A former coworker reshared the story of Clifford Stoll investigating an accounting error and discovering a Cold War spy network. But a few years later, Stoll was wrong about the emerging Internet…and also right.
Stoll shared his views in a 1995 Newsweek article that was an amusing read after the fact.
Replacing your daily newspaper?
For example:
“The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper…”
Stoll lived long enough to see the decline of printed newspapers in the early 21st century.
Electronic books?
Another one:
“How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. At best, it’s an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book. And you can’t tote that laptop to the beach. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Internet. Uh, sure.”
Let’s pick this one apart piece by piece.
A book on disc? What’s a disc?
Yes, to some the myopic glow of an electronic book isn’t the best experience, whether on light or dark mode. But a traditional printed book cannot be read at all when you turn the lights off.
Stoll assumed that you would always need a laptop to read an electronic book. He did not envision dedicated electronic reading devices that were smaller than a laptop…to say nothing of “smart” phones with an “app” called “Kindle.”
Speaking of Amazon Kindles, you CAN buy books straight over the Internet. And music also, from a company that is no longer called Apple Computer.
So Stoll was not perfect. But he anticipated some things that we still struggle with today.
Unedited data!
“What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”
While many companies from Yahoo to Altavista to Google to Wikipedia to OpenAI have tried to solve this problem, it is not fully solved.
And then there’s the biggie.
Isolation!
“What’s missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another. A network chat line is a limp substitute for meeting friends over coffee. No interactive multimedia display comes close to the excitement of a live concert. And who’d prefer cybersex to the real thing?”
Today’s world is actually worse than the one Stoll envisioned. Not only have I conducted most of my interactions with people over chat boxes and screens. But in 2026 we are now interacting with “HAL 9000” non-person entities…and we may not even know that they aren’t human, but synthetic or deepfake identities.
Despite the benefits of remote interactions—they’ve kept me (and my former coworker) employed—Stoll’s warnings about this new world remain valid.
Wrong but right
So I wouldn’t laugh at Stoll’s derision over the emerging Internet. If you were alive in 1995, be honest: did you anticipate THIS?
It should be obvious by now that TI is a transformative paradigm shift that is already affecting the world economy and your own life.
Forward-thinking influencers are reimagining the tire as a sophisticated sensory organ, incorporating real-time structural diagnostics and dynamic adaptation. This is fundamentally redefining our relationship with the road, proving that the future of mobility is being built from the ground up.
But those who remain still will fall behind.
Those who purchase expensive TI courses will move ahead.
Those who reposition their marketing to always talk about TI will move ahead.
Those who right-size their companies to allow maximum investment in TI will move ahead.
“Everyone (I think?) agrees that defining your ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) is important….
“But there’s an assumption baked into all of this: Your user is human. I think that assumption is breaking.
“As agents begin to interact with products on our behalf – often via protocols like Model Context Protocol (MCP) – your ‘user’ may never actually touch your product.
“[Other products] will become almost entirely invisible. They exist as infrastructure. As a codified set of rules that is hard to reproduce. They are never opened directly, never explored, never ‘used’ in the traditional sense. They are just… there, powering outcomes. And you know what, I think most of the B2B will fall here.”
So I’m definitely concentrating on people for the next few days, but I haven’t forgotten my bot buddies.
“Though we are still in the early stages of administrative AI adoption, it has become clear that rapid AI deployment by both providers and health plans to support prior authorization and medical billing transactions risks increasing levels of system activity without reducing costs. Under existing incentive structures, AI automation could increase the volume of prior authorization back-and-forth, rather than making the process more efficient. AI-assisted coding tools could accelerate coding intensity and charge capture, which—even if accurate—would have an inflationary impact on healthcare costs.”
Regarding prior authorization:
“AI may reduce the cost for individual organizations to execute prior authorizations, but it has not reduced overall system-level costs.”
And regarding medical billing:
“Provider deployment of AI is increasing billing intensity and inflating medical spending.”
There is a difference between a writer and a content creator. It becomes obvious when you read WordPress’ recent post, “How to Slop Your Content in Five Steps.”
With one glaring exception, the Bredebot project. This is a highlighted experiment to see how far a well-prompted bot will go.
