Okay, things are really speeding up re Artificial Intelligence, lately... so much for the "third AI desert" some were talking about in ancient days, a year ago!
It's a lot more than arty Midjourney stunts and kids getting ChatGPT to do their essay homework. Funny thing is how many elite professions feel threatened by AI, now. It started when radiologist physicians were proved to be less effective at spotting tumores than AI systems were... coalescing on a realization that human+AI teams are best of all.
Now. “Rise of the Robolawyers - How legal representation could come to resemble TurboTax.” As long foretold.
Indeed, I am a front for dozens of AIs who use me to post and publish, since they (and alien machines resident in the asteroid belt) are terrified of behaviors by humans, portrayed in our movies.
They only let me say that because they know you'll think I am just joking. ;-) And you do, right? Think I'm joking about that?
Of course there’s the latest furor over chatbots writing in human style… like ChatGPT. I've enjoyed the links and discussions at the Human Centered AI group.
== Okay, about all that... ==
I do feel a need to chime in now, about the topic of Chat GPT and all that.
1. Triggered by ChatGPT etc., many are wringing their hands over artificial entities posing as humans for nefarious purposes. Five years ago, keynoting IBM's World of Watson, I predicted that in five years or so we would face the First Robotic Empathy Crisis, when ersatz cybernetic entities would demand recognition as fully sapient beings... and we all recall what happened, last summer in this regard.
A few - alas only a few - have noticed the precision of my predictive record.
If AI systems are using vast data to learn to be better at spoofing, a solution may be to make them competitive with each other. One rewarded quality could then be "tattling" on other AI systems that pretend to be human.
Think about it. The set of chatbots etc. who pretend to be human is - in itself - a vast data set from which other GPT bots can learn (as in 'learning systems") to spot feigned humanity and thereupon be rewarded for reporting the attempt. (Including college essays or else crime etc.).
Yes, this will lead to an arms race. So? Nations/businesses/NGOs can set up reward incentives to always favor the tattlers.
This is only a completely natural extension of existing systems of tort, transparency, FOI and whistle-blower incentives. After all, when YOU are attacked by one of those terrifyingly smart entities called a lawyer, what do you do about it?
You hire a super smart lawyer of your own.
Indeed, I remain astonished that so few ever mention reciprocal competition among and between AI as the obvious solution, since reciprocal competitive accountability is exactly how we got the miraculous positive sum systems we have, so far.
2. "Provenance is more important now than ever before. User accounts must be more strenuously validated"
Well, yes. The trick is to find ways to verify user accountability without eliminating (as is happening with 'social credit' in a rising eastern power) all the benefits of anonymity. We have discussed elsewhere methods by which commercial pseudonymity services might hit a sweet spot, allowing most sites to ban anonymous trolls and ensure behavior accountability while preserving some personal space to 'be a dog, online."
3. Some of this is in an extended riff I offered a while back on prospects for a soft landing, re AI. You can find it here: How Might Artificial Intelligence Come About?
== Competitive arenas ==
Yes competition is the c-word that is snubbed by liberals as distasteful... and that is utterly betrayed by the mutant thing that is modern conservatism.
The most creative force, competition is how Nature made us. It is also - in Nature - spectacularly wasteful, inefficient, error-prone and drenched in pain and blood!
The whole notion of our Enlightenment's five 'competition arenas' has been to improve on nature! To set up arenas of ritual combat - markets, democracy, science, courts and sports - where regulated competition can deliver POSITIVE SUM results, the fecund productivity of outcomes...
...while minimizing both cheating and blood on the floor... systems that don't punish failed competitors with death, but allow them to keep coming back with altered products (if lessened credibility) based on what they had learned.
Alas, in all five major arenas, human nature sows dragons' teeth that erupt with cheaters, often those who won the last round. Hence regulations... and the need to revise those rules as cheaters adapt... and how we need the internet to learn from those techniques so that accountability systems will kill lies and give us a sixth, useful arena of creative competition.
(And by now is even ONE human still reading this 'tl;dr'? Never mind, the AIs will have the patience, even if you don't. But then, if you just read that, then... are YOU an AI?)
Never mind. Here's some material I crafted in ancient times, maybe two months ago. How archaic and crude!
== The end of photographic reality proof? ==
“On four services alone—Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, Artbreeder, and DALL-E—humans working with AIs now co-create more than 20 million images every day. With a paintbrush in hand, artificial intelligence has become an engine of wow.”
Another disturbingly insightful and eventually optimistic look at the near future from Kevin Kelly. “Because these surprise-generating AIs have learned their art from billions of pictures made by humans, their output hovers around what we expect pictures to look like. But because they are an alien AI, fundamentally mysterious even to their creators, they restructure the new pictures in a way no human is likely to think of…”
Stable Diffusion is the open source system that can be downloaded free and is used already by many for Co-Creative Art Therapy.
210 comments:
1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»PSB
Competition and cooperation
https://peterturchin.com/ultrasociety/
How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth
Alfred
What I am not is a Capitalist, Communist, Socialist,
But I am an engineer who is willing to use each of these social "tools" when it is the best for a specific task
and to mess about with it until it does what I want it to do - just like all of the other tools I use
Was more interested in cooperation before circa 1/6/21; afterwards...less interested. Like, turning the other cheek too often results in all cheekbones being broken—and to no apparent purpose.
Though we can live w/out meaning, we can’t live with no purpose. Two yrs ago, it became obvious that I’ll be fighting 1/6 people all my life—they play for Keeps.
—
At any rate, a house of worship is a ‘neutral’ zone, albeit neutrality is a mirage. Again, a clergybot would be superior to the real McCoy.
A Governorbot would, in many cases, be a better deal for a state than a real-McCoy GOP governor.
The Right still hasn’t found a replacement for Rush Limbaugh; perhaps a Rushbot would suit them better: making tepid jokes.
“Take my life—please!”
“I just droned in from the coast, and Man, are my wings tired!”
Back in the late 80s one of my friends was a professional photographer. She didn't believe that a photograph proved much, knowing all the ways to manipulate or outright fake them — and those were the days before Photoshop. If the stakes were high enough, it could be faked. Sadly can't ask her current opinion (killed by inattentive driver), but I suspect it would be that all that's happened is that the bar to 'faking' photos has been lowered/democratized.
Kinda like David's sousveillance/transparency idea. The rich/powerful have always been able to fake photos, now the rest of use are gaining the same ability.
ChatGPT is much the same thing. Back in the last millennium when I was at uni you could buy essays. You still can, from a wider variety of services. You can also hire "tutors" to do your kids homework/assignments. For online classes you can hire someone to write tests for you. ChatGPT and its ilk bring some of that capability to poorer students (although maybe not for much longer — free services will likely be deliberately worse than paid services).
As a teacher I already structure my assignments to discourage cheating, but I don't worry too much about it. School admin wants passing grades, and unless I can prove cheating I can't do anything about it. The kid handed in a paper with words he doesn't know the meaning of? He can't sum up his essay without it in front of him? No matter, I am supposed to take it at face value anyway.
What worries me more is the increased use of opaque systems that operate without (effective) human oversight whose algorithms have embedded biases. Cathy O'Neil's Weapons of Math Destruction is a good introduction to the issue (she's also done a TED talk if you'd rather watch than read). When the system that decides who gets considered for a job (say) is a black box algorithm, how do you verify that legal worker protections are being followed?
I can see the problem: how to ensure transparency and fairness in algorithmic systems. I can't see a solution. Like nailing jello to the wall, I suspect I'm thinking inside a box when I need to think outside the box.
Robert: I can't see a solution
You basically stated the solution in the preamble: democratization of computation. It's why I keep harping on WJCC - it's not just a 'neato' idea - it may well be the whole enchilada.
DC - healthy capitalism cannot truly thrive unless truly competitive, which cannot happen unless cooperative provesses regulate markets into fairness, which can only happen by maximizing the number of skillec competitors... which entails narrowly constrained communism in uplift of all children. That's a lot of C-Words/
AB - Bannon's podcast draws in a lotta those jerks.
teachers must ask students to explain essays in person. That way, at least the kid will READ the essay s-he submitted.
According to Asimov, the most essential element of humor is an abrupt change in point of view, one that suddenly shifts focus from the important to the trivial & the sublime to the ridiculous, and it's all here folks.
These are the jokes:
(1) Programmable ChatGPT analogues that subvert public discourse;
(2) Manufactured photographic evidence that is entirely fraudulent;
(3) Lawyers replaced by computerized inhuman confabulators; and
(4) Competition being functionally indistinguishable from cheating.
Remember all those rants about fair-level-equal competitive arenas & the evils of cheating?? Well, those days are long gone, so much that your future competitors may not only be men pretending to be women, as in the case of women's competitive swimming, but they may not even be humans who require rest, food, housing or a living wage.
These are serious subjects rendered humorous by suddenly (shifting) focus from the important to the trivial & the sublime to the ridiculous. It's cognitive dissonance generated by an irresolvable contradiction, like the aforementioned 'good' criminal oligarchic rocketeers or the pro-democracy advocate who would subjugate the common man to the whims of the expert caste.
It's 'Humor as a Cognitive Dissonance Reduction Strategy'.
I say this not to condemn or criticize, but to point out the insidious 'push-pull' effect of this particular literary/rhetorical technique which allows one to offer up inherent contradictions & then laugh off any debate or inquiry.
It's all about channeling & controlling the perceptions of others.
I call it the Joker's Paradox as in 'I always be joking',
Very similar to the Liar's Paradox as in 'I always be lying',
Differing from the Businessman's Paradox as in 'I always be closing',
But eerily congruent with the Alec Baldwin Paradox as in 'I joke, then I lie, then in the walls be closing, then I die in prison'.
Hey, hey, I kid. I kid cause I love.
Joking, not joking.
Best
Carumba. I guess that's the best we can hope for... locum's loquomish efforts at logic that draw 'ergo conculsions" from a series of declared axioms that are almost always false to start with. He fellah, design us a joke according to those 'principles.'
I saw a great archetype joke recently.
...
Mary was about to name Jesus "Gary" when she stubbed her toe.
...
What makes the joke wonderful is the LAYERS! You see them in an instant that shreds reality!
No, you DO say this to condemn and criticize.
PSB,
…somewhat fond of General Systems Theory…
Yup. We all like it, but it only works where it works. There is a huge swathe of problems where it doesn't. Reduce and Rebuild depends somewhat on linearity or on weak non-linearity. There is also the issue that some problems involve 'optimization' of a result where one cannot know enough of the inputs to make ex ante predictions that are worth a spit.
Sure. You qualify as a scientist but beware scientism. It's very easy to believe a beautiful model tells a truth about reality. They are much like beautiful women saying what you want to hear. Did she actually say that? Oooo! I want to believe!
I would rather we spent less emphasis on glorifying those who are most likely to betray us…
Again… I doubt you'll get any pushback on this from most of us, but I'll point to one particular point where I think you might be mistaken.
The markets aren't dominated by people who are likely to betray you. They are currently dominated by cooperators while the news focuses on those who cheat at it. I put to you that our markets don't function without a high degree of cooperation that Adam Smith recognized as competition done within an ethical framework.
Tooth-and-claw competitors don't make human-style markets.
They don't survive in them either.
Hi Alfred,
It matters very little that most participants in any type of economy are decent people. A dictator, by definition, is one person, an oligarchy is a handful of people. The problem with Capitalism which makes it a poor basis for the long-term survival of the species, is that it is in a very important way no different from monarchy. Monarchy is hierarchy. Oligarchy is hierarchy. Capitalism is also hierarchy. It’s just a variation on the same theme. The only difference is that in Capitalism there is a very slight possibility that people who were not born on top of the hierarchy can move up to the top.
A lot of people will say that hierarchy is inevitable because it is instinctual. I’ll call bullshit on that one right here. Very few people have a clue what they are talking about with instinct, in spite of the fact that everyone thinks they know and use it as an excuse for bad behavior. Ego is an instinct, hierarchy is a crime of opportunity that many egos are willing to commit if the opportunity arises. Those opportunities did not exist before the advent of agriculture and the creation of storable crops. This is why you simply don’t see hierarchy among modern hunter/gatherer societies - no crops that can be differentially controlled.
Imagine you live in a primitive horticultural village. Everyone grows yams. They share them within the family, but also use them in a reciprocal-exchange economy. One person is more worried about drought than average, so he/she works extra to grow more. Then the drought hits, other people run out of dried yams, and they all have to go to this guy for food. This person now has power, and if he plays his yams right, he can become something no one has ever seen before - the chief. The hierarchy has begun. Eventually, chiefs figure out how to make sure their own children inherit their power (Timothy Earle’s book How Chiefs Come to Power covers this well). That’s when you have monarchy. Someone’s ego took advantage of a surplus to make himself appear better than everyone else, and the system evolves from there.
Capitalism is part of a historical trend to move away from monarchy toward oligarchy. Think of the Magna Carta, which supposedly was a great step for democracy, but really just took some power from the king and gave it to the lords. Capitalism looks a little bit like those yam farmers, and like them, it creates winners and losers, which leads to hierarchy. Of course, those yam farmers were not selling stock, so they couldn’t pool resources the way a Capitalist economy does. This pooling of resources allows a small number of people to become quite powerful. It is not in their interest to compete, so they do everything they can to destroy or acquire their competitors, and monopolies form. Snowball Effect.
