Ginix media on LinkedIn: "Hello, your AI is eavesdropping!" - how an innocent support call turned… (2024)

Generative AI: Corporate Dream Collides with Reality of Infrastructure Problems and Talent Shortage.A new study from Enterprise Strategy Group and Hitachi Vantara reveals a paradoxical situation in the world of corporate technology: generative AI (GenAI) has become a priority for most companies, but they are not ready for its implementation. Key facts:- 97% of organizations consider GenAI one of their top 5 priorities.- 63% have already identified at least one use case for GenAI.- American companies are 35% more likely to consider GenAI a top priority compared to European ones.But here's the paradox:- Only 44% have a clear policy on GenAI.- Only 37% consider their infrastructure ready for GenAI.- 61% admit that most employees don't know how to use GenAI.- 51% report a shortage of GenAI specialists.- 40% of respondents admitted they are not sufficiently informed about planning and implementing GenAI projects.Interestingly, top managers are 1.3 times more likely to consider their company ready for GenAI than IT specialists. Ayman Abouelwafa, CTO of Hitachi Vantara, notes: "Enterprises are clearly jumping on the GenAI train, but it's obvious that the foundation for successful GenAI is not yet fully built." 71% of respondents agree that their infrastructure needs modernization before implementing GenAI.96% of companies prefer non-proprietary models, 86% plan to use Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and 78% prefer a mix of local and cloud solutions for GenAI. In the long term, a six-fold increase in the use of proprietary models is expected as companies gain experience and strive for competitive differentiation.It seems that the path of GenAI in corporations will not be easy. Companies will have to not only update technologies but also bridge the gap between management ambitions and real readiness for innovation.And how many billions of dollars and man-hours will have to be spent before companies realize that you can't build a digital future on a foundation of marketing promises and corporate self-deception?I think corporations have rushed into the arms of generative AI like teenagers on their first date - full of enthusiasm, but absolutely unprepared and without the slightest idea of what to do next.

8

The Apple TV service, once basking in Hollywood dreams and showering stars with a golden rain of $20 billion, now seems ready to snap shut its magic wallet, leaving the dream factory with a broken heart and empty pockets. Coolly phrased, right?Eddie Cue, the company's senior vice president, insists on tightening spending control, aiming to change Apple's image as Hollywood's 'biggest spendthrift'.Despite record investments in individual projects - over $500 million on films by Scorsese, Scott, and Vaughn, $250 million on the 'Masters of the Air' series - most of them failed to meet box office expectations.Apple TV+ attracts only 0.2% of US television viewers.And Apple TV+'s monthly audience is smaller than Netflix's daily audience! Think about these numbers. For a month and for a day!Meanwhile, Netflix remains the main buyer of projects in Hollywood. But it does it much more competently and efficiently.It seems the Hollywood apple pie turned out to be too inedible even for Apple's teeth. And who would have thought that a company selling phones at kidney prices couldn't buy viewers' love?Apparently, Tim Cook forgot that creating a hit is harder than releasing another iPhone with a three-eyed camera - now Apple TV+ risks becoming the most expensive dust collector in streaming history.I think it's their own arrogance, and Apple decided that Hollywood is just another app to download.And how long will Apple pretend that $20 billion is just small change accidentally found between the couch cushions in Cupertino? It inflates prices, buys out actors and scripts, which harms the entire industry. And such figures. Better focus on iPhones, the latest model updates are kind of a dud...

Plexure, the secret puppeteer of prices in McDonald's and IKEA apps, is right now creating a pricing system capable of reading your wallet through your smartphone, and this is certainly a 'wow'.It turns out that Plexure creates smart mobile applications for giants like IKEA, 7-Eleven, and McDonald's, providing a full range of services: from user interface to customer analytics and internal communications.Algorithms analyze user data and set individual prices. For example, a burger might cost $6 on Wednesday and $8 on Friday evening after payday.The system collects a huge amount of data: geolocation, purchase history, use of other apps. Various databases are purchased, all this is compared, analyzed - and a digital profile of a specific person emerges. The goal is to understand the habits and solvency of each client.It seemed like a gold mine for retail. But ethical questions arose.To avoid problems with regulators, Plexure disguises the mechanism as "personal discounts". The base price is high, and discounts are calculated individually.The multi-factor model makes the system opaque. It's impossible to prove discrimination based on any particular characteristic.Retailers are happy with profit growth. But we, as consumers, still feel cheated, not understanding why prices are constantly changing.Many experts are already warning that soon all prices will be like airline tickets - individual and unpredictable. And this will be absolutely legal.It seems that AI and big data are changing the market faster than society can adapt. Do we need such "personalization" or is this a path to digital inequality? Everywhere they say that AI is a blessing, breakthroughs in medicine and improvement of life. But right now - it's even making the situation worse.Welcome to the brave new world where our own smartphone will become a "traitor", leaking information about each of our expenses in the interests of corporations. Soon at McDonald's, a Big Mac will cost as much as we're willing to pay for it, not how much it really costs – goodbye, free market?Perhaps the day is not far off when the poor will have to pay exorbitant prices for the most basic goods because the algorithm will decide that they "need more". And who knows, maybe this digital discrimination has already begun, and we didn't notice behind the beautiful words about "personalization" and "smart discounts"?

