives: true AI

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 6, 2025 · 16:38

Ignoring the centre of the pie

That is the setting that I saw when I took notice of ‘Will quantum be bigger than AI?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04gvx7egw5o) now there is no real blame to show here. There is no blame on Zoe Kleinman (she is an editor). As I personally see it, we have no AI. What we have is DML and LLM (and combinations of the two), they are great and great tools and they can get a whole lot done, but it is not AI. Why do I feel this way? The only real version of AI was the one Alan Turing introduced us to and we are not there yet. Three components are missing. The first is Quantum Processing. We have that, but it is still in its infancy. The few true Quantum systems there are are in the hands of Google, IBM and I reckon Microsoft. I have no idea who leads this field but these are the players. Still they need a few things. In the first setting Shallow Circuits needs to be evolved. As far as I know (which is not much) is that it is still evolving. So what is a shallow circuit. Well, you have a number of steps to degrade the process. The larger the process, the larger the steps. Shallow circuits makes this easier. To put it in layman’s terms. The process doesn’t grow, it is simplified. 

To put this in perspective, lets take another look. In the 90’s we had Btree+ trees. In that setting, lets say we have a register with a million entries. In Btree it goes to the 50% marker, was the record we needed further or less than that. Then it takes half go that and does the same query. So as one system (like DBase3+ goes from start to finish), Btree goes 0 to 500,000 to 750,000 to 625,000. As such in 4 steps it passed through 624999 records. This is the speediest setting and it is not foolproof, that record setting is a monster to maintain, but it had benefits. Shallow Circuits has roughly the same benefits (if you want to read up to this, there is something at https://qutech.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/m1-koenig.pdf) it was a collaboration of Robert König with Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset in 2018. And the gist of it is given through “Many locality constraints on 2D HLF-solving circuits” where “A classical circuit which solves the 2D HLF must satisfy all such cycle relations” and the stage becomes “We show that constant-depth locality is incompatible with these constraints” and now you get the first setting that these AI’s we see out there aren’t real AI’s and that will be the start of several class actions in 2026 (as I personally see it) and as far as I can tell, large law firms are suiting up for this as these are potentially trillion dollar money makers (see this as 5 times $200B) as such law firms are on board, for defense and for prosecution, you see, there is another step missing, two steps actually. The first is that this requires a new operating system, one that enables the use of the Epsilon Particle. You see, it will be the end of Binary computation and the beginning of Trinary computations which are essential to True AI (I am adopting this phrase to stop confusion) You see, the world is no really Yes/No (or True/False), that is not how True AI or nature works. We merely adopted this setting decades ago, because that was what there was and IBM got us there. You see, there is one step missing and it is seen in the setting NULL,TRUE,FALSE,BOTH. NULL is that there are no interactions, the action is FALSE, TRUE or BOTH, that is a valid setting and the people who claim bravely (might be stupidly) that they can do this are the first to fall into these losing class actions. The quantum chip can deal with the premise, but the OS it deals with needs to have a trinary setting to deal with the BOTH option and that is where the horse is currently absent. As I see it, that stage is likely a decade away (but I could be wrong and I have no idea where IBM is in that setting as the paper is almost a decade old. 

But that is the setting I see, so when we go back to the BBC with “AI’s value is forecast in the trillions. But they both live under the shadow of hype and the bursting of bubbles. “I used to believe that quantum computing was the most-hyped technology until the AI craze emerged,” jokes Mr Hopkins.” Fair view, but as I see it the AI bible is a real bubble with all the dangers it holds as AI isn’t real (at present), Quantum is a real deal and only a few can afford it (hence IBM, Google, Microsoft) and the people who can afford such a system (apart from these companies) are Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sergei Brin and Larry Ellison (as far as I know) because a real quantum computer takes up a truckload of energy and the processor (and storage are massively expensive, how expensive? Well I don’t think Aramco could afford it, now without dropping a few projects along the way. So you need to be THAT rich to say the least. To give another frame of reference “Google unveiled a new quantum chip called Willow, which it claimed could take five minutes to solve a problem that would currently take the world’s fastest super computers 10 septillion years – or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years – to complete.” And that is the setting for True AI, but in this the programming isn’t even close to ready, because this is all problem by problem all whilst a True AI (like V.I.K.I. in I Robot) can juggle all these problems in an instant. As I personally see it, that setting is decades away and that is if the previous steps are dealt with. Even as I oppose the thought “Analysts warned some key quantum stocks could fall by up to 62%” as there is nothing wrong with Quantum computing, as I see its it is the expectations of the shareholders who are likely wrong. Quantum is solid, but it is a niche without a paddock. Still, whomever holds the Quantum reigns will be the first one to hold a true AI and that is worth the worries and the profits that follow. 