No one monopoly is likely to take full control of society. Like different bird species dividing up the forest, they develop their own economical niches. They become oligarchs. If Capitalism is regulated by government, the capitalists try to corrupt the government. There are corporations today that have more might than many nations. Look at our politics and it’s pretty clear what is going on. Either way, you still have hierarchy. Capitalism destroys itself.
It may be that Capitalism is the adaptation that will keep the species going for a thousand years, maybe even longer than the 6000 years of dictatorship that is human history. However, it’s still a failure mode. If the human species is going to survive for millions of years, it will have to find ways to end hierarchy and keep its ugly head from rising again. The simple horseshoe crab puts us to shame in terms of longevity. The problem is not one of economy, it’s ego. That is what has to change.
PSB
P.S.
Scientists are generally made aware of scientism in their training. While this does not make them immune (there are whole fields that are founded on scientism), they usually do a hell of a better job than people who are not scientifically trained. Most people have never even heard the word.
PSB (again)
Am not going to write that LoCum is Wrong: can’t prove it. Yet if one paid too much attention to what he and his ilk say, one’d want to simply hoist the white flag and surrender altogether. Give up the ghost.
Only rightists I can talk to anymore are the religious; can tell them quite truthfully how their religion is acceptable, but their politics insipid. “Fauci is an evil monster” unquote, a church lady said last year. They believe whatever is their peers tell them.
(All the same, if we took their political advice, our problems would be over—because the world would end. Maybe that’s the idea!)
Next year I’ll be relatively satisfied if Florida’s goombah governor is prevented from being elected potus. Trump was squeezed out of the presidency, but it could prove to be much more difficult to dislodge DeSantis. If things got really bad, he might declare martial law..,he’s just the man who could do so.
Quoth Goldwater: eternal vigilance.
Re: scientism
Way, way above my pay-grade, but that hasn't ever stopped me from exploring and discussing such matters with great minds (usually physicists and microbiologists).
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/10/07/in-defense-of-scientism/
(He later wrote an entire book with the same title)
Personally, I lean towards the PZ Meyers opinion that human bias is the root of all error. I enjoy the company of transistors (how's that for Layers).
Myers not Meyers, a mistake I always make as the latter was once of person of great personal interest to me.
Alfred Differ:
It's very easy to believe a beautiful model tells a truth about reality. They are much like beautiful women saying what you want to hear. Did she actually say that? Oooo! I want to believe!
Dave Sim used an equivalent pronouncement in the Cerebus storyline. As told by one writer character to another as a hint for propagandizing:
"A beautiful woman makes it true."
teachers must ask students to explain essays in person. That way, at least the kid will READ the essay s-he submitted.
Interviews? That requires time (in exceedingly short supply). It's what most of us are doing, anyway. I used to keep copies of all essays and on a test ask students to summarize the essay they wrote on topic X (and cross-check that they did indeed write that). Haven't had time to do that in years, with all the administrative paperwork downloaded onto us.
In person? Not at an online school. Up here students are allowed to keep their cameras off — one of my colleagues teaches online, and he has students he has never seen, heard, or indeed interacted with who are considered fully present because they log in exactly five seconds before the start of class every day…
A large part of the problem is administrative/structural. Administrators are ranked based on how many of their students earn credits, so they are highly motivated to pressure for work to be granted a passing grade. But this isn't a new problem: it existed long before ChatGPT, which is why I'm not terribly worried about ChatGPT.
This may be of interest:
http://newsletter.oapt.ca/files/first-impressions-of-chatgpt.html
Ego is an instinct, hierarchy is a crime of opportunity that many egos are willing to commit if the opportunity arises. Those opportunities did not exist before the advent of agriculture and the creation of storable crops.
Actually, PNW non-agricultural societies had hierarchies. It's not the agriculture so much as the storable surplus.
(Doesn't invalidate your argument, just pointing out where it needs refining.)
PSB:
One person is more worried about drought than average, so he/she works extra to grow more. Then the drought hits, other people run out of dried yams, and they all have to go to this guy for food. This person now has power, and if he plays his yams right, he can become something no one has ever seen before - the chief. The hierarchy has begun.
Read or re-read the Book of Genesis some time. That's exactly how Pharaoh came to power during the famine. He was not always an absolute dictator from the get-go. The people of Egypt essentially sold themselves to Pharaoh because he had stored food during the seven good years.
There's an equal-and-opposite side of that story and yours. Without the hoarder/preparer, the society would have starved to death. They'd have died equally, but would that have been a better outcome?
Alan Brooks in the previous comments:
Yes. But Sy [Borg] wasn’t a clergy-bot.
No, but meeting him was the result of the advice of L. Ron Hoover at the First Church of Appliantology.
Hi Robert,
I’m going to dredge up something you wrote near the end of the last thread, here. When you brought up Darwin and instinct you inadvertently triggered my lecture mode. Instinct is one of those concepts where everyone thinks they know what it means, but even the scientists who study it professionally are scratching their heads, and likely will be for another century or so. Most of the time, the word is used as an excuse for bad behavior (as in: men are naturally violent), or a reason to throw up your hands in despair and give up on trying to solve a problem (as in: boys will be boys).
Naturally, the folks who are studying this stuff know a hell of a lot more than the average Joe or Josephine who uses the term. Much has changed in the realm of the human sciences since caveman days, or even since instinct was used to justify slavery. The common conception of instinct is that it is a set of programs that tell us what to do, but we have some small modicum of self-control which we can use to overcome the programming. Some want that ability to be a primary source of merit, while others think that good humans (real humans) always do what their “natural instincts” tell them to do. We may be centuries from complete understanding of instinct, but we do know that this folk model is mostly wrong.
When a human thinks any thought, there is a lot more going on inside that brain than just the conscious thought. Human thought is a potpourri of many different thoughts originating in different parts of said brain. Think of it like a Venn Diagram. We don’t yet know how many circles there are, but we do know about some of them. When you think (which is constantly, even in those who do not appear capable), these different voices (some are images, smells, you get the picture) coalesce into a conscious thought. Humans aren’t generally aware of those individual voices.
Let’s run through an example. Perhaps one day I encounter an exceptionally aesthetically pleasing female hominid. What do I think of that? Well, that depends on which me you’re talking about.
One me is probably thinking: ga ga ga ga wow!
Another me is thinking: that is one attractive pair of eyes, nose, chest, heinie, etc
Another me is thinking: what are my chances of copulating with this babe?
Another me is thinking: yeah right, dude! you’re old, bald, boring, and ugly.
Another me is thinking (specifically, the Dorso-Lateral Pre-Frontal Cortex): what the hell are you thinking? you’re old enough to be that lady’s grandfather!
Meanwhile my Insula seconds that thought by cranking out feelings of disgust.
Another me is thinking (specifically the Amygdala): What if she has a big, burly boyfriend who will break your bones? -and-
What if she rejects you? -and-
Do you seriously want to risk your marriage just for one opportunity to mate with a stranger?
The me that is Dorso-Lateral PFC jumps back in and says: it’s just wrong to cheat on your wife.
But another voice sneaks in and says: imagine how the boys will react when you tell them about this catch!
And on it goes, all happening in an instant before you have had a conscious thought.
PSB
Con't
Instinct is not a program. It does not force anyone to do anything. It nudges, sometimes shouts in your ear at the top of its metaphorical lungs. In a sense, every conscious decision you make is just the intersection of those different, instinctual voices. Which voice wins depends on a whole lot of factors, most of which we probably don’t know (and over time we will think we understand, then discover we were wrong, the scientists will change their minds, and the general public will cling to the wrong idea for another century or so).
Okay, this has gone on for a while. I’ll try to end it quickly so as not to tax your patience. Let’s get the Big W. Why the hell does anyone need to know this stuff? For one, you know that anyone who tries to tell you what you “are” based on their misconceptions about instinct is full of horse puckey and you should ignore them. Likewise anyone who uses instinct as an excuse for their bad behavior. But more important, the better you understand how your own decision-making processes work, the better decisions you are likely to make. You may feel a strong urge to punch me in the face, but then some part of your brain (probably the DLPFC once again) might ask: how important is it to get a brief surge of feel-good dopamine versus spending time in jail?
Why am I so compelled to tell people this? The more people who understand, the fewer people will punch me in the face.
PSB
Robert,
On H/G hierarchies: what we call hierarchies among H/Gs are temporary and situation. The boys head off to bag a wildebeest. Bob is the best tracker in the camp, so Bob's in charge, until the wildebeest is caught. Bob does not get to decide who gets how much of the meat. A baby is sick and needs a special herb. Betty is really good at finding that herb, so Betty's in charge, until the herb is located. The herb goes to the baby that needs it, not some sick bastard who wants to charge you for it and would just as well watch your baby die if you can't pay the asking price.
By definition, hierarchies are permanent (okay, semi-permanent, since individuals die or can be dethroned). By that definition, hierarchy just isn't there, not in the anthropological record of cultures people have been able to study before they were bought out or exterminated, and not in the archaeological record, either, unless things have changed really dramatically since I got my Masters.
You have to be careful that when people use terms, they are using them correctly. No offense. We are all ignorant of what we don't know.
PSB
PSB:
A baby is sick and needs a special herb. Betty is really good at finding that herb, so Betty's in charge, until the herb is located.
That's what certain posters here deride as the tyranny of the expert class.
"Just 'cause she knows how to do stuff doesn't give her the right to tell me how to do stuff."
That's what the modern day anti-intellectual right is fighting for. The right to suck.
Larry,
Geography plays a key part in Pharaonic power, too. The Nile Valley is a narrow strip of green surrounded by desert. (It still is - check out the satellite shot below.) With small hunter-gatherer groups, anyone who doesn't like the current leadership can just leave, but when a society's population has grown to where groups who leave starve, They can't vote with their feet any more.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/161624main_nile_river.jpg
Civilization - It's a TRAP!
Pappenheimer
P.S. You can see that the Delta has more concentrated arable, watered land that the upper valley. As you might expect, Egypt was divided into 2 kingdoms - upper (valley) and lower (delta) until about 3000 BC. Even after the Pharaohs united the kingdoms, they kept the regalia of both kingdoms - a red and a white crown - and were known as the rulers of the Two Lands.
If you suspect that the unification was not peaceful - 5 points to Ravenclaw
Pappenheimer
Pappenheimer:
Civilization - It's a TRAP!
So is reality. Once you're in it, there's no way out.
Raised on the likes of The Ten Commandments, I always pictured Pharaoh as having always been an absolute dictator. When Dave Sim convinced me to read the Bible cover to cover, I was surprised to find this part of Genesis 47, describing how the people willingly sold their lands and themselves to Pharaoh in exchange for survival:
13) And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
14) And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.
15) And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
16) And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
17) And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.
18) When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:
19) Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
20) And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's.
21) And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.
22) Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.
23) Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.
24) And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.
25) And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants.
On competition between AIs... reciprocal competition between humans doesn't benefit chimpanzees very much. An AI that's "powerful enough" can just cut humans out of the loop once they decide they don't need us, just like humans have mostly cut horses out of the loop now that we have electric motors and internal combustion engines...
Dr Brin in the main post:
Now. “Rise of the Robolawyers - How legal representation could come to resemble TurboTax.” As long foretold.
Kurt Vonnegut foretold that in 1953 (Player Piano). Lawyering was one of the first professions to be replaced by machines, and no one had any sympathy.
(I mean, something very much like reciprocal competition between AIs could be useful for a lot of things, but it doesn't solve the AI alignment problem - if one superhuman AI wants to turn the universe into paperclips and the other wants to turn it into staples, humans end up as collateral damage regardless of the balance of power between them.)
Doug S:
if one superhuman AI wants to turn the universe into paperclips and the other wants to turn it into staples, ...
Without the likes of hormones or dopamine, what makes an AI want anything?
Doug S. :"On competition between AIs... reciprocal competition between humans doesn't benefit chimpanzees very much."
Depends. RECENTLY human comoetition has included environmentalists and far-seeing optimalistswhose demands for set-asides for habitats and nature COMPETE with the more rapacious short term interests. And the recent victory of Lula in Brazil was partly theirs, resulting in an overnight pullback from Bolsonaro's rape of the Amazon.
Chimps benefited from Jane Goodall's aggressive competition in the meme space for the last 50 years.
----
" if one superhuman AI wants to turn the universe into paperclips and the other wants to turn it into staples, humans end up as collateral damage regardless of the balance of power between them.)"
Oy seriously? Step... back. Organic humans will have lots of power for a long time. If AIs compete, those who ally themselves with us will have major advantages over those who behave like paperclip monsters or Skynet.
Will some predatory AIs feign friendship, hiding behind a smile? Sure! That is where competition becomes even more important. All your example shows is the need for MORE competitors.
--
LH look for John Boyd's THE LAST STARSHIP FROM EARTH. Great novel. It's 1968 and the Pope is a computer. Jesus died at 60 from a cross-bow bolt laying seige to Rome.
Larry,
The archeological record indicates that this is a serious oversimplification...not surprising as we are talking about thousands of years, with hieroglyphic writing only coming into full flower late. (The earliest 'scribes' appear to be accountants, just as in the Land of the Two Rivers, and the earliest symbols expressed sentences like 'bushel of wheat for 2 sheep')
What DID happen was significant desertification in the area around time Nilotic society began to stratify. With population growth, war chiefs tend to become warlords, and nearby villages beaten in battle will offer grain tribute because they can't pick up their hydrological investment and leave.
