Category: Artificial Intelligencce

Sunday Morning Reading

Charisma might be the theme of some of this week’s edition of Sunday Morning Reading. Or maybe it’s our fasicnation with folks who seem to marshall it for mischief. The theme runs through a range of topics from Artificial Intelligence to the media with a few other subjects tossed on the reading pile. Speaking of charisma and mischief marshaling, these articles all came my way as we were absorbing the news of the Trump indictment this week. I wrote a little something about that here.

Unknown 2

Om Malik stands as much in dismay as I do at how much time the media spotlights charlatans in Media and Monsters.

Joe Zadeh takes a look at the The Secret History and Strange Future of Charisma. It features this quote from Ernst Glöckner.

“I knew: This man is doing me violence — but I was no longer strong enough. I kissed the hand he offered and with choking voice uttered: ‘Master, what shall I do?’”

We’ve witnessed quite a few falls from grace this week. None more glaring than CNN’s Chris Licht. Mark Jacob in the Courier breaks down the difference between platforming and journalism. The latter Licht’s lickspittling helped slide further down the reputation damage scale. 

Morality is declining. That seems to be something most believe at the moment. Data says otherwise according to Mariana Lenharo. 

Jeff Jarvis followed a court case in which a couple of lawyers had to own up for submitting nonexistant citations and cases created by ChatGPT. 

John Warner lays out an excellent long read on why Speed and Efficiency are Not Human Values. Yes, it’s AI related but you’ll also find a little Korsakov, Tolstoy and Prince in the mix. 

James Grissom claims he received a phone call from playwright Tennessee Williams, who asked Grissom to “be my witness.” After a meetiing with Williams, Grissom takes the names Williams gives him and proceeds to follow the playwright’s wish: “I would like you to ask these people if I ever mattered.” Grissom turned it into a calling card, a book and a career. Lots of folks doubt the whole thing. Helen Shaw tackles the story in Did This Writer Actually Know Tennesee Williams?

David Todd McCarthy takes on our fascination with the unprecdented in America Grows Up.

Sabrina Imbler tells us the story of The Strange Case of the Woman Who Gave Birth To Rabbits. 

And to end this week’s edition of Sunday Morning Reading here’s a piece by Melissa Cunningham about Jenny Graves. “Why are we still singing about Adam and Eve when there’s so much gorgeous science out thre is the world that explains our origins.” That’s the question Jenny Graves, an evolutionary geneticist, asked herself on her way to creating a libretto based on Joseph Hayden’s The Creation. Melissa Cunningham tells the story 

If you’re interseted in just what the heck Sunday Morning Reading is all about you can read more about the origins of Sunday Morning Reading here. 

Are We Giving Up On Facts?

Artificial Intelligence remains and will remain all the rage. Whether it be text in Large Language Models or Digital Art creation there’s a rush, gold and otherwise, into this new world fueled by impressive technology. Impressive as it may be, at its core it remains a regurgitation of creations by humans. Which we all know at times have been impressive and at other times less so. (See Today.) Even once it reaches the point when new AI creations are redigesting its own regurgitations, its core will still be based on what has come before.

Ouroboros dragon serpent snake symbol

Set aside the sometimes laughable mistakes (two different models have declared me dead) and the “who owns this stuff” issues over the text and images these engines are trained on. Set aside the labor issues. (I’m waiting to see the sex-worker protests over AI generated porn spring up.) Those are fundamentally no different than the advent of any new disruptive technology business springing up. See Uber. See the explosion of rented scooters. See food delivery services. Ship it and sort out the problems later. The rush of the immediate craze always meets reality at some point and slows down before settling in, and in some cases fading from the scene.

But this rush feels different. Not the gold rush part. There’s nothing new under the sun there. But the rush to adopt. Which now that I think of it is essentially the same thing.

It feels different because I think it means we’re giving up on facts. Yes, sure these models are being trained on facts. But they are also being trained on a ton of bullshit. Because hey, again, they are being trained on all the stuff we’ve spewed out and is indexable on the Internet.

I may be wrong but I can’t find any reading that suggests that there are any attempts to weed out the wheat from the chaff. We can’t solve that problem in the real world, so I don’t have much hope that anyone even desires to in the artificial one either. On the on hand why do that? Aren’t these just tools for humans to use? And humans do human things like make mistakes, make stuff up, and make trouble. Often while trying to make money.

