Video download link | md5sum 1f6a02206b9e8b13aac2a97544fa7203 Microsoft Marketing Panels Behind Closed Doors Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0



Summary: Microsoft is still running political affairs (or shapes policy) in the United States -- a multi-stakeholder conundrum -- and helping itself to the cookie jar that is the national budget or taxpayers' money, partly owing to media that takes Microsoft money to create hype and supportive disinformation (like Microsoft being a "market leader" in some falsely-marketed vapourware that can be used to describe almost anything, just like "cloud", "smart" and so on)

DAYS ago we mentioned how Microsoft was exploiting Biden's diplomacy in Vietnam to sell "Hey Hi" (AI). Microsoft's share in Vietnam has fallen way below 10%, so this is exploitation of politics for marketing and graft.

There's a trend here.

Today we're seeing a ton of puff pieces of the "he said, she said" kind; some are "Musk says" (e.g. [1, 2, 3]) and some are "Gates says"...

How did we get there? Why are they quoted on subjects they do not at all specialise in? The person with the money is the sole person whose voice counts?

"The person with the money is the sole person whose voice counts?"We've meanwhile noticed something similar at the Linux Foundation (LF), which now targets "US Government and Industry Leaders" (almost all of them proprietary companies!) in "Secure Open Source Software Summit 2023".

Those aren't experts at security or at "Open Source", but it's about sponsorship rather than expertise. Linux.com links to the LF's copy of the press release, as usual (that's all Linux.com does these days), revealing that "Industry: [...] GitHub [...] Microsoft" is "Industry Leaders" in security, according to whoever pays for a seat at the table. As a reminder, Microsoft is doubling the bribes using GitHub and buying more seats at the LF (Microsoft is the company with the MOST Board of Directors seats at the 'Linux' Foundation because these seats are up for sale).

"Those aren't experts at security or at "Open Source", but it's about sponsorship rather than expertise."Now, going back the US government, it is taking instructions from Jeffrey Epstein's enabler Bill Gates (apparently no scandal is big enough to get him arrested or at least not invited!) and watch who else instructs this government.

Microsoft "is represented at least three times according to the third paragraph," one reader told us, citing this New York Times report, and "probably a lot more not even counting partners. Is there a way to get a full list and check?"

To quote the relevant bit:

The meeting — also attended by Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft; Sam Altman of OpenAI; Satya Nadella of Microsoft; and Jensen Huang of Nvidia — was a rare congregation of more than a dozen top tech executives in the same room. It amounted to one of the industry’s most proactive shows of force in the nation’s capital as companies race to be at the forefront of A.I. and to be seen to influence its direction.

Panel stacking by Microsoft would be a "meeting — also attended by Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft; Sam Altman of OpenAI" and several more. In Microsoft's own words:

"A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands."

--Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Microsoft is represented several times over: "US lawmakers are probing nine tech giants—Microsoft, OpenAI..."

So the list here started with Microsoft twice. Who organised this thing and how?

"Is this a balanced panel?"To quote the prior report, they had "Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft; Sam Altman of OpenAI [Microsoft]; Satya Nadella of Microsoft..."

Is this a balanced panel?

While the media speaks of Google antitrust woes and Google layoffs we're meant to think that it's OK for Microsoft to run the government? Partial list of those invited can be found here or here (the latter list is longer but it is only a partial list too).

No information is available at the main instigator's official site. The meeting was quite secretive and so was the selection criterion/ia for attendees. We've already mentioned some Microsoft people who led the event, but "some of the others may have ties to Microsoft, such as Raji and Murguía," a reader noted. She is a Microsoft partner. Tristan Harris might have been at Google and then there's Chowdhury (formerly at Twitter). Clem Delangue is a Microsoft partner. Jack Clark, cofounder of Anthropic, co-founded his company with a Microsofter (birds-of-a-feather and such).

"We're not sure about Eric Schmidt, formerly of Google, being an expert in Machine Learning. He's just very rich and well connected.""Schumer's office appears not to have even tried to bring in the experts but merely dragged in a bunch of Microsofters and hangers on," our reader noted. "I notice a nearly complete absence of AI researchers from universities..."

Alex Karp is a Microsoft partner, Palantir. Arvind Krishna initiated IBM's partnership with Microsoft. Rivkin works for MPA and it needs to be investigated regarding Microsoft ties, Liz-Shuler is a Microsoft fan, and more examples remain to be noted. This isn't an exhaustive list. Weingarten seems she might be an Microsoft fan and Maya Wiley seems to have no connection to AI or even ICT. Maybe inclusion for diversity's sake. We're not sure about Eric Schmidt, formerly of Google, being an expert in Machine Learning. He's just very rich and well connected.

So why did Schumer invite these people? How were those people selected? Who exactly selected them? Who or what did they represent? Quite likely those paying them the salary to be there...

"So why did Schumer invite these people? How were those people selected? Who exactly selected them?"What furthermore raises questions about Schumer's office and perhaps Schumer himself is that Microsoft has been a major donor. Has it promised him a job upon leaving office? Is it like Eric Holder? "Microsoft is right there in the top 20 donors of Schumer," our reader pointed out, "along with Cisco which I consider to be some kind of further implication." (alternate page, same data)

"The Schumer situation does require some thought," the reader said, but there are broader implications that can be extrapolated to the whole party. This week we've learned about another attempt at Microsoft bailout by the US government; the Army does not need this gimmick, it's just an excuse to throw taxpayers' money at Bill Gates et al. Will the Biden administration still try to throw 22,000 million dollars (22 billion) of taxpayers' money at something that the Army's leaders have repeatedly condemned? Will there instead be some "Hey Hi" (AI) contract? Anything for a bailout? To be clear, Trump did the same thing, e.g. the JEDI contract and attempts to force a takeover of TikTok (in the US) by Microsoft.

"What furthermore raises questions about Schumer's office and perhaps Schumer himself is that Microsoft has been a major donor."In the quote above we've shown a portion of the stacked panel documents from Comes v Microsoft, reminding readers that it would be appropriate to be sceptical of the panel's composition. It helps in demonstrating what they're trying to achieve, especially showing that Microsoft has not changed tactics.

Throughout the year Microsoft-sponsored publishers kept promoting a phony but much-spammed (by bribed media in particular) narrative of "AI arms race" -- whatever that actually is (Machine Learning is not new; it's very old) -- to demand bailout for fake, unprofitable, massively losing "companies" like "open" Hey Hi, based on hype and buzzwords, sometimes under "defence" budget (national security as a pretext).

"Note in the news from the other day how much electricity and, especially, water "AI" wastes," our reader concludes. Is it appropriate to take taxpayers' money to "invest" in something which diminishes already-scarce water supplies? ⬆