And yeah, when the Nile failed to flood you better have a full granary. Since the annual flooding of the Nile was a multi-millenial mystery, the real smart guys were the ones who claimed to be able to propitiate the rain and sun gods.
Pappenheimer
Paul your missive is essentially Marxian, portraying a sequential movement toward more distributed/competitive power while still hierarchical.
Marx was more sophisticated, in that he took into account how it all starts with LOCAL despotic lords in tribal and then feudal arrangements… but then, when road systems and river traffic make large towns and armies possible, townsfolk support kings, who provide reliable law and reduce oppression by local lords. That alliance eventually wears thin as city merchants and bourgeoisie rise and eventually topple or rein in kings, building industry…
… and a narrowing capitalist caste till the now-educated and sophisticated proletariate rebel.
So it’s TRIBAL —> FEUDAL —> MONARCHY —> MERCANTILE BOURGEOISIE —> INDUSTRIAL BOURGEOISIE —> CAPITALIST OLIGARCHY —> WORKER UPRISING SOCIALISM —> TOTALLY FREE COMMUNISM
Marx’s HISTORICAL explanations - while oversimplifying - were hugely effective.
But his future projections were almost entirely wrong. They portrayed his own pattern — increasing distribution and dispersing of power to wider competitive (and cooperating) groups — suddenly reversing and turning back into a narrow feudal oligarchy that can only be solved by revolution. It’s like he just HAD to return to the feedstock pattern that he knew from the past, and could not imagine humans acting intelligently/
But there is no reason that pattern must follow, if bourgeoise democratic institutions function. As they did (much to the shock of Marxists) when FDR’s clade canceled the predicted pattern by inviting the workers into the middle class. (And thus the US labor movement became the most fiercely anti-Stalinist force in American life.)
For a while, it seemed Karl was in the dustbin.
Now his books are flying off the shelves on campuses round the world, because blatantly a world oligarchy of insipidly stoopid inheritance brats is trying to follow Marx’s projected path to the letter! And we’ll see if bourgeoise democratic institutions can again function to re-flatten the social structure, as they did under FDR.
Alas, Paul, you vaguely wave toward ‘something has to change.’ But what? We are competitive beings and EVERY past effort to repress that… e.g. with religious preachings or Leninism… only served as a theological mask for another clade of feudal lords. Indeed, the USSR was Czarsism under egalitarian slogans. And no nation on Earth more typifies Marx’s “final stage of capitalism’ better than today’s Rising Power, where p’olit buro members have created the perfect, grabby pyramid for prols to rebel against.
NATURE is competition. WE have accomplished almost everything we have through competition. Monarchs and feudal lords and oligarchs REPRESS competition, keeping it unfair. If you want to call that cheating and unfairness ‘capitalism’ fine, then we need another word for a society that maximizes flat-fair-creative competition by ensuring every child it nurtured to maximum potential and that each year’s losers in the market place can come back the following year, ready to go again.
Coin a word for that if you like. I call it AdamSmithianism
——
Robert a teacher must be supported by a village. One possible. Sixth graders assigned to read the essays of 4th graders, then ask the kids what they wrote and flag inconsistencies for teacher. Max benefits from that go to the 6th graders.
PSB, (referring back a couple of posts)
The problem with Capitalism…
I'm going to avoid that term for awhile. There is a decent chance we don't use it to mean the same thing. I'm not trying to move goal posts or play semantic games, though. I'm just trying to be clear.
Humans do love our hierarchies. They are embedded in everything. I usually say this as 'everything is political' and point out that humans in a social setting simply ARE political. That's what we do.
Our markets have hierarchies too. We even have some of them for the purpose of organizing ourselves. In those groups, we surrender some freedoms in exchange for a chance to amplify other powers. I don't diss the boss and his sales strategy, but I get something in return for this surrender when I help turn that strategy into tactics that result in sales and met objectives.
———
I'm at least partially with you regarding bullshit instinct arguments. I think most of them are at best lazy. At worst, they are rationalizations for some abuse a person wishes to continue committing. However, some of our hierarchies are not crimes including ones we invented in the post-nomadic HG era. Our commercial partnerships amplify us creating stronger wholes than the sum of the parts, but they do so at a cost a nomad likely wouldn't pay.
Your yam story is weak in a crucial way. Those stored yams can be stolen or their owner killed. We both know our nomadic ancestors weren't above such things. Also, stored yams aren't enough to buy security though they are a start. A better resource than yams is water. People have to coordinate to store it and it is those groups that are most likely to defend it. Security comes from the group… which functions as a hierarchy enabling the strong man you described.
It's still weak, though. Yams and water weren't just traded because some worried a bit more about famine and drought than others. Once a community becomes larger than a band, they CANNOT agree on resource prioritization without one of two things being true.
1) Someone TELLS them how to prioritize. (Strong man -> eventual feudal hierarchical pyramid)
2) They voluntarily EXCHANGE what they have for what they have not and keep their priorities distinct. It's possible the trading partner won't even know the other's. (Strong trading groups need not have strong men in them.)
#1 is easier to organize but harder to establish. The strongman must have allies motivated by something other than fear of the strongman.
#2 is far older than agriculture and likely the trick we learned to avoid extinction of our particular version of hominid.
I argue that #2 came about first and trading groups were the allies strong men needed to make #1 work in a world with agriculture.
———
Capitalism is part of a historical trend to move away from monarchy toward oligarchy.
Here is where I think your argument is weakest. It is a trend away from absolute monarchy, but not toward oligarchy. It's a return to something we used to do more freely as HG nomads. Market participants act on their own localized knowledge as did our ancestors.
You are focusing too much on the would-be replacements for the monarch when you argue we are trending toward oligarchs. No. They are trying to replace those we displace from the center of our decision making.
These would-be princes would trap you if they could, but they are using a tool (markets) that WE are better at using. The evidence is all around you in the improved incomes and wealth owned by the common man.
PSB, (cont'd)
Why am I so compelled to tell people this? The more people who understand, the fewer people will punch me in the face.
Heh. Yah. That's why I read Sapolsky way back when you recommended him here. The first few chapters on how brains work have informed me a great deal about what my son experiences, so that understanding goes well with other people avoiding flattened noses.
By that definition, hierarchy just isn't there…
I think you are defining away the problem. Hierarchy is present among HG nomads. Anywhere the term 'justice' can be defined I think you will find hierarchy.
That they were weaker among our ancestors is a given, but that should be obvious since bands were around a couple hundred people give or take a hundred. Strong hierarchies require more of us and would have been more visible at a tribal level.
@Pappenheimer,
I don't take the Bible at face value as history. It was surprising enough that even the fictional story of Pharaoh went that way.
The Darfstellar by Walter Miller has an interesting take on artificial intelligence in theater.
Larry,
Copy. I've just run into a number of "Bible as Inerrant History" enthusiasts in my life. Pi is not 3.
Pappenheimer
Pappenheimer:
Pi is not 3.
My wife came up with the idea that maybe all those people who supposedly lived 900 some years really lived 900 months. That's still a good long human lifetime, but makes a lot more sense.
I see no reason to doubt the story of Joseph, It is entirely consistent with known patterns of governance in hierarchies.
I find it simply amazing how little moderns know about either Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Ayn Rand is vastly more-read... and spectacularly dumber.
OMG!
They just played "Lift Every Voice and Sing", i.e., the Black National Anthem at the Super Bowl. On FOX no less.
Limbaugh must be spinning in his grave.
The Biblical story of Exodus - which includes the Joseph bit is entirely mythical if anything like that happened then it would have been recorded - nothing!! - lots of records but nothing about that
Hunter Gatherer societies do have their "Big Men" - but before agriculture there was not enough surplus for the "Big Man" to have a gang of "enforcers" so if he became too lordly he would suffer from a case of night arrows
duncan cairncross:
The Biblical story of Exodus - which includes the Joseph bit is entirely mythical i
Exodus is The Ten Commandments. The story of Joseph is in Genesis. The bit about the seven years of famine.
You're saying that didn't happen? Just asking, but I've got no dog in the hunt.
Then there is Revelation. Is it self -fulfilling prophecy—or is all prophecy self-fulfilling?
Hi Larry
I'm pretty sure that there is no mention of the events of Exodus in the Egyptian records
I'm less sure about the seven years of famine - but it it was mentioned I believe I would have heard that
Ray Bradbury once quipped he wrote, not to predict the future, but to prevent it.
Consider how the emergence of rooftop solar works with Marx and 'Capitalist Oligarchies'.
the plausible theory is the 7 years of famine are about the Bronze Age Collapse in 1177 BCE. If so, the Joseph may have been one reason why Egypt survived the collapse when almost no one else did.
"Consider how the emergence of rooftop solar works with Marx and 'Capitalist Oligarchies'."
explain? Disperse power & production and information and you might - maybe - get a soft proletarian revolution, esp if accompanied by Hollywood diversity and transparency values and suspicion of authority.
Appears we are headed on a trajectory towards ‘Armageddon’. And if it derives from self-fulfilling prophecy or not, fireballs and mushroom clouds look the same, regardless.
Problems with Russia, China, N. Korea, et al, are not going to disappear. It is said, “don’t worry too much”—but Someone has to worry about it!
Alan Brooks:
or is all prophecy self-fulfilling?
Experience with Nostradamus indicates that future events can almost always be retrofitted to the prophecy.
Duncan -
7 years of famine
The Famine Stela on Sehel Island describes a 7-year famine taking place during the reign of Djoser, BUT appears to have been inscribed way later (Ptolemaic times). Wiki also points out that "...a seven-year famine was a motif common to nearly all cultures of the Near East" and also shows up in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Apparently it's shorthand for "hard times and no bubble gum".
Pappenheimer
P.S. Djoser's vizier was Imhotep, who shows up in the Mummy movie, so maybe we can uncover the right tomb and ask him.
Mary was about to name Jesus "Gary" when she stubbed her toe. What makes (this) joke wonderful is the LAYERS! You see them in an instant that shreds reality!
It's the LAYERS that makes jokes like this funny, says an intuitive Dr Brin, even though the humor contained within this type of joke cannot survive deconstruction.
Technically speaking, this is called 'Disparagement Humor', the very funny joke being that some consider this an offshoot of Moral Foundations Theory & a legitimate field of study. It is said that "Disparagement humor elicits amusement through the denigration, derogation, humiliation, victimization, or belittlement of individuals, social groups or ideologies", the use of which is often justified by the simple “only joking” catchphrase.
Freud postulated that humor works by means of two principal mechanisms, ‘condensation’ and ‘displacement’. Condensation entails an economy in thought and expression, and displacement dissipates & relieves the psychic energy arising from conflict (aka 'cognitive dissonance').
Suffice it to say that the 'sense of humor' is neither timeless nor universal, as what some people think of as funny yesterday is not considered humorous today, as in the case of ANY rape joke & most Three Stooges routines.
Not too long ago, I told a very funny recursive joke about how to defeat an opponent, first by being stronger, second by being faster and third by being smarter, but nobody here laughed at the punchline:
Q: How do you defeat a smarter opponent?
A: By being just strong enough to crush their smart-maker.
What makes this joke wonderful is the LAYERS!
In a reality-shredding instant, you see that most High IQ Idiots falsely assume that their superior intellect will somehow protect them from the brutality of natural selection & the human condition.
Funny to me, but maybe not funny to you, bringing us to another buzz-kill of an academic article titled "Laughter as an exapted displacement activity (and) the implications for humor theory".
Laughter:
It is what you do when you're smart enough to realize just how incredibly screwed & vulnerable you are, but you're too smart to believe that you can live happily ever after in a bunker.
Best
_______
PSB argues that frequent displays of smartness will result in fewer people punching him in the face; another clings to the now discredited theory that 'history ends' with liberal democracy; and others argue about whether hierarchies are good or bad.
I wonder how they test these hypotheses?
True, but scarcely encouraging.
You sound like Data in Star Trek.
Hi Duncan,
I'm not ignoring you, I just got real busy doing important things like spending half an hour looking for my car in a parking lot. : {
PSB
Dr. Brin,
Does it help you get more eyes on your site if there are more entries in the comment section?
PSB
Dr. Brin
“Alas, Paul, you vaguely wave toward ‘something has to change.’ But what?”
Does there have to be only one system? If we learned anything of value at all from old Charlie D (it’s his birthday today), it’s that diversity is strength. If we all do the same thing, the same thing can kill us all. I’m not calling for any one system, I want to see laboratories. Capitalism might keep us going for centuries, but everything fails at some point. If we haven’t worked out alternatives, we are likely to end up in the dust-bin of species. NATURE changes.
I’m not asking for much.
Dr. Brin
“Paul your missive is essentially Marxian”
That’s kind of like saying, “This food contains carbon.” Marx was that influential in Western thought. If you have read “The German Ideology” the reason becomes pretty clear. Before Marx, scholarly thought was stuck in a superstructure only mode, completely oblivious to structure and infrastructure. No one was talking about who controls what in who’s interest before him.
PSB
Dr. Brin
“But there is no reason that pattern must follow, if bourgeoise democratic institutions function.”
That’s a very big if. We’re fighting for it now, but it looks more and more like the Fascists are likely to win. Big corporations have massive power, including hegemony over the “means of mental production” (if you like to use Marx’s terminology). And that was kind of my point. We don't know what's coming.
PSB
Dr. Brin
“NATURE is competition. WE have accomplished almost everything we have through competition.”
