Tag Archives: xAI

August 2, 2026 · 15:54

Considering the greed of others

This is where I found myself this morning. You see, I have published over 4000 articles and others have been Ising them to train their fake AI systems. Training LLM settings and so forth. As such (and according to law and at https://hwlebsworth.com.au/feeding-the-machine-how-us-courts-are-drawing-the-line-on-ai-training/) we see ‘Feeding the Machine: How US courts are drawing the line on AI training’ where we see “The accelerating development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has forced courts to grapple with novel and unsettled questions of copyright law. Central among these is whether the use of entire copyrighted works to train large language models (LLMs) without the author’s consent constitute infringement of those works.” Which works in my favour and it comes with “The datasets used to train AI models often contain digital copies of media such as web pages, books, videos, images and music. These media are often the subject of copyright protection, which means that their use to train AI models requires permission from the copyright holder. Permission is required because AI models must ‘copy’ the protected material at least temporarily to undertake the training process.” You see, from May 11th until now my articles have been used for ‘AI training’ at least 33,750 times and a lot more before that. As such I see an opportunity for me, myself and I (as such I am a sneaky trinity) so as we are given “The Interim Report then went on to discuss Australia’s ‘fair dealing’ regime, which allows certain uses of copyright works without the need for license from the copyright owner, but only for certain specified purposes, such as research or study, criticism or review, or parody or satire. The Interim Report seeks feedback on expanding this regime to include fair dealing for the purpose of text and data mining, which could more squarely legitimise AI training activities in Australia.

Where the Australian ‘fair dealing’ regime only applies to certain permitted purposes, some other countries, such as the United States (US) have a broader ‘fair use’ doctrine, under which any use of copyright material may be permissible provided that it is considered fair, without reference to legislatively-permitted purposes.” So, as I see it, money should be coming my way. And as the article in HWLE lawyers state. The setting of “In June 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued two decisions in Bartz v Anthropic PBC (Bartz) and Kadrey v Meta Platforms Inc (Kadrey), that directly addressed this question. While these rulings suggest that US courts may accept fair use as a defence to AI training, their scope is narrow. Both were decided at the summary judgment stage, and as the Judge in Kadrey noted, ‘the consequence of this ruling is limited […] to the rights of these thirteen authors‘. Accordingly, the significance of these rulings remains provisional, with the scope of fair use in the context of AI training to be more clearly defined as further cases are determined.” So, to get it clear, those are American judgements, but they have a much broader setting of ‘fair dealings’ then Australia has and my thought process is a little bit in the setting of “You can either hand me a generous settlement, or if needed I will get it through the law”. The second setting s long and optionally tedious. But as I am looking at closer to 50,000 transgressions the taximeter starts adding up. Now, I have no faith in 50,000 times 1.5M, which would be nice, but is ludicrously unrealistic. But the idea of $25,000,000 per corporation seems realistic. You see

“In Bartz, Anthropic the developer of the ‘Claude’ LLM, assembled a centralised digital library of books containing both lawfully acquired works, scanned from purchased physical copies, and unlawfully obtained works downloaded from unauthorised torrent websites. Authors alleged that their books were included without permission and were used both to train Anthropic’s models and for other purposes. Alsup J considered the two uses separately, ultimately holding that the use of works for training constituted fair use. However, Alsup J found that the use of pirated copies to build Anthropic’s centralised library was not justified under fair use, rejecting Anthropic’s argument that such copies should be treated as training data, and denying summary judgment on that issue.”

And:

“In Kadrey, Meta trained its ‘LLaMA’ AI models on datasets including those obtained from ‘shadow libraries’ such as Library Genesis and Z-Library. These datasets were downloaded via torrenting, incorporated into the training process, and discarded thereafter; unlike Anthropic, Meta did not maintain a persistent digital library. Thirteen best‐selling authors alleged that this constituted copyright infringement on a class‐wide basis. Chhabria J also found the training to be fair use, but adopted a more cautious approach, observing that ‘future evidence of substitution or harm to licensing markets, particularly where works are unlawfully obtained‘ could warrant a different conclusion.”

So we get to “While both courts concluded that the training uses fell within the scope of fair use, their reasoning diverged in certain aspects. Alsup J emphasized the transformative purpose of training and discounted speculative claims of market harm, whereas Chhabria J stressed the potential for market harm arguments and evidence to alter the analysis. These decisions have no binding effect in Australia, where there is no general fair use defence. Nonetheless, they highlight the emerging tension between protecting incentives for human creativity and facilitating technological innovation; a tension likely to intensify as generative AI becomes further integrated into creative and commercial practice.”

