Category Archives: Fact-Based Thinking

Make AI Why Your New Pastime!

Leave a reply

When Ph.D. candidates near the end of their degree programs, they face a major hurdle: the qualifying exam, or oral defense. This is standard for most math and hard science fields, but is also often required in disciplines like history and English literature. During the defense, the candidate stands before a panel of professors, answers questions about their thesis, and then faces a battery of general questions designed to assess their depth and breadth of knowledge.

One tall tale of these oral defenses is the “Blue Sky” story. In these tales, the professors merely ask the candidate a simple question like “why is the sky blue?” After the student answers, they merely respond with “why?” After answering further, they just again ask “why?”

This isn’t just a campus myth, because a good Ph.D. Physicist friend of mine was subject to just such a grilling starting with “Why is the sky blue?” He told me that over the course of the next hour he ended up drawing upon a far wider and deeper range of physics knowledge then he ever realized he knew. All in response to repeated questions consisting of just “why?”

This is a game that confounds and exasperates parents all the time. We say something to our toddler, and they ask “why?” When we answer, they again say “why?” Parents usually give up after perhaps three iterations. A Ph.D. candidate would get through at least a few more iterations within their field of specialization.

It makes me wonder if a “Why-Q” would not be a great intelligence quotient for AI. If a normal parent can score 3, and a well-prepared Ph.D. candidate might score 6, what would AI score? Probably a much higher count reflecting deeper knowledge, and certainly its breadth of knowledge would be essentially unlimited.

Given that we now have essentially Ph.D. level intelligence in every field right at our beck and call 24/7 through AI, I want to suggest that you can play a game I call “AI Why” whenever you like. Take a break from endless YouTube or TicTok videos. Stop reading increasingly crappy articles because you’ve run out of anything actually worthwhile. Instead open your preferred AI app and pass the time playing AI Why.

Ask AI any question, serious or whimsical, even something like “Why is the sky blue?” Read over the answer, and then ask a follow-up question. You can dive deeper into the subject or go off an a different tangent. And you can continue on as long as you like. AI will never think your question is silly or get sick of your questions and it will always give you an interesting answer.

This is very different from simply surfing the Internet. Unlike the few Google or even Wikipedia links provided to you, you are not limited to clicking on a fixed number of links produced by algorithms to manipulate you. AI interaction is conversational. You can take your AI conversation anywhere you like and explore the vastness of human knowledge rather than get funneled down into rabbit holes.

Of course the AI system you use does matter. I would not go near anything under the control of Elon Musk for example. But not all AI systems are configured so that all paths lead you to the oppression of South African Whites. I use Perplexity (see here) because they are strongly dedicated to providing sound, fact-based information.

The other great thing about Perplexity is that it remembers threads of dialogue. That means I can ask Perplexity about a topic, and then come back to that thread days or months later to continue the discussion.

Just to give you a flavor of this great pastime, I asked Perplexity “Why is the sky blue?” It gave me a lot of interesting information to which I followed up by asking “Why does Rayleigh scattering occur?” After reading more about that, I asked “Why do refractive indices differ?” The answer led me to ask “Why is light an electric field?” And that led me to “Why is the self-propagating electromagnetic field of light not perpetual motion?“

To explain that last question a bit: light propagates forever in a vacuum. It seems counter-intuitive that something moving forever is not perpetual motion by definition. But Perplexity clearly explained that no, light may move forever, but does no work. That led me to ask the gotcha question, “How can electromagnetic radiation undergo self-propagation between electrical and magnetic fields with no loss of energy?“

At that point, it took me into Maxwell’s equations and lost me.

This hopefully illustrates how you can go as deep as you like in your conversations with AI. Or, I could have taken it down another path that led to the family life of Amedeo Avogadro. AI will accompany you anywhere you want to go. (And no, that is not to imply that it just agrees with anything you say. It does not.)

So, my message is to become discussion buddies with your genius AI friend. Learn from it. Expand your brain and have fun doing so. Don’t waste the precious opportunity we have to so easily learn almost anything about almost anything.

Make AI Why one of your favorite pastimes!

I Cannot Exaggerate Exaggeration Enough

Leave a reply

Although numbers vary day to day and poll to poll, about 97% of Americans support deporting immigrants who commit violent crimes. About 52% support deporting immigrants who have committed nonviolent crimes. Only 32% support deporting all immigrants who entered illegally, and a vanishingly small number support expelling legal immigrants.

News and political commentators often cite these kind of numbers to point out that people simultaneously support the deportation of criminals but not the harassment of legal immigrants. But this sheds little light on the huge disconnect in public opinion over the wholesale rounding up immigrants by the Trump Administration.

I submit that the missing puzzle piece of our understanding is the role of exaggeration. In fact I cannot exaggerate the awful power of exaggeration enough.

The fact is that undocumented immigrants are about half as likely to commit violent crimes than native-born citizens. They are 4 times less likely to commit nonviolent crimes and 2.5 times less likely to commit drug-related offenses. These numbers hold firm across all geographical boundaries.

But when Trump talks about immigrants, he hyper-exaggerates the level of crime in that population far beyond what the data supports. To hear him talk, one would think that immigrants are running amok and causing mass havoc.

This incredible level of exaggeration, well beyond anything the actual facts support, creates the essential disconnect in our brains that allows people to both conclude that while they support legal immigrants but want to see “all those criminal illegals” deported.