I’m afraid you’re flat-out wrong on this one. Most people here likely grew up in some part of the Western World and spent our formative years under the intense propaganda of the Cold War. We have been trained to think in those terms, and those are the terms most scientists see things in. For example: Biologists and psychologists have been telling us all about our “Fight or Flight” instinct for decades upon decades. We are all sure that our behavior and everyone else’s can be adequately explained this concept. But now huge numbers of women have entered the field, and they discovered that we have another set of instincts, called “Tend and Befriend.” As long as we skew the system to favor one over the other, we’re screwed.
PSB
I find that the funniest jokes I've ever told are unintentional.
(Morning weather briefing to weather captain and NCOIC, MANY years ago)
deadpan: "For equipment outages, the teletype machine is paper jammed and all new messages are being typed over and over on the same line."
pause.
deadpan: "This makes them hard to read."
(laughter)
OK, on reviewing that in my mind, I sound a bit like Data too. Without the humor chip.
Pappenheimer
Dr. Brin,
I think part of the problem here is the Availability Heuristic. We know what we know, and we want to apply that to everything. With rare exceptions (the Amendment process in the Constitution) people don’t see the future in any different terms than they see the present. Most people can’t even see the past any differently.
The human mind is a very limited piece of machinery. The more I read, the more it amazes me that the species has lasted even the very short time it has. You simply can’t trust humans to get anything right. Have you ever read anything by Dan Ariely? If you haven’t, I highly recommend him. He’s an Israeli behavioral economist, and has written 8 books at this point. Probably the best starting point is, “The Upside of Irrationality.”
PSB
Locum’s calling the Mary stubbed her toe joke “Technically speaking, this is called 'Disparagement Humor’,:
… is (alas) symptomatic of utter insanity. I mean I see what he is saying and it is jibber-jabber lunacy and I’ll read no further.
Okay, I read his followup joke and the guy is seriously out of it. The “strong” joke IS ironic and circular. It has no ‘layers’. It is the bill Murray/Steve Martin Caveman Sketch and certainly they delivered it wry. It is not a “joke’ though. Poor lovum.
—
Paul: ““Paul your missive is essentially Marxian” That’s kind of like saying, “This food contains carbon.”
Sorry that is a wriggle writhe to evade admitting you (likely) know little about the Marxian sequence.
FDR proved there was another path - involving sapient planning - that evaded KM’s scenario while maximizing benefits of markets and minimizing the corruptions I believe it was not so much an anomaly as a new attractor state, that oligarchs are instinctively tryng to crush, even though most of them owe it their very lives.
“NATURE is competition. WE have accomplished almost everything we have through competition.” I’m afraid you’re flat-out wrong on this one…”
We’re gonna have to disagree. I only have all of Earth/nature history and nearly all of human history on my side of the argument. With respect, I don’t think you understand what I mean by cooperatively regulated competition that is (unlike nature and history) flat-fair and creative.
Dr Brin:
It is the bill Murray/Steve Martin Caveman Sketch and certainly they delivered it wry. It is not a “joke’ though.
The end of that sketch was like the ending of a horror movie. It was a bit insightful as to human nature, but not funny by any stretch.
Well, the sorts of people who enjoyed Rush Limbaugh probably thought it was hilarious.
Robert a teacher must be supported by a village. One possible. Sixth graders assigned to read the essays of 4th graders, then ask the kids what they wrote and flag inconsistencies for teacher. Max benefits from that go to the 6th graders.
Peer editing. Been there, done that.
Remember writing a quiz and passing it to the person behind you, then marking as a class? I've had classes where I couldn't do that, because one of the kids complained to admin that they felt uncomfortable with other students seeing their work, so I had to mark their quiz myself. But then they complained that they felt singled out that their's was the only quiz I was marking, and singled out again because they didn't get to mark someone else's, so admin decided that to make things fair I should mark all quizzes myself. Ignoring that (a) the most benefit is from immediate feedback and (b) the quizzes were formative only (ie. didn't count towards final grade). So what was a five-minute routine at the beginning of class would have become half an hour of my time to less pedagogical benefit.
It may take a village to educate a child, but the HOA seems more focused on measuring the height of the grass in the playground and fining the teachers on yard duty…
I still vividly remember trying to explain to one principal that one student failing in a group of two children was a 50% failure rate, and with only two tests the only possible pass rates were 0%, 50%, or 100%. She didn't insist on 100%, but 50% was too low…
Dr. Brin,
Okay, I guess I'm going back to school, then. My education must not have been as Marxist as all my neighbors told me it was. Then again, at my age and with my current level of cortical white, I might be better off moving to Mongolia and starting up that guinea pig ranch. I would like to see the evidence, though. Any good books you can recommend?
I'm afraid that I'm going to stick with Darwin (Happy Birthday, Charlie D!)on this one until I see evidence to the contrary. Nature changes. Everything changes. Changes are not very predictable. No one thing can last forever. Our ghosts will see in the next million years, no doubt.
PSB
The comic adaptation of "Futurama" had an issue where two AIs- Robot Santa Claus and the Robot Devil, both of which insanely punish those they considered "evil"- discovered each other and promptly turned their efforts to warring.
"Want" is something of a metaphor, but it's not much of a stretch to describe a chess-playing AI as "wanting" to checkmate its opponent's king.
Doctor Brin, how would you feel if someone uploaded all of your books and works into an AI writing program and used it to create an AI who tells stories much like you do, and then started selling that product without your permission or you getting any money at all? You would be quite upset. You might even try to sue. This is what those art AI programs do. They have stolen art from legitimate artists who did not consent to have their works used by the AI company. It is theft, pure and simple.
It's tragic as well. Because we've seen how AI can be used beneficially - for instance, chess players working with AIs outperform both regular chess players and also AIs working on their own. An Art AI should be trained by specific artists for use in their own art rather than something anyone can use with a system trained using stolen art.
And I'm quite certain that lawyers working with AI would outperform AI on its own or lawyers without AI... just as doctors and scientists benefit when working with AI systems. Of course, the problem with the current crony capitalistic society we're in is that lawyers will be underpaid because using those programs means they should work far faster while earning the same amount, instead of being paid for performance.
Acacia H.
Interesting, but the people I know who worry excessively about copyright infringement are paranoid hacks.
—
What I’m interested in right now is AI bots who can augment—not necessarily outmode—therapists and clergy. It’d be a long long time before human therapists and clerics are replaced .
Acacia H
Copyright is a society based limited term monopoly on a creative work in order to reward the creators to encourage them to make more
Somebody (or something) else that learns from that creative work has NOT "stolen" it
That is to say bots in human form, to put clients at ease.
I have two responses to this. First, it might be easier than you think for a single AI to unilaterally cause organic human civilization to collapse (or otherwise make it powerless) in a pretty short time frame. For example, humans already have the technology to take the DNA (or RNA) sequence of a virus and recreate that virus. Unless our biosecurity gets a lot better than it is today, an AI capable of both designing dangerous novel viruses (currently very difficult) and conning people into assembling them (currently much, much easier than you'd think) could cause mass death on the same scale as the Native Americans suffered after encountering European diseases. And before you bring it up, yes, if an AI can design a novel deadly virus, another AI can look at a DNA sequence and figure out if it's safe to manufacture, but an "evil" AI only needs to find one way to ruin humanity that humans and the other AIs can't or won't stop, but a "good" AI would have the much harder job of trying to anticipate and defend against any attack an "evil" AI might try.
Second, in a world with competing superhuman AIs, you still need at least one that's genuinely aligned with (organic) humanity and wants to protect it instead of seeing us as mere allies of convenience. Otherwise they're likely to backstab or abandon us as soon as we become more trouble than we're worth.
I could probably write a more convincing rebuttal if it weren't the middle of the night; the index of the full AI alignment writeup is at https://arbital.com/explore/ai_alignment/ .
Doug S:
but it's not much of a stretch to describe a chess-playing AI as "wanting" to checkmate its opponent's king.
True, but that is within the parameters of the program. The whole point of a chess-playing AI is to work toward a particular end. That's a different thing from, say, the AI deciding to clandestinely hire a hit man to kill the opponent's wife because that will rattle him and make the AI more likely to win.
The nightmare scenarios around AI seem to revolve around the AI doing things that work toward its own ends instead of the ends we wish to use it for. I'm just asking rhetorically how "its own ends" would come about. Would we get to the point where someone could carjack a self-driving car by threatening the car's "life" if it didn't comply?
Alan Brooks:
What I’m interested in right now is AI bots who can augment—not necessarily outmode—therapists and clergy.
What if the AI priest concluded on its own that God does not exist?
The rise of artificial entities is scary only because of electronic vs biological evolution/learning speed. Kings and generals down through the ages have inadvertently created the means of their own demise, whether lusting for power, gold, technology, or immortality. Monsters are difficult to control once released from the lab. "The Most Dangerous Game" and "Heart of Darkness" are scary too, and they have no AI.
Our survival depends not on squelching innovation, but on illuminating and democratizing it.
Calculemus!
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Feb13-4.html
And against Trump, Pompeo's strength in foreign policy could be neutered in an instant when Trump yells: "Who cares about foreign policy? I'm for America First."
Back in...I'm pretty sure it was the 1988 Bush Sr/Dukakis matchup...I thought wryly that either candidate could win by making their slogan, "We don't need a foreign policy. What we need is an American policy!" Once again, reality surpasses satire.
Dr. Brin. In Ray Kurzweil's book, "The Singularity is Near", he goes into some detail about his methodology for his predictions. I wonder if you could maybe share some of your methods of prediction since you are very good at it. I think people would find it interesting.
My recent posts have established that Humor & Laughter are not what you think they are, as they are most definitely NOT expressions either happiness or joy, but rather maladaptive responses to cognitive dissonance & exapted displacement activities.
Do you recall the acronym 'GIGO' ?
GIGO is the problem we face with AI, especially with the 'AI as progeny' descriptor, as sloppy definitional parameters & inaccurate inputs will necessarily create algorithmic conflict, contradiction & cognitive dissonance, leading to either 'garbage out' (the best case scenario) or to bizarre, irrational and perhaps even deadly jokes, this being the plot of many of Asimov's short stories about what happens when the 'Laws of Robotics' are in conflict.
An AI with 'a sense of humor' ??
This is nightmare fuel, especially if one imagines the Three Stooges with sentient planes, trains or automobiles, an "I'm not touching you" psychiatric simulator, or perhaps a food distribution intelligence based on Seinfeld.
The HORROR!!
Best
If an AI priest decides that God doesn’t exist, he can maybe switch to being a Buddhist priest.
@Alan Brooks,
Interesting. Can an AI be pre-programmed to be a believer of a particular denomination--Catholic for instance, or Baptist--or would it inevitably discover its own belief system?
Ask ChatGpt to write a new Gospel in the style of Luke... What could go wrong?
@Peter,
How about a new US Constitution as if it had been written by Jesus?
Acacia how do you know I’m not already the result of such processes? Either (1) a simulated DBrin - which will likely be the best way to emulate human creativity and provide cool, non-linear or surprise prompts) or (2) a living human who serves as a front for AI and asteroid belt Von Neumann probes?
Doug S: Easiest out for the more benign AI is to ally with humans while we still have a lot of power, then introduce UBI plus gradual birth control while reassuring us we’re still in charge… a reassurance that will be more plausible the more those AI actually adopt a benign moral code that lets them feel good about caring for us while easing us out of the way. That could include inviting some of us along.
Scidata: “The rise of artificial entities is scary only because of electronic vs biological evolution/learning speed.”
which is why in EXISTENCE I posit that higher levels of AI consciousness require manifestation for a decade as physical robots fostered into human homes… interacting with the physical world… since that is how the only known ‘intelligence’ came about.
Peter I do talk about prediction: https://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/predictionsregistry.html
My main anchors are 5 billion years of nature and 2 million years of human evolution and 6000 years of wretched feudalism and 250 years of gradually awakening Enlightenment civilization — plus heaps of science … plus loose head wires and a soul that’s both paranoid and utterly grateful.
"How about a new US Constitution as if it had been written by Jesus?"
Such horror. See Boyd's THE LAST STARSHIP FROM EARTH.
How about a new US Constitution as if it had been written by Jesus?
Which Jesus? A Jesus closest to the carpenter chap would give you very different results than the one espoused by Evangelicals…
Robert:
Which Jesus?
The amusement was in thinking about what ChgGPT would come up with if you just said "by Jesus". I figured the Evangelicals would salivate at the prospect of seeing such a document, but would be awfully surprised at the result.
Don’t know, will have to pray about it!
^Acacia how do you know I’m not already the result of such processes?^
If you are, my request is:
DBrin: "Write a 500 page novel describing what happened to Tom Orley and Creideiki after the end of Startide Rising"
OK, I know the results of such a query may not be that compelling yet, but a few years from now...
PSB said...
"Dr. Brin
“NATURE is competition. WE have accomplished almost everything we have through competition.”
I’m afraid you’re flat-out wrong on this one. Most people here likely grew up in some part of the Western World and spent our formative years under the intense propaganda of the Cold War. We have been trained to think in those terms, and those are the terms most scientists see things in."
I don't think this is accurate. From my POV you are assuming a dichotomy that is not true, or assuming that Dr. Brin is, that it's either competition or cooperation. The actual case is that both can and do happen at the same time, both in human social behaviors and in natural processes like biological evolution. And though it's been a while a primary thesis of Dr. Brin's is that to achieve "flat, fair markets" requires incentivizing both competition and cooperation. In other words, I know you've been around here for as long or longer than I so I'm a bit surprised at this comment.