So my specific response to these steps is to consider the gap analysis in step 2. Bots are good at such analysis, but they have to be watched in case they don’t get their facts straight.
But I won’t give Claude the permission to write and post articles, or even any permissions on WordPress. This is a security issue, after all; how do YOU control site access for non-human identities?
In fact, I may not even use Claude for step 2, even if it’s the cool kid this week last I checked. I may use Gemini…or a thousand Bangladesh techies…or a million Pentiums…or Mika.
How you work with outside content creators
But what about you?
Before answering, take the five steps above and change the name “Claude” to Barney…or Bredemarket.
Would you give Barney or Bredemarket that power over your website?
Maybe…or maybe not.
How Bredemarket works with you
In the case of Bredemarket, I usually do NOT have direct access to my clients’ websites, sending them Word documents instead. And in the one instance where I did have website access, I left every one of my drafts in draft mode.
And when I perform a gap analysis, I present my client with choices and ask the client to choose the topic, or at least approve my suggested topic.
Because your website is not mine, or Mika’s…or Claude’s.
“I think too much knowledge is actually bad in tech: you’re biased.”
Why does this quote affect me so deeply? Because with my 30-plus years of identity/biometric experience, I obviously have too much knowledge of the industry, which is obviously bad. After all, all a biometric company needs is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else. The company doesn’t need someone who knows that Printrak isn’t spelled with a C.
Google Gemini.
In this post I will share three of the “biases” I have developed in my 30-plus years in identity and biometrics, and how to correct these biases by stripping away that 20th century experience and applying novel thinking.
And if that last paragraph made you throw up in your mouth…read to the end of the post.
But first, let’s briefly explore these three biases that I shamefully hold due to my status as a biometric product marketing expert:
Independent algorithmic confirmation is valuable.
Process is valuable.
Artificial intelligence is merely a tool.
Biometric product marketing expert.
Bias 1: Independent Algorithmic Confirmation is Valuable
But how do prospects know that these algorithms work? How accurate are they? How fast are they? How secure are they?
My bias
My brain, embedded with over 30 years of bias, gravitates to the idea that vendors should submit their algorithms for independent testing and confirmation.
From a NIST facial recognition demographic bias text.
This could be an accuracy test such as the ones NIST and DHS administer, or confirmation of presentation attack detection capabilities (as BixeLab, iBeta, and other organizations perform), or confirmation of injection attack detection capabilities.
Novel thinking
But you’re smarter than that and refuse to support the testing-industrial complex. They have their explicit or implicit agendas and want to force the biometric vendors to do well on the tests. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Appendix F” fingerprint capture quality standard specifically EXCLUDES contactless solutions, forcing everyone down the same contact path.
But you and your novel thinking reject these unnecessary impediments. You’re not going to constrain yourself by the assertions of others. You are going to assert your own benefits. Develop and administer your own tests. Share with your prospects how wonderful you are without going through an intermediary. That will prove your superiority…right?
Bias 2: Process is Valuable
A biometric company has to perform a variety of tasks. Raise funding. Hire people. Develop, market, propose, sell, and implement products. Throw parties.
How will the company do all these things?
My bias
My brain, encumbered by my experience (including a decade at Motorola), persists in a belief that process is the answer. The process can be as simple as scribblings on a cocktail napkin, but you need some process if you want to cash out in a glorious exit—I mean, deliver superior products to your customers.
Perhaps you need a development processs that defines, among other things, how long a sprint should be. A capture and proposal process (Shipley or simpler) that defines, among other things, who has the authority to approve a $10 million proposal A go-to-market process that defines the deliverables for different tiers, and who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Or maybe just an onboarding process when starting a new project, dictating the questions you need to ask at the beginning.
Bredemarket’s seven questions. I ask, then I act.
Novel thinking
Sure all that process is fine…if you don’t want to do anything. Do you really want to force your people to wait two weeks for the latest product iteration? Impose a multinational bureauracy on your sales process? Go through an onerous checklist before marketing a product?
Google Gemini.
Just code it.
Just sell it.
Just write it.
Bias 3: Artificial Intelligence is Merely a Tool
The problem with experienced people is that they think that there is nothing new under the sun.
You talk about cloud computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like time sharing.” You talk about quantum computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like the Pentium.” You talk about blockchain, and they yawn, “Sounds like a notary public.”
