logo
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Chaos: By Erica Andersen

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Chaos: By Erica Andersen

Finextra4 hours ago

Or: AI Confessions from the Keynote Stage
What a difference a year makes. Last week, I found myself on stage at the AI World Congress, delivering a keynote to a room full of people who, twelve months ago, were probably telling anyone who'd listen that AI was going to solve world hunger, cure cancer, and maybe even fix their corporate expense reporting system.
Fast forward to today, and suddenly the same crowd is singing a very different tune. The other keynotes? Let's just say they weren't exactly radiating optimism. Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, McKinsey – the usual suspects – all took their turns at the podium to essentially deliver variations of the same message: "AI is hard. Our systems don't work. Where's our ROI? We're confused and slightly terrified."
Welcome to reality, folks. Population: everyone who actually tried to implement AI.
The Crybaby Chronicles
Now, I don't want to sound unsympathetic. Actually, scratch that – I do want to sound a little unsympathetic, because here's the thing: we've been saying this for years. AI isn't just software with a fancy hat. It's a completely different beast that doesn't play by the rules you learned in your Computer Science 101 class.
These organizations have been approaching AI with a software-only mentality, and then acting shocked – shocked! – when things don't work like a traditional database query. AI systems can fail silently, which is terrifying if you're used to error messages that actually tell you what went wrong. They can also appear to work perfectly while delivering completely suboptimal results, which is like having a GPS that confidently directs you to drive into a lake.
You need an engineering mindset for this, not just a software background. Engineers understand that things break, that systems are unpredictable, and that you need multiple layers of protection. Software developers expect deterministic outcomes. AI gives you probabilistic chaos with a side of randomness.
The Economics of Artificial Anxiety
And then there's the money talk. Suddenly, everyone's discovered that running AI costs actual money. Who could have predicted this shocking development?
Here's the part that's going to make you really popular at parties: I think the big providers – AWS, OpenAI, the whole gang – are actually undercharging right now. They're burning through investor cash to grab market share. At some point, someone's going to want to actually make money, and those token costs are going to climb faster than a venture capitalist chasing the next unicorn.
But here's where it gets interesting. People are obsessing over ROI, but that's like asking what the ROI was on the first spreadsheet. Imagine trying to explain to someone in 1979 why they should pay for VisiCalc: "Well, it's like a calculator, but bigger, and it has boxes, and you can change one number and other numbers change too." Revolutionary? Absolutely. Easy to calculate ROI? Not so much.
The smartR Approach: Embrace the Chaos
When we work with our AI models in our company we've taken a different approach. We think of AI as Assistive Intelligence, not Artificial Intelligence. The difference isn't just semantic – it's philosophical. Instead of trying to replace humans entirely (which is where most people run into trouble), we augment what people can do.
Think of it like having a really powerful, occasionally unpredictable intern. They can do things that are hard or impossible for humans, but you still want someone experienced reviewing their work. The magic happens when you combine AI's raw computational power with human judgment and oversight. You get something better than the sum of its parts, and you avoid the nightmare scenario of full automation gone wrong.
The Great Data Myth
Here's another sacred cow we love to slaughter: the obsession with perfect data. Everyone keeps saying, "Your data needs to be in order first." Well, guess what? Your data is never going to be in order. It's a beautiful, chaotic mess, and it always will be.
But here's the plot twist: AI can actually help clean up your data. Instead of spending months (or years) trying to organize everything perfectly, you can curate good datasets from your underlying messy data. The AI helps with the cleanup process. It's like having a really good research assistant who can find the good stuff buried in your filing cabinet of chaos.
People telling you that you must clean all your data first are essentially creating expensive busy work. They're making money off your preparation anxiety while you could be getting actual results.
The VC Reality Check
We also love talking about how the AI engine companies probably aren't going to make the ridiculous money that had VCs practically hyperventilating with excitement. This technology is going to become commoditized and open source. The real money – the sustainable, long-term money – is going to be made by people who figure out how to actually apply AI to solve real business problems.
That doesn't mean these foundational tools aren't important. They're absolutely crucial. But making venture capitalist levels of money from them? That's going to be tough when you're competing against open source alternatives and every tech giant on the planet.
Privacy: The Chickens Come Home to Roost
And speaking of uncomfortable truths, let's talk about privacy. We've been banging this drum for years, pushing private and secure models while everyone else was happily shipping their data off to the big cloud providers.
Well, surprise! A US court just told OpenAI they can't delete anything – including conversations people specifically asked to be deleted. Your private messages might become public evidence. But surely GDPR will save us, right?
Wrong. America doesn't care about your data protection laws. The worst that will happen is some European official will impose a token fine, give a stern speech about showing those big bad tech companies who's boss, and then everything will continue exactly as before – except now your private information is scattered across the web like digital confetti.
If you want your data to stay private, don't send it outside your ecosystem. It's that simple.
The Swiss Cheese Philosophy
Here's the thing about AI mistakes: they're inevitable. Sometimes what looks like a mistake to one person is actually a reasonable answer to someone else. That's just the nature of the beast.
I like to think of AI implementation using the Swiss cheese model. Imagine multiple layers of cheese stacked on top of each other, each representing a different safety barrier. The holes represent vulnerabilities. No single layer is perfect, but together they provide protection.
AI should be another layer or two of cheese in your stack. It adds protection and capability, but it shouldn't be the only layer. If you're going to remove human oversight, you better be absolutely confident that the AI can't break your entire system.
The Bottom Line
We're constantly upgrading our proprietary platform, based on real-world implementation experience. We've learned that AI works best when you stop trying to make it behave like traditional software and start treating it like the powerful, unpredictable tool it actually is.
The companies crying about AI being hard aren't wrong – it is hard. But it's hard in an interesting way, like switching from building model airplanes to building rockets. Sure, they both fly, but rockets require understanding thrust vectors, fuel chemistry, and the uncomfortable reality that sometimes they explode spectacularly on the launch pad. The physics are different, the margin for error is smaller, but when you get it right, you're not just flying – you're reaching orbit..
The key is approaching it with the right expectations, the right safeguards, and maybe a sense of humor about the whole thing. Because if you can't laugh at the absurdity of trying to teach machines to think while we're still figuring out how human thinking works, you're probably taking this whole AI revolution thing a bit too seriously.
And trust me, after listening to those other keynotes, we could all use a little less seriousness and a lot more practical wisdom about what AI can actually do – and what it definitely can't.
Written by Oliver King-Smith, founder and CEO, smartR AI