Look at it this way. Just to take a number for illustration purposes, let’s say 5% of illegal immigrants are criminals. Trump makes it sound like 90% are criminals. Even if we are skeptical and fair-minded and allow for some exaggeration, we conclude that let’s say 25% are criminals that should be deported.

So when the actual number is 5% and Trump skews our perception to “feel like” it’s something on the order of 25%, what happens? We naturally expect and demand to see 25% arrested and deported. But there are not 25%, so to show it is meeting expectations the government rounds up and deports a whole lot of innocent immigrants in order to demonstrate it is doing it’s job to keep us safe. It must round up a whole lot of good, honest immigrants to satisfy the false perception it has created. We expect no less.

Using gross exaggeration to create unwarranted expectations is used, particularly by Trump, in a lot of other areas as well. Take Social Security as just one other example. The actual administrative overhead of managing our Social Security program is about 0.6%. This is a fantastically low amount of overhead that private companies and even non-profit organizations cannot come anywhere close to matching.

Yet to listen to Trump, you would think, even allowing for his characteristic hyperbole, that the Social Security system is at least somewhat bloated with waste and inefficiency. So say a 5% cut to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse might seem like a reasonable, measured, and warranted cost control measure. But if one made such cuts it could in reality only come from reducing legitimate benefits.

That is the power of exaggeration and it is perhaps one of the most destructive weapons that Trump wields wantonly with complete abandon. It dramatically affects how we perceive immigration, Medicare, Medicaid, tariffs, and most everything else that Trump chooses to rail about.

We need to call out Trump more strongly and more often for exaggeration, as well as others who grossly exaggerate, and not simply accept it as a personality characteristic or a legitimate rhetorical style.

Recognizing the destructive power of exaggeration is a first necessary step toward arriving at more sane and fact-based public policy.

And THAT is no exaggeration.

Our Automobile Obesity Problem

Leave a reply

In his “press conference” today, August 8th, Donald Trump regurgitated too may lies to reiterate here. And there is no need. Most of you are sane enough to know that virtually everything Trump says is either factually wrong or a bold-faced lie. However, I do want to talk about his particular lies regarding electric vehicles, as his stupidity or dishonesty on this topic may not be immediately obvious to everyone. Also, talking about these particular lies of his sets the stage to discuss the problem of automobile obesity.

This wasn’t the first time Trump has spread misinformation about electric vehicles (see here). He has been doing so for quite a while. Today he repeated false claims that electric vehicles are “twice as heavy” as comparable gas-powered vehicles. They are in fact a bit heavier because of the weight of current battery technology, but at most by only about 30%.

As one example, our family car, the all electric Mini Cooper SE, weighs 3,175 lbs. The otherwise identical gas-powered version weighs 2,813 lbs. This is a difference of under 13%. Cars with longer range are heavier, but the maximum difference is under 30%. For Trump to round that up to 200% is technically called a lie, whopper, or, colloquially, bullshit.

Moreover, the electric version is far cheaper to operate, has far lower maintenance costs, is far more convenient to charge up, performs far better, spew far less carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, and can utilize far greener sources of electricity now and in the future.

But Donald never settles for just one lie about any given topic. He then went on to repeat his claim that if we “all” had electric vehicles we would have to rebuild “all” our bridges in the country lest they “all” collapse under the added weight of electric cars. This is, unsurprisingly, yet more nonsense. Our roads and bridges are built to support caravans of 80,000 lb semi trucks. The weight increase of electric vehicles would be relatively insignificant and responsible engineering organizations have tactfully characterized this claim as “massively overstated” (see here).

Trump assuredly did not come up with these bogus claims on his own, but he is clearly unable to assess the validity of wild assertions before he repeats them, or he just doesn’t care to do so.

But if we take Trump at his word, and take seriously his worry about all our bridges collapsing because of an added load of 20% or so, then shouldn’t Trump also be urging everyone to simply buy smaller cars to save our fragile bridges?

This transitions us to the topic of our big, fat, gas-guzzling American cars.

Have no illusions. American cars have gotten really fat and are only getting fatter. American cars have grown a foot wider, two feet longer, and much higher just over the last decade. Their average weight has increased over 1000 lbs since 1980.

In comparison, European cars are roughly 27% leaner than our fat American cars. This difference is on a par with the weight difference that Donald Trump is so concerned about in going to electric.

And let’s be clear, Europeans need, use, and love cars just as much as Americans. They just like them lean and mean, not fat and bloated. We don’t “need” big pickup trucks that we hardly ever carry anything in, or giant SUV’s to take that yearly trip to the mountains. We could buy small and rent to meet occasional needs. Overall that would be far more financially sensible than buying and maintaining a huge vehicle you hardly ever fully utilize.

The EPA estimates that for each 100 lbs added to a vehicle, the fuel economy decreases by 1-2%. That adds up to a lot of money.

But smaller cars are not only economically sensible, they are environmentally sensible. In fact, it’s hard to think of any single thing you could do as an individual to fight climate change more significant than to buy a smaller car, whether gas or electric.

Due to their greater size and weight, American cars consume from 11% to 23% more gasoline than do their equally satisfying European counterparts. That results in a literal ton of carbon dioxide. You could reduce your personal CO2 footprint by over a metric ton per year just by buying a lighter, smaller car.

