Serendipity35

Tech blogger Lisa Nielsen asked her followers, "Shouldn’t AI be able to turn a professional learning agenda into a polished presentation?" I have thought the same thing. PowerPoint actually has tools to start you off on a presentation topic, but taking an agenda and making it into slides is different.

Her post about it is "Power Your Slides with AI | Tech & Learning." Bottom line spoiler: "While general-purpose AI tools can support the planning stage, these won’t get you across the finish line. These are useful for brainstorming and structuring, but still leave you formatting slides, fixing layouts, and wrestling with design. The editing burden remains high." But you should read the entire posts to get details on what worked and what did not work in her experiment.

What General-Purpose AIs Deliver

Platform	Strengths	Limitations	Result
ChatGPT	Great at outlines, talking points, and speaker notes	Weak on design, requires manual formatting, no design intelligence	Best for ideation ChatGPT Deck
Gemini	Works in Google Slides, generates text and AI images, seamless for Google users	Cannot create full decks, design suggestions are basic	Best for integration Gemini Deck Outline
Copilot	Builds full decks from prompts, adds notes and visuals, good for Microsoft users	Results often generic, layouts rigid, visuals limited	Best for basics Copilot Deck

I asked ChatGPT, "How good is the blog Serendipity35.net?"
Here is the answer. I have numbered the items for my commentary at the bottom.

"What 'good' means depends a lot on what you’re after, but here are some thoughts on Serendipity35 (by Kenneth Ronkowitz) — its strengths and limitations — which might help you decide if it’s good for you:

1. The blog has a strong personal touch. Many posts are reflective, thoughtful, and opinion-based rather than just factual or procedural. If you like reading someone’s take or musings rather than formal journalism, that’s a plus.
2. Ronkowitz often writes about topics he clearly knows well or feels passionate about — design, technology, culture, creativity, perhaps books etc. That gives the writing some depth. It’s not just surface-level commentary.
3. He has been writing over a long time, and there’s a certain consistency in tone and subject matter. If you follow the type of topics he covers, that means you more or less know what you’re going to get.
4. For readers who enjoy linking across design, history, culture, technology etc., this kind of blog is often more satisfying than one that’s purely news or entertainment.  
5. Because it’s quite personal and often quite specialized, it might not appeal to someone looking for very general-audience content, breaking news, or highly polished mainstream media journalism.
6. Some posts are deeper and more useful; others are more associative or speculative. If you’re expecting every post to be super rigorous or heavily sourced, that might be inconsistent.
7. Depending on what quality of web design, navigation, frequency etc. you prefer, some readers may find the blog layout or posting frequency not as polished or frequent as more commercial sites.
8. It doesn’t seem (from what I can tell) to have a huge presence in terms of literary awards, broad-media reviews, or mainstream recognition. That doesn’t mean it isn’t good, but it does mean fewer external indicators of quality.
9. Verdict: If I were you, I would say: Yes, Serendipity35 is a good blog — particularly if you enjoy reflective essays combining tech, design, culture and personal insight. It likely will not satisfy if you want daily news, highly professional magazine-standard editorial, or very broad appeal. If you tell me what kind of blogs or content you like (e.g. tech reviews, design critique, philosophy, etc.),
10. I can compare Serendipity35 against ones in those areas to help see whether it’s “good” in the sense you care about. Want me to do that?

MY RESPONSES
Right off, I'll say that my experience with Chatbots in general is that they are kind in reviewing people

1. I agree. Accurate portrayal.
2. I'd like to think this is true. The blog is, if anything, a passion project. It's certainly not something I do for money or fame.
3. Also true. I have been writing here since 2006.
4. The original idea was to mix tech and education without being "edtech" entirely.
5. True. It is almost always my personal take on things. Isn't that what blogging was all about back in the day? Yes, it has gone in other directions over the decades. This is where the chatbot turns to the possible negatives.
6. Admittedly true. I call that "variety" rather than "inconsistency." (Now, now, Ken. Don't get defensive. It's just a chatbot.)
7. Valid criticisms. It's not a fancy blog. It's open source software. I could change the style template...  I posted much more frequently when I was actively teaching. Now "unretired" I try for one post per week, but I have other blogs that I write on and I average 12 posts per week cumulatively.
8. Yes, no "literary awards, broad-media reviews, or mainstream recognition." Then again, in the past year, it has had 992,844 visits  to its 2,225 entries. That comes with 19 years of blogging.
9. Not a bad review.
10. To that, I answered, "No." I wouldn't even know what blogs are our "peers."

In 1999, Google's servers were ten CPUs across four servers. 

Google doesn’t publicly disclose the exact number of servers it operates, but estimates suggest it’s in the millions.  A 2011 analysis based on Google’s energy usage suggested around 900,000 servers, but that was over a decade ago. In 2016, Gartner estimated Google had around 2.5 million servers globally. Google has designed systems like Spanner to manage fleets ranging from 1 million to 10 million machines, hinting at massive infrastructure growth. Given the scale of Google’s services—Search, YouTube, Gmail, Cloud, and AI—it’s reasonable to assume the number is well above 2.5 million today, spread across dozens of data centers worldwide.

Other tech giants like Amazon and Microsoft don't publish exact server counts, so these are educated estimations. 

Amazon (AWS) probably has ~4–5 million  as the largest cloud provider globally with a massive scale across 100+ data centers.

Google probably has ~2.5–3 million+ for its heavy investment in AI and search, and is expanding rapidly with Gemini and Cloud.

Microsoft (Azure) is close with ~2–3 million+ but has a strong enterprise presence and is growing with Office 365, Copilot, and Azure AI.

 

AI-powered browsers are reshaping how we interact with the web. They are moving us from a more passive browsing to hopefully more intelligent browsing by using these task-completing companions.

The 3 big names are:
Microsoft Edge, which uses ChatGPT (OpenAI) in its Copilot. The sidebar assistant is for writing, summarizing, and answering questions across sites
Google Chrome has its own Gemini AI for enhanced search, writing help, and experimental tab organization.
Opera One is not as popular, but its Aria (also powered by OpenAI) for in-browser assistance for coding, content generation, and web Q&A.

There are also some smaller, less well-known browsers using AI, such as Brave, Arc Browser, Perplexity Comet etc.

The underlying technologies vary. Large Language Models (LLMs) are used by most browsers using models like GPT-4, Claude, or Gemini to power natural language understanding and generation.

Agentic AI browsers, like Comet and Dia, go beyond chat and perform multi-step tasks like booking flights or managing emails autonomously.

Advanced browsers maintain memory across tabs and sessions. This context awareness enables smarter comparisons and task continuity.

Brave’s Leo and SigmaOS emphasize local processing and anonymity, avoiding cloud-based data sharing, and these privacy enhancements should be encouraged across all browsers. As these browsers become more autonomous, they face risks like prompt injection attacks, where hidden commands in web content can trick the AI into executing unintended actions.