As such, I felt really good this morning. As this shows that I might be heading to a nice bank account. And as it happens to go (source: AP News) we get “A federal judge approved a landmark $1.5 billion copyright settlement requiring Anthropic to pay thousands of authors roughly $3,000 per book for using pirated digital libraries to train its Claude AI model”So as I see it (a flawed analogy) 50,000 times $3,000 get me $150,000,000 which sounds really nice. I reckon that this is where the art of seeing the diplomatic bounty comes into play. It seems that more than one transgressed on my work and would it be so wrong to go for $25,000,000 per transgressor? Of course, the long road would be more rewarding, but that seems like a greed driven way. I feel more for easy (well rewarded) solutions. And there are upsides to entering retirement with a somewhat fat wallet. Retirement comes across as a lot more fun that way. 

But I am getting ahead of myself, next step will be getting an impartial party (what a weird name for a lawyer) to check Grok, xAI, Gemini, Anthropic, OpenAI, MetaAI, MicrosoftAI (always happy to knock coins out to their coffers), AWS AI (and others) to see whether their training data reveals the presence of “www.lawlordtobe.com” because that starts to process as I currently see it.

Well, that mental joyride was fun to have, but I did say the class actions would be prudent in 2026, I might as well join that cause for the benefit of poor little me and I have caused. I might be one of the people that refers to a church mouse as a decadent rich bitch. One must always keep humour about the premises.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, 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 20, 2026 · 12:14

A breath of fresh air 

This is what happens, at times we get refreshed from some issues that add settled in different ways and the Khaleej Times gave me two of those instances. I was happily refreshed. The first one (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/uae-investigation-publication-false-report-dubai-explosions) gives us ‘UAE authorities summon news agency officials over false Dubai explosion report’ it comes with the interesting byline “The Attorney-General said that the agency’s decision to withdraw the report and publish an apology does not preclude the continuation of the investigation” I still have to see where this goes, but this setting is refreshing. We get too much populist and digital driven headlines all over the planet and I see too many of them. So seeing this is refreshing to say the least. So as we see “The Attorney-General stated the investigation will determine the respective roles of each individual involved in the different stages of the report. It will also determine the extent to which they complied with legal and professional standards governing the verification of information before its publication” as well as “On Thursday, July 16, the Dubai Media Office confirmed that the Reuters report regarding “explosions” in Downtown Dubai is false. Reuters later issued a statement saying it “regrets” the report and that the story had been retracted the same evening. The agency also confirmed it issued a new report highlighting the Dubai Media Office’s denial. The news agency acknowledged that the report did not meet its standards. Reuters “could not immediately determine where the sounds were coming from or their significance, and did not offer that context,” the statement added.” I see a few issues with the part, but that is merely me and there could be an error in reporting there too. As such it is what it is, but the call by the Attorney-General feels like a breath of fresh air. 

After that we see (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/elon-musks-xai-sues-grok-user-over-sexualized-deepfakes) that ‘Elon Musk’s xAI sues Grok user over sexualized ‘deepfakes’‘ and there is a larger setting there, because this could global and those people weaseling away with “the app made me do it” could quite literally lose their house and their equipment over all this. As such, that 34.2 seconds of fame will come at a massively high price. As such we are given ‘The case is one of the first brought by an AI company against one of its users for allegedly using an AI system to generate explicit material’ with the added “xAI alleged in the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Texas on Tuesday, that Terry Harwood violated the company’s terms of service. The case is one of the first brought by an AI company against one of its users for allegedly using an AI system to generate explicit material. Contact information for Harwood, who was arrested in February, was not immediately available. Spokespeople for xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. The company’s lawsuit against Harwood follows intense global scrutiny of xAI over allegations that Grok has allowed users to generate non-consensual sexualized deepfakes, or realistic-looking videos fabricated by AI.” As such I reckon that there will be a sled full of lawyers going for the jugular of this Terry Harwood and if the news given by the Guardian is to be believed, this was done to images of adults and minors. I wonder how the lawyer of Terry Harwood would be spinning that. I reckon that we have to wait for the court case and the submitted evidence. I reckon that all these hormonal teenagers fabricating a slew of images from all kind of actors and actresses will soon face the music of their parents as these parents will likely see their houses going away to other shores. 