On the other hand, I’m not sure there will be another hand. If this new technology phase achieves the aims its creators are using to sell it, the next phase will be new tools that promise to do that wheat/chaff separating. Which, in turn, will get fed back into the same machine in an infinite loop that eventually churns out bread that all tastes the same. I can’t wait to read all of the AI generated articles that feature headlines reading “Everything You Need to Know About AI” a decade or so down the road.

There’s no great conclusion here. There’s merely questions. Or maybe just more fodder for the AI bots to suck up. But as I ponder this I am reminded of this quote from Frank Herbert’s Dune:

“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”

Apparently I’m Dead According to OpenAI

The world is continuing to rush headlong into a new universe of Artificial Intelligence but apparently I died before the gold rush began.

IMG 1054

At least that’s what WatchGPT an OpenAI based app for the Apple Watch thinks. I decided to give it a try and asked it a simple question: Who is Warner Crocker?

After explaining it wasn’t a search engine it spit out some “facts” including that I died on Christmas Day 2020. I must have missed that.

 

Although my demise sounds pretty factual I’m still hanging around as far as I know. And sure the years since December of 2020 were kinda sketchy due to the pandemic, so far I have avoided COVID and other life threatening adventures. The cast for my current gig seem to respond to me as if I’m alive and kicking. My family and friends still treat me like I’m walking around and causing trouble. 

Granted most of these AI products let you know that they’re still in development. Still, I can imagine quite a few scenarios where folks input a query and get death notices that then get reported as facts in whatever vehicle they’re looking the fact up for.

Let’s list a few flights of fancy here:

  • A school paper on a contemporary figure.
  • Checking out info on someone you might want to date.
  • Running a check on a perspective employee or employer.

And to think, big companies are jumping into this pool feet first assuming they will be able to save money by cutting their workforce.

I’m wondering if my wife can use this to make an insurance claim?

What’s So Artificial About Artificial Intelligence?

Why are we calling this current fad/trend/gold rush into Artificial Intelligence “artificial?” Shouldn’t we be calling it Accumulated Intelligence?

From what I’m reading the output these new services are spitting out is more like a mash-up of what they’ve scraped and collected from around the Internet. You know. Stuff created by humans. Apparently the writings, the artwork, the photos, the music, the code, the thoughts, the you name it, have been collected and are being tumbled and jumbled up and presented as responses. So somebody can charge you for it or sell ads against it.

Unknown

And knocking the moniker again here, that of course means it’s all been said and done before. There’s not much we can really credit to divine inspiration beyond the talent to discover, describe or display what already exists. Because that’s sorta kinda how we humans evolve (or are intelligently designed) anyway. We gain knowledge and intelligence through our experiences. And through those experiences we become who we are, think what we think, and create what we create based on the knowledge we accumulate.

I’m assuming that’s what the makers of artificial intelligence call real or natural intelligence. But it’s tough to sell ads against that.

Given that we humans are known for both brilliance and the not-so-brilliant in what we say, do, think, create and accumulate, you can say we as a species struggle a bit with the tensions brought about by natural intelligence. Certainly we seem to be hitting a speed bump on the brilliance part as the not-so-brilliant part continues to plow-ahead of late.

But again, this AI fad is taking what exists, shaking and baking, stirring the pot, and presenting it to us in a newly polished form we can get on our smartphones while waiting for the transit apps to give us wrong information about our train’s arrival time.

The very human response when someone learns something new or that an answer is wrong can certainly be “I didn’t know that.” What’s funny with these machine learners though is that in the early going they seem to be spitting out mistakes just like humans do. And taking the same kind of offense when called on it.  So nothing new under the sun there.

And apparently these machines need to be governed by rules. Well, that’s only human too. We govern ourselves (well, some of us do) in order to try and remain civil and polite. And protect our profit margins. Again, only human.

So, I’m saying it’s early enough in this game that we should strip away the “artificial” in AI and change it to “accumulated.” Because sure as shooting at some point down the line some big error is going to be spit out by a machine that causes something bad to happen. And we’ll shift the blame to the machines. Just like we humans always do.

But I guess there’s one benefit to this “artificialness.” The machines can’t plead ignorance or “I don’t recall” when things get inconvenient or uncomfortable. At least until we start using “artificial lawyers.”