So as I see this article as an eye opener, I don’t really see eye to eye on this side. The writer did nothing wrong. So whilst we might see that Elon Musk was right stating “This week Elon Musk suggested on X that quantum computing would run best on the “permanently shadowed craters of the moon”.” That might work with super magnet drives, quantum locking and a few other settings on the edge of the dark side of the moon, I see some ‘play’ on this, but I have no idea how far this is set and what the data storage systems are (at present) and that is the larger equation here. Because as I see it, trinary data can not be stored on binary data carriers, no matter who cool it is with liquid nitrogen. And that is at the centre of the pie. How to store it all because like the energy constraints, the processing constraints, the tech firms did not really elaborate on this, did they? So how far that is is anyones guess, but I personally would consider (at present, and uneducated) that IBM to be the ruling king of the storage systems. But that might be wrong.

So have a great day and consider where your money is, because when these class actions hit, someone wins and it is most likely the lawyer that collects the fees, the rest will lose just like any other player in that town. So how do you like your coffee at present and do you want a normal cup or a quantum thermal?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

August 25, 2025 · 09:54

Microsoft in the middle

Well, that is the setting we are given however, it is time to give them some relief. It isn’t just Microsoft, Google and all other peddlers handing over AI like it is a decent brand are involved. So the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24zdel5j18o) giving us ‘Microsoft boss troubled by rise in reports of ‘AI psychosis’’ Is a little warped. First things first. What is Psychosis? Psychosis is a setting where we are given “Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. During an episode of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not.” Basically the settings most influencers like to live by. Many do this already for for the record. The media does this too.

As such people are losing grips with reality. So as we see the malleable setting that what we see is not real, we get the next setting. As people lived by the rule of “I’ll believe it when I see it” for decades, this is becomes a shifty setting. So whilst people want to ‘blame’ Microsoft for this, as I see it, the use of NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) is getting a larger setting. Adobe, Google, Amazon. They are all equally guilty.

So as we wonder how far the media takes this?

I’ll say, this far.

But back to the article. The article also gives us “In a series of posts on X, he wrote that “seemingly conscious AI” – AI tools which give the appearance of being sentient – are keeping him “awake at night” and said they have societal impact even though the technology is not conscious in any human definition of the term.” I respond that giving any IT technology a level 8 question (user level) and it responds like it is casually true, it isn’t. It comes from my mindset that states if sarcasm bounces back, it becomes irony.

So whilst we see that setting in ““There’s zero evidence of AI consciousness today. But if people just perceive it as conscious, they will believe that perception as reality,” he wrote. Related to this is the rise of a new condition called “AI psychosis”: a non-clinical term describing incidents where people increasingly rely on AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Grok and then become convinced that something imaginary has become real.” It is kinda true, but the most imaginative setting of the use of Grok tends to be 

I reckon we are safe for a few more years. And whilst we pour over the essentials of TRUE AI, we tend to have at least two decades and even then only the really big players can offered it, as such there is a chance the first REAL AI will respond with “我們可以為您提供什麼協助？” As I see it, we are safe for the rest of my life.

So whilst we consider “Hugh, from Scotland, says he became convinced that he was about to become a multi-millionaire after turning to ChatGPT to help him prepare for what he felt was wrongful dismissal by a former employer.” Consider that law shops and most advocacies give initial free advice, they want to ascertain if it pays to go that way for them. So whilst we are given that it doesn’t pay, a real barrister will see that this is either lawless, trivial or too hard to prove. And he will give you that answer. And that is the reality of things. Considering that ChatGPT is any kind of solution makes you eligible for the Darwin award. It is harsh, but that is the setting we are now in. It is the reality of things that matter and that is not on any of these handlers of AI (as they call it). And I have written about AI several times, so it it didn’t stick, its on you.

Have a great day and don’t let the rain bother you, just fire whomever in media told you it was gonna rain and get a better result.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

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