Literature

If A.I. Wrote a WAPO Op-Ed Piece to Set Us Up For a Take-Over By the Bots, This Is What It Would Be Like…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Oh , yeah, this is good advice.

The Washington Post (gift link, but don’t get excited, it’s a crummy gift) permitted a father-son team of faithful dupes to reassure us all that artificial intelligence is no different from any other machine, and can never compete with the human mind. Authors Andrew Klavan (a novelist) and Spencer Klavan, a classicist, are here to explain to us that artificial intelligence is like a wax writing tablet was to Plato (Spencer’s idea, I bet) or computers were to past generations, technological advances humans foolishly thought could match the human mind. “But by using machines as metaphors for our minds, we fall prey to the illusion that our minds are nothing more than machines. So it’s not surprising that now, when the possibilities of AI are enthralling Silicon Valley, those who think programs can become conscious are trying to tell us that consciousness is just a program,” they write.

Point? We have nothing to worry about! These things can’t really think or feel like we do! A.I. lacks “what ancient philosophers called “the inner logos” — the unique interior apparatus we have for structuring and understanding our experience of the world.”

Neither Klavan has anything in his biography to indicate they have more than the average landscaper’s understanding of technology, so what’s their authority for this verdict? Jesus, and Louis Armstrong. I kid you not. “The great Louis Armstrong, performing the George David Weiss and Bob Thiele song, “What a Wonderful World,” put it this way,” they write. “I see friends shaking hands, saying ‘How do you do?’ / They’re really saying: ‘I love you.’” Jesus put it similarly in Matthew 15: “The things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart.”

The two non-scientists have come to the dangerous and ignorant conclusion that A.I. bots are just “large language models” (LLMs) that are not capable of thought because, well, that’s what Louis sings. They tell us at the end,

Continue reading →

NYT Subscriptions Surge, Meaning That Journalism’s One-Way Bias and Ethics Rot Is Not Going Away Soon

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

In a post yesterday, I wrote, in the final note on the ethical implications of this week’s election results,

“None of this would have unfolded in quite the same way, I am certain, without a corrupt journalism sector that has totally abdicated the duty of its profession in favor of partisan propaganda. I am more convinced than ever that the Republic will not function efficiently or engender responsible citizenship until there is news media commitment to fair, objective, responsible, unbiased and honest communication to the public of what it needs to know to make intelligent decisions about their governance. There has been some progress toward that end this year, but not nearly enough.”

Well, evoking William Barrett Travis when Santa Anna demanded the surrender of the Alamo, the New York Times “answered with a cannon shot.”

“The Times’s Profit Jumps With 460,000 More Subscribers” the headline today reads. “The Times now has 12.33 million total subscribers to all of its products. It has said it is aiming for 15 million by the end of 2027.” The article (gift link!), which you can read yourself if you have the stomach for it, has lots of other good news for the Times bottom line,

Continue reading →

Ethics Alarms Encore: An Ethics Tale, A Romance, And A Ghost Story…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Happy Halloween, from Ethics Alarms!

***

The Highwayman

By Alfred Noyes

The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees.   

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.   

The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor,   

And the highwayman came riding—

         Riding—riding—

The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn-door.

Continue reading →

Riddle Me This: “Why Is The Guthrie Theater Like Stephen Colbert?”

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

In “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” Louis Carroll’s Mad Hatter asks Alice the riddle, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” One would think that the question in the headline above is equally obscure (the Guthrie, in Minneapolis, is one of the most respected and celebrated regional theaters in the country) but it has an answer. Like the Colbert late night show, which has since its inception sought to exclude anyone who isn’t woke, obsessed with progressive politics or, since 2015, Trump Deranged, the Guthrie now aims at entertaining only that same audience, except in its case only the wealthy, white, upper-middle class demographic within that audience, or others willing to sit still for relentless leftist propaganda and cant.

A recent audience member for The Guthrie’s production of Henrik Ibsen’s “A Dolls House” wrote about his experience. “A Doll’s House” is about as moldy a feminist tract as there is (I once called the play the drama equivalent of Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman” but much longer, and even more over-exposed (it was written in 1879, so its analogies with the real state of womanhood, especially in the U.S., have been increasingly forced as time goes by. (No, her husband did not stop Nora from having an abortion: she would never have dreamed of killing an unborn child.)

