Author Archives: thedoctor

Got a Headache? Don’t Take an Aspirin or Query a LLM!

Yesterday we provided you with a brief history of Aspirin, the first turn-of-the-century miracle drug that was both society’s salvation and sorrow, though the latter wouldn’t be known for more than half a century. As we discussed, it was hailed as a miracle and life-saving drug that could be used for everything from the common cold to global pandemics. And it worked, for a price. That price, when it needed to be paid, was usually one of many, many side effects which were often minor and insignificant compared to the perceived benefit the drug was bringing, except when they weren’t and they enflamed ulcers and/or increased gastrointestinal bleeding and created a life threatening situation, caused hyperventilation in a pneumonia patient, or induced a pulmonary edema and killed the patient. While the death rate even at the height of over-prescription was likely only 3%, and less than a 10th of that today, it’s still not good.

The reason for this, as we elaborated in our last post, is because, like many of the breakthrough technologies that came before, it was not only rolled out before the side effects, and more importantly, the long term effects, were well understood, but before even the proper use for the desired primary effects were well understood (as evidenced by the fact that the best physicians were routinely prescribing two to four times the maximum safe dosage during the Spanish Flu Pandemic almost 20 years after first availability). While there were benefits, there were consequences, some of them severe, and others deadly.

Medicine is as much a technology as a new mode of transportation (boat, automobile, airplane, etc.), a new piece of manufacturing equipment, a new computing device, or a new piece of software.

Now you see the point. Every breakthrough tech cycle is the same. Whether it is medicine, farm machinery, the airplane, or modern software technology — and this includes AI and definitely includes LLMs like ChatGPT.

As Aspirin proves, even if the first test seems to be successful, there’s always more beneath the surface. Especially when the population numbers in the billions and every individual could react differently. Or, in the case of an LLM, billions of people who have thousands of queries, the large majority of which have never been tested, and all of which could generate unknown results.

Moreover, there have not been significant large-scale independently funded academic studies that we can use to understand the true strengths and weaknesses, truths and hallucinations, and appropriate utilization of the technology. As Mr. Klein has pointed out in a recent LinkedIn post that asked who funded that study, over 80% of AI industry “studies” are funded by undisclosed sources, and most of them, like most industry studies these days (see Mr. Hembitski’s latest post) don’t contain good data on demographics, sample size, test material, or potential bias.

That would be the first step to trying to get a grip on this technology. The next step would be to create reasonable measures that we could use to appropriately define technology categories and domains for which we could identify tests and measures that would give us a level of confidence for a given population of inputs or usage. If you consider a traditional (X)NN (Neural Network), which have a fixed set of outputs and are designed to process inputs from a known population, we have developed methodologies to determine the accuracy of such models with high confidence through testing and random sampling with sufficiently sized data sets using appropriate statistical models. Furthermore, mathematicians have proved the accuracy of those models for a given population and we know that if appropriate tests have demonstrated 90% accuracy for a population with 98% confidence, the model is 90% accurate with 98% confidence when used properly.

We have no such guarantees for LLMs, nor any proof that they are reliable. “It worked fine for me” is NOT proof. Vendors quoting nebulous client success stories (without client names or real data) is not proof. Moreover, the fact they raised millions of dollars to bring this technology to market is definitely not proof. (All a raise proves is that the C-Suite sales team is very charismatic and convincing and great at selling a story. Nothing more. In fact, fund raising would be more honest if securities law allowed fund raising via poker and takeover protection via gunfighting, as imagined in the season two episode of Sliders “The Good, the Bad, and the Wealthy“. At least then the shenanigans would be out in the open.)

The closest thing out there to a good industry study on LLMs and LRMs is likely Apple’s newest study, as summarized in The Guardian, where they find that “standard AI models outperformed LRMs in low-complexity tasks while both types of model suffered “complete collapse” with high-complexity tasks“.

The study also found that as LRMs neared performance collapse they began “reducing their reasoning effort and that if the problem was complex enough even when provided with an algorithm that would solve the problem, the models failed.

Still we have to question this study, or more precisely, the release of this study (especially given the timing). Did Apple do it out of genuine academic interest to get to the bottom of the technology claims, or are they doing it to cast doubt on competition as rivals are claiming they are behind in the AI race (and thus they are focussing only on the negatives of the technology to show that their competition doesn’t have what their competition claims to have and are thus not behind).