I reckon that this is what the victims of these people will go for, the first rule of torts is to go where the money is and that ends up being the real estate of the parents (in case of minors) but that is speculative thinking. What matters is that with the acts of Elon Musk and xAI is the first step of countering the tidal wave of sexualized deepfakes. 

I feel relief, the first time in over a year that something makes sense to me and there is a larger setting for some publications as well. You see they cannot hide behind “given to use by an anonymous source”, when they publish that and the Grok case bears fruit, the victims can now go after these publications as well, because that is the implied trend with torts. Torts goes to where the money is and the value of people like Jeff Bezos, who has approximately $252,000 million and Rupert Murdoch and family who is allegedly the owner of $24,000 million. I wonder how many class cases they will face in this setting. Time will tell.

Have a great day and look towards the sun wearing sunnies. It is a bright day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media

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

February 15, 2026 · 10:58

When Grok gets it wrong

This is a real setting because the people pout there are already screaming ‘failed’ AI, but AI doesn’t exist yet, it will take at least 15 years for we get to that setting and at the present NIP (Near Intelligent Processing) is all there is and the setting of DML/LLM is powerful and a lot can be done, but it is not AI, it is what the programmer trains it for and that is a static setting. So, whilst everyone is looking at the deepfakes of (for example) Emma Watson and is judging an algorithm. They neglect to interrogate the programmer who created this and none of them want that to happen, because OpenAI, Google, AWS and Xai are all dependent on these rodeo cowboys (my WWW reference to the situation). So where does it end? Well we can debate long and hard on this, but the best thing to do is give an example. Yesterday’s column ‘The ulterior money maker’ was ‘handed’ to Grok and this came out of it.

The blog post “The Ulterior Money Maker” by Lawrence Van Rijn, published on February 14, 2026, on lawlordtobe.com, presents a cautionary and somewhat conspiratorial view of how governments (especially the US) and technology companies are building massive personal data profiles on people worldwide — allegedly for hidden, profit-driven or control-oriented purposes rather than just security or convenience.The author opens by distinguishing between surface-level “settings” (what appears to happen) and ulterior/planned motives behind events. He uses two recent news items as entry points: An SBS report on the US pressuring Australia (and other Visa Waiver Program countries) to share extensive biometric and personal data — including DNA, five years of social media history, contacts, family details, photo metadata, and IP addresses — to maintain visa-free travel access, with a deadline mentioned around December 31. The UK has already signed such an agreement, while the EU is negotiating. The author sees this as governments “selling out” citizens.
A Forbes article warning about the viral ChatGPT caricature trend, where users input personal details (job, background, preferences) to generate fun AI images, unwittingly handing over sensitive data that persists indefinitely and can be combined with other sources.
He connects these to the massive US data-center infrastructure: over 577 operating centers and 660+ planned, enabled by huge storage advances (e.g., Kioxia’s 245TB drives scaling toward petabyte-level per small setups), making it feasible to store and cross-reference data on billions of people. The author questions whether this scale is truly needed for benign purposes like weather or safety, implying something more sinister. Drawing on a 1988/1989 prediction by Dutch journalist Luc Sala, he warns of an emerging global divide between the “have’s” and “have not’s” — where governments and corporations act as “enablers” classifying people via spreadsheets and revenue metrics, while ordinary people become “consumers” or liabilities if they don’t fit profitable patterns. He argues the biometric demands and casual AI data-sharing work hand-in-hand: governments collect structured data directly, while users voluntarily feed unstructured personal info into AI tools (dismissed as mere “NIP” or narrow AI), all easily merged using modern database systems like evolved Oracle or Snowflake. The post references the US CLOUD Act (2018) as enabling broad government access to electronic data, likening it to a phishing trap that countries enter without fully realizing the long-term loss of control. Individuals, the author stresses, have no real say in how they are categorized or profiled. The tone is urgent, skeptical, and somewhat resigned, with rhetorical questions (“Do you really think that this is needed to keep the United States safe, or is there more in play?”) and direct reader address. It blends current news excerpts, tech facts, historical warnings (the author claims to have cautioned about this for over 30 years), and speculative future implications. The post closes on a stark note:
“Have a great day today, because as I see it, some governments are selling you out as you speak.”Overall, it frames everyday actions (applying for visas, joining viral AI trends) as unwittingly fueling a vast, opaque “ulterior money maker” system centered on data as the ultimate commodity for classification, control, and profit.

