More Lawyers? Really?

We’re all guilty of looking at the world through our own lenses of experience. The person barely making ends meet while working 3 jobs in a thankless economy to support a family is not going to see things the same as a doctor or lawyer, as an example, particularly after they’ve done their internships.

The people who get quoted the most aren’t the majority. In fact, they’re usually a minority that live in a bubble, immune to most problems on the planet, and because of the fact that the bubble is sacred to them, they almost never venture outside.

CEOs live in a different world, blissfully unaware of the day to day issues of people who don’t live their lives. For some reason, these people are often glamorized yet they provide hints of their own biases at times.

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, recently demonstrated one. When talking about societal upheaval and jobs, he had an odd go-to but one that a CEO would be very comfortable with.

Lawyers.

“…“I think it’ll touch everything we do,” Pichai said of A.I. in an interview with The Verge’s Nilay Patel published Friday. “I do think there are big societal labor market disruptions that will happen.”

But the tech chief thinks that A.I. could also make some jobs better, if it’s done right. He used the example of the legal profession, which some believe will be the most disrupted by A.I., and said that even with technological developments, the need for some skills and services will not be eliminated altogether.  

“So, A.I. will make the profession better in certain ways, might have some unintended consequences, but I’m willing to almost bet 10 years from now, maybe there are more lawyers.”…

Sundar Pichai, Google’s Sundar Pichai thinks A.I. will spur ‘big societal labor market disruptions’ but also make professions better, Prarthana Prakash, Fortune, May 12th 2023.

I’m not going to put words into his mouth, there’s no need. These are questions he’s likely primed himself for that will minimize the societal upheaval it will cause. He’s the CEO of Google. In 2022, Sundar Pichai made $226 million as CEO of Google, mainly in stock options. He’s vested in the success of Google, and the layoffs in January were… unfortunate for him, I suppose.

And we need more lawyers? Really? Are they planning to make things that more complicated and expensive? Or does he picture a future where lawyers will charge less money?

Given the nature of how disruptive some of the technologies being dubbed “AI” by the hype cycle are, I might be more interested to hear from collective bargaining organizations than a CEO of Google when it comes to such disruption.

His perspective is implicitly biased, he’s vested in a corporation whose technology interests are not necessarily in line with those of most of it’s users. He’s not a bad person, I’m not saying that. I’m saying what he is quoted as saying seems cavalier.

What I am saying is that someone who says, “We’ll have more lawyers” like it’s a good thing might not have thought things through beyond his bubble. Take it for what it’s worth.

There are a lot of people whose ways of life are at stake in all of this, and I’m not sure that they all want to be lawyers. I hope not, anyway. Justice is blind, they say.

When Wendy Meets Karen.

Because the economy is so awesome, Wendy’s is working with Google on integrating an AI chat-bot into their drive-thrus. The italics might be an indicator of sarcasm.

Granted, I’m not a fan of fast food jobs, though when it comes to fast food burgers in the United States, I do lean toward Wendy’s. Even so, I have noted over the years that the Wendy’s I visited weren’t necessarily the best maintained areas to eat. That could be a factor of geography in Florida.

So cutting costs and decreasing lines would make sense, except… well, there are people who are working multiple jobs working in these fast food areas and making not that much to get yelled at by angry Karen’s who will demand to see the manager.

“…Penegor [Wendy’s Chief Executive] said the goal of the chatbot is to help reduce long lines from forming in the drive-thru lane, which could prompt some potential customers to go elsewhere. In my experience with most fast food joints, it’s not the long lines that turn customers away but rather, the slow pace and incorrect nature in which an order is prepared in the kitchen that’s the problem. Other establishments like Chick-fil-A and In-N-Out Burger figured this out long ago and can successfully manage long lines with efficiency…”

Shawn Knight, “It’s happening: AI chatbot to replace human order-takers at Wendy’s drive-thru“, TechSpot.com, May 9th 2023.

With the price of gas as it is just about anywhere in the world, the only time I go through a drive-thru is when there is nobody else in the drive-thru. Honestly, who but a blithering idiot would be in a drive-thru spending money on gas while waiting in a line – which you’re generally trapped in – waiting more than a few minutes.

I agree with Shawn Knight, too. The problem isn’t in taking the order, the problem is in producing the order at peak times in time for the line to continue moving and taking orders. Granted, Wendy’s may have done some metrics and come up with this, or at least I would hope that they have, but generally speaking taking the order is not the problem.

Well, at least not on the employee end.

The other side of the problem are the people who get to where they can make the order… and don’t know what they want. And that leads to how far away the menus are from where one orders. It’s nice to have the menu where you order, but if you’re in line it might help speed things up if you could see the menu before you get there. This theory doesn’t pan out when you walk inside to order, though, because people are… well, not that sharp.

In the end, some people will lose jobs, and they won’t be getting jobs as software engineers at Google.

The real fun will begin when the Chatbots meet Karen.

Normalized Vice, AI-pedia?

_web_wikiWhen I read, “AI is tearing Wikipedia apart“, I immediately recalled all the personal issues I had with the never-to-return-because-I-said-so page on myself. It’s long and involved, but the short story is about dealing with some pretty different ways we all think of Wikipedia, and the different sects of volunteers involved. Yes, there are sects, and I had a run-in with the deletionist sect because of a profile I didn’t create, but some journalist had.
It’s not pretty when you let loose people organizing as much information on a volunteer basis. When Jimmy Wales and I shared the same geography, we planned to get coffee sometime and we were both too busy to do it. I mentioned this to him, and he rightly said something to the effect that it’s for them to deal with. It was personal for me (how can a Wikipedia page not be so?), and what I did influence were some new rules on dealing with biographies of living people.

