Normally, your friendly neighborhood blogger spends time writing about politics or social issues that deserve to be mocked. This week I’m stretching my legs a bit to go into the tech world…to mock it.
Artificial Intelligence, or AI for short, has taken the world by storm, and by storm I mean CAT 4 Billion hurricane. Although the technology being used now to create AI bots online is at tin-cans-connected-by-string level, it’s starting to get better. And it’s starting to get people worried.
So worried that the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration put Vice President Kamala Harris the AI Czar. Who better to discuss Artificial Intelligence than a real dumbass?
Needless to say (which is why I’m typing it), the Left is starting to feel the heat from the rise of AI. Which means it’s the perfect subject…to mock them.
AI
What the Left thinks it means – a technological advance that will negatively affect the arts, human interaction, and social issues
What it really means – a computer pretending to be human…for now
The concept of AI has been around since last century in science fiction and other fantastic stories, but it didn’t really come into being until 1954, when Allen Newell, Cliff Shaw, and Herbert Simon came up with a program called Logic Theorist, which attempted to duplicate the thought processes of a human. When it was unveiled two years later, it was heralded as a breakthrough, as it should have been.
From there, AI experienced highs and lows, advances and setbacks, peanut butter and jelly. Once the matter of computer storage was resolved, AI truly began to come into its own, thanks to a little computer known as Deep Blue. In 1996, IBM pit the computer against chess champion Garry Kasparov in a chess match which Deep Blue shockingly won. This was the first sign AI was not only possible, but had the potential to outperform humans.
Do you want SkyNet? Because this is how we get SkyNet.
Seriously, though, in the nearly 30 years after Deep Blue, AI has found its way into society, tech and non-tech alike. The currently striking screenwriters are afraid AI will replace them. (Given the absolute dog shit Hollywood has been putting out the past two decades, though, I’m not sure it’s that big of a loss.) “South Park” devoted an episode to ChatGPT where part of the script was written by it. Even art is seeing AI’s slow creep into its hallowed halls.
And earlier this month, Warner Music signed the world’s first AI generated pop star, Noonoouri. The song, “Dominoes,” is about what you would expect. Words strung together to a beat with a noticeable hook that’s easy to like. In other words, just like pop music today, but with more natural singing.
I have a lot of questions, not the least of which being how a computer program can get paid by a studio to produce music, but the point is still AI has found its way into our culture in a new way: through shitty music.
But it’s not all virtual sunshine and online lollipops for AI. A recent poll showed over 60% of people surveyed view AI as a threat to our future. Others feel their jobs could be negatively affected by the rise of AI just in California alone. Although AI has the potential to revolutionize many vital fields like medicine, the fear of AI replacing humans is real.
And this is where I throw a wet blanket on the fearmongering. Ain’t I a stinker?
The thing to remember about AI is it’s only as good as the people programming it and the program’s ability to react to new data sources. That’s why I said we were still at the tin-cans-connected-by-string level earlier. The technology is still relatively new and is getting better at an astounding rate with no ceiling as yet as to how much better it will get, but it’s still limited by human intelligence and biases.
Take facial recognition software, for example. One of the most well-known problems with it can be tied to unconscious racial biases, which can only be programmed by…humans with these biases. The program isn’t capable of it; it’s just doing what it’s been told to do as quickly as possible.
That’s AI’s Achilles’ heel, folks. AI as it stands right now is only capable of following orders within the parameters of the program itself. The “learning” it’s doing is by design, which means the data can be manipulated or controlled. Just ask Microsoft how its AI chatbot turned into a racist by going on Twitter.
Although it’s nice to see us applying more caution to AI than we did when the Internet became a thing, we need to ratchet back the fear and loathing going on right now. Yes, it has the potential to make some industries go by the wayside, but potential is not certainty. Every piece of technology we have has a due-by date. At some point in the future, it will become obsolete, and everything connected to that technology has to either evolve or become just as obsolete.
This is where free market capitalism comes into play. Any worker with his or her salt can adapt to changing conditions out of no other reason than economic necessity. He/she will gain new skills, learn new techniques, develop new attitudes and processes that will safeguard his/her job and possibly propel him/her to a new position. The grind may not always net these results, but they certainly help you look more indispensable.
This is not to say the writers, artists, etc., who are afraid for their jobs in the AI-crazy world aren’t working hard to hold onto them. They are. I’m saying their energies should be focused on ways to make them stand out in a good way. Instead of trying to figure out how to redo “Romeo and Juliet” with a modern twist or doing the 35 billionth representation of man’s inhumanity to man, find a way to bring an original idea to the forefront. Sure, you risk rejection, but the law of averages says at some point your original idea is going to resonate with someone.
As far as AI is concerned, I’m staying cautiously optimistic. Until an AI bot becomes self-aware and capable of overruling its programing, humanity will be safe. That’s not to say nothing’s going to change, but as long as humans keep being imperfect little meat puppets, we will always have the edge over any AI.