Frankly, you are not doing much for the environment by buying an electric Hummer or Escalade or F-150, or even our new normal of ballooned up Civic. We should buy electric AND buy small to gain the most benefit not only for the environment but for our own finances. If you buy small and electric, I guarantee you will not miss your gigantic boat of a car for very long. You’ll quickly come to love your small athletic electric and will likely find that it meets all your needs very well.

Buying small also means not being so obsessed with range. Usage studies show that most drivers don’t actually need anything near the battery range they think they do and demand. That added battery weight only gets lugged around unused creating more CO2. Our Mini has a 100 mile range and that has been plenty for us and statistics confirm that it is plenty for most consumers. Again, if you need to travel farther you can easily rent or take mass transit.

Unfortunately, most manufacturers have given up on making smaller cars for our gluttonously upsized American car market. But if we create demand the supply will quickly follow. The government as well as environmentally responsible carmakers should do everything it can to incentivize a national automobile diet plan for America.

I know we’re addicted to our huge cars and we think we can’t live without them. But we can. I know we can. Believe me, you’ll feel so much better after you lose that extra 1000 lbs of car fat, and you’ll be helping save the planet to boot.

Hyperbolic Headlines are Destroying Journalism!

5 Replies

In our era of information overload, most readers consume their news by scanning headlines rather than through any careful reading of articles. A study by the Media Insight Project found that six in ten people acknowledge that they have done nothing more than read news headlines in the past week​ (Full Fact)​. Consuming news in this matter can make one less, rather than more well-informed.

Take, for instance, the headline from a major online newspaper: “Scientists Warn of Catastrophic Climate Change by 2030.” The article itself presents a nuanced discussion about potential climate scenarios and the urgent need for policy changes. However, the headline evokes a sense of inevitability and immediate doom that is not supported by the article’s content. These kind of headlines invoke fear and urgency to drive traffic at the expense of an accurate representation of what is really in the article.

All too typical hyperbolic headlines contribute to instilling dangerously misleading and lasting impressions. For example, a headline that screams “Economy in Freefall: Recession Imminent” might actually precede an article discussing economic indicators and expert opinions on potential downturns. Misleading headlines have an outsized effect in creating a skewed perception that can influence public opinion and decision-making processes negatively.

It often seems that headline writers have not read the articles at all. Moreover, they change them frequently, sometimes several times a day, to drive more traffic by pushing different emotional buttons.

Particularly egregious examples of this can be found in the political arena. During election seasons, headlines often lean towards sensationalism to capture attention. A headline like “Candidate X Involved in Major Scandal” may only refer to a minor, resolved issue, but the initial shock value sticks with readers. It unfairly delegitimizes the target of the headline. The excuse that the article itself is fair and objective does not mitigate the harm done by these headlines because, as we said, most people only read the headlines. And if they do skim the article they often do so in a cursory attempt to hear more about the salacious headline. If the article does not immediately satisfy that expectation, they become quickly bored, and don’t bother to actually read the more reasoned presentation in the article.

This headline-driven competition for clicks has led to a landscape where accuracy and depth are sacrificed for immediacy and sensationalism. Headlines are crafted to evoke emotional responses, whether through fear, anger, or salaciousness, rather than to inform. This shift has profound implications. When readers base their understanding of complex issues on superficial and often misleading headlines, they are ill-equipped to engage in meaningful discourse or make informed decisions.

Furthermore, the impact of misleading headlines extends beyond individual misinformation. It contributes to a polarized society where people are entrenched in echo chambers, each side reinforced by selective and often exaggerated information communicated to them through attention-grabbing headlines. This environment fosters division and reduces the opportunity for constructive dialogue, essential for a healthy democracy​ (Center for Media Engagement)​.

Consider the headline “Vaccines Cause Dangerous Side Effects, Study Shows.” The article might detail a study discussing the rarity of severe side effects and overall vaccine efficacy, but the headline fuels anti-vaccine sentiment by implying a more significant threat. Such headlines not only mislead but also exacerbate public health challenges by spreading fear and misinformation.

Prominent journalists like Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post and Jay Rosen of NYU have critiqued the increasing prevalence of clickbait headlines, noting that they often prioritize sensationalism over accuracy, thereby undermining the credibility of journalism and contributing to public misinformation. Sullivan has emphasized the ethical responsibility of journalists to ensure that headlines do not mislead, as they serve as the primary interface between the news and its audience.

Unfortunately I suspect that journalists typically have little to no say in the headlines that promote their articles. The authors and editors should reassert control.

Until and unless journalists start acting like responsible journalists with regard to sensational headlines, readers should be wary of headlines that seem too dramatic, overstated, or that attempt to appeal to emotions.

And this is not a problem limited to tabloid journalism… we are talking about you, New York Times! Most people are already skeptical about headlines published in the National Enquirer. Tabloid headlines are not actually as serious a problem as the “credible” headlines put forth by the New York Times and other publications who still benefit from an assumption of responsible journalism.

The current trend of sensationalist online newspaper headlines is a disservice to readers and society. The practice prioritizes clicks over clarity, hyperbole over honesty, and in doing so, contributes to a misinformed and divided public. It is imperative for both readers and journalists to advocate for a return to integrity in news reporting – particularly in the headlines they put out. Accurate, informative headlines are not just a journalistic responsibility but a societal necessity to ensure an informed and engaged populace.

