Modern intelligence, whether silicon or biological, is often tripped up not by ignorance but by abundance. When a system has the bandwidth to entertain countless possibilities, it will often do so even when the problem demands only one. This is the problem of overthinking. It is not confined to anxious students before an exam or committees drafting endless reports. It now appears in machine intelligence too.
The pattern is the same. A large language model with vast parameters, trained on oceans of data, receives a simple task: write an email, solve an arithmetic puzzle, summarize a paragraph. It could apply the shortest path to the solution, but the surplus capacity tempts it into elaboration: building scaffolding for a hut, stacking analysis upon analysis until the original goal is obscured. The human version is familiar: the writer who takes three days to craft a birthday card, or the engineer who designs a spacecraft to carry groceries.
It was not supposed to be this way. The promise of AI “triage” was to select the right model for the right problem. A trivial query would go to a lightweight system, while a dense legal contract would be parsed by the heavyweight. In theory, this mirrors the human brain’s ability to recruit different mental resources depending on the task. In practice, if the triage itself is handled by a highly capable model, we are back where we started. A system too clever for its own good can overcomplicate the act of deciding how not to overcomplicate.
Before the release of the most advanced models, there was a certain blunt efficiency in older systems. They could not afford to waste cycles on ornate reasoning, so they didn’t. Just as a village carpenter without power tools cuts wood cleanly with a single saw, a smaller model works directly from inputs to outputs. The risk of convolution was minimal because convolution was beyond its means.
This limitation hints at a broader truth about intelligence: the ability to simplify is not a crude by-product of ignorance but a hallmark of mastery. Seeing the simple in the complex requires recognizing which details can be safely ignored without damaging the structure of the answer. It is a skill that mathematics prizes and that politics often lacks, where simple slogans are prized but seldom accurate.
Not all humans excel at this. Some are chronic complicators, capable of turning a dinner plan into a logistical nightmare. Others, whether through temperament or training, can cut to the core of a problem in minutes. This talent is partly instinctive, but it can be cultivated. It demands the discipline to resist showing off all that one knows, and the humility to accept that the shortest path might be the best one.
In education, this principle is often inverted. Students are rewarded for showing all their working, which is fine for demonstrating understanding but can entrench the habit of exhaustive thinking even when unnecessary. In technology, the same bias exists: “more features” is often sold as progress, even when each extra layer increases the chance of failure. The smartphone with twenty overlapping settings menus is no more “intelligent” than one with a handful of intuitive buttons.
The challenge for AI design is to embed this selective simplicity without crippling capacity. One approach is genuinely multi-tiered systems, where the triage mechanism is not a miniature genius in its own right but a deliberately constrained judge. Another is to train large models not only to produce accurate answers but also to value resource economy, much as humans learn to answer a question in an exam within the time limit.
For individuals, the lesson is parallel. High mental horsepower can be as much a liability as an asset if it is allowed to run without restraint. Some of the most effective thinkers are those who know when to stop thinking. They can hold complexity in reserve, deploying it only when the problem justifies the cost. The rest of the time they rely on heuristics, rules of thumb, and the confidence that a rough answer now may be better than a perfect answer too late.
We live in an era that celebrates maximalism: bigger models, bigger data, bigger ideas. But as both humans and machines show, sometimes the smarter move is to shrink the frame. To stop not because you cannot go further, but because you have already gone far enough.
Search This Blog
Sunday, August 10, 2025
When Intelligence Trips Over Itself
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
The Subtle Art of Monopolizing New Technology
Monopolizing new technology is rarely the result of some grand, sinister plan. More often, it quietly emerges from self-interest. People do not set out to dominate a market; they simply recognize an opportunity to position themselves between groundbreaking technology and everyday users. The most effective tactic? Convince people that the technology is far too complex or risky to handle on their own.
It starts subtly. As soon as a new tool gains attention, industry insiders begin highlighting its technical challenges—security risks, integration headaches, operational difficulties. Some of these concerns may be valid, but they also serve a convenient purpose: You need us to make this work for you.
Startups are particularly skilled at this. Many offer what are essentially "skins"—polished interfaces built on top of more complex systems like AI models. Occasionally, these tools improve workflows. More often, they simply act as unnecessary middlemen, offering little more than a sleek dashboard while quietly extracting value. By positioning their products as essential, these startups slide themselves between the technology and the user, profiting from the role they have created.