And if you really want to fuck with AI, make it only access Reddit. That will confuse it long enough for someone to pull the plug.
Tag: art
Those Who Do Not Learn from History Are Doomed to Tear Down Statues
As an Iowa boy, I’m familiar with cow-tipping. At the risk of Flyover-Country-splaining, cow-tipping is when people push a cow over so she falls. I’ve never done it, but from what I’ve heard it’s a fun activity, or at least it’s a fun activity for Iowans because we’re just now getting actual entertainment here.
Lately, though, people have taken to statue-tipping because they’re upset with the racism in our history. Some Leftists on Twitter have even offered suggestions on how to topple statutes or, in one case, the Washington Monument. As humorous as this seems, allow me to take it to Orwellian heights while attempting to sprinkle in a bit of humor along the way.
As the debate over whether statues of Confederate generals deserve to be preserved rages right now, there is an underlying issue that’s a bit tougher to overcome, although the Left finds it easy to disregard. I’m talking about American history. Like it or not, our past is full of incidents that make us look like David Duke, but it’s still our history. We fought a civil war at least in part on racial issues, and although the Confederacy lost, it’s hard for me to get past the notion they are still part of American history.
“But we’re not trying to erase history,” Leftists love to say. “History will still be taught.” Except it’s not being taught well in today’s public schools, thanks to people who agree with taking down statues of people they find objectionable. The Founding Fathers, for example, aren’t being taught as seriously because they owned slaves and, thus, aren’t worthy of study or consideration (according to Leftists). Yet, without one of these slave-owners, we might not have expressed our independence from England, nor would we likely have had a Constitution. Instead of teaching these perspectives, the Founding Fathers are being “memory-holed.”
George Orwell is holding on Line 1, kids.
This is not to elevate the Confederacy to Founding Fathers status. Instead, it’s to underscore just how important it is to consider the impact imperfect people have had on our nation. If we pretend Thomas Jefferson didn’t exist because he owned slaves (as well as getting freaky-deaky with at least one of them), we erase the positive impact he had. With Confederate generals, that argument is a much harder sell, but the point remains. When we erase history on the basis of current sensibilities, we do a grave disservice to the past, present, and future.
And that’s where the Left gets it completely wrong.
Toppling a statue of a Confederate general may be righteous in the Left’s eyes, but it doesn’t address the underlying issues that caused the statue to be erected in the first place, nor does it eliminate any good that person did. Like it or not, Robert E. Lee was a military strategist. Even if he was on the losing side, that can’t be taken away from him, no matter how many statues you wreck or history lessons you don’t teach in school. Now what? You’ve pretty much destroyed public property for nothing. Brilliant!
Now, here’s where the Left’s logic about offensive statues will come back to bite them in the backside. As with any movement, eventually the winds of change will make it obsolete and the ideals of said movement can be used to justify actions never intended by the movement to be done. Put another way, the statues you topple today may get erected again and other statues you like will get toppled tomorrow, and you have only yourselves to blame. Congratulations! You’ve not only accomplished nothing, but you’ve opened the door for others to take the same actions that will accomplish nothing. But hey, at least you owned the Right, right?
This next part is a bit of a tangent, but it relates to the matter at hand because it shows how little the Left knows about history and how little they regard context. Some of the same folks who like to topple statutes are trying to get Huckleberry Finn banned because of its frequent use of the n-word. Of course, these morons haven’t taken the time to either a) read the book, or b) understand the reason why the word was used. Mark Twain used the language of the time (of which he was familiar) to expose the idiocy of the racism shown in the book. Of the characters, Jim was by far the most noble while the white characters (including Huck for a time) were irredeemable. That’s a context you miss if you’re just looking for the n-word. Not to mention, this was tried back in the 1990s and it failed. As my old high school history teacher used to say, “Those who do not learn from history get to take it again next semester.”
It appears a lot of Leftists skipped that class the second time around as well as the first.
Other Leftists are arguing the removal of these statues on the basis of them not being art. May I introduce you to the Right and their attempts to remove the works of Robert Mappelthorpe back in the late 80s and early 90s? You guys are going to get along great!
The thing about art is it’s subjective, and the thing about being an adult is you’re not required to like everything and you can ignore what you don’t like. Hear that, Leftists? You don’t have to like everything and you can ignore it. If you get upset over a statue, first of all you have much bigger problems than just the statue, and second of all you can walk away. Tearing down monuments you don’t like is a childish solution to a non-problem. If you want to tackle racism, do it, but don’t do it by acting like a child.
That’s why the toppling of statues today (even people like Ulysses S. Grant who fought in the aforementioned Civil War) is, to borrow a Leftist term, problematic. And why it’s extremely humorous to me.