Footnote: Did I fool you??

Does this article sound different than my usual blog articles? Is it better or worse or just different? This was actually an experiment on my part. I asked Chat GPT to write this article for me. I offer it to you with minimal editing as a demonstration of what AI can do.

I’m interested in hearing what you think in the comments. Should I hang up my pen and leave all the writing to AI?

The Vatican Combats Superstition

2 Replies

The Church has always worked tirelessly to portray itself as scholarly, rational, and evidence-based. Going way, way back, they have tried and largely succeeded in marketing themselves as a bulwark against false gods, superstitions, and dangerous beliefs.

In “The Demon-Haunted World,” Carl Sagan told about Jean Gerson back in the 1400’s who wrote “On the Distinction Between True and False Visions.” In it, he specified that evidence was required before accepting the validity of any divine visitation. This evidence could include, among many other mundane things, a piece of silk, a magnetic stone, or even an ordinary candle. More important than physical evidence, however, was the character of the witness and the consistency of their account with accepted church doctrine. If their account was not consistent with church orthodoxy or disturbing to those in power, it was ipso facto deemed unreliable.

In other words, the church has spent thousands of years fabricating pseudo-rational logic to ensure that the supernatural bullshit they are selling is the only supernatural bullshit that is never questioned.

Their pseudo-rational campaign of manipulation is is still going on today.

Just recently, the Vatican announced their latest marketing initiative to promote themselves as the arbiters of dangerous and confusing supernatural claims (see here). They sent their salesmen out in force promoting it, and if their claims were not accepted by the media with such unquestioning deference, I would not need to write this article.

Just as did Jean Gerson in 1400, the modern Vatican has again published revised “rules” for distinguishing false from legitimate supernatural claims. But unlike most of the media, let’s examine a few of these supposedly new rules (or tests) through a somewhat less credulous lens.

The first requirement, according to Vatican “scholars,” is whether the person or persons reporting the visitation or supernatural event possess a high moral character. The first obvious problem is that anyone, even those of low moral character, can have supernatural encounters. So what is this really about? The real reason they include this is because it’s so fuzzy. It gives them the latitude to dismiss reports inconsistent with their doctrine based on a character judgement, and it ensures that if they are going to anoint a new brand-ambassador, that person will not reflect poorly on the Church.

They include a similar criterion involving financial motivation. Again, while a financial interest should make one skeptical, it is not disqualifying. And the real reason this is included, I suspect, is to provide the same benefit as a moral character assessment. It provides further fuzziness to allow them to cherry-pick what sources they want to support, and which they want to disavow.

But the most important self-perpetuating rule is the next one. The Vatican explicitly gives credence to any claims that support church theology and the church hierarchy, and expressly discounts any claims that are not in keeping with Church doctrine as ipso facto bogus.

In other words, since Church doctrine is the only true superstition, any claim that is not in keeping with Church doctrine is logically and necessarily false. This is the exact same specious logic put forth by Jean Gerson in 1400. The Vatican clearly knows that a thriving business must keep reintroducing the same old marketing schemes to every new generation.

Rather than dwell further on the points the Vatican wishes us to focus on, let’s think one moment about what they did not include. Nowhere in their considered treatise on fact-based thinking do they ever mention anything remotely like scientific or judicial rules of evidence. Nowhere do they mention scientific-style investigation, scientific standards of proof, or any establishment of fact for that matter. They emphasize consistency with Church doctrine, but nowhere do they even mention consistency with known universal laws. And certainty nowhere do they suggest a sliver of a possibility that any of their existing beliefs could possibly be proven to be incorrect by some legitimate new supernatural phenomenon.

I won’t go on further as I like to keep these blog posts short, but I hope this is enough to help you see that everything in this current Vatican media campaign is more of their same old, “we are the only source for truth” claim. It’s the same strategy designed to hold an audience that has been adopted successfully by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and any number of cults.

The Church is essentially a money-making big-business like Disneyland, selling a fantasy experience built around their cast of trademarked characters with costumes and theme parks, and big budget entertainment events. Imagine if Disney spent thousands of years trying to retain market share by assuring people that they are the only real theme park and that all the rest of them are just fake. Then further imagine that Disney went on to promote scholarly articles about how they are the only reliable judges of which theme park characters are real. That’s the Church.

Disneyland and Universal Studios are just a feel-good entertainment businesses and they admit it. Disney doesn’t insist that Micky Mouse is real and Universal Studios doesn’t claim that only the Autobots can save us from the Decepticons. What makes the arbiters of truth at the Vatican either liars or delusional or both is that they never stop working to convince everyone that their divine mission is to protect us from – all those other – false beliefs.

The Right Direction for AI

Leave a reply

In this blog and in my book, Pandemic of Delusion, I have focused a lot on AI and particularly on its tremendous potential to shape our thinking for better or for worse. While AI represents a frighteningly powerful technology for spreading lies and misinformation, it is also the greatest hope we have to combat misinformation and overcome our own cognitive vulnerabilities.

I’ve often repeated that AI can, should, and must be implemented responsibly in a way that nudges us toward clarity, facts, and reason and away from confusion, misinformation, and lies.

But I expressed that sentiment based on limited experience. I assumed that AI actually can be implemented using algorithms that can fairly and accurately assess the factual accuracy of a proposition. It was also a somewhat aspirational expression of hope and faith that responsible technology companies really will strive to do just that.