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

ALEX BRUMMER: 'Genius Act' in US compared to Free Banking Era
ALEX BRUMMER: 'Genius Act' in US compared to Free Banking Era

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

ALEX BRUMMER: 'Genius Act' in US compared to Free Banking Era

There long has been something of the Wild West about American banking. The Bank of England has been the backstop for Britain's monetary system since it was founded in 1694. The Federal Reserve only came into being in 1913 to avert banking and financial panics and bring order to a chaotic dollar issuance. Donald Trump and free market advocates are not fond of a monetary system which imposes the same rules across all 50 states and is the sole source of fiat money backed by the government. It offends the idea of a libertarian commonwealth. Enthusiastic backing for crypto currencies, despite the susceptibility to fraud, is part of the mantra. Entryism by bitcoin into the investment firmament, through exchange-traded funds and the creation of the Trump family's own crypto currency, reflect dissonance with central controls. At present, Wall Street eyes are on the struggle over succession at the Federal Reserve when Jay Powell's term ends next year. On the horizon is a challenge for US central banking which reaches far beyond the next leader of the Fed. The 'Genius Act', currently before Congress, seeks to supplement the dollar through the creation of stable coins which would enable American firms to issue their own currencies. The US would be a place where there were dozens of stable coins, issued by the likes of Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks competing against each other. The plan is that a stable coin, tethered in some way to the dollar, also could be issued by federally insured banks such as JP Morgan Chase. Firms or banks issuing less than $10billion of stable coins would be regulated by each of the states of the union. Issue more, and federal regulators would be in charge. The outcome has been compared by Berkeley economics professor Barry Eichengreen to the Free Banking Era between 1830 and the US Civil War. An America deeply sceptical of elites allowed any person or business with surplus funds to open their own bank and issue their own dollars. Some 18 US states issued their own bank notes and triggered mayhem, with shopkeepers unsure of which dollars were safe to accept. In 21st-century Britain, there is a reluctance of merchants and consumers down South to accept the Scottish pound, even though it is fiat money accepted and backed by the Bank of England. Imagine then the bedlam in the 21st-century United States if there were dozens, or even hundreds, of stable coins circulating and no one was quite sure of the bona fides of issuers. How any central bank could be expected to control monetary policy or protect banks from failure is impossible to know. The Genius Act is not fanciful. MAGA Republicans on Capitol Hill might have the votes to pass it, or something like it, into law. The prospect is scary enough for the Bank for International Settlements in Basel to warn against the rise of stable coins, linked to the dollar, arguing they should not be permitted to become part of the global monetary system. It also notes that crypto assets, hidden in secret wallets, facilitate illicit use. Backers of the Genius Act are warned. The concern must be that libertarian fervour and distrust of global institutions is so embedded in American culture that caution will be thrown to the wind.