Technical language only deepens this divide. Buzzwords like API, tokenization, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) are tossed around casually. The average user may not understand these terms. The result is predictable: the more confusing the language, the more necessary the “expert.” This kind of jargon-laden gatekeeping turns complexity into a very comfortable business model.
Large organizations play this game just as well. Within corporate structures, IT departments often lean into the story of complexity to justify larger budgets and expanded teams. Every new tool must be assessed for “security vulnerabilities,” “legacy system compatibility,” and “sustainability challenges.” These concerns are not fabricated, but they are often exaggerated—conveniently making the IT department look indispensable.
None of this is to say that all intermediaries are acting in bad faith. New technology can, at times, require expert guidance. But the line between providing help and fostering dependence is razor-thin. One must ask: are these gatekeepers empowering users, or simply reinforcing their own relevance?
History offers no shortage of examples. In the early days of personal computing, jargon like RAM, BIOS, and DOS made computers feel inaccessible. It was not until companies like Apple focused on simplicity that the average person felt confident using technology unaided. And yet, here we are again—with artificial intelligence, blockchain, and other innovations—watching the same pattern unfold.
Ironically, the true allies of the everyday user are not the flashy startups or corporate tech teams, but the very tech giants so often criticized. Sometimes that criticism is justified, other times it is little more than fashionable outrage. Yet these giants, locked in fierce competition for dominance, have every incentive to simplify access. Their business depends on millions of users engaging directly with their products, not through layers of consultants and third-party tools. The more accessible their technology, the more users they attract. These are the unlikely allies of a non-techy person.
For users, the best strategy is simple: do not be intimidated by the flood of technical jargon or the endless parade of “essential” tools. Always ask: Who benefits from me feeling overwhelmed? Whenever possible, go straight to the source—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google. If you truly cannot figure something out, seek help when you need it, not when it is aggressively sold to you.
Technology should empower, not confuse. The real challenge is knowing when complexity is genuine and when it is merely someone else’s business model.
Thursday, November 7, 2024
Notebook LM: A quintessential Google Move
NotebookLM represents something that Google has always done well: make advanced technology accessible. In a crowded landscape where hundreds of startups have launched custom bots, Google has not just entered the competition but has redefined it. Many of these emerging tools come with a bewildering array of features, promising endless configurability but often requiring a steep learning curve. MS Azure is the prime example: powerful, but not for regular folks. Google has approached this differently, prioritizing a user experience over the quality of the output. NotebookLM may not be revolutionary, but it offers an intuitive interface that anyone can engage with easily.
Perhaps more cleverly, Google has managed to capture attention with an unexpected viral twist. NotebookLM features the ability to generate a podcast in which two AI voices engage in a dialogue about the content of source files. The feature is, admittedly, not all that practical; the voices cannot му changes, and will soon make people tired of them. Yet from a marketing standpoint, it is brilliant. It creates a shareable moment, a curiosity that makes people talk. The move does not just showcase technical capability but also a playful spirit that reminds users of Google's early days, when the company was known for surprising innovations.
Still, whether this resurgence will lead to long-term success is uncertain. Skeptics point out that Google has a history of launching exciting products only to abandon them later (recall Google Wave). Flashy features alone will not sustain momentum. What matters is how NotebookLM performs as a knowledge synthesizer and learning tool. If it falls short in these core areas, the buzz may prove to be little more than a temporary distraction.
Yet, for now, Google's reentry into the AI conversation is worth appreciating. In a tech landscape increasingly dominated by dense, intricate systems, Google's emphasis on usability stands out. Even if NotebookLM does not single-handedly redefine the custom bot race, it serves as a reminder of what once made Google a technological giant: the ability to turn complexity into something approachable and joyful.
Whether Google will truly reclaim its place as an AI leader is anyone’s guess, but at the very least, the company has made the race more interesting. For an industry that often takes itself far too seriously, this burst of creativity feels like a breath of fresh air. In a field defined by hard-nosed competition, seeing Google take risks and create a bit of buzz is a win, even if it is only a moral one.
Saturday, September 14, 2024
Navigating the AI Gold Rush: Skins, Security, and the Real Value Proposition
The economic battle surrounding artificial intelligence is intensifying at an unprecedented pace. Major AI players like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic are leading this technological revolution. Tech giants such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple, along with thousands of startups, are vying for a stake in this burgeoning market without being able to develop their own competitive models. Amidst this frenzy, a critical question arises: what exactly is being sold?