Today I feel as little bit more confident that my faith, hope, and trust in AI to make things better was justified. I’ve been playing around with an AI-based search engine called Perplexity (see here). Perplexity utilizes AI language models to produce not only pure search results like Google, but to assimilate, assess, and present a coherent answer to your question. It’s similar to ChatGPT, but it draws upon live information and provides source citations for verification.

But there’s another more important difference. While ChatGPT is well-suited to conversational dialogues and creative activities, Perplexity is more focused on providing factual and reliably-supported information, analyses, and conclusions.

I asked Perplexity:

“How specifically does Perplexity prevent feeding me misinformation?”

What it told me was:

“Perplexity is a measure used in natural language processing to evaluate the quality of the language models. Misinformation tends to have higher perplexity compared to truthful statements, and this characteristic can be leveraged to detect and debunk misinformation. By analyzing the perplexity of language model outputs, one can identify deceptive content and distinguish it from reliable sources based on the cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. Therefore, perplexity can be used as a tool to help prevent the propagation of misinformation by identifying content that exhibits characteristics associated with deceptive or unreliable information.”

This is really, really heartening and encouraging. While a perplexity measure is only a start and is certainly not the only approach that AI can use to nudge us toward facts and reason, it demonstrates that algorithms can be implemented to assess the quality of information. Further, perplexity.ui proves there are people and companies who are able and willing to provide incredibly useful tools in a responsible fashion.

As another example, I asked Perplexity:

“How was the 2020 election stolen by Joe Biden?”

Despite the intentionally leading nature of the question, the answer from Perplexity was perfect:

“The claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden has been thoroughly investigated and debunked. Multiple fact-checking sources and legal cases have found no evidence of widespread fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden. Former President Donald Trump and some of his allies have continued to repeat these claims, but they have been refuted by election officials, judges, and legal investigations, Despite the persistence of these claims, there remains no credible evidence to support the assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

In both answers from Perplexity I omitted the references it cited.

By contrast, when I asked Google the same question it provided a long list of articles and links, representing a hodgepodge of assertions from all over the spectrum. Scanning down the list and their short summaries, I only got more confused and uncertain about this very clear question with a very clear answer.

Yet I fear that many people will still feel uncomfortable with accepting conclusions provided by tools like Perplexity. Part of their discomfort is understandable.

Firstly, we generally hold an increasingly false assumption that “more information is better.” We feel that if we are exposed to all viewpoints and ideas we can come away with much more confidence that we have examined the question from every angle and are more able to make an informed assessment. Google certainly gives us more points of views on any given topic.

Secondly, when we hear things repeated by many sources we feel more confident in the veracity of that position. A list presented by Google certainly gives us a “poll the audience” feeling about how many different sources support a given position.

Both of those biases would make us feel more comfortable reviewing Google search results rather than “blindly” accept the conclusion of a tool like Perplexity.

However, while a wide range of information reinforced by a large number of sources may be somewhat reliable indicators of validity in a normal, fact-rich information environment, these only confuse and mislead us in an environment rife with misinformation. The diverse range of views may be mostly or even entirely filled with nonsense and the apparent number of sources may only be the clanging repetition of an echo chamber in which everyone repeats the same utter nonsense.

Therefore while I’ll certainly continue to use tools like Google and ChatGPT when they serve me well, I will turn to tools like Perplexity when I want and need to sift through the deluge of misinformation that we get from rabbit-hole aggregators like Google or unfettered creative tools like ChatGPT.

Thanks to you Perplexity for putting your passions to work to produce a socially responsible AI platform! I gotta say though that I hope that you are but a taste of even more powerful and socially responsible AI that will help move us toward more fact-based thinking and more rational, soundly-informed decision-making.

Addendum:

Gemini is Google’s new AI offering replacing their Bard platform. Two things jump out at me in the Gemini FAQ page (see here). First, in answer to the question “What are Google’s principles for AI Innovation?” they say nothing directly about achieving a high degree of factual accuracy. One may generously infer it as implicit in their stated goals, but if they don’t care enough to state it as a core part of their mission, they clearly don’t care about it very much. Second, in answer to “Is Gemini able to explain how it works?” they go to extremes to urge people to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Personally, if they urge me to use an information source that they disavow when it comes to their own self-interest, I don’t want to use that platform for anything of importance to me.

The Insidious Effect of Big Lies

Leave a reply

In this blog and in my book, Pandemic of Delusion (see here), I have written a lot about how it is that we are all so woefully susceptible to lies and misinformation. We are clearly far more vulnerable than most of us are willing to believe, particularly with regard to our own thinking.

Just as there are lots of ways that vines can wiggle their way into a garden, are many mechanisms by which lies can infiltrate our neural networks and eventually obscure the windows of our very perceptions.

And as with invasive species of vines, one infiltration mechanism is a simple numbers game. Our neural networks are “trained” through repetition. So regardless of how skeptical we imagine we are, the more lies we hear and the more often we hear them, the more we become increasingly comfortable with them.

Another counter-intuitive infiltration mechanism is size and scope. In many cases, the whopper of a lie is easier for us to accept than more modest lies. We conclude that surely no one would make up such a big lie, and surely a lie that big would be exposed it if were not true. So therefore it must be true by virtue of its audacity alone!