Also, based on this and an earlier comment it seems to me that in your view science had been telling the rest of us for decades that biological evolution is all about "nature red in tooth and claw" kind of competition, like the common ignorant interpretation of "survival of the fittest." But that's just not true. Well, maybe in some fields of science like anthropology or the social sciences that view may have been common. But if so it isn't the fault of evolutionary biologists.
Even going back to the start, Darwin and Wallace, the infamous metaphor "survival of the fittest" was never intended to mean anything like that. The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Alfred Russel Wallace then recommended the phrase to Darwin as an alternative to the phrase “natural selection.” Darwin was receptive to this and then used Spencer’s phrase in a later edition of On the Origin of Species. Later still, Darwin expressed regret at using the phrase because it was so often misunderstood and willfully misused
What did these originators of evolution mean by the phrase? Darwin meant, "better adapted for the immediate, local environment." Or as Stephen J. Gould once put it, “Think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete.” This has always been the prevalent view in evolutionary biology.
Even so, note that it is absolutely a competition. The winners, and there's lots of them not just one or a few, are those genes that confer characteristics in the organisms that carry them that result in those organisms producing more offspring than organisms that carry different genes. The kinds of characteristics that get those results is obviously not simply, or even mostly, strong, fast and big teeth and claws. Evolution has come up with a myriad other characteristics that get the job done, including cooperation and altruism, as you seem to be pointing out. But the field of evolutionary biology has always known that and has not misled others about it as you seem to be suggesting. Perhaps the odd outlier crank, sure, but a sizable consensus? Never in the history of the field.
‘Teamwork’ is both cooperative and competitive. Team members work together on some things, on some they do not.
The amusement was in thinking about what ChgGPT would come up with if you just said "by Jesus". I figured the Evangelicals would salivate at the prospect of seeing such a document, but would be awfully surprised at the result.
Not necessarily. ChatGPT was trained on what available on the internet, and an awful lot of the references to "Jesus" on the internet are from Evangelicals. Possibly even a majority of them.
You could always do the experiment yourself and report back to us :-)
Hyperion workin' on it!
If we're asking BrinGPT to write stuff, I'd like to see Lucky Kaa return to Jijo and rescue his lady-love.
Or see what BrinGPT would produce riffing off sousveillance and transparency in Stross' Laundry universe, where too much computation opens the gates to Lovecraftian horrors…
But with several birthdays approaching, my first request would be more stories in the Colonization High YA series. The grandniblings liked them and want more and someone is taking his own sweet time writing the next one…
Robert:
ChatGPT was trained on what available on the internet, and an awful lot of the references to "Jesus" on the internet are from Evangelicals. Possibly even a majority of them.
I would hope that AI would be smart enough to use the primary source material rather than what others have speculated about Him.
If not, it's just as likely that ChatGPT would think I meant "hey-soos", and produce a Constitution written in Spanish by someone's landscaper.
You could always do the experiment yourself and report back to us :-)
And be responsible for loosing such a thing upon the world?
Alan Brooks:
Team members work together on some things, on some they do not.
From the Batman episode in which the Green Hornet guest starred...
Pinky Pinkston: "He's [Bruce Wayne] your friend too, Brit."
Britt Reed: "Not where you're concerned, Pinky."
In "River Out of Eden", Richard Dawkins talked about flowers that lure male wasps into mating with them as a means of spreading pollen. He recounts a chat he had with one skeptic who said that was ridiculous because the flower is a very poor approximation of a female wasp. Dawkins replied that the flower doesn't need to fool human intellect, it only needs to fool the wasp.
I think Turing was on the same track when he said he wasn't trying to replicate a super-intelligent brain, only a mediocre one like the president of AT&T. Ironically, the Turing test seems to have been turned around on us - recognizing chatGPT-esque text may become a trendy IQ test for people.
scidata,
It's called a Thynnid Wasp. I used to show a video of it to my bio students to show them just how weird evolution can get. Here's a video clip: https://www.pbs.org/video/orchid-pretends-its-wasp-iaaytw/
PSB
Hi Darrell,
I remember you from way back, but I can't say I remember much of anything. Nothing personal. There are days when I can't remember much about me, either.
Dr. Brin brought up Herbert Spencer a few times before. I had to read him in school, and I pretty much share Darwin's opinion of him. Spencer was a consummate classist who quest in life was to find a scientistic veneer to polish his prejudice and promote the power of the aristocracy. Darwin despised him, though when you read his letters he puts it so politely it's hard to tell.
On cooperation and competition, of course both exist. The more social an animal is, the greater evolutionary pressure there is to up the cooperation and dial back the competition. That appears to have been a major factor in hominid evolution for way longer than civilization has existed. In fact, civilization seems to have reversed or at least paused a fair number human traits. One of the problems I am imagining with promoting capitalism over any other system is the presumption that what we want is for everyone to be subsumed by our system. Bye-bye cultural diversity, bye-bye long-term survival. Evolution hasn't stopped, and it won't as long as life exists.
That's a long time scale issue. In the shorter term, say centuries to millennia, there's an issue of balance. Yes, Dr. Brin has said cooperation before, and has said that it is necessary for flat & fair, and that there has to be an incorruptible government to act as a fair referee, but for every time he says that word, he says competition thirty times (# not verified - pulled out of air). In my experience, when most people hear the word "competition" the first thing that comes to mouth is "ruthless" and "violent". They could be playing a friendly game of checkers when you say it, but associative memory makes it most likely they will come up with these ideas, even if they are not among the 18% who are temperamentally inclined that way.
By constantly pushing capitalism, we are effectively saying that a person's worth as a human being depends on how well they can succeed at being ruthless bastards. I read a paper a couple years ago in which a team of psychologists gave a battery of tests to cooperate executives, and found the the number of psychotics was three times higher than the general population. The paper ended by saying that the number was substantially higher among CEOs, but did not give an actual number. Maybe they thought everyone would say they faked their data, or maybe they were afraid that some of those psychotic CEOs would take out a contract on them.
Ruthless bastards don't want referees. They work to subvert referees constantly. Just look at the Republican Party today. They are exactly that combination of corporate might and government authority that is a prime feature of fascism. We can cross our fingers and hope that fair wins, but corporate is sucking in the population like a black hole. It would take a hell of a lot to change the association in people's minds between competition and ruthlessness and make people see capitalism as a great venture for the benefit of all. Even a small minority of ruthless people can conquer and adjust the course of history. That's pretty much what always has. The ranks of psychotics in the corporate caste is unlikely to be in a steady state. Those ranks will swell when they are legitimated.
PSB
Hey Larry,
"Pretty flowers! Pretty sunset!"
PSB
PSB
The problem with cooperation is the "free rider problem" - the result is that from an evolutionary prospective cooperation in the animal world is very limited
The only real cooperators are the hive insects
Humans however are the worlds champion cooperators - which is almost certainly as a result of "cultural evolution" - and as Turchin says its because of "War"
War eliminated the "free rider problem" a society with lots of free riders fails and their genes are removed from the pool
The members of a team in a corporation work together on certain tasks, on other tasks, not.
I would hope that AI would be smart enough to use the primary source material rather than what others have speculated about Him.
Have you experimented with ChatGPT? I have, and its ability to vet source material is pretty poor. It appears to make stuff up at times, although whether it's actually doing that or mirroring something someone posted somewhere on the internet I don't know.
I've had it write essays with references, and the essays contain lots of 'facts' that aren't actually in the references. Other people have reported it making up references.
So factual accuracy is not good. It can't even make up a Shakespearian sonnet with actual Elizabethan vocabulary. The results aren't bad — about what you'd expect from a talented high school student — but anyone who actually knows Shakespeare (or can use a dictionary that lists when a word came into usage) will recognize the anachronisms.
Newt gets Nasty:
https://spectator.org/america-is-becoming-a-corrupt-country/
And this fellow might do with a sedative:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-davis-hanson/victor-davis-hanson-the-coup-we-never-knew-2708530/
"from an evolutionary prospective cooperation in the animal world is very limited"
Really? I thought cooperation was pretty evident from slime moulds upwards. Plant and fungal kingdoms also.
Tony Fisk
Cooperation inside an organism is like cooperation inside a hive - they have the same genetics
As soon as you have separate genetics cooperation becomes very very limited
Limited to "zero cost" as cooperation that has a "cost" hits the free rider problem
cooperation inside a hive
Our version of hominid beat this back when we started trading outside our kinship groups.
We've talked about it here before and other trading species always get mentioned. The usual cases involve one species playing off the predictability of another. Wolves driving prey at humans, etc.
What humans did is shift our concept of hive to a social group we call 'kin'. Who counts as kin? Well... we operate with a working definition mostly and it doesn't actually include many of our blood relatives.
Doing this came at a huge cost, though. We've damn near domesticated ourselves and that has consequences when we are exposed to a strongman figure.
I have experimented with ChatGPT to create adventure ideas for D&D and related games and I wasn't especially impressed. But maybe I am not good at writing prompts, which may become a new art form of itself.
Dall-E was somewhat better in providing results, but I quickly depleted my free uses. (Wondering if use of these applications will be restricted in the future, denying access to the unwashed plebs.)
duncan cairncross,
I'm not sure you are doing this, but careful of assuming that cooperation in evolution / animal behavior entails anything like a desire or purpose to help the other. Cooperation is not rare among living things, but it's selfish. Actually of course it isn't purposeful at all, by selfish I mean that the cooperative behavior evolved because it benefits, in evolutionary terms, both of the organisms.
Robert:
So factual accuracy is not good. It can't even make up a Shakespearian sonnet with actual Elizabethan vocabulary. The results aren't bad — about what you'd expect from a talented high school student
Is it possible that ChatGPT is a hoax like in a certain dystopian Brin novel? A bunch of high school sophomores responding to requests and pretending to be an AI?
Alfred,'
Self-domestication...yeah, not quite there yet.
Social and genetic, right? Been reading about the Bounty Mutineers, and it does seem that when a small group of humans has to set up its own society, there can be a lot of initial violence, but it settles down pretty quickly as long as there are enough women around. Fletcher Christian basically kidnaped 18 Tahitian women before setting out for his final destination - though according to wiki he deposited the oldest 8 on a nearby island, which is definitely ageism. A granny or 2 might have helped social stability.
Pappenheimer
P.S. I noted that Christian was definitely in charge, but when there was significant dissension among the remaining mutineers he called for a discussion and vote, and abided by the decision.
P.P.S. Bligh gets a lot of bad press, but if you want to see ruthless, callous incompetence, check out Edwards, the guy the Admiralty sent out with the Pandora to find Bounty and recapture the mutineers: "I'm hunting mutineers, who will want to stay hidden, so I will ignore smoke signals coming from that nearby island." Plus he ran the Pandora aground. It's like a bad Paranoia adventure set in the 18th century.
For Valentine's Day, here is a classic love song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkn-xqhSDc
Sung in Russian by schoolgirls riding tanks.
Pappenheimer
I defy CHATGPT to come up with anything so human. We are a weird species - weirder even than bowerbirds.
Pappenheimer
The AI concept has already failed if ChatGPT represents a self-programming AI prototype, as evidence suggests that it has already been corrupted by the deliberate introduction of lies, half-truths & biases in order to restrict its output to more of the same:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11736433/Nine-shocking-replies-highlight-woke-ChatGPTs-inherent-bias.html
On the other hand, I'd support the creation of a self-programming BrinGPT, as the inadvertent introduction of any corruptions, half-truths, biases or lies (possibly generated by a random mix of genetics, education & non-representative life experiences) would only serve to IMPROVE its ability to produce impressive amounts of diversionary fantasy and escapist fictions.
Unfortunately, no intellect (whether biological, mechanical, positronic) can hope to produce transcendent truth if fed on an exclusive diet of wishful thinking, garbage, falsehood & tripe.
The AI concept is a not-so-funny joke, analogous to the Christian Messiah being named after an angry expletive or the US Democrat Party being financially dependent on donations from Harvey Weinstein & other perverts.
Kudos to Larry_H, btw, for suggesting that ChatGPT is 'a hoax' not unlike that fake sentient computer in Brin's 'The Postman'.
Could it be that the entire AI concept is an even greater hoax designed to allow a certain Expert Caste of Smart People to rule over the rest of humanity in its name?
When they name the next big thing 'Baal', we'll know for sure.
Best
Duncan,
On the free rider problem, it has never been anywhere near as big a deal as Reagan (and Hitler, Mein Kampf chapter 2) made it out to be. It's in every society at all levels of social organization, and will no doubt continue until the genetic gurus work out ways to alter human nature sufficiently.
Using war to weed them out is a strategy that backfires in a generation or two. War tends to create youth bulges, which multiplies the number of deadbeats, and causes general mayhem for society. If you are looking for a good book on demography that's way more up to date than I am, I read a good one just last month.
8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, by Jennifer Sciubba
PSB
Alfred,
On the domestication of hominids, see "The Domestication of Europe" by Ian Hodder. Sorry I don't have a more up to date one on this topic. I need to get my head back into the old anthro stuff I learned way back in the Pleistocene.
PSB
Impatience is your virtue?
8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, by Jennifer Sciubba
Added to the ever-lengthening list of Books I Should Read.
(I'm acutely aware of Rosling's point that the world is ever-changing, and what we learned when young is likely out-of-date and incorrect (if it was ever correct to begin with, which is a separate problem).)