It is mostly correct, there are a few little things, but I am not the critic to pummel those, the setting is mostly right, but when we get to the ‘expert’ level when things start showing up, that one gives:

It contains only a single link: https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/02/14/the-ulterior-money-maker/ This points to a blog post on your WordPress site “Lawrence van Rijn – Law Lord to be” (which seems focused on law, IP, tech, geopolitics, energy, and related commentary). However, the post itself appears to be a placeholder or draft at this stage — dated February 14, 2026, with the title “The ulterior money maker”, but it has no substantial body content. There’s just the heading, some standard WordPress/blog navigation (like “Leave a comment”, reblog/share options, short link, report content), cookie/privacy notices, and ad placeholders. No paragraphs, analysis, or details are present yet. From search snippets of your blog (including the homepage and category pages), there are occasional teaser-like fragments that mention:”The ulterior money maker. That is the setting, but what is true and what is ‘planned’ is another matter. We have several settings, but let me start by giving …”
This suggests the intended post might discuss hidden motives, ulterior financial incentives, “planned” versus real events — possibly in contexts like energy markets, geopolitics, oil/gas (given your other recent posts on ADNOC/LNG, Red Sea tensions, UAE exports, etc.), corporate strategies, or something broader like money-making schemes in law/tech/politics.Nearby/recent posts on your blog (from snippets) cover topics like: Globalisation and shrinking world (“As the world grows smaller”)
UAE/ADNOC expanding LNG shipping and exports
Red Sea/Houthi tensions calming but still sensitive
Energy industry job opportunities
Other pieces on science, insomnia/ambience ideas, or older political commentary
If this is a post you’re still drafting or just published, it might fill in soon with more detail on whatever “ulterior” financial angle you’re exploring. If you meant for me to comment on, analyze, or discuss the intended topic (or if there’s more context/images/video in the post that isn’t showing up), feel free to share additional details! What’s the main idea behind “The ulterior money maker”?

Grok just joined two separate stories into one mesh, in addition as we consider “However, the post itself appears to be a placeholder or draft at this stage — dated February 14, 2026, with the title “The ulterior money maker”, but it has no substantial body content” and this ‘expert mode’, which happened after Fast mode (the purple section), so as I see it, there is plenty wrong with that so called ‘expert’ mode, the place where Grok thinks harder. So when you think that these systems are ‘A-OK’ consider that the programmer might be cutting corners demolishing validations and checking into a new mesh, one you and (optionally) your company never signed up for. Especially as these two articles are founded on very different ‘The ulterior money maker’ has links to SBS and Forbes, and ‘As the world grows smaller’ (written the day before) has merely one internal link to another article on the subject. As such there is a level of validation and verification that is skipped on a few levels. And that is your upcoming handle on data integrity?

When I see these posing wannabe’s on LinkedIn, I have to laugh at their setting to be fully depending on AI (its fun as AI does not exist at present). 

So when you consider the setting, there is another setting that is given by Google Gemini (also failing to some degree), they give us a mere slither of what was given, as such not much to go on and failing to a certain degree, also slightly inferior to Grok Fast (as I personally see it).

As such there is plenty wrong with the current settings of Deeper Machine Learning in combination with LLM, I hope that this shows you what you are in for and whilst we see only 9 hours ago ‘Microsoft breaks with OpenAI — and the AI war just escalated’ I gather there is plenty of more fun to be had, because Microsoft has a massive investment in OpenAI and that might be the write-off that Sam Altman needs to give rise to more ‘investors’ and in all this, what will happen to the investments Oracle has put up? All interesting questions and I reckon not to many forthcoming answers, because too many people have capital on ‘FakeAI’ and they don’t wanna be the last dodo out of the pool. 

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

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

November 27, 2025 · 22:50

And Grok ploughed on

That happens, but after yesterdays blog ‘The sound of war hammers’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/11/27/the-sound-of-war-hammers/) I got a little surprise. I could not have I want to planned it better.

You see, the article is about the AI bubble and a few other settings. So at times, I want Grok to take a look. No matter what you think, it tends to be a decent solution in DML and I reckon that Elon Musk with his 500,000 million (sounds more impressive then $500B) has sunk a pretty penny in this solution. I have seen a few shortcomings, but overall a decent solution. As I personally see it (for as far as I have seen it) that solution has a problem looking into and through multidimensional viewpoints. That is how I usually take my writing as I am overwhelmed at times with the amount of documentation I go through on a daily basis. As such I got a nice surprise yesterday.