Two primary value propositions have emerged in this
landscape: skins and security mongers. Skins are interfaces or applications
that overlay major AI models, aiming to simplify user interaction. They cater
to individuals lacking advanced prompting skills, offering a more user-friendly
experience. Security mongers, on the other hand, emphasize heightened privacy
and security, often exaggerating potential risks to entice users.
While both propositions seem valuable on the surface, a
deeper examination reveals significant shortcomings. Skins promise to
streamline interactions with AI models by providing preset prompts or
simplified interfaces. For instance, a startup might offer a chatbot
specialized in drafting business emails, claiming it saves users the hassle of
formulating prompts themselves. However, is this convenience truly worth it?
Major AI models are increasingly user-friendly. ChatGPT, for
example, has an intuitive interface that caters to both novices and experts.
Users often find they can achieve the same or better results without
intermediary platforms. Additionally, skins often come with subscription fees
or hidden costs, meaning users are essentially paying extra for a service the
primary AI model already provides. There is also the issue of limited
functionality; skins may restrict access to the full capabilities of the AI
model, offering a narrow set of functions that might not meet all user needs.
The second proposition taps into growing concerns over data
privacy and security. Vendors claim to offer AI solutions with superior
security measures, assuring users their data is safer compared to using
mainstream models directly. But does this claim hold up under scrutiny?
Most of these intermediaries still rely on API connections
to major AI models like ChatGPT. Your data passes through their servers before
reaching the AI model, effectively adding another point of vulnerability.
Introducing additional servers and transactions inherently increases the risk
of data breaches. More touchpoints mean more opportunities for data to be
intercepted or mishandled. Furthermore, major AI providers invest heavily in
security and compliance, adhering to stringent international standards. Smaller
vendors may lack the resources to match these safeguards.
For example, a startup might advertise an AI-powered
financial advisor with enhanced security features. However, if they are routing
data through their servers to access a model like GPT-4, your sensitive
financial data is exposed to additional risk without any tangible security
benefit. The promise of enhanced security becomes questionable when the
underlying infrastructure depends on the same major models.
AI platforms have not introduced new risks to privacy or
security beyond what exists with other online services like banks or credit
bureaus. They employ advanced encryption and security protocols to protect user
data. While no system is infallible, major AI models are on par with, if not
superior to, other industries in terms of security measures. They use
end-to-end encryption to protect data in transit and at rest, implement strict
authentication measures to prevent unauthorized access, and conduct regular
security assessments to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities. It is easy to
opt out of providing your data to train new models. It is much more difficult to
know what your vendors are going to do with your data.
In a market flooded with AI offerings, it is crucial to
approach vendors' claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. Validate the
functionality by testing whether the convenience offered by skins genuinely
enhances your experience or merely repackages what is already available. Assess
the security measures by inquiring about the specific protocols in place and
how they differ from those used by major AI providers. Transparency is key;
reputable vendors should be open about how your data is used, stored, and protected.
As the AI gold rush continues, distinguishing between
genuine innovation and superficial value propositions becomes essential. Skins
and security mongers may offer appealing pitches, but often they add little to
no value while potentially increasing costs and risks. It is wise to try using
major AI models directly before opting for third-party solutions. Research the
backgrounds of vendors to determine their credibility and reliability. Seek
reviews and testimonials from other users to gauge the actual benefits and
drawbacks.
In the end, the most powerful tool at your disposal is due
diligence. By critically evaluating what is being sold, you can make informed
decisions that truly benefit you in the rapidly evolving world of AI. Beware of
vendors selling either convenience or security without substantial evidence of
their value. At the very least, take the time to validate their claims before
making an investment.
When Intelligence Trips Over Itself
Modern intelligence, whether silicon or biological, is often tripped up not by ignorance but by abundance. When a system has the bandwidth t...
-
Education has always been, at its core, a wager on the future. It prepares students not only for the world that is, but for the world that m...
-
As someone who remembers using paper maps and phone books, I find myself fascinated by Michael Gerlich's new study in Societies about AI...
-
The relationship between thought and writing has never been simple. While writing helps organize and preserve thought, the specific form wri...