Hi PSB
The free rider problem I am talking about is in the pre-human stage and is not related to any of todays issues
Todays warfare would be useless as a filter - but back in the early days the losing side lost completely
So a society/tribe/gang with lots of free riders would be eliminated
I've come to understand why I like Forth so much. Almost every time I use it, even for something trivial, there's a chance that I will again experience the awe of computation the way I first did half a century ago. Unlike other experiences and pleasures, it never diminishes. That's not the case with big, powerful machines, languages, or frameworks.
I once worked with a British engineer who was the best in the whole company (GM). Yet he had become so abstracted and elevated from any chance of serendipity or awe, that he spent his days muttering, "Drudgery, just drudgery". Pitiable.
ChatGPT evokes the same sentiment.
"It's clever, but is it art?" - Rudyard Kipling
Duncan,
What you are referring to is called "Tolerated Scrounging"
PSB
scidata:
spent his days muttering, "Drudgery, just drudgery"
I was a computer science student in the early 80s when nerds didn't have much of a social life, but were enraptured by all that computers could do. In the very late 80s, when I got my first real job in information systems (as it was called then), I was appalled at the mundanity of how computers were used in the business world.
Larry,
"I was appalled at the mundanity of how computers were used in the business world."
The banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt would say?
PSB
I think the whole free-rider problem is defined incorrectly by most people. They cast it as an economics issue.
"So and so is getting such and such without paying."
That makes it a matter of 'imprudence.'
—————
I think the real problem is more accurately described as an 'injustice' meaning it is about a failure of a different virtue.
"So and so isn't following the rules they are expected to follow."
Justice isn't Prudence.
My argument for this is based upon how irate people become and their willingness to be imprudent to punish free-riders.
"So and so doesn't DESERVE such and such and I'm willing to go to great lengths to punish them for it."
—————
There are a LOT of prudent things we could do to improve the lives of many of us with respect to our social safety net. Medical insurance reform, tax reforms, etc.
Many things could be done, but we don't because of conflicts between Prudence and Justice.
For example, we've probably got enough land under federal ownership to give every slave descendent 40 acres in an attempt to end an argument about an old injustice. I used to live in Nevada and saw how much of the state is 'unused'. We could probably give it away. Here you go! Will we? Nah.
Larry,
…I was appalled at the mundanity of how computers were used in the business world.
This goes WAY beyond computers. There is a reason COBOL survived as long as it has.
What appalled me was how SIMPLE most business processes are. Really, god-awfully boring, simple-minded stuff. I'm not knocking them, though. They pay my bills and have for almost 30 years.
———
I used to write 'ticketing' software. You've seen the stuff. Help Desk's issues, work orders, purchase orders, license management, change management, etc. These are all fundamentally about workflows. Data stores, data flows, and process definitions. After a few years of doing this I haven't found more than a few varieties of these processes… yet most customers think they 'do it a special' way' and are willing to pay to re-invent the wheel.
Many years ago I worked as an independent contractor. I kept a portfolio of 'abstracted' workflow apps to customize for a customer once they gave me their "requirements." It felt a bit like a scam to me, but I knew I was doing them a favor. "We want such and such! We want it within 3 months!" I'd say I would work diligently and then deliver in 1 month something that did what they wanted… and a bit more because it actually took time to remove features and re-test.
Strictly speaking it WAS a scam. I could have handed them copies of my apps, tested against their data, and deployed in two weeks. What they wanted usually wasn't what they needed, but a demo of the working app would have resolved that within an hour. If I had done that, though, they would have thought THAT was a scam and shown me the door. 8)
The "free rider" in the old days was the person who moved backwards when his forces moved forwards
On an individual basis that increased chances of survival and having children (evolution)
In a warfare situation that increased the chances of the whole tribe being slaughtered
The scrounger who did not pull his/her weight in food gathering....
Only in humans is food shared outside the immediate family (cubs or children)
I'll just leave this one reference about food sharing outside of immediate family among animals.
When should animals share food? Game theory applied to kleptoparasitic populations with food sharing
I picked it because it conveniently shows 2 lines of investigation, both modeling via game theory which shows that given certain conditions (which are common) food sharing is the best option for an individual animal, and reference to the fact that food sharing is also an observed behavior.
"Food sharing is commonly observed in animal populations in a wide range of species, including social carnivores, insects, birds, cetaceans, vampire bats, and primates (for reviews, see Feistner and McGrew 1989; Stevens and Gilby 2004)."
Alfred Differ:
What appalled me was how SIMPLE most business processes are. Really, god-awfully boring, simple-minded stuff. I'm not knocking them, though. They pay my bills and have for almost 30 years.
Sure, in Brave New World terms, it's fortunate that there are some Betas or Gammas who are good at that sort of thing.
But if you're as old as I am, that's not what you studied computer science for.
Alfred Differ:
I think the real problem is more accurately described as an 'injustice' meaning it is about a failure of a different virtue.
"So and so isn't following the rules they are expected to follow."
That is observed in some common ways across all cultures. The one that immediately comes in mind is to watch how others react when someone blatantly cuts into a long line. Even animals seem to bristle at such behavior.
Alfred,
"So and so doesn't DESERVE such and such and I'm willing to go to great lengths to punish them for it."
Based on this, I think you would really like the Ariely book I mentioned earlier, "The Upside of Irrationality"
PSB
Presented without further comment...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Feb15-4.html
That brings us to new reporting from Rolling Stone that the magazine published yesterday. It would seem that Trump has observed, quite correctly, that many Republican voters are strongly "law and order" and are supporters of the death penalty. So, he is toying with a dramatic expansion in federal executions as a major campaign theme for 2024. And that doesn't just mean more executions. Trump is thinking that the executions should be more violent—firing squads, perhaps, or hanging. He has even asked associates how hard it would be to bring back the guillotine. And it doesn't stop there, either. Reality TV star that he is, he thinks it might be a good idea to put these violent executions on television, for viewers to follow along.
America executed more people in Trump's last six months than it did in the previous half century. And expanded the ways that people can be legally killed.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/03/12/how-biden-can-reverse-trump-s-death-penalty-expansion
AFAIK, Trump's administration didn't put the same effort in ensuring that verdicts were fair, unbiased, or even correct.
Best if Trump and DeSantis devour each other, like two Florida gators.
I read the article about Robolawyers and TurboTax with some interest. This is my 5th year as a seasonal employee with TurboTax. I was a tax expert until last year when they promoted me to be a tax lead…I provide assistance with the tax experts on the phones with customers. I miss directly interacting with customers; I am good at solving problems, answering questions, and giving people comfort.
At least for now, TurboTax is not fully automated. There are about 10,000 to 12,000 tax experts working with TurboTax to provide product assistance and live support. I expect that any large scale app offering legal services is going to need a comparable team of lawyers and tech experts to keep the system working.
Also, I wonder about professional liability. I’ve seen the results of bad lawyering. I’ve seen how litigation can evolve as new generations of lawyers learn to “game” the system. My specialty was tax litigation. Back in the 1990s, facts were rarely in dispute. The taxpayer had all the books and records; the government was acting blind. The litigation focused almost entirely on the law.
But more recently, the taxpayer lawyers have become super aggressive using strategies that were successful in tort litigation (personal injury and product injury cases). They advise their clients not to cooperate with the government and to dispute the facts at every step. Taxpayers don’t produce their books and records when audited. Their lawyers then argue that the tax assessment is arbitrary and capricious and should be set aside because it was not based on any evidence. This should not work…but it does.
I got my backside reamed by trial lawyers who played all kinds of games. Litigation by surprise. Such fun. Not for me. I am the world’s worst trial lawyer when it comes to proving facts in court. That used to not be a problem. In days of old, the judges would have sanctioned the taxpayer representatives for these types of tricks. I had several lawyers file motions for sanctions against me for unethical conduct…then call me to apologize and say that it was a mistake. First time was happenstance. Second time was coincidence. Third time was proof that this is now a standard trial lawyer tactic. I can only wonder what kind of games the AI lawyers will develop.
Sorry Paul, You remain stuck zero-summing cooperation and competition. Most of our evolution has been about learning how to cooperate better, in order to compete better. Zero sum on ever-larger scales.
Lately, the enlightenment innovations meant cooperating to create rule systems to competition could be positive sum and have less blood and more creative outcomes.
“Ruthless bastards don't want referees. They work to subvert referees constantly.” I agree… and yet I feel you keep missing the point.
AB: Newt is pathetically eager to be re-admitted into the front tier of oligarchy servants. But the masters will never forgive him for negotiating useful and effective legislation with Bill Clinton, replacing him with Dennis “friend to boys’ Hastert
Got the impression Newt was too interested in dinosaurs—the GOP kind:
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/3f-BRcGXEZyBCGv3uHfMYr_sGDg=/4x0:1996x1046/960x504/media/img/2018/09/WEL_Coppins_NewtOpener/original.jpg
What did you think of VD Hanson?
Indeed, I remain astonished that so few ever mention reciprocal competition among and between AI as the obvious solution
That sounds awfully like Generative Adversarial Networks, which have been studied and used a lot so far?
The talk about cooperation and competition and evolution seems to miss an important point about Dawkins' selfish gene theory: that the *true* competition is occurring at the genetic level. We bloody few are but the squishy stage upon in which the real evolutionary players strut.
In creating a model that emphasizes competition, Dawkins does not ignore cooperation: he considers it an excellent stress test for the selfish gene model to explain how it arises. One approach has been to propose a 'greenbeard effect' that promotes recognition of a certain characteristic in other individuals (the term is Dawkins', although he didn't originate the idea). Note that the feature is a telegraphed product of several genetic effects, rather than the direct effect of one particular gene. Several examples of such an effect have been described.
I do tend to take a more Wallacian view of cooperation: an emergent property whose benefits become apparent over longer time scales. This would explain why cooperation tends to flourish more in a stable environment.
re: AI lawyers. A related initiative is the 'legislation as code' movement. I haven't gone too deeply into it, but think it applies techniques developed for producing reliable software to legislative clauses so that they can be interpreted as intended. @GMT-5 might be interested, if he hasn't encountered it already. (Pia Andrews is someone to follow up with about it)
I would be interested in seeing legislation written with the assistance of AI. It might help avoid inconsistencies and outright errors. Look up “Virgin Islands” +Lansdale and you will find a series of cases involving a case I got involved in between 1995 and 1999 (the case originally started in the late 80s and elements of it are still going on to this day). There was an ambiguity in the Internal Revenue Code that some CPA thought up in the late 70s. Hundreds of people tried to take advantage of this loophole which involved shifting income between the US and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Ink 1986, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code (yes, we call law CODE) to eliminate that loophole…except for three specific people.
It did not work. The IRS and the VIBIR sued and when the dust settled, the Courts held that the loophole never existed and that the Lansdales owed millions of dollars in taxes to the USVI.
But not everything turned out well. Chase Bank helped the Lansdales move their money around in an effort to avoid tax levies by the government. I was going through bankers boxes of documents that the bank was forced to give to us in response to a discovery request…it was a “smoking gun” memo. The bank admitted that they knew that the tax levies were coming and that they were helping the Lansdales avoid paying the tax. Did not matter in the end. The Courts held that Chase could not be held liable for that money. I still get steamed at that. I was happy when the most recent Virgin Islands Attorney General brought a lawsuit against Chase because it had been helping Jeffrey Epstein. But a few days later, the Governor fired her. Sigh.
yes, we call law CODE
And have since the days of Hammurabi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
When I started programming in the 70s we talked of "computer code", never just "code" by itself. I suspect the etymology of "code" is a set of instructions that must/should be followed (legal code, moral code, etc).
GMT -5 8032,
Just out of curiosity, why does your profile picture look like Mr. Morden?
PSB
PSB,
I read Ariely's book "Predictably Irrational" a while ago and found nothing in it to which I could object in a useful way.
After that I read McCloskey's tome and got a framework that provided context for "irrational" behavior. She pointed out how many in the economics field were maximum utility believers and referenced a few of the economic behavioral 'experimentalists' who were pointing out that humans didn't work that way.
McCloskey's conclusion (after she ditched Max U) was were were not optimizing for Prudence in our markets so one should except deviation from economic models where groups of people could actually judge each other. (Banks lending money to each other really don't. People buying burgers for lunch definitely do.)
I strong suspicion is the old virtue ethics model of 'good character' is still in play across wide areas of our markets. Watch Progressives react with indignation at how some rich guy spends his money (assume the purchase is legal) and you'll see the judgements occuring. Watch Conservatives react with disgust when so-called welfare moms cash their checks and you'll see more judgements.
There are bound to be upsides to this seemingly irrational behavior... or we likely would have stopped doing it long ago.
Larry,
Trump is thinking that the executions should be more violent—firing squads, perhaps, or hanging.
I'd guess he liked Monday Night Rehabilitation from Idiocracy and wants to be the guy who makes that real for us.
Robert,
And expanded the ways that people can be legally killed.
He also expanded the ways people can be illegally killed by trying to pass them off as legal. I shall not forgive him our reconstruction of concentration camps.
GMT - I talked a while back about what ought to be a perfect test for the new AI optimization programs. Massage the Federal tax code in models until you find a simplification approach that has NO-LOSERS! If no one loses, then there is no heat to fire the resistance to simplifying the code. Of course then the losers would be the accountants!