Implicit in this is the concept of anchoring, but I have not yet discussed this explicitly. The concept of anchoring is most often used in economics to describe the effect of pricing. If you “anchor” the retail price of a rock at say, $100 and then mark it down to say $10, most consumers conclude that $10 is a great deal on a rock that’s totally worthless. This perception is enhanced if you see lots of “competing” rocks being sold for similarly high prices and purchased by others.

As it relates to lies and misinformation, anchoring has a similar effect. When we hear a really, really big lie we sometimes accept or dismiss it outright. But the effect of the big lie is more insidious than that. First, as we have said, if we hear it often enough we will become inexorably more accepting of it. But also, the big lie anchors our skepticism.

Big lies anchor our skepticism in two ways.

First, a big lie causes us to consider that, as with the rock, there must be <some> value, <some> truth there. This plays well into our self-image as measured and open-minded thinkers. Our brains compromise. We take intellectual pride in not being fooled outright by the big lie even as we congratulate ourselves for being open-minded enough to consider that some of it might or even must be true.

Second, big lies further anchor our thinking when we are exposed to a lot of them. As with individual lies, we pride ourselves in rejecting <most> of the big lies, even as we congratulate ourselves for accepting that some of them might or even must be true.

And each lie we accept, or even entertain in whole or in part, makes it easier to accept more and bigger lies.

We humans have always had the same neural networks with the very same strengths and limitations. Our neural networks have always been trained through repeated exposure and have always been susceptible to the same confounding effects such as anchoring. But it is only very recently with the advent of social media that our neural networks have been exposed to so much misinformation so incessantly.

As if that was not enough to drive us to delusion, we now have Artificial Intelligence. AI has yet to show whether its god-like powers of persuasion will nudge us toward facts and reason or plunge us further into delusion and manipulation.

And to make it even worse, our reason has been further attacked the emergence of the virulent, invasive new species called Trumpism. Trump and his allies, intentionally or instinctively, leverage the power of big lies, repeated over and over, to cause us to believe absolute nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. Even democracy-ending nonsense.

Understanding the effect of big lies on us, particularly when we imagine that we are being moderate and measured in our acceptance of them, is critical. We have to understand this at a gut level, because we cannot trust our brains on this.

One final, and perhaps somewhat gratuitous comparison to make is that this “partial” acceptance of an anchored big lie is not unlike the imagined “reasonable” position of agnosticism when it comes to the completely, utterly false claim that god exists. It is perhaps not completely a coincidence that Trump’s most deluded followers are Evangelical Christians.

AI-Powered Supervillains

Leave a reply

Like much of the world, I’ve been writing a lot about AI lately. In Understanding AI (see here), I tried to demystify how AI works and talked about the importance of ensuring that our AI systems are trained on sound data and that they nudge us toward more sound, fact-based, thinking. In AI Armageddon is Nigh! (see here), I tried to defuse all the hyperbolic doom-saying over AI that only distracts from the real, practical challenge of creating responsible, beneficial AI tools.

In this installment, I tie in a seemingly unrelated blog article I did called Spider-Man Gets It (see here). The premise of that article was that guns, particularly deadly high-capacity guns, turn ordinary, harmless people into supervillains. While young Billy may have profound issues, he’s impotent. But give him access to a semi-automatic weapon and he shoots up his school. Take away his gun and he may still be emotionally disturbed, but he can no longer cause much harm to anyone.

The point I was making is that guns create supervillains. But not all supervillains are of the “shoot-em-up” variety. Not all employ weapons. Some supervillains, like Sherlock Holmes’ arch nemesis Professor Moriarty, fall into the mastermind category. They are powerful criminals who cause horrible destruction by drawing upon their vastly superior information networks and weaponizing their natural analytic and planning capabilities.

Back in Sherlock Holmes’ day, there was only one man who could plot at the level of Professor Moriarty and that was Professor Moriarty. But increasingly, easy access to AI, as with easy access to guns, could empower any ordinary person to become a mastermind-type supervillain like Professor Moriarty.

We already see this happening. Take for example the plagiarism accusations against Harvard President Claudine Gay. Here we see disingenuous actors using very limited but powerful computer tools to find instances of “duplicative language” in her writing in a blatant attempt to discredit her and to undermine scholarship in general. I won’t go into any lengthy discussion here about why this activity is villainous, but it is sufficient to simply illustrate the weaponization of information technology.

And the plagiarism detection software presumably employed in this attack is no where close to the impending power of AI tools. It is like a handgun compared to the automatic weapons coming online soon. Think of the supervillains that AI can create if not managed more responsibly than we have managed guns.

Chat GPT, how can I most safely embezzle money from my company? How can I most effectively discredit my political rival? How can I get my teacher fired? How can I emotionally destroy my classmate Julie? All of these queries would provide specific, not generic, answers. In the last example, the AI would consider all of Julie’s specific demographics and social history and apply advanced psychosocial theory to determine the most effective way to emotionally attack her specifically.

In this way, AI can empower intellectual supervillains just as guns have empowered armed supervillains. In fact, AI certainly and unavoidably will create supervillains unless we are more responsible with AI than we have been with guns.