AI is storming the foundations of jurisprudence, and investors have poured over a billion dollars into legaltech startups betting on artificial intelligence to automate lawyers' work.Harvey, a startup creating an AI assistant for lawyers, raised $100 million in investments, reaching a valuation of $1.5 billion. Investors include Google's fund, OpenAI, Kleiner Perkins, and Sequoia Capital. Since 2022, the company has already raised $206 million.However, not everything is going smoothly. The Information reported on Harvey's plans to raise $600 million at a valuation of at least $2 billion and acquire startup vLex, but these ambitions seem to have not materialized yet.Meanwhile, Canadian Clio, a veteran of the legaltech industry since 2008, raised an impressive $900 million at a valuation of $3 billion. The company develops software to automate lawyers' work, including solutions based on generative AI. The total amount of investments raised reached $1.3 billion.It seems that even the conservative legal sphere couldn't withstand the onslaught of AI.But can artificial intelligence replace an experienced lawyer, or will it remain just a high-tech assistant? After all, jurisprudence is a rather conservative industry. Regulation and licenses won't go anywhere. And in fact, the solution being sought now is to replace interns and legal assistants.So that a lawyer doesn't have to delegate a task to an assistant but can do something in a minute themselves. But then what's the economic sense? Interns and junior lawyers aren't expensive. The main part of a law firm's expenses is highly qualified, expensive lawyers. And they remain and aren't going anywhere.On the other hand, perhaps we're witnessing the last days of human jurisprudence, as AI is already ready not only to draft documents but also to pass sentences. Soon, human judges will become a thing of the past, and Themis will turn into a soulless algorithm devoid of compassion and intuition. Human lawyers will be forced to compete with tireless AI lawyers whose databases cover all judicial precedents in history.In the end, will we find ourselves in a dystopia where artificial intelligence administers justice, and people are deprived of a voice in their own judicial system?

1

In 2023, OpenAI seemed like an alchemist, turning lines of code into investor gold. But in 2024, this magic could turn into a $5 billion loss burden, dragging the company to the bottom.The main expense item is server rental from Microsoft. OpenAI uses a cluster of 350,000 Nvidia A100s, 80% of which is used for ChatGPT. The rental price is $1.3 per hour per server.That's up to $4 billion a year just for "hardware".Model training is also not cheap - about $3 billion. Plus $1.5 billion for salaries of 1,500 employees.Total operating expenses are about $8.5 billion. And revenues are not keeping up with expenses yet.ChatGPT brings in about $2 billion a year. Considering other services, total revenue is about $3.5-4.5 billion.The result is losses of $4-5 billion a year.For comparison, competitor Anthropic is losing "only" $2.7+ billion a year.Given such costs, OpenAI will need a new round of investment in the next 12 months.Well, the race for AI leadership is becoming more expensive. Will OpenAI be able to maintain leadership, or will we see new players? Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, X, Anthropic, Google, Chinese companies - many are trying to become AI leaders.The question is who will survive in this mad AI arms race, where the stakes are rising every day. And what will be left of the winners when the dust settles? And how will this affect us, the consumers of all this "miracle".#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT

Battle of the Titans: How Musk and Former Twitter CEO Yaccarino Are Tearing the Company Apart, Trying to Divide Power in the Once-United Social Media Empire - This is Something and Could Become a Management Case Study.At X, formerly Twitter, an invisible but fierce power struggle is erupting between CEO Linda Yaccarino and owner Elon Musk. This clash threatens to leave the platform with broken partnerships and a depleted budget.Key points of the confrontation:1. Division of powers: Yaccarino is responsible for sales and operations, Musk for the product. But the boundaries of these areas are often blurred.2. Failed deal: Yaccarino planned a partnership with Visa that could have increased X's budget. However, the product team, reporting to Musk, blocked the deal. They didn't want to give this direction away from the company, wanting to implement it themselves.3. Internal sabotage: Steve Davis, a close ally of Musk, is exploring ways to reduce Yaccarino's team. Without Yaccarino's opinion.4. Financial problems: Major agencies' spending on X has decreased by as much as 66% over the year.5. User problems: Meanwhile, the platform lost about 14% of its mobile daily audience in the second quarter of 2024 alone.X employees find themselves caught between two fires, often not understanding who makes the final decisions. This situation resembles the plot of a Shakespearean tragedy where two monarchs try to rule one kingdom.Can X survive this battle of the titans? So far, the situation looks increasingly tense with each passing day. It's a pity, it's still a great social network.#Musk #Twitter #Yaccarino