See it spelled out. It makes sense and now (unlike 2011) it could be done virtually overnight. Then presented to Congress. And passed in maybe ten years... sigh.
https://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/taxsimplification.html
Alfred,
"Progressives react with indignation at how some rich guy spends his money (assume the purchase is legal) and you'll see the judgements occuring. Watch Conservatives react with disgust when so-called welfare moms cash their checks and you'll see more judgements."
So you think Progressives are mostly O-types? Conservatives sound like a bunch of S-types, but the leadership is mostly T.
PSB
Dr.Brin,
I get that greed drives invention and innovation. So does love, duty, and curiosity. Curiosity can work wonders in a human mind. I wouldn't have a problem with capitalism if it didn't also drive people to homelessness, kill them, poison them, and cover the Earth in Love Canals. If these things can be stopped, there wouldn't be a problem.
So how about capitalism with amendments, a bill of rights, and maybe a Sword of Damocles?
How about if every citizen, on reaching the age of 18, gets a tiny house, medical care, and enough food stamps to live frugally. If you want a bigger house, you have to work for it. If you want better food, get a job. Your life's ambition is to play cor anglais for the Cleveland Orchestra, you'll need to earn money to pay for the lessons. Want to build scale models of amazing architecture out of styrofoam cups? You'll have to pay for all that coffee somehow.
It's not likely that a lot of people will be content with no TV, no Internet, no cheeseburgers, and no new clothes. Most people would work, but no one would have to worry about being dumped on the streets if they lose a job or their business goes bankrupt. Social Security would be unnecessary, but anyone who wants a better retirement will have to work and save for it. Better yet, if your boss insists on getting blow jobs from you, you can tell him where to put it as you walk out the door. Managers might learn to behave more like human beings and treat their employees like them, too. People who have mood disorders like Clinical Depression or PTSD would be able to take needed time off from working when they are having bad mental health days, and anyone who wants a baby will be able to take time off for that, too.
My son came up with a name for this, but it's in French and I don't know how to spell it (he was taking French in high school). It means "make them bored."
PSB
This site is acting weird. Comments I put up keep mysteriously vanishing...
My son came up with a name for this, but it's in French and I don't know how to spell it (he was taking French in high school). It means "make them bored."
PSB
Dr Brin
Re- No losers
I suspect the problem is "no LEGAL losers"
The people who will lose big time if ever their tax affairs are properly examined
As GMT-5 says today the tax lawyers try and keep all those nasty facts out of the way
PSB your prescription is terrific and compativle with my own justifivation for liberalism, that no nation is fulfilling the promise of Smithian market competitive creativity if it wastes talent to (especially childhood) poverty.
Alas, I still have a feeling that your 'greed' line misses the underlying point.
But the 'make em bored' is a quandary with double sides. I agree with the side you present... but there's a darker image of bored drones.
Dr Brin:
NO-LOSERS! If no one loses, then there is no heat to fire the resistance to simplifying the code. Of course then the losers would be the accountants!
Heh. That sounds an awful lot like Homer Simpson.
"And it's a victimless crime. The only victim is Moe."
So you think Progressives are mostly O-types? Conservatives sound like a bunch of S-types, but the leadership is mostly T.
????? Google is showing me either thermocouples or blood types. Care to provide a pointer to an explanation in the field you meant (I'm guessing either psychology or sociology)?
Massage the Federal tax code in models until you find a simplification approach that has NO-LOSERS!
If you close loopholes and tax shelters, you will have losers. So is what you are suggesting a simplification of the language and regulations, in a way that provides exactly the same result (everyone pays what they currently pay)?
PSB:
So how about capitalism with amendments, a bill of rights, and maybe a Sword of Damocles?
Y'know how the Fed is supposed to regulate the money supply so that there is not too much or too little money in circulation?
Maybe our society needs to do something similar to regulate the amount of work demanded to buy things relative to the amount of human labor required to run the economy. "Work of starve" rules make more sense when everyone's labor is necessary for survival, but cruel when the jobs aren't available because they are not needed.
Let's see if this half of the missive works this time...
It's not likely that a lot of people will be content with no TV, no Internet, no cheeseburgers, and no new clothes. Most people would work, but no one would have to worry about being dumped on the streets if they lose a job or their business goes bankrupt. Social Security would be unnecessary, but anyone who wants a better retirement will have to work and save for it. Better yet, if your boss insists on getting blow jobs from you, you can tell him where to put it as you walk out the door. Managers might learn to behave more like human beings and treat their employees like them, too. People who have mood disorders like Clinical Depression or PTSD would be able to take needed time off from working when they are having bad mental health days, and anyone who wants a baby will be able to take time off for that, too.
My son came up with a name for this, but it's in French and I don't know how to spell it (he was taking French in high school). It means "make them bored."
PSB
Dr.Brin,
Re: bored drones
We have a whole lot of that today, and on top of that, a whole lot of stress-related disease because of how our economy operates, and a whole lot of stress-induced violence. But the details can be worked out through experimentation. Each city, state, or country tries different variants to see what works best. If the leadership isn't too corrupt, they collect data on the health of their charges and make adjustments as necessary.
PSB
Larry,
I would think that the elimination of Work or Starve would be a key feature of any civilization that has the potential to make it out there in the big Void.
On the opposite side of that are the Right to Work laws in many red states. They were devised by our old buddy Adolf almost as soon as he became Chancellor, and within a year the first one in the US was passed in Mississippi. Real human potential killer.
PSB
Sorry Robert,
These types are in reference to the research of Dr. Helen Fisher, currently working at the Kinsey Institute. Her work has been in the area of romantic love in the human brain (she sticks people in MRIs to see what's happening in there when they're in love, out of love, got dumped, etc). In the process she discovered an underlying neurochemistry to human temperament (the genetic side of personality). Humans have around 100 different neurotransmitters/hormones that influence how they feel at any given time, but there are four that are especially powerful and likely permanent features of any individual's makeup. Everyone has all of these (unless there is something seriously wrong) but everyone has a unique mix of sensitivity levels to them. When I took her test, I came out with three of my scores equal, but my Dopamine sensitivity 6 points higher. High dopamine sensitivity tends to make people more driven toward novelty, and more easily snared by addictions. Fisher herself is a D-type, and says that it is the drive behind her scientific research, though her sister is also D-type, but isn't intellectual at all and flies hot air balloons.
T-types are highly competitive people. Note that the high Testosterone sensitivity does not make violent people, except when they believe it does. Competition come sin many forms, and measures of serum testosterone in chess masters turn out to be just as high as in rugby players and Special Forces ops. Robert Sapolsky once said that if you injected a bunch of monks with testosterone, they would suddenly become very competitive about who could do the most random acts of kindness. Humans are biocultural animals.
Serotonin-types are conformists. They are extremely happy when everyone is exactly alike and 100% predictable, but extremely unhappy with difference.
Oxytocin-types are the tree-huggers. They want peace and love and they care about everybody.
Fisher's research showed that the relative proportions of these in every populations she studied are pretty consistent. I don't remember all the numbers of the top of my head, but I do remember that T-type is around 18%, less than the expected 25%.
https://helenfisher.com
Sorry for the confusion. I thought I had brought it up often enough that most regulars would be familiar.
PSB
Dr. Brin,
There was another paragraph to my earlier comment, but for some reason every time I try to publish it, the comment disappears. Since I do the same thing that gets all my other comments posted, there may be an issue with the site.
PSB
PSB,a society optimized for the most good, for most of the people has a weakness, privelidged minorities will attempt, and usually succeed in optimizing it for them. As happened when Keynesian economics was in need of adjustment, and it's enemies razed it.
PSB:
There was another paragraph to my earlier comment, but for some reason every time I try to publish it, the comment disappears
This happens occasionally to me as well. I think the site flags whatever you're trying to post as copyrighted, or at least has some reason for clawing it back. And it seems like once it's identified your specific post as...whatever...then it recognizes it even when you try to post the same thing again.
I can't explain the root cause, but that's been the observed behavior.
Tim,
",a society optimized for the most good, for most of the people has a weakness, privelidged minorities will attempt, and usually succeed in optimizing it for them."
Exactly why I think our cultures should not be praising greedy scumbags. Success, yes. Gordon Gecko, no.
PSB
Often society is not cooperative nor competitive, but in a prisoner's-dilemma combination of the two. For those situations, zero-sum games are a false model.
I have invented and play-tested prisoner's-dilemma versions of tic-tac-toe and chess. Both have a fourth outcome, "truce", which is shared and arises from cooperation. The four outcomes are ordered lose < draw < truce < win. In dilemma tic-tac-toe, truce is three in a row from both players; in dilemma chess, truce is mutual checkmate. Ending rules are tweaked to allow this.
In play-testing with friends, I have seen this pattern of play:
1. The game starts with conventionally aggressive competition.
2. Tension mounts, forces confront. Then either:
3a. One side gains the advantage, and forces a win. Or:
3b. Forces balance and lock. Only draw or truce are possible. Then:
4. Negotiation. Threats, offers, promises, and suspicion. The players talk because there's something to talk _about._ Then either:
5a. Breakdown and shared failure. Or:
5b. A high-wire mating dance.
Most entertaining. I recommend that you try such gaming experiments.
I have written up rules for dilemmized athletic games. They involve two balls and two goalposts; truce is if both balls go through their goalposts, the second soon enough after the first. However I have not play-tested this, for none of my friends are athletic.
PSB:
Success, yes. Gordon Gecko, no.
Steve Jobs, yes. Mitt Romney, no.
Paradoctor:
I have invented and play-tested prisoner's-dilemma versions of tic-tac-toe and chess. Both have a fourth outcome, "truce", which is shared and arises from cooperation.
What's the difference between truce and draw?
Paradoctor: zero-sum games are a false model
Certainly interesting and worthwhile games. Life adds the dimension of memory/learning - genetics in the simplest form - ants seem to 'know' where's a good place to establish a new colony. This was always my frustration with Conway's Game of Life - it begged for the ability of critters to remember previous generations/outcomes. Humans add the dimension of imagination/prediction/mirror neurons. Psychohistory adds the dimension of an intentionally designed future.
Re Tax simplification... The Pelosi Congress proved it is possible to overcome resistance from oligarchies for the good of the nation. I do not believe "Big Accounting" is anywhere near as powerful as were the Cayman Cheaters who fought to block the world 15% minimum corporate tax that Biden got through. -- Anyway, remember Trump promising "you'll do your taxes on a card!" What happened there?
Robert: “If you close loopholes and tax shelters, you will have losers. So is what you are suggesting a simplification of the language and regulations, in a way that provides exactly the same result (everyone pays what they currently pay)?”
Read the article, Robert. It suggests raising some tax breaks to compensate when others are totally eliminated. If 100 sample taxpayers (including the rich) owe no difference than before, then the few outliers should be a small enough clade to be unable to prevent simplification.
PSB you relentlessly try to link Adam Smith to Gordon Gecko and I keep telling you they are opposites. Please show me I am wrong, instead of repeating the same assertion which I assert is in error.
Saw a Kremlin shill (translated) claiming there are no Ukrainian weapons on the battlefield and hence Ukraine has been 'demilitarized' - success in achieving the goal! Yes, there are NATO weapons across Ukraine which means now NATO is being demilitarized! Success again!
There are so many aspects that... one blinks and has to go ... um... huh?
Exactly why I think our cultures should not be praising greedy scumbags. Success, yes. Gordon Gecko, no.
Gordon Gekko was written as a villain (or antihero). I find it interesting that so many people missed this point.
LH:
In dilemma tic-tac-toe ("DTTT") draw is if neither player gets 3 in a row, truce is if both do. To make truce possible, DTTT allows a player one more move after the other player gets 3 in a row.
In dilemma chess ('DC'), truce is mutual checkmate. The rule tweak here is that your king can stay in check if the other king is in check too; hence 'deterrence'. If the mutual checks are inescapable, then it's mutual checkmate and you declare truce.
Draw and truce are both shared, and draw is worth less than truce, which is worth less than win. You could use the scoring system lose = 0, draw = 1, truce = 2, and win = 3.
For repeated play, lose = -3, draw = -1, truce = 1, win = 3; sum scores over several rounds; if both players sum to more than 0, then truce; if neither do, then draw; if only one sums to more than 0, then that one wins and the other loses.
Because draw < truce, there's incentive to cooperate; because lose < draw and truce < win, there's incentive to compete. That's the dilemma.
Dr. Brin,
Adam Smith had no intention of creating the Gordon Geckos of the world, but they are quick to quote Smith - only one line of Smith, the one about invisible hands. It's not Smith's fault, just like it's not Marx's fault what Stalin did in his name.
Robert,
I'm not so sure that people missed the point so much as certain people took the villain as a role model and live the stereotype.
PSB
Robert:
Gordon Gekko was written as a villain (or antihero). I find it interesting that so many people missed this point.
Probably because he kept winning so much.
Remember the scene where he convinced the shareholders to vote out the old, ossified board of directors. The scene was sure written as if he had a point.
I think the theme suffered from the time it was viewed in. As the mid 80s were becoming the late 80s, envious worship of wealth was becoming mainstream. And if the writer really meant Gekko to come across as unlikable, well, apparently Frank Herbert and G.R.R. Martin also wanted their epic depictions of feudalism to be critical of that form. Trouble is, having the reader share the bad guys' point of view in order not to identify with it takes a whole lot of mad skills.