But yes, Wikipedia using a large language model? The biases… well, that’s just a headache to discuss. I posted the article on my personal Facebook page, where I have a few friends who are editors at Wikipedia, and they didn’t bite. One person did, however, point out that Vice.com, the publisher’s of that article, is headed for bankruptcy.

It looks like the normalization of Web 2.0 coinciding with the new disruption of large language models reminds me of dominos toppling onto each other. That’s an interesting, and peculiar twist.

An ebb of disruption, a new wave of disruption. Much of tech isn’t about tech.

Beyond The Box

Framed WorldI read a lot about what people have to write about innovation, particularly here in Trinidad and Tobago, as well as the larger Caribbean. It’s a global issue, of course, where Silicon Valley faces increased criticism for being divorced from reality. In Trinidad and Tobago, I’ve seen talk of innovation with a prominent and ubiquitous software logo prominent in the background, I’ve heard people talking about the need for innovation.

And I see people doing largely the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, something Albert Einstein once defined as insanity. Arguments are made about how things have changed, how with this new product and this new knowledge unspecified innovation will arise.

It’s an old story told before I started in the software industry, and it will likely continue after I’m long gone. Under the surface, it’s the reinvention of language by marketing departments, much like ‘smart mobs’ was a novelty rebranding of ‘collective intelligence’. Reinventing the same thing is not inventing. 

“We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”

– Charlton Ogburn

In the end, one cannot force innovation as one would a bowel movement or you get the same result, hemorrhoids and all.

Beyond The Box.

If you’ve ever heard the phrase, ‘thinking outside the box’, or used it, it might be worth knowing the history of the phrase. It’s about being creative with what is available and using it beyond what most others would because they’re limited to a framework – a framework of 9 dots.

We like frameworks. They make things easy for us, but they also create framing – where we do not think beyond the frame, much as we acknowledge anything outside of a frame has nothing to do with a painting or picture. This is false, of course, as what is outside the frame of that art affects how the art is seen – the context within which the art exists, and part of the frame’s job is to make that boundary visible and aesthetically pleasing.

Everything is framed, and framing is a powerful thing because it implicitly frames our expectations. It also leads to what is known as ‘availability’, where if something keeps getting pushed as a solution we reach for that hammer even when we’re dealing with a phillip-head screw.

To think outside the box, we have to think outside the frameworks. To think beyond the frameworks, we have to explore beyond those frameworks and see what’s outside the scope of the issue. Leonardo da Vinci, one of the most prodigious innovators, would go outside and stare at the sky, wondering why it was blue and actually figuring it out. Thus the phrase, “blue sky thinking”.

Framing works against innovation in so many ways, and only helps in one: It defines what is inside the frame, and in that way, defines what is outside of it. A shift in focus is needed beyond the frame, and that requires knowledge well outside of that frame. It requires the context. If everyone is reading the same books, seeing the same shows, seeing the same news, it falls to the individual to look at things differently.

This is why I’ve often disagreed with people who say that money needs to be spent on innovation. Moaning for money is a tragic attempt at a solution when someone has what they think is a great idea. If that innovation doesn’t have an audience willing to listen, it simply doesn’t matter.

Beyond that innovative spark, those eureka moments, comes the hard work of making something that makes money, that saves money, or that otherwise contributes value. There’s a tendency to forget the latter because the world is presented to us in dollar signs. The amount of money spent on a problem is a poor indicator on whether a problem will be resolved. We humans, for example, will say that a flooded area had millions of dollars of damage, but that says nothing about how much it affects lives.

In the end, innovation isn’t what you get from following the same paths or playing within frameworks. New paths aren’t created by traveling the same roads, innovative solutions don’t come from someone else’s framework, and doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result remains insanity.

Apples and Orangutans.

There was a discussion on Facebook about whether Apple products were worthy of the Enterprise, and there was some CTO of some company that processes data (just like everyone else) who put her title in front of her arguments – a nasty habit that diminishes a point – saying that Apple products are.

When it comes to processing and ability, Apple products are often superior to Windows products – but typically not within the same price range, so it’s an odd comparison of Apples and… well, you get the drift. But ability of a single machine wasn’t at issue, it was whether it could work within the Enterprise. At this time, I contend that Apple isn’t Enterprise-friendly because it’s not as cost effective – and let’s be serious, that’s not the market that Apple has really been going after. Yet? Historically, it never has.

But in this discussion, I was trying to tease out the importance of cost effectiveness and cross-compatibility between Apples and other machines on a network by pointing out that the developing world simply can’t afford the Apple-esque thought of the Enterprise, and that in turn got us into the Lowest Common Denominator (LCD)’discussion’ – where our opinions were drastically different. Her contention was not to worry about the LCD, she doesn’t care about them. Well, really, of course she doesn’t because the company she worked for at the time (and maybe now) doesn’t deal with users, and it hordes the processing. That’s their business model. But she couldn’t seem to make that distinction.

That’s a problem for the Enterprise, more so than the cost of Apples. The Enterprise, whether companies like it or not, extends beyond their infrastructure to other infrastructures – which are largely Windows and Linux hybrids. Why? Cost. And where does cost come to be a factor?

Oh. The Enterprise and the Developing world. And – excuse me, I need to twist this into a ending you didn’t expect  – it’s really about mobile devices (thin clients) and access to data.