The DeepMind-Google ethics board, which DeepMind pushed for, will devise rules for how Google can and can’t use the technology. The structure of the board is unclear.

  1. Google baut sich gerade ein erstaunliches Portfolio an AI/Roboter Firmen bzw. Entwicklern und Forschern zusammen. Bleibt nur abzuwarten, was daraus entsteht.
  2. Sehr interessant, dass eine übernommene Firma ein Ethikboard fordert. Bislang hat das scheinbar noch keine Firma bei einer Übernahme durch Google getan. Auch hier bleibt allerdings abzuwarten, welche Regeln dort ausgearbeitet werden.
  3. Auf Re/code hat es Liz Gannes geschafft, folgenden Absatz an das Ende ihres Artikels zu setzen:

    Multiple sources said the company has been developing a variety of approaches to AI, and applying them to various potential products including a recommendation system for e-commerce.

    'Multiple sources', 'variety of approaches', 'various potential products'. Jetzt wissen wir alle, was DeepMind so in London veranstaltet?

  4. Und Catherine Shu schreibt auf TechCrunch im Prinzip den Re/code Artikel ab. Tech Blogging definiert sich fast nur noch über die möglichst schnelle Verbreitung von News. Traurig.

Warum erscheinen solche Artikel?

Ich habe ja ein gewisses Verständnis dafür, wenn auf kleinen Blogs solche Artikel erscheinen. Die Autoren stoßen auf ein Problem, können sich etwas nicht erklären, haben auch nicht unbedingt Zugang zu den entsprechenden Firmen, um das in akzeptabler Zeit klären zu lassen. Sie teilen der Welt mit, dass sie ein Problem haben. Gut.

Aber wenn jemand für Pando Daily schreibt, ein Blog, das irgendwie vielleicht doch einen wie auch immer gearteten journalistischen Anspruch hat, dann sind solche Artikel überflüssig wie ein Kropf.

Wenn man mal ein Beispiel für überflüssige Tech Posts suchen sollte, das ist ein Musterbeispiel.

VentureBeat war auch mal besser.

“Tech blogs. They’re horrible, aren’t they? Awful, entitled creations forever banging on about how they are staffed by ‘proper’ journalists and splurting out half-arsed analysis of businesses when most of their writers have never had a real job. The entire tech blogosphere is tedious from end-to-end, feeding a roiling mass of commenters with fresh chum and rarely daring to write anything truly revelatory beyond cheap sensationalism.”

But the key lesson to take away here is that we know a few things are wrong with the trade press in the technology world:

  • In tech financial coverage, there is a focus on valuation, deals and funding instead of markets, costs, profits, losses, revenues and sustainability.
  • In tech executive coverage, there is a focus on personalities and drama instead of capabilities and execution.
  • In tech product coverage, there is a focus on features and announcements instead of evaluating whether a product is meaningful and worthwhile.
  • Technology trade press doesn’t treat our industry as a business, so much as a “scene”; If our industry had magazines, we’d have a lot of People but no Variety, a Rolling Stone, but no Billboard.

There are many more examples of the flaws, but these are obvious ones. What we may not know, though is that there’s another flaw: * For all but the biggest tech stories, any individual article likely lacks enough information to make a decision about the topic of that article.

Tja, da steht alles, was man so über Tech Blogging zur Zeit wissen muss. Leider.



Earlier today, I broke some news.

I don’t typically do this anymore given my new job. But from time to time this will happen. But if you read The Wall Street Journal, you’d never know. Why’s that? Because they’re fuckheads who don’t credit actual sources of information.

I’m going to push back here. The WSJ did credit the actual source of its information: it got the information from Apple. Did MG Siegler have the scoop? Yes. Did the WSJ initially find out about the news from MG Siegler, directly or indirectly? Probably, yes. Would it have been polite to mention that in the story? Sure. But ultimately the WSJ was just doing the boring-but-important part of its job, here, acting as a conduit for press releases from big companies. Sometimes those press releases contain news, and when they do, it’s incumbent upon a comprehensive news source like the WSJ to report that news. Does it matter whether someone else had the news two hours earlier? Not in the slightest. Is MG Siegler overreacting massively? Yes. Breaking the news of an M&A deal is the most transient high in the world. Once you’ve done it, the news is out there, you get about 1.5 seconds of glory, and the world moves on. If you feel the need to complain that the WSJ doesn’t help you relive those 1.5 seconds of glory, then you’ve got much bigger things to worry about than the WSJ.

Amen! Talk about quality vs hype.

“Answer is, no one at all. Indy blogging at least in tech, is pretty much done. Kind of shocking. But the fact is, the real data these folks cover come from primary media sources that now fully understand how this game is played. So anybody any good has been bought up, hired and works on background for a major company. Remember, blogging no longer pays. The fact is, for real tech news now, you go with a major player. Or get a pay service. Looking for free news from some guy blogging in his pajamas, was cool while it lasted. But from here on forward, get yourself a good daily newspaper. You’ll be better informed. And learn how to concentrate again. Stay in touch.”

Jonathan Blum’s answer to Who are the best independent tech bloggers? - Quora

Hm, ist das wirklich so? Oder betrifft es lediglich reines News Blogging?