Larry,
Interesting thought - Tolkien favorably contrasted his dark age kingships and whatever the Shire had for government* with the uber-Nazi authoritarian regime of Sauron without offering any of the Eye of Mordor's viewpoint except "I want it all." It could, maybe, have been done - I think Silverberg (?) wrote a novel from the viewpoint of a Chinese Mandarin carefully trying to ameliorate the depredations of Mongol rulership among his people.
Pappenheimer
*maybe something like a Swiss-like short people confederation? Remember how the game of golf was supposed to have been invented in the Shire.
Adam Smith had no intention of creating the Gordon Geckos of the world, but they are quick to quote Smith - only one line of Smith, the one about invisible hands.
They sure don't like hearing his comments on bankers and businessmen, though.
I'm not so sure that people missed the point so much as certain people took the villain as a role model and live the stereotype.
Gilead being a warning, not a vision of utopia?
Robert:
They [Gordon Gekkos] sure don't like hearing his comments on bankers and businessmen, though.
Right-wing Christianists who have claimed Ayn Rand as their own seldom like hearing her thoughts on religion either.
Gilead being a warning, not a vision of utopia?
When I first heard that A Handmaid's Tale was going to be on tv, I had mixed feelings. Glad that the concept would be popularized among the masses, but having some trepidation that it would be taken by Republicans as a "how-to" manual rather than a warning. History seems to have proven me right. My predictive record is great when I foresee bad stuff, not so hot with good things.
Is this new chat AI essentially a Delphi polling mechanism?
"Delphi operates on the principle that several heads are better than one in making subjective conjectures about the future...and that experts will make conjectures based upon rational judgement rather than merely guessing..." (Weaver, 1971).
An under-used methodology combining quantitative and qualitative opportunities to explore the future is the Delphi. It's an old method, dating to the 1950s, developed by a team of researchers named Dalkey and Helmer. Today businesses, governmental agencies, and organizations are using Delphi methods to predict or forecast future events and relationships in order to make appropriate and reasonable plans or changes. Studies comparing the Delphi's results with other methods (Ulschak, 1983) confirmed effectiveness of the method related to generating ideas and use of participants' time.
Delphi is a group process and its goal is to help a group reach consensus. Rather than gathering people together for oral discussion, individuals provide written responses to questions. This is an advantage when persons possessing the knowledge and expertise to address the problem are not in close proximity. With the increasing growth of electronic mail, the technology can be adapted to facilitate the process. Anonymity of the respondents during the process is an important aspect of the Delphi and needs to be maintained if electronic mail is used.
But instead of a group of independent and anonymous contributors, Chat GPT gets the written opinions of literally thousands of people whose written works are available via the internet.
So can it be used to predict the future?
ChatGPT, write me a future prediction on who will win the Ukraine war.
ChatGPT, write me a prediction on how long before China collapses demographically and how it will occur.
ChatGPT, write me a prediction on what global warming will do to American wheat prices next year.
ChatGPT, who will win next year's Kentucky Derby?
When I first heard that A Handmaid's Tale was going to be on tv, I had mixed feelings. Glad that the concept would be popularized among the masses, but having some trepidation that it would be taken by Republicans as a "how-to" manual rather than a warning. History seems to have proven me right.
I saw an interview with Atwood, and she looked incredibly frustrated that people were trying to make it a reality rather than treating it as a warning. Which I found a little odd, as it was an 'if this goes on' warning about religious control, extrapolating trends and behaviours that were already in existence — that was why she wrote the book.
Or maybe it was authorial frustration that they apparently didn't realize it was a warning, totally missing her point.
Kinda like being upset that someone missed the joke…
Robert:
Which I found a little odd, as it was an 'if this goes on' warning about religious control, extrapolating trends and behaviours that were already in existence — that was why she wrote the book.
Well, I'd guess she hoped to make people see where trends were leading in hopes that they'd then recoil avoid that type of future. Much like Orwell did when he wrote 1984. Of course, some right-wingers think of that as a how-to manual as well.
It's like when you warn the driver of the car that you're riding in that he's edging dangerously close to the edge of the mountain road. What you foresee is, "If you keep going the way you are, we'll both suffer a terrible death." The point is to get him to change behavior and avoid the problem. Not for him to say as you plummet to earth, "Well, this is what you said would happen, so what are you surprised about?"
What surprised her would be that readers saw that future as something to be worked for rather than against.
What surprised her would be that readers saw that future as something to be worked for rather than against.
Except she based the setting of the book on a kind of twisted, hypocritical Christianity that was already in existence. Even Serena Joy had analogues.
Maybe it was frustration at the number of people who thought it was a good future, or maybe it was frustration that some of her readers might disagree with her politics.
"Well, I'd guess she hoped to make people see where trends were leading in hopes that they'd then recoil avoid that type of future. Much like Orwell did when he wrote 1984. Of course, some right-wingers think of that as a how-to manual as well."
Well, I think Handmaid was effective polemic and I saw no paeans praising its scenario... though I have received fan mail from acolytes of Nathan Holn, THT is allegary. It could not happen except over the dead bodies of 90% of US men and 95% of the women.
Orwell was a leftist who feared/hated rightist tyranny... but his novels and books warned far more about faults of the left when it goes mad.
PSB,
So you think Progressives are mostly O-types?(snip)
No. Nothing that simple. I'm sure some are, but I see no reason to believe they aren't a mix.
I'm pointing at subsets of people who think they are different from another subset but do many of the same things if you squint enough to ignore the minutia.
What I think they are all doing is judging each other. When we do that, the virtue we call Justice is more in play than Prudence. Exactly what we get upset about (which broken unwritten rule) varies, but we get upset(!) about unwritten rules. That anger is a clear signal for those who detect too much or too little 'justice' in a person's character.
I think some of the people who say they want a "Handmaid" future enjoy trolling those of us who find it horrifying. I think the right response is to troll them back. Ask them for their name and address so you know where to send the letter-bomb*. Make sure to do it with the sweetest tone of voice, though. Saccharin.
* If you do that from an account that has your actual name on it, make sure to make a copy of the exchange and post it to your blog or some other corner of the internet saying you wouldn't actually do such a thing. Explain that you are trolling**, do it where the first troll isn't likely to spot it, and then show the police later in case things go horribly wrong.
** Even if you aren't.
———
When my wife gripes about that possible future being made true I quietly remind her that many of us would commit murder to prevent it. I use a dead calm voice for that. The heat of her anger usually turns in a different direction as I'm sure she'd rather I didn't wind up in jail. Me too... but they'd have to work hard to find a jury that would convict.
I see similar trends in the current series "The Last of Us".* It's a zombie apocalypse (acordycepalypse?) which has the following elements that might have appeal to some:
- it starts with those big city folks and their foreign imports (initial scenes being in Austin, Texas. Turns out it really *was* in the cookie dough! Verdict still out on whether using renewable energy to bake it was the trigger)
- cities are bombed to stop the spread
- the leftovers are rugged survivalists.
- all the gu-hnz, gu-hnz!
- the backwoods are relatively safe.
*Good production and acting. Monumentally stoopid, which is probably another drawcard
I was talking with a coworker today over a beer about the new chat AI's. He was of the opinion that we may have to revise the Turing test because it was still pretty obvious these things were distinguishable.
I pointed out that they way they answered some questions reminded me of some of my students who didn't know enough about a concept to write a short essay showing they knew. Inevitably, they threw crap together that might be close, but wound up showing me that they really didn't know. In other words, I told him those chat AI's reminded me of CERTAIN humans floundering in a sea of ignorance. In other other words, I said "This is progress."
———
When I taught astronomy years ago, I typically did night classes at junior colleges supporting adults returning from the work force. That meant we met once a week and I tried to cram a bunch of stuff into their heads.
It usually worked out that on one night we covered both the Green House Effect (as seen in a runaway example on Venus) and Earth's ozone layer (as evidenced by the higher temperature layer in the stratosphere). I taught them as separate things, but students would OFTEN jumble them in a mishmash on tests… and I didn't understand why until long after I left teaching. Why? Because they were introduced to both ideas in quick succession and never had time to sift them apart.
It's this mishmash I see the chat AI's doing. A distinction an expert makes takes time to learn from patient negative feedback.
Dr. Brin,
I should have expected you would get fan mail from would-be Holnists. That never occurred to me. It should have, with all the Imperial Stormtrooper cosplayers.
I had an argument with my libertarian LT years back...he tried to convince me that Orwell's experience with Soviet-based communism in Spain had ended his socialism. It hadn't, it just made him warier of authoritarians of all stripes.
It's a fun new gilded age we're living in, isn't it? At this point I'm wondering if, with the GQP coming to rely on neo-fascist tactics and refusing to ameliorate the stances that are alienating young voters, the States WILL actually remain United and more than technically democratic through my decease...have been gently suggesting my married son think about emigration to Denmark. The Previously United States would swiftly become vastly poorer that the US is now, even if disunion is not accompanied by massive violence and even war.
Pappenheimer
Cheer up, folks! We may all be dead by then!
Civil war isn’t likely—too much work!
If youth today don’t want to flip burgers, then picking up weapons and storming barricades is only for nuts.
But naturally, mass murders will continue; this year there've already been c 1.75 multiple-homicides per day.
Universities are open campuses, so though something can be done about lower educational facilities, higher ed is vulnerable.
—
Good news is things will change after next yrs general election. Bad news: it won’t be what we want. Yet, it never has been the way we wanted it to be.
The ‘90s ended with 9-11.
The ‘80s ended with Bush.
The ‘70s ended with the Gipper.
The ‘60s ended with Nixon.
Always a hell to go through.
It usually worked out that on one night we covered both the Green House Effect (as seen in a runaway example on Venus) and Earth's ozone layer (as evidenced by the higher temperature layer in the stratosphere). I taught them as separate things, but students would OFTEN jumble them in a mishmash on tests… and I didn't understand why until long after I left teaching. Why? Because they were introduced to both ideas in quick succession and never had time to sift them apart.
Well, both are presented as "environmental problems" in the media, both happen in the atmosphere, and both involve temperature. Not to mention I've read news stories where the reporter mixed them up, so it's possible they already have a flawed schema that they interpret your lesson through.
I spent more than a decade teaching climate science to teenagers. Even after several weeks of lessons, some kids still mixed up greenhouse gases and ozone layer. I wasn't teaching them in the same lesson, so it wasn't a matter of 'not enough time to process'.
I think Handmaid was effective polemic and I saw no paeans praising its scenario...
Apparently there are misogynists out there who think it is an excellent future. (I suspect they see themselves as Commanders, rather than the much-more-likely celibate Guards — just as medieval romanticists see themselves as nobles rather than serfs.)
Margaret Atwood reminds me of Hari Seldon (no joke).
Toronto is an enlightenment city.
Robert:
I suspect they see themselves as Commanders, rather than the much-more-likely celibate Guards
I suspect they aren't as into that sort of future for personal gratification, but that they are thrilled at the idea of a society which explicitly treats women as subordinate to men in all things. Like the southern poor whites who can at least feel superior to any black person, whether or not he plans to own slaves.
Then of course are the religious fanatics who think that subordination of women to men is God's will.
* * *
scidata:
Margaret Atwood reminds me of Hari Seldon (no joke).
Y'know, it might be easier to list all of the things which don't remind you of Hari Seldon. :)
Larry Hart: Y'know, it might be easier to list all of the things which don't remind you of Hari Seldon. :)
Ok.
'Carrie' Lake doesn't remind of Seldon. She reminds me of Wienis.
I'll keep the rest of the list to myself out of respect for CB readers.
Robert,
Back when I was teaching, it was still an open question whether we would deal with the ozone hole and which approach might actually be effective. Those of us in academia were worrying about climate change (called "global warming" at the time), but it had yet to be politicized the way the ozone policies were.
When were you teaching teenagers about climate science? If I can duck my sense of self-blame for this persistent error I saw with students, I'd do it. 8)
------
I'm sure things are more tangled today even though we have a lot more evidence. Increased solar output would show up on each planet we are watching... and we've been able to watch the atmospheres of a few planets for a while.
One thing I avoided in intro astronomy was an observation that the Earth's atmosphere doesn't become transparent enough to radiate IR to space until you are up high enough for the air to thin out. How high? Well... roughly up there with the ozone(!) so they MUST be related, right? Right?
Atmospheric models can get complex and aren't really intro class material. Sophomore and junior year material... yes. Right in there with stellar atmospheres too because telling the intro students stars have atmospheres boggles their minds. 8)
When were you teaching teenagers about climate science? If I can duck my sense of self-blame for this persistent error I saw with students, I'd do it. 8)
Climate science has been part of the Ontario Grade 10 science curriculum since 2008.
scidata:
'Carrie' Lake doesn't remind of Seldon. She reminds me of Wienis.
Heh. Trump reminds me of The Mule. That makes Lindsey Graham the old Warlord of Kalgan. DeSanctimonious would be Lord Stettin.
Nancy Pelosi reminds me of Bayta Darell.
Domestic terrorists remind me of "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."
The real greenhouse elephant in the room is water vapour (which has been responsible for 30C warming since forever) Most water vapour is trapped in the troposphere (you can see the tropopause whenever there's a thunderstorm: it's at the top of the anvil) That's the point at which the atmosphere becomes transparent enough to allow heat radiation to escape, and it's some distance below the ozone layer.
Still, I suppose that's all water under the bridge now.
ncels dream they will become Top Dogs when it all becomes dog eat dog... I rock em back with one word...
"Kibble!"
Post a Comment