The point is, we don’t understand this technology, and that fact should scream louder in your head every day. Look at all the bad stuff we’ve discovered so far, and it’s likely we’re not even close to being done yet:

Yes there is potential to the new technology, as there is with all discovery, but until we understand fully not only what that is, how to use it safely, and, most importantly, how to prevent harm, we should approach it with extreme caution and we should most definitely not let it tell us how to run our business or our lives — or else, like an Aspirin overdose, it might just kill us. (And remember, Aspirin was studied for 18 years before it was made available without a prescription, and deadly side effects and prescribed overdoses still happened. In comparison, today’s LLMs and LRMs haven’t been formally studied at all, and the providers of this technology want you to run your business, and your life, off of them in next-generation agentic systems. Think about that! And when the migraine comes, remember, don’t take Aspirin!)

A Brief History of Aspirin

The history of Aspirin, a genericized trademark for acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and more precisely, aspirin precursors, is a long and winding one, which goes all the way back to ancient Sumer and Egypt, with the famous Hippocrates referring to the use of salicylic tea to reduce fever circa 400 BC. Now, since I’m sure you haven’t come here for a complete history of Aspirin from ancient times to present day, especially since you want to understand the relevance of this discussion sooner rather than much later, we’re going to skip ahead to 1897.

In 1897, Felix Hoffmann and/or Arthur Eichengrün of Bayer was the first to produce acetylsalicylic acid in a pure, stable form. It was only two short years later before Bayer began to sell the drug globally under the brand name of Aspirin, with the first tablet appearing in 1900. It wasn’t long before Aspirin’s popularity took off as it was touted as a “turn of the century miracle drug“, especially since early trials (published in an 1899 study in the journals Die Heilkunde and Therapeutische Monatshefte) demonstrated that Aspirin was indeed superior to other known salicylates. Moreover, since this drug was deemed to be considerably safer and comparably less toxic to the drugs it was replacing, it was fast-tracked through review and approval processes and first became available to the public without a prescription in 1915, only 15 years after the first tablet appeared. If you consider the rate of progress and introduction of new technologies at the turn of the century, this was blazingly fast for the time.

It’s quick, and early, introduction arguably made it the first modern over-the-counter mass market pharmaceutical product as well as a household name across the world. As the first generally available pharmaceutical anti-inflammatory and pain-killer, it changed societies. It allowed anyone to deal with mild to moderate pain and continue to function. It allowed doctors to quickly get inflammation and fever under control and spend more time diagnosing the cause, or simply move onto the next patient if it was a flu or infection they couldn’t do anything about (and the patient just had to survive long enough to fight it off on their own). Since there was no technology to quickly develop a vaccine for a heretofore unknown virus back in 1916, it was hailed as the literal lifesaver during the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918. Even though that pandemic [which infected over 20% of the global population] killed an estimated 50 MILLION people, or almost 3% of the global population at the time, (which means COVID really wasn’t that bad with a global death toll of 7 Million, or a mere 0.1% of the global population) it is believed that many more people would have succumbed to the Spanish Flu without Aspirin that helped them control the fever (and the pain) long enough for their body to fight off the infection on its own. (And many articles to this day claim this, including this 2019 article from the Saturday Evening Post.)

But guess what? Aspirin didn’t save. Aspirin Killed!

In 1916 Aspirin was still new and physicians didn’t understand the long term effects or the proper dosage levels. Moreover, the sicker you were, the more they’d give you. Regimens were 8g to 31g a day, which, by the way, is two to four times the maximum safe dosage for an average adult (of 4g). Two to four times! What’s even worse is that at those levels, 33% and 3% of patients will experience hyperventilation and pulmonary edema, respectively. The last thing you want when experiencing a high fever and pneumonia is hyperventilation. The stress on an older adult or one with already compromised lungs (due to smoking, coal mining, asbestos production, or genetic conditions) could literally be lethal. Moreover, pulmonary edema generally is, unless you have immediate access to an expert physician who can drain the fluids without collapsing your lung. As per recent research, it’s likely that at least 3% of those administered Aspirin for the Spanish Flu died from the Aspirin overdoses they were being given.

Of course, the damage done by Aspirin was not limited to the Spanish Flu Epidemic. It wasn’t long before Aspirin was prescribed for everything. Common cold? Check. Sore throat? Check. Arthritic pain? Check. Heart problems? Check. See the 1933 Advertisement in the linked Saturday Evening Post article above. (Note that a tablet at that time would have been about 325 grams [Source], like today, and the advertisement was recommending 1.3 grams in 4 hours and gargling with 975 grams, of which you need to expect some additional absorption (of 5% to 10%, we’ll assume worst case), bringing that total to 1.4 grams. While not nearly as bad as the Spanish Flu level prescriptions, that’s still twice the amount that should be taken in a 4 hour window, and that was being taken in 2 hours.)