Continue reading →

For Phillies Pitcher Orion Kirkering, In Compassion and Sympathy

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

The Philadelphia Phillies, who had the best record in the National league this season are desperate for a World Series championship. They last won it in 2008, and have only won a World Series twice since the team was founded in 1883. Last night the Phillies lost the deciding game of the NL Divisional Series to the Dodgers in a dramatic, extra inning contest (with no stupid “zombie runner” because MLB plats baseball the right way in the post season) on a disastrous final play that is destined to live in Philadelphia infamy.

The culprit was pitcher Orion Kirkering. With two outs and the potential Dodger winning run on third base in the 11th inning, he got the batter to hit a weak grounder back to him. First he fumbled the ball, recovered, and only had to throw to first base to get the third out and end the inning. But he saw the base runner from second running home, and inexplicably threw the ball to his catcher, or tried to. In his panic, he threw wildly. The run scored, the game was lost, and the Phillies season was over.

In baseball terms, Kirkering choked. When the game was on the line and professional athletes are supposed to rise to the occasion and be at their best, he was at his worst. A whole city blames him for the crushing loss: he is now Philadelphia’s Bill Buckner.

All I can do for Orion is to remind him of my father’s favorite poem, by Rudyard Kipling, which he told me gave him hope and solace as young, fatherless boy during the Depression, and later, when having to cope with his own tragedies, failures and perceived shortcomings. I think of it often, and read it again just two weeks ago.

The poem is, of course, “If.”

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs, and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait, and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet, don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;

If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves, to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop, and build ’em up, with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn, long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—

You’ll be a Man, my son!

A Quick Note on the Competence of Artificial Intelligence…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

In writing the previous post about the Swiss organization that is paid to help people kill themselves, I was planning on mentioning Phillip Barry’s mysterious cult drama “Hotel Universe.” Barry, whose most lasting work is “The Philadelphia Story” but who was once one of Broadway’s most successful playwrights, wrote a fascinating but perplexing drama about how the suicide of a friend during a group vacation sends his characters on an existential journey into fantasy, madness, or a mass hallucination. My now defunct theater company performed the piece, because that was the kind of non-commercial, crazy productions we gravitated to. The last words of the dead friend were, “Well, I’m off to”…somewhere. I couldn’t remember. The suicidal woman I was writing about had told her family she was off to Lithuania, which is what reminded me of “Hotel Universe.”

But I couldn’t remember where Barry’s character was “off to” when what he meant was “I’m going to kill myself now.” It was driving me crazy, so I thought, “What a perfect question for AI! ” So I asked Google’s bot, “In ‘Hotel Universe,’the man who is going to kill himself says, I’m off to…” Where?” The thing answered quite assertively,

Continue reading →

The Ethicist Answers An Officious Jerk

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

…and much more nicely than I would have,

“Name Withheld” says that a member of her book club typically regurgitates online reviews of the assigned books that she seldom reads, aggressively presents them as her own, and is begging for a slapdown. “In the days before a meeting, she will casually share with me that she ‘couldn’t get into it,’ but she never says so to the other members. I sit there steaming but don’t reveal her duplicity. What would you do?,” she asks Prof. Appiah, the Times Magazine ethics advice columnist in lat week’s column, “A Woman in My Book Club Never Reads the Books. Can I Expose Her?”

“I get why you’re peeved,” the professor says. So do I: she thinks a social book club is a seminar for credit. “Still, the first rule of book clubs is that someone will always show up having read only the first chapter and the last page, armed with three profound observations from Goodreads.” No, that’s the second rule of book clubs. The first rule is to provide a regular opportunity for people to get together and socialize in the context of a structure more potentially engaging than arguing about Donald Trump. “Your job, in any case, isn’t to police her page turns. Cast yourself as the enforcer, and you betray the spirit of a group dedicated to forging connections through stories.”

Bingo.