Magazines caught using AI and fake writers for online stories
Magazines caught using AI and fake writers for online stories

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Magazines caught using AI and fake writers for online stories

Belgian editions of Elle, Marie Claire and other women's magazines are claimed to have been using artificial intelligence to write hundreds of online articles under the names of fake journalists, complete with photographs and profiles. 'Sophie Vermeulen', who has written an impressive 403 articles for Elle online this year, was, according to her profile, complete with photograph, 'always ready to inspire you with fascinating stories or practical tips. Her passion for fashion and beauty is complemented by a love of travel and literature. Offline, you can spot her on a long walk in ­nature,' her Elle online profile said. Her equally personable colleague 'Marta Peeters' was presented as a 'fashion and lifestyle journalist from Antwerp with a passion for stories that touch people', who has written 150 stor­ies this year. 'She has a background in communication sciences and an inexhaustible curiosity about everything related to femininity, creativity and culture,' the profile said. • ChatGPT blocks Iranian network pushing Scottish independence Over on the Belgian Marie Claire website, owned by the same publisher, Ventures Media, almost half the online articles are by 'Claire De Wilde', who has 'developed a passion for travel, beauty and wellbeing'. None of the writers actually exist. Their photographs and articles are creations of AI, although the artif­icial journalists only appear online and not in the print editions. Perhaps more seriously, the online site of the magazine Psychologies, a publication dedicated to the 'personal development and wellbeing' of women, published the work of 'Femke'. Described as 'an editor specialising in psychology and well-being', the AI ­expert wrote articles describing herself as an 'experienced psychologist'. In the real world, the Commission of Psychologists, the ethics watchdog for the profession in Belgium, is up in arms. 'The example of Femke, who presents herself as a psychologist under a journalistic profile and provides advice from that role, is not only misleading but also legally and socially unacceptable,' Carl Defreyne, the body's chairman, said. Confronted by the Belgian public broad­caster VRT, the publisher has removed the fake names and profiles with articles now bylined 'Elle Belgium' or with a disclaimer that 'content was generated using AI and then reviewed and modified by our editorial team'. 'We understand that the use of aliases can lead to confusion and that is why we have now also adjusted this practice to make it clearer,' the publisher said. 'We generate articles that are entirely created by AI and have not been editor­ially reviewed. Aliases have been used within the framework of the test. It remains limited and is separate from the editorial team.' The magazines are published as the Belgian version of the brand franchises. In Britain, Elle is published by a different company Hearst Magazines and Marie Claire is produced by Future Plc. There is no suggestion that either company uses AI. The Dutch Elle is also published by Hearst. Gigi van der Zwaan, the company's digital editor in the Netherlands told the Dutch broadcaster NOS: 'They have very strict rules when it comes to AI. We are only allowed to use it to translate a word.' • Danish citizens to 'own their own faces' to prevent deepfakes Hearst publishes the US, Spanish and Italian editions of Elle and does not use machine or AI translation for shared content. Publishers of the British editions of Elle and of Marie Clare have been approached for comment.

Will TikTok FINALLY be bought? Trump teases 'very wealthy' group will purchase Chinese app in matter of weeks
Will TikTok FINALLY be bought? Trump teases 'very wealthy' group will purchase Chinese app in matter of weeks

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Will TikTok FINALLY be bought? Trump teases 'very wealthy' group will purchase Chinese app in matter of weeks

Donald Trump revealed a 'very wealthy' group of buyers is set to purchase TikTok in the upcoming weeks - following years of battles with the Chinese-owned app. The president made the shock announcement in an interview on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. 'We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way,' Trump declared without giving away many details or revealing where the proposal was coming from. 'I think I'll need, probably China approval, but President Xi will probably do it.' Bartiromo asked who the buyer is, to which Trump responded they will be revealed in just two weeks. 'They're very, very wealthy people. It's a group of wealthy people,' he bluntly said. This tease at new TikTok owners comes Trump's stance on the popular app has drastically shifted over the years. During his first term, Trump was determined to take down the video-sharing application - calling for a total ban in the US. TikTok is owned by China-based company ByteDance, which has raised concerns about privacy and security. A federal law to ban TikTok for being a threat to national security briefly went into effect the day before Trump was sworn in for his second term in January. Under the Biden administration, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA) called for ByteDance to sell TikTok by the deadline or the app would be barred from the US. The company did not sell the social media platform, meaning the banning it was the only remaining option. But in an unexpected turn of events, one of TikTok's fiercest adversaries became its unlikely savior - issuing an executive order to postpone the ban by 75 days on January 20 as one of his first presidential acts. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew had even attended Trump's inauguration. 'Why would I want to get rid of TikTok?' Trump said in a Truth Social post on January 16. His change of heart was reportedly due to the massive amount of support he garnered for his White House run through the campaign. 'I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok,' Trump told NBC in May. TikToks by ratings-obsessed Trump and his team had amassed more than 4 billion views - more than popstar Taylor Swift or political rival Kamala Harris. He believes his TikTok presence helped him garner support specifically from younger voters. In April, Trump extended the postponement another 75 days to work out a deal with the Chinese-run company that would ultimately lead to the platform being taken over by an American-approved buyer. 'My Administration has been working very hard on a Deal to SAVE TIKTOK, and we have made tremendous progress,' he wrote on Truth Social at the time. 'The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days.' At the time, White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with US ownership that fell apart after China backed out following Trump's tariff announcement. Trump saved TikTok for a third time on June 19, issuing another 90 days to broker a deal to bring the social media platform under American ownership. 'As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. 'This extension will last 90 days, which the administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store