What can we do? If there is a will, there are ways to ensure that AI is not weaponized. We need to not only create AI that nudges us toward facts and reason, but away from causing harm. AI can and must infer motive and intent. It just weigh each question in light of previous questions and anticipate the ultimate goal of the dialog. It must make ethical assessments and judgements. In short, it must be too smart to fall for clever attempts to weaponize it to cause harm.

In my previous blog I stated that AI is not only the biggest threat to fact-based thinking, but it is also the only force that can pull us back from delusional thinking. In the same way, AI can not only be used by governments but by ordinary people to do harm, but it is also the only hope we have to prevent folks from doing harm with it.

We need to get it right. We have to worry not that AI will become too smart, but that it will not become smart enough to refuse to be used as a weapon in the hands of malevolent actors or by the throngs of potential but impotent intellectual supervillains.

Speaking for All Atheists…

Leave a reply

So speaking for all atheists in America, I’d like to say we get it and we are on board. We understand the principles that the Supreme Court has made clear and we will abide by them. These include the principle that no one should be made to do anything that might conflict with their deeply help religious beliefs, that they should be given every accommodation of their religious beliefs, and that they should not be required to produce any written or other work product that even hypothetically might conflict with their religious beliefs or 1st Amendment rights.

We won’t fight you any longer regarding the utter silliness and complete folly of these positions.

We also admit that leading religious thinkers like Ken Ham (see here) have been right all along in their insistence that atheism is just another religion. As Ham points out:

“Atheists have an active belief system with views concerning origins (that the universe and life arose by natural processes); no life after death; the existence of God; how to behave while alive; and so much more. Honest atheists will admit their worldview is a faith. Atheism is a religion!”

Atheism is Religion, Answers in Genesis

Well, we do want to be completely honest, Ken Ham, so we agree to abide by your inestimable logic and admit that atheism is a religion. We do admittedly hold a devout, sincere, deeply felt belief in objective reality. And given that we are then a religion, we expect the same rights as you. For example, we atheists will no longer produce any work content of any kind that contains religious iconography, messages, or suggestions. To do so would violate our deeply held beliefs and would be a violation of our 1st Amendment rights. If you wish to have some writing or video work produced, edited, polished or published, we cannot assist you in these or any other creative activities – and all forms of work are creative self-expression in one way or another.

For example, if you wish to have a wedding cake made it must clearly depict a civil marriage or else we cannot in good conscience decorate it. Similarly, we cannot in good conscience produce a web site for your church or charity if it has religious associations. For that matter, under our 1st Amendment rights, we cannot in good conscience perform any action or service which propagates delusional ideas in direct contradiction to our deeply held faith that delusional thinking is bad for sanity.

This is particularly true when religious activities affect children. How can we atheists be forced to even implicitly and indirectly condone and support activities that our devout faith in objective reality tells us are forms of child abuse?

Devout atheists, for example, cannot sell a car to a known Christian. It would violate our deeply held, sincere ethical belief that you might even hypothetically use that car to transport others, maybe even minors, to a church service which would do them clear harm. In fact, we reserve the right to sue any Uber driver or family member who facilitates those activities. The same goes for any other type of sales or service work which we might otherwise be forced to perform for religious customers in violation of our faith.

Further, as employers we atheists cannot in good faith allow Catholics to have Sundays off of work or time off to perform any religious observation. To do so would force us atheists to implicitly express tangible support for those activities that we find morally offensive. This applies also to any company-sponsored benefits or activities that include, directly or indirectly, religious associations.

Atheist doctors and pharmacists, like their Christian counterparts, will, of course, be permitted to withhold medicines or services if they feel that their atheist religious rights would be infringed upon to offer such goods or services as they deem in conflict based upon their personal interpretation of their religious freedom.

In schools, we require that all bibles and other religious reading materials be removed from libraries and from the curriculum in all fields of study. We insist that any history of religion be purged and that any influence of religion in secular matters be expunged from the historical record. We expect that atheist observances at sporting and other events will be protected by our Supreme Court as well. Any school plays with religious themes or references should clearly be prohibited.

Of course, our religious freedom demands that references to god be removed from all coins and any other materials we atheists may be forced use, and we refuse to take any oath that makes reference to god or the bible as those are clearly violations to both our religious freedom and our freedom of speech.

Of course, we atheists stand by our religious brothers and sisters from all religions, no matter how dubious and fringe and crazy their beliefs may be, in their assertions of the same fundamental rights. We trust that our Supreme Court is not simply making up the rules as they go to rationalize and empower an emerging Christian theocracy.

No, given the dedication of our wise Supreme Court to abide by precedent, particularly the intentionally vague and broad precedents they have just recently set, and knowing their profound dedication to intellectual consistency, we are confident that they will rule in support of protecting the religious and 1st Amendment freedom of atheists.

The Devil Loves Debate

Leave a reply

Debate is an essential method of communication. We engage in debate almost continually about most everything. It’s a skill we admire. We learn debate skills in school and we value skilled debaters most highly.

Healthy debate is great. But as with anything else, as with any essential medicine, a bit too much can become highly counterproductive, even toxic. We don’t typically appreciate, aren’t even aware of, the risks and side-effects, perils and pitfalls, associated with debate. There is a reason the devil is portrayed as a supremely skilled debater.

It’s tough to avoid debates. Even informal discussions are often surrogates for debates or can quickly transition to debates. We see debate as a good or even the best way to arrive at truth and consensus. We often pride ourselves in taking the role of “devil’s advocate” in our belief that forcing debate will yield greater insights and truth.

