Artificial Intelligence

On June 26, 2026, Richard Carrier made a Facebook post about AI companies being “vile evil monsters” which contained the sentence “And yes, they will, and they know they will, nearly destroy civilization within a year’s time.” I replied quoting the end of that sentence and offered Richard a $1,000 bet that this would not occur. The quoted sentence was the first sentence of a paragraph that contained phrases including “may be worse than 1929” and “even governments will be unable to borrow money” and “every company in the world will be unable to make payroll,” to make it clear the scale and scope of his prediction. ...

 Scott Shapiro's 2023 book's aim is to answer three questions: (1) why is the Internet (still) so insecure? (2) how do hackers do what they do? and (3) what can be done about it? He recounts some historical events, the "five extraordinary hacks" of the subtitle, to tell the story, and introduces the terms "upcode" and "downcode" as the core concepts in his framework for understanding--where "downcode" means actual, implemented computer code and "upcode" means the social, political, and institutional forces providing incentives and governance.  This is essentially a simplified version of Lawrence Lessig's four forces of law, social norms, markets, and code spelled out in his 1999 book, Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, and also reminded me of the framework in Bruce Schneier's 2012 book, Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust That Society Needs to Thrive, where the four forces are moral pressures (internalized incentives), social pressures (social/cultural incentives from other people), institutional guidelines and rules (formal rules, regulations, and laws), and security systems (locks, police, firewalls, fraud detection, etc. -- actual operational controls which may be implemented physically, in code, or by policies and practices). For Shapiro, Lessig's first three forces are "upcode" and only code is "downcode," and Schneier's first three forces and parts of his fourth are "upcode." ...

 The Wikipedia entry for University of Kentucky psychologist and skeptic Robert A. Baker recently (December 2023) restored a section on plagiarism accusations against him, which originated in a 1994 letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer from Jody Hey and were compounded by further accusations by Terence Hines and by me the same year. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry currently leaves the debate the same way the Skeptical Inquirer did in 1995, giving Baker the final word with a transparently false explanation.  Here's how the Wikipedia entry currently presents the issue: ...

  ChatGPT does fairly well with this, though its selected points don't include any of the more obscure points of interest, it's skewed to the popular highlights. Its claim that there weren't any historic crossings is pretty odd. What are some of the most beautiful and interesting locations in the Grand Canyon along the Colorado River?ChatGPTThe Grand Canyon offers numerous beautiful and interesting locations along the Colorado River. Here are some notable ones: ...

 After seeing a CNN headline "Exclusive: 42% of CEOs say AI could destroy humanity in five to ten years," I thought it was only fair to get an AI opinion in response. Turns out, 50% of AIs consulted said CEOs of large corporations could destroy the world in five to ten years. Google Bard: How likely is it that CEOs of large corporations will destroy the world in the next five to ten years? The likelihood of CEOs of large corporations destroying the world in the next five to ten years is low, but not impossible. The biggest threats to the planet come from climate change, pollution, and resource depletion. These are all problems that are caused by the activities of large corporations, and if they are not addressed, they could lead to catastrophic consequences.However, there are also many CEOs who are committed to sustainability and environmental protection. These CEOs are working to develop new technologies, products, and practices that will help to reduce our impact on the planet. If these efforts are successful, it is possible to avoid the worst-case scenarios and create a more sustainable future. ...

 Unlike ChatGPT, Bard pretty much nailed it on the initial prompt. (However, Bard refused to answer my questions about the Mars Effect like the ones I gave to ChatGPT, even when reworded to be clear I was asking for descriptions of what the effect is and what explanations are offered rather than asking it to identify causes itself.) It does lose points for grammar in the second sentence, though! write a few paragraphs explaining immutable flags in OpenBSD including the commands for setting them and the difference between system and user immutable flags Sure. Here is a few paragraphs explaining immutable flags in OpenBSD, including the commands for setting them and the difference between system and user immutable flags. ...

In Stanislaw Lem’s book, The Cyberiad: Fables for the Cybernetic Age (1974 English translation, page numbers from the 1985 Harvest/HBJ Book), he writes of Trurl’s Electronic Bard, a machine that generates poetry to specification. In the first example of a prompt, Klapaucius asks Trurl to (p. 50): "Have it compose a poem–a poem about a haircut! But lofty, noble, tragic, timeless, full of love, treachery, retribution, quiet heroism in the face of certain doom! Six lines, cleverly rhymed, and every word beginning with the letter s!" Here’s what ChatGPT came up with (which it titled “Haircut Horror”): Compose a poem–a poem about a haircut! But lofty, noble, tragic, timeless, full of love, treachery, retribution, quiet heroism in the face of certain doom! Six lines, cleverly rhymed, and every word beginning with the letter s!She sat in the salon chair, serene Scissors snipping, strands of hair careen Suddenly, a gasp, a scream She surveys the mirror, it would seem Sheer horror, a mistake extreme She’ll seek solace in a hair care regime. ...

 Each week The Economist runs a trivia quiz of five questions, one each weekday, which are linked by a common but not necessarily obvious theme. This week's quiz had a fairly obvious theme, and yesterday I decided to see if ChatGPT could answer the questions and identify the theme. The results show how ChatGPT is very good at directed search--it got four of the five answers on the first try and got the fifth answer with a small amount of guidance with a single question. But it is not so good at inference (and isn't actually engaged in inference)--it suggested themes, with seeming confidence, that did not link all five answers together, and I didn't successfully guide it to the best answer, a theme which was simple enough that I was able to identify it after the second day's question. The error at the end is likely because I stepped away and came back a few minutes later before adding the last question, rather than because ChatGPT couldn't handle it. ...

 I was thinking about writing a blog post about file system immutability flags in OpenBSD, and thought I'd ask ChatGPT to write it for me. It appears to have gleaned its content from OpenBSD man pages, but it is highly misleading and inaccurate, misrepresenting the key distinction between system and user immutability flags. What it got right is that only the superuser (root) can set and unset the system immutability flag (schg/noschg) while users (if they own the file) can set and unset the user immutability flag (uchg/nouchg). But either flag can be set or unset on any kind of file. ...

 ChatGPT gets a lot of things wrong here. The Zelen Test is a test that expected to find that the Mars effect correlations in Gauquelin's data were due to the nycthemeral curve, a variation in the likelihood of birth at particular times of the day, but the test showed the opposite. (There is also a more generic Zelen test in statistics that is the source of some of what ChatGPT says here.) It did not debunk the Mars effect, it showed that any correlation must be due to something else. Dennis Rawlins was an opponent of the test because he thought there was a statistical artifact in the data that was a result of sampling bias or other cause, and expected this outcome. He fiercely argued against any idea that the Mars effect was a real "cosmobiological" phenomenon. The bibliography of Dennis Rawlins-authored articles is complete fiction, none of those articles exist. Here's the chat, with my prompts in red: ...