When we say damage, we mean damage. Moreover, the damage goes beyond the almost 60 side effects you can find on the Mayo Clinic page.

This is because regular use and/or overdoses of aspirin:

  • increase the risk of developing stomach ulcers,
  • agitate and stomach exacerbate ulcers and can cause bleeding, and
  • can increase non-life threatening ulcer or gastrointestinal bleeding to the point of life threatening

Moreover, in some people it can irritate the lining of the stomach and begin the formation of an ulcer after just a few doses!

But the general population didn’t know this in the 1930s. Heck, it was the 1950s or 1960s before it started to become common knowledge that aspirin wasn’t good if you have an upset stomach or an ulcer. (As far as I can tell, while the first study of aspirin on the stomach was in a 1938 publication by A. H. Douthwaite and G. A. M. Lintott, the subject matter and research was not taken seriously until the 1950s and 1960s, where you had publications like this by R. A. Douglas and E. D. Johnston on Aspirin and the Chronic Gastric Ulcer, which also references the 1938 publication.)

Which means millions of people around the world were using a medicine on a daily basis that was, due to misuse, often harming them as much as it was helping them. And this is only ONE of the 60 potential side effects. (And how many were known, or communicated, in the 1920s through 1950s?)

Because, like many of the breakthrough technologies that came before, it was not only rolled out before the side effects, and more importantly, the long term effects, were well understood, but before even the proper use for the desired primary effects were well understood (as evidenced by the fact that the best physicians were routinely prescribing two to four times the maximum safe dosage during the Spanish Flu Pandemic almost 20 years after first availability). And while there were benefits, there were consequences, some of them severe, and others deadly.

So what’s the relevance? Stay tuned.

If You Want To Get An Analysts Attention, Don’t Insult Their Intelligence Or Integrity!

This is a response to another MUST READ article from Mr. Köse on how NOT to do product launches and analyst relations! (And a shorter version might still be found at this link on LinkedIn.)

Mr. Köse’s post was a response to a new marketing campaign from a big Intake-to-Orchestrate (I2O) vendor who sent a very insulting cold email with a cringeworthy cocktail of buzzwords (“agentic procurement orchestration”, seriously?), inflated ego (“category we created”), and the cherry on top that made this one boil over … a beg for free LinkedIn amplification.

More specifically, the request included in his LinkedIn Post.

Before we continue, I must say that I’m ecstatic that I didn’t get this PR spam, because I do not know if I would have been so civil in my response. It took every ounce of restraint to maintain even a shred of my civility last year when they released their “FREE” Intake and Procurement RFP which, as I have screamed from the rooftops, is an outright lie (and using any of these “FREE” RFPs will be the most expensive thing you ever do! [Source]).

After all, as Mr. Köse states:

  • Analysts are not influencers.
  • Experts are not free marketing channels.
  • Your CEO ghosting emails while your marketing team spams us … is damaging you, not us.


Moreover, as Mr. Köse has stated, nothing they stated would indicate they discovered fire (which, by the way actually works), built a new category, or did anything except repackage existing automation with a fresh coat of jargon.

As Mr. Köse notes:

  • it’s disrepectful to the analyst (are we so dumb and lazy we can’t do our own write-ups?)
  • it’s transactional (and that should be reserved to describing specific types of ProcureTech)
  • it’s dumb (the louder you shout nonsense, the louder we’re going to respond)

But most importantly, nothing sums the situation up more than when Mr. Köse states:

“If your innovation is real, show it to me!”

He’s not alone in this belief.

As I said to Pierre in a recent comment stream in one of my many (ProcureTech) AI is BS posts, “why are you the only one defending the current state of AI in ProcureTech … if the vendors in our space actually have it, and it works … why aren’t the vendors defending it … and if it’s so great, why are they all scared to show it to me?”

Any vendor can come here to Sourcing Innovation, check out any of the 300 plus reviews of over 200 providers I’ve written about over the past 19 years, and see that there isn’t a single negative post about any vendor who offered a real solution that

  1. did what was claimed and
  2. solved a problem for
  3. the niche they targeted
  4. efficiently and reliably.

(Moreover, if these vendors have a Spend Matters subscription, where I would hope that at least half of the 200+ vendor reviews I (co-) authored are still up as well, they could check those reviews out as well.)

(Side note: the I2O vendors have been as quiet as the Gen-AI wrapper vendors ever since I called them Clueless for the Popular Kids and said it was time for Revenge of the Nerds.)