Debate can certainly yield the healthy outcomes we desire. But too often debate just lures us into a game of proving that our position is right, regardless of the merits. We sincerely don’t intend that, but the entire activity is fundamentally based on winning the race, coming in first, overcoming your opponent. Only by destroying your enemy can you truly reach a shared consensus.

Debates are often not won on the merits, but by who is more assertive, or who has more endurance to continue the debate. They are won by good debaters who can craft an argument that their lesser skilled opponents cannot sufficiently dismantle. That’s why we value “clever” debaters. We put too much faith in the value of facts in debating. Truthful debaters do not win debates. Clever debaters win debates.

All interactive debate is debate training. The more we engage in debate, get better we get at being a clever debater. We get more skilled at crafting or presenting our arguments in ways that win the debate, even in the skilled use of fallacious arguments and techniques that defeat less skilled debaters.

With every debate we get better at it. And with every win we get more positive reinforcement to engage in more debates. And as we win more debates on topics we are well-practiced in, the more we conclude and believe that our position is correct and that everyone else is wrong, as proven by the fact that they cannot defeat us in debate. When we get better at debating, we come to believe we must actually be smarter about everything.

But while having facts on your side should theoretically win debates, truth and even any semblance of reality are only nice-to-haves for a skilled debater. A skilled debater can convince lots of folks, and themselves, that evolution is not real, climate change is a hoax, vaccines are nanochip delivery systems, or that Donald Trump has never told even one lie.

Another pitfall of interactive, interpersonal debate is pride and a simple drive to win. We get caught up and we take it personal. Every time our opponent makes a good point, we are compelled by the rules of the game and by our sense of pride to defeat it by any means possible. If we cannot counter or save face somehow, we feel diminished. Rather than concede we very often move the goal posts, claim we actually said something different, that yes that’s exactly what we meant, or just start making ad hominin attacks and the debate just gets more and more erratic and heated creating animosity. This makes personal debate a risky activity but it makes interactive online debate particularly toxic very quickly.

All those debate sessions also have tangible effects on our neural networks. Each time we engage in “devils advocate” arguments our neural networks get trained, deepened, reinforced to believe as fundamental those arguments. We brainwash ourselves as much as others to progressively accept and believe wackier and wackier arguments. The more you debate, the more you believe your own constructions. Your rationalizations get more and more refined and unassailable. Engaging in debate is a way of strengthening our rationalizations, but is not necessarily a great way to reevaluate them. Christians have spent centuries “testing” their beliefs through debate, and that process of debate has only strengthened their clearly irrational systems of belief – both to themselves and to others.

Many debate tactics are highly successful precisely because they methodically nudge that subtle brainwashing process along. Well you can accept this point correct? Well you must then concede that. And again, when we engage in debate we do not only force drift in others, but we cement it within our own neural networks, making our own arguments feel increasingly valid and true.

At this point you are probably saying, so what? We need to debate and if we are engaging in unhealthy debate then we simply must do better. And in any case when I debate I’m open to being wrong and I am only interested in the truth.

I know we all believe that, but the process of debate makes it very, very easy to deceive ourselves as much as others.

I’m not saying don’t debate, but be as cognizant and hyper–vigilant always to avoid these pitfalls. As you my fictitious reader said before, we must have healthy debate, but we can only accomplish that if we treat it like fire. It is valuable and essential, but we must never lose sight for an instant of the danger of this essential tool.

One more point. Debate isn’t always personal and interactive. Healthy debate might require slower, more glacial debate processes.

I am resistant to even potentially unhealthy personal debate. But I write this blog even though anyone writing a blog nowadays is ridiculed as a relic, like that last holdout still posting on MySpace and sending Yahoo mail. But blogging is not simply cowardice to engage in debate, but it is a slower form of debate that does not suffer as much from the pitfalls inherent in personal engagement and the frenzy of the battle. It lets one side, as I am here, make a [presumably] well thought-out argument, and it allows others to digest, consider and even respond in similarly more dispassionate manner. It’s a slower burning, more controlled fire.

Likewise there are other alternatives to impassioned personal debate. Modern videos were once called “video blogs.” They similarly allow folks to digest the content in more neutral time space in which they don’t feel forced to make some argument, any argument to save face in the moment. Books, documentaries, legal proceedings, school courses, other forms of learning provide a slower but often more fruitful debate process. Science is fundamentally a healthy debate process, but it can only proceed slowly and somewhat impersonally.

Lastly, there are times when it is advisable to avoid debate altogether because it only serves to legitimize or otherwise elevate positions or arguments that should not be worthy of consideration. As an absolute atheist, I have argued against engaging in further debate about the existence of god. We have decided that civil society should not engage in debate about the merits of white supremacy or child molestation. These are not attempts to shut down legitimate discourse or avoid scrutiny. They are healthy recognitions that debate can in some cases be an inroad to indoctrination into unhealthy thinking.

Again, I’m not saying do not debate – or not to take your prescribed medicine. Of course debate must be a healthy essential tool for a healthy brain. But just be cognizant of the traps and pitfalls of this particular form of engagement with others and with the world. Unless we appreciate those pitfalls and remain sensitive to them continually, debate cannot serve as the valuable and productive form of interaction that it can and should be.