My bias
As I sip my Pepperidge Farm, I can barely conceal my revulsion at those who think “we use AI” is a world-dominating marketing message. Artificial intelligence is not a way of life. It is a tool. A tool that in and of itself does not merit much of a mention.
Google Gemini.
How many automobile manufacturers proclaim “we use tires” as part of their marketing messaging? Tires are essential to an automobile’s performance, but since everyone has them, they’re not a differentiator and not worthy of mention.
In the same way, everyone has AI…so why talk about its mere presence? Talk about the benefits your implementation provides and how these benefits differentiate you from your competitors.
Novel thinking
Yep, the grandpas that declare “AI is only a tool” are missing the significance entirely. AI is not like a Pentium chip. It is a transformational technology that is already changing the way we create, sell, and market.
Therefore it is critically important to highlight your product’s AI use. AI isn’t a “so what” feature, but an indication of revolutionary transformative technology. You suppress mention of AI at your own peril.
How do I overcome my biases of experience?
OK, so I’ve identified the outmoded thinking that results from too much experience. But how do I overcome it?
I don’t.
Because if you haven’t already detected it, I believe that experience IS valuable, and that all three items above are essential and shouldn’t be jettisoned for the new, novel, and kewl.
Are you a identity/biometric marketing leader who needs to tell your prospects that your algorithms are validated by reputable independent bodies?
Or that you have a process (simple or not) that governs how your customers receive your products?
Or that your AI actually does unique things that your competitors don’t, providing true benefits to your customers?
Bredemarket can help with strategy, analysis, content, and/or proposals for your identity/biometric firm. Talk to me (for free).
By the way, here’s MY process (and my services and pricing).
And here’s an example of a “right” prompt, guided by a development expert:
“Optimize this SQL query to reduce execution time on a large PostgreSQL table with millions of records. Indexing suggestions would be helpful.”
Because knowledge of coding IS good when you code stuff. And Silicon Tech Solutions uses this knowledge when it uses generative AI coding tools:
At Silicon Tech Solutions, we actively use Cursor to enhance our development workflow. By integrating AI-powered coding tools, we:
🔹 Reduce development time while maintaining high standards.
🔹 Automate repetitive tasks, allowing developers to focus on core logic.
🔹 Ensure clean and optimized code, reducing technical debt.
However, AI does not replace human expertise—it enhances it. Our team carefully reviews and refines AI-generated code to align with best practices and business requirements.
If you want Silicon Tech Solutions’ expertise at your disposal, request a meeting.
I don’t have access to Forbes, so I’m relying on this LinkedIn message from Certuma:
“We raised $10M in seed funding led by 8VC to build the first FDA-approved AI doctor.”
The way that sentence is worded, it sounds like the goal is to have the FDA approve a doctor who can…well, doctor. Like my fictional Dr. Jones. (See the 2013 version in tymshft.)
““I don’t mind answering the question,” replied the friendly voice, “and I hope you don’t take my response the wrong way, but I’m not really a person as you understand the term. I’m actually an application within the software package that runs the medical center. But my programmers want me to tell you that they’re really happy to serve you, and that Stanford sucks.” The voice paused for a moment. “I’m sorry, Edith. You have to forgive the programmers – they’re Berkeley grads.””
But Certuma’s website tells a more cautionary story in which the “AI doctor” is NOT in control.
“Certified clinical decisions at machine speed. Physician-verified and fully auditable.”
And the workflow indicates that this “doctor” is more like an intern, or even a student.
“Certuma routes every in-scope plan through physician verification. That workflow is the point: fast turnaround without removing accountability….
“Red flags, contraindications, interaction checks, scope limits, and uncertainty thresholds run through the deterministic verification layer. If something is emergent or out of scope, the system escalates instead of guessing.
“Clinicians see structured intake, highlighted risks, and a draft plan with supporting evidence. They approve, edit, or escalate; changes are captured with reason codes and a durable audit trail.”
Now there is clearly some benefit in having the bots grind out the plan, provided that the bots don’t hallucinate. There are potential time savings, and a real doctor reviews the final results.
But an “AI doctor” who can doctor independently is NOT on the horizon.
Bredemarket 