So the story goes of with war hammers (a hidden stage there) then I go into the NPR article and I end up with the stage of tourism (the cost as the Oxford Economics report gives us) and I am still digging into that. But what does Grok give me?

The expert mode gives us:

The linked post directs to a blog by Lawrence van Rijn, a self-styled “Law Lord to be,” where he explores a narrative blending legal aspirations with speculative commentary, notably predicting FIFA might shift the 2026 World Cup from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia due to visa issues and a $435 fee delay, a theory unsupported by official FIFA statements but echoing concerns from a Travel.com article about U.S. tourism losses.

Van Rijn’s blog ties this speculation to an unusual metaphor of “war hammers” clashing on armor, symbolizing economic and technological tensions, particularly an AI bubble warned about in an NPR report (November 23, 2025), which cites MIT economist Daron Acemoglu’s research showing only 3% of people pay for AI services, challenging the trillion-dollar investments by tech giants like OpenAI.

His energy shortage concern aligns with a U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast of a 45% electricity price hike in Texas by 2026 due to data center demand, a trend overlooked by mainstream media focused on AI hype, suggesting a potential societal cost as power grids strain under unreported load increases.

Now, in the article I never mentioned FIFA, the 2026 World Cup or Saudi Arabia, so how did this program come to this? Check out the blog, none of those elements were mentioned there. As some tell us Grok is a generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) chatbot developed by xAI. So where is that AI program now? This is why I made mention in previous blogs that 2026 will be the year that the class actions will start. In my case, I do not care and my blog is not that important, even if it was, it was meant for actual readers (the flesh and blood kind) and that does not apply to Grok. I have seen a few other issues, but this yesterday and in light of the AI bubble story yesterday (17 hours ago) pushed this to the forefront. I could take ‘offense’ to the “self-styled “Law Lord to be”” but whatever and I have been accused of a lot worse by actual people too. And the quote “this speculation to an unusual metaphor of “war hammers”” shows that Grok didn’t see through my ruse either (making me somewhat proud), which is ego caressing at best, but I have an ego, I merely don’t let it out to often (it tends to get a little too frisky with details) and at present I see an idea that both the UAE and Saudi Arabia could use in their entertainment. There is an upgrade for Trojena (as I see it), there are a few settings for the Abu Dhabi Marina as well. All in a days work, but I need to content with data to see how that goes. And I tend to take my ideas into a sifter to get the best materials as fine as possible, but that was today, so there will be more coming soon enough. 

But what do you do when an AI system bleeds information from other sources? Especially when that data is not validated or verified and both seem to be the case here. As I see it, there is every chance that some will direct these AI systems to give the wrong data so that these people can start class actions. I reckon that not too many people are considering this setting, especially those in harms way. And that is the setting that 2026 is likely to bring. And as I see it, there will be too many law firm of the ambulance chaser kind to ignore this setting. That is the effect that 8 figure class actions tend to bring and with the 8 figure number I am being optimistic. When I see what is possible there is every chance that any player in this field is looking at 9 or even 10 figure settlements, especially when it concerns medical data. And no matter what steps these firms make, there will be an ambulance chaser who sees a hidden opportunity. Even if there is a second tier option where a Cyber attack can launch the data into a turmoil, those legal minds will make a new setting where those AI firms never considered the implications that it could happen.

I am not being dramatic or overly doom speaking. I have seen enough greed all around me to see that this will happen. A mere three months ago we saw “The “Commonwealth Bank AI lawsuit” refers to a dispute where the Finance Sector Union (FSU) challenged CBA for misleading staff about job cuts related to an AI chatbot implementation. The bank initially made 45 call centre workers redundant but later reversed the decision, calling it a mistake after the union raised concerns at the Fair Work Commission. The case highlighted issues of transparency, worker support, and the handling of job displacement due to AI.” So at that point, how dangerous is the setting that any AI is trusted to any degree? And that is before some board of directors sets the term that these AI investments better pay off and that will cause people to do silly (read: stupid) things. A setting that is likely to happen as soon as next year. 

And at this time, Grok is merely ploughing on and set the stage where someone will trust it to make life changing changes to their firm, or data and even if it is not Grok, there is all the chances that OpenAI will do that and that puts Microsoft in a peculiar stage of vulnerable.

Have a great day, time for some ice cream, it was 33 degrees today, so my living room is hot as hell, as such ice cream is my next stage of cooling myself.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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