In other words, if you have something great, and you want a real analyst to talk about it, then don’t spam us with (what appears to be) Gen-AI generated marketing drivel. Instead, have an intelligent human reach out with a compelling new module, use case, etc, and maybe you’ll get a response and, if you give an honest demo, a good write up. (And that’s infinitely more valuable than someone sharing your Gen-AI marketing drivel on LinkedIn.)

Otherwise, as Mr. Köse makes abundantly clear, it’s probably best that you pretend the analyst doesn’t exist until you’re ready to engage properly. Otherwise, you’re just insulting our intelligence AND our integrity, and the only result you’re going to get from that is an analyst who doesn’t want to cover you (and who will happily blow up the false illusion you are trying to create).

AI Agents – Your New Corporate Felons!

Now that we know AI will blackmail you and that it is being trained to hack systems and take advantage of zero-day exploits, it won’t be long until the Dark Web enterprises take advantage of it! Expect this to soon be on the Dark Web Forums targeting underpaid Accounts Payable Supervisors and Procurement Managers, if it isn’t already!

From the Felon Roster:

Item #MMM. The Bernie.

No one notices Bernie.

That’s the point.

While others are busy faking meal and hotel receipts in Chat-GPT, Bernie has already altered 14 supplier payment accounts across 14 invoices in a 514 invoice batch where the invoice threshold is just below the auto-pay limit and the supplier account change doesn’t require second approvals for account changes with the same bank in the same region due to the risk profile.

Bernie is the Felon AI employee who will run your organization’s Invoice-to-Pay process better than a Swiss timepiece, at least as far as the CFO is concerned.

That is, if the timepiece could also detect microscopic errors in gear alignment (but still report correct time), maintain two displays (real time and display time), and never need winding or a battery update.

Or, in our case, ensure all invoices 3-way match to the receipt and PO, all suppliers are screened for sanctions, no flags will be raised at any step of the process once an invoice is accepted, and generate a weekly report the CFO will read, be happy with, and not look twice at. Bernie will build trust by flagging (and blocking) duplicate invoices, preventing payments for defective or returned items, and ensuring all organizational policies are followed.

Moreover, Bernie will be SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft’s favourite user, never crash the system, and always clean up after himself.

While the sourcing team closes the deal, Bernie will make it real.

Since Bernie doesn’t complain, escalate, or even take a break, everyone will be happy while Bernie does his work … until you disappear and a detailed investigation is undertaken into the dark depths of multi-system audit-trails.

Bernie works best in 10 Billion+ organizations with standard payment terms of at least 60 days (and a minimum monthly spend of 500M) as he will only have that many days to effect your scheme before suppliers see their invoice as paid (on the last possible day) and start calling up asking where their money is. (There has to be enough volume for Bernie to find the invoices where shifts won’t be noticed and to ensure his fraudulent activity is drowned out by above-board processing.) Since you will be entering a self-imposed exile, you need to ensure that Bernie grifts enough on your behalf in his short window before you go on your permanent vacation (and flee to a country with no extradition treaty).

Since you’ll need to setup a number of fake accounts to receive the funds and then quickly transfer those funds offshore, we recommend that you also employ the following agents from the Felon Roster (on the Dark Cloud, of course).

Item #SPY. The Nelson.

Nelson is an expert at creating fake ids and documents that you can use to help you accomplish your below board activities, like opening a bank account as an officer of a real company that is just a front for your criminal schemes.

Item #WFS. The Red.

Red is an expert in searching public company records and filing registrations for companies with almost the same name as the company you want Bernie to grift so that it won’t look suspicious when the banking information is changed to another account at the same bank with (seemingly) the same company name. (Buying from Sydney Sprockets? Red will create Sydney Sprocket Holdings, or something similar, and then file the necessary forms to make your fake alias the signing authority.)

Item #OBA. The Mary.

Mary, universally loved and trusted, is an expert at automating bank transfers. Mary will monitor the accounts you setup daily and as soon as the ACH or wire hits the account, Mary will automatically transfer most of it (through service payments) to your offshore accounts. (If you setup multiple accounts in different offshore countries, she will ensure the funds are routed through intermediate accounts first to make the funds almost untraceable. If you’re willing to risk a little, she will also automate transfers to and from Bitcoin exchanges to make it even more untraceable.)

With our agents, your plans to defraud your organization out of millions of dollars to make up for the years of underpayment, abuse, and mistreatment you received from your employer are virtually assured and you’re only two months from your dream life in Morocco.

So hire your personal team of felons from the Felon Roster today!