Investors have become disillusioned with AI, leading to a trillion-dollar drop in Nasdaq.In 2023, Goldman Sachs analysts predicted that AI would increase global GDP by 7% over 10 years. Some experts even talked about the likelihood of "explosive growth" with an annual production increase of 30%. It seemed that artificial intelligence was a gold mine!But reality turned out to be harsher. The Nasdaq index fell by more than 3% last week, showing the worst result since 2022. Shares of AI industry leaders, including Nvidia and Alphabet, plummeted.The main problem is huge costs with unclear prospects for return on investment. According to estimates, the industry will invest about a trillion dollars in AI. But unlike the internet, which immediately gave an economic effect, AI does not yet offer cheap solutions.It is believed that in the next 10 years, AI will increase productivity by only 0.5% and GDP by 0.9%. So far, the technology can only automate simple tasks but does not cope with complex context-dependent problems.Large companies will continue to invest due to competitive pressure. But customers are already asking where the promised results are. Millions of people have tried chatbots and have not become regular users.It seems that the AI bubble, if not burst, has deflated significantly. Perhaps we are in for a more sober discussion about the real prospects of the technology?

Today I fired a programmer from GINIX. He behaved badly. He was paid money - but instead of working, he imitated work and deceived. An analysis of his actions was conducted and from this day on he no longer works for us. I'm very disappointed by such behavior from a seemingly adult person. You're paid - but you work in several other places. As an employer, I take care of him. I don't allow overwork, pay on time, create working conditions - so that he can both rest and work effectively. And this person, instead of that, not only goes to another job after working for me - but also works for other people during the working hours I pay for. This is outrageous!I started studying this story and it turned out that remote work, which once promised a paradise life for office workers, has now turned into a gold mine for enterprising IT specialists, primarily programmers. Leaving employers with broken illusions and depleted budgets.The COVID-19 pandemic and the mass transition to remote work opened up new horizons for earnings for resourceful IT specialists. Instead of being content with one job, they began to take two or even three, multiplying their income.Insider and The Guardian, for example, spoke with several such "multi-taskers":- Network engineer Joseph earned $344,000 in a year from three jobs and paid off his mortgage.- Robert, combining several jobs, earned $335,000 and went on a $20,000 cruise.- IT specialist John earned $300,000 in two jobs in 2023 and spent $9,000 on a three-week "honeymoon" in Asia.- 20-year-old project manager Stephen combines two full-time jobs, earning about $90,000 a year.- American developer Sam found a way to combine three jobs by delegating one of them to his sister.- Jamie, a 25-year-old programmer from the UK, got a second job instead of playing video games, doubling his income.They all claim they don't feel guilty. In their opinion, they are simply protecting the interests of their families and themselves in a world where companies easily part with employees.Arguments of the "multi-taskers":1. They don't violate laws or employment contracts.2. The main thing is achieving goals, not working hours.3. Working in several places benefits all employers by expanding experience and knowledge.4. If an employee can handle multiple jobs, why not?5. It's insurance against sudden dismissal.6. Productive use of free time.However, many consider this practice unethical, arguing that an employee should not deceive the employer.Stephen asks the question: "What if an employee with a 40-hour work week only has 20 hours of work? What will he do in the remaining time? Stare at the monitor waiting for who knows what, check email, sit on the phone. How is this better than finding a second job that will allow him to spend his free time productively?"It seems that remote work has not only changed the format of work but also given rise to a new work ethic. Author - Alex Bozhin, co-founder of GINIX

A Bain & Company report noted a significant increase in disappointment with Generative AI from October '23 to February '24. Which aspects of the technology failed to meet expectations?🔻 The most disappointed:•Legal sector: 74% of lawyers noted that AI does not provide the necessary accuracy for analyzing complex legal cases.•Operations: 68% of operations managers stated that AI is not capable of fully automating their processes that require specific human interaction.•HR: 63% of HR specialists emphasized that AI cannot replace the human factor in the candidate selection process, especially when it comes to social skills and personal qualities.🔺 IT specialists were the least disappointed - only 29% of them expressed dissatisfaction, mainly due to a better understanding of AI's real capabilities and limitations.Effective use of AI requires a deep understanding of its capabilities and limitations. AI is a powerful tool that can significantly increase work efficiency, but its role should not be overestimated. The implementation of technologies requires the ability to properly integrate them into business processes while maintaining the importance of human interaction and intuition.#ai #GenerativeAI