“But the goal isn’t to humiliate her…maintain your small, imperfect community. One thing you’ll have learned from your books, after all, is that the flawed characters are always the most human.” Yadayadayada. Maybe she’s having cognitive issues. Maybe she’s dyslexic. Maybe she’s lonely and just wants company. Maybe she’s insecure about her analytical ability. The woman’s cheating in her book club exploits literally hurts nobody but herself at worst, and possibly allows her some human contact that she desperately needs at small cost to the other members.

Sure, the inquirer can expose her. To me, however, the fact that she’d even consider it means I’d rather have the book faker in my club than her.

Signature Significance: The Democrats’ Year-Old Debate Tweet

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

It was a year ago yesterday that Joe Biden revealed for all to see that America had a senile President. This was established beyond all doubt when he responded to an early question in his debate with Donald Trump by muttering and slurring Authentic Frontier Gibberish, ending with the immortal declaration, “We beat…Medicare.”

Even though anyone with two neurons to rub together knew that moment was curtains for hopes of a Biden re-election, the Democrats tweeted out the flaming lie above.

Yesterday social media wags were taunting and mocking Democrats for a tweet that “hasn’t aged well,” but it’s not funny. It’s terrifying. That tweet demonstrated then and demonstrates now just how Orwellian, Machiavellian, dishonest, ruthless and untrustworthy the Democratic Party has become. It has no regard for transparency, no respect for the public, and no shame.

Even as it was engaging in “it isn’t what it is” disinformation, the Democrats were hustling behind the scenes to dump Biden from their ticket. They issued that tweet knowing full well that Biden didn’t win the debate, he disgraced himself in it. But like the committed totalitarians they are, his party directed its faithful to believe what they told them to believe. Biden won the debate as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

A trustworthy, democracy-supporting, patriotic political party doesn’t issue a message like that. A dangerous political party does.

It’s Not The Ignorance and Cultural Illiteracy So Much, But The Shamelessness…

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Ugh. Ann Althouse flagged this comment from a reader named Malika, reacting to a New York Time Crossword Puzzle clue that read, “Girl in Jefferson Airplane’s ‘White Rabbit'”:

“I love this style of clue, where even if you don’t know the exact trivia (I’ve never heard of the band or the song) you can puzzle it out based on the context.”

The answer is “Alice,” and if Malika doesn’t know the “exact trivia,” she never heard of “Alice in Wonderland,” which is a foundational work of English literature with important literary, historical and satirical significance. It means she is unaware of the many movies made of that book (and its twin, “Through the Looking Glass”), doesn’t know who Lewis Carroll is, has no idea what firmly established “mad hatter” in our lexicon, or “Cheshire cat,” or what “Jabberwocky” refers to.

Then there’s the ignorance of the Sixties, the Vietnam era and the drug culture indicated by her lack of familiarity with the iconic song “White Rabbit.” The Jefferson Airplane anthem has been used on “The Sopranos,” “Stranger Things,” “The Twilight Zone,” “The Simpsons,” in the films “The Game,” “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” “The Matrix,””Platoon.” Not only doesn’t Malkia know about any of this, she doesn’t think she should and is willing to broadcast the fact that she doesn’t.

What else didn’t her schools, parents and narrow culture teach her? How many reference points that would help her understand the context of the issues, events and people affecting her life is she lacking? As Don Rumsfeld might say, it isn’t just that she doesn’t know, she doesn’t know what she doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that it’s a problem that she doesn’t know it.

Briefly Noted: The Dumbest Question “The Ethicist” Has Ever Chosen to Answer

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Here it is: “Can Male Authors Publish Books Under Female Names?”

Well, of course they can, but the real question is little better. “I’ve recently heard some sharp comments from friends about male authors publishing books under female names. The pseudonyms are sometimes gender-neutral, but in genres dominated by women, readers assume that these writers are women too,” blathers “Name Withheld.” ” I know there are historical examples of the inverse: female writers using male names or gender-neutral names that are assumed to be male. But are these equivalent? Whatever difficulty male authors may face in majority-female literary genres today cannot compare to women’s historical struggle to live a public life. Is it unethical for these male authors to present themselves this way?”

Continue reading →