I was gonna let this one go. It wasn't about politics, it's readable, so hey!
But then I thought, nah. I'm sure old boy is counting on me. Wouldn't want to disappoint. Bless his pea-picking heart.
I can see why Thomas Jefferson and all he created is your ideal. More of a George Washington fan myself.
A doer, rather than a privileged, arrogant, hypocritical dreamer.
And if Wendell Berry's ideal of agriculture were THE ideal, wouldn't we be doing that?
Whatever benefits come of dreaming of utopias that never were - whether that be a 1950's sock hop or Walton's farm (nite Mary Ellen, nite John boy) - if that was what worked best in a capitalist society, wouldn't that be what we would have?
Who gets to decide who gets the 40 acres and the mule, and who lives in a inner city slum if not the free market?
And then Ted Kaszynski is your other ideal of modern thought? What, was Eric Rudolph taken? It's all you can do to resist emulating a schizophrenic bomber who terrorized and killed for a generation? Good to know. Pro-life, huh?
Meanwhile, AI is the "salvation of the low-IQ set" and the "bane of thinkers and innovation"? I dunno. Maybe.
Nuclear fission turned out to be a double edged sword. Most things have their pluses and their minuses. Yet, it's ironic that the software your publication uses for comments incorporates the very software you denounce.
Your columns are thought provoking, so I thank you for that. Even if they provoke profound disagreement.
I recently read Jack London's 1st article published in the Atlantic. I was struck by its similarities to Homer's Odyssey. It reminded me of something a read a while back, in that there are no new stories, only the same ones written in different ways.
Your column also reminds me of that. Because it doesn't matter if it was computers, printing presses, canned goods, and sliced bread. No matter the innovation, there has always been someone to fear it. Which is not necessarily bad, new ideas should be challenged (as should old).
But the problem is they often lead to dismissal of otherwise good ideas, by those who don't understand them, because they find it easier to dismiss than to truly consider them.
For themselves, as well as others.
Then again, I think there is SOME truth to what you say.
I am currently taking a pre-Calculus course. Which I am enjoying very much. But since the last time I took a higher math course was in the mid-1970's, let's just say there have been some changes.
In that when I last took it, anyone caught with a calculator would have been considered cheating. Now the teacher gives instructions on proper usage. Which for me is good. (Why do graphing calculators have TWO subtraction symbols? Why? Why???)
But I also find myself reminded of an old Asimov short story I read years ago.
Where a man found he had great powers over others when he learned to do calculations without a computer, when others could not.
In that my style is to either do a problem in my head, or on paper - whereas a great many of my much younger classmates are incapable of doing so without their calculators. Which allows me to now pay much more attention to the concepts and apply them to things that interest me, than I ever would if I did not have that freedom.
So I get it. I do.
Still, I believe there will always be those who will think freely and innovate, if that is their dream. AS there will always be those just wanting to get thru preCalc, because it is required for the degree they are pursuing. A box to be checked.
But then I think of the arrogance, the elitism your idea implied that there is something wrong with either a person or a machine that has an IQ of under 85. That's troubling. Especially for someone teaching children.
Other than coaching sports and raising kids, I never taught children (though I have done some adult teaching), but I did supervise people for a long time.
Your column reminds me of one of them in particular.
Now he wasn't the most scholarly of men. Probably a GED education, at most.
A written report over a simple matter would often need 3-4 revisions to be acceptable. But he was one of the best deputies I had. In that he accepted his limitations and asked for help, once he learned it would be given without contempt or ridicule.
And if it took him 3-4 times to learn a new procedure when others would learn it within 1-2, once he learned it, he would follow it diligently. Where others might cut corners, he would not.
And because of his knowing of his limitations, he was humble and easy for others to work with.
Which made him a conduit for inmates who could identify with those limitations, which they often shared. Which meant that he was often able to identify problems before others, who had different skill sets. My job as their supervisor, was to match those individual skill sets to the tasks that needed performing. Not to denigrate their individual needs.
Now that man would have benefitted from AI assisting him in his paperwork.
And if it made him more productive, and able to spend less time on paperwork and more time interacting with the people under his care - I would be a fool not to welcome such a tool. Good use of taxpayer's money, in my book. I thought conservatives liked that sort of thing?
I'm happy you enjoy making your lesson plans and consider them a work of art. But just as AI may not be able to create a Shakespearean play; is a lesson plan about Shakespeare the equivalent of Shakespeare?
As far as the "low intelligence" of AI, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's quip regarding an innovation of his time, when asked of it's uses. And he replied, "What good is a newborn baby?"
Frankly, we don't know. But in a world where we are competing with others, with their own goals and ethics - hiding our heads in the sand seems like a poor solution.
And then as far as originality, I know I read a discussion from Yuval Harari a while back, where biologists were claiming that thru experimentation, that humans have NO free will. That everything we do can be explained thru hard wiring and software. Don't know that I agree with it, but there are those making such an argument. So maybe we are not as innovative as you presume. Even the "intelligent" ones.
Meanwhile, we learn that things we originally thought were merely human traits such as altruism, empathy, communication, training have been found in other species - from ants knowing to cut coriander seeds into quarters instead of halves like other seeds so they don't spoil, to navigation, etc. What is being defined as human is evolving with our growth of knowledge.
So, to presume that AI will never be capable of true intelligence or creativity reminds me of the NYT claim around 1900 that man would never learn to fly. They turned out to be wrong.
So anyway, thanks again for the thought provoking column. But you may turn out as wrong as they were.
You understand that when Harari makes his argument that humans have "no free will" that he is not talking about himself... he is talking about those with an IQ under 100.
That's the catch with the McDowell-Dreyfus debate. Your deputy might be a great soul -- IQ is certainly not a measure of character -- but how does he **know** that whatever AI is generating is reliable? If you believe that we are all souls piloting meat machines with wet computers, then McDowell and Harari (and the peddlers of AI as a substitution for thought) are right -- AI is the new leveling agent for the demos. Conversely, if Dreyfus and Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger and Chomsky are right? There is a great deal about the human intellect and human consciousness we simply do not know. That there is more to the human experience than what we can simply measure. Or that the irrationality of the human mind is (1) not purely a product of our minds but of our experiences as a person -- body, soul, and intellect, and (2) it is from that irrationality our creativity is produced.
AI being a contained system? Cannot produce creativity. It can mimic it... but it will never create. Which seems a certain sort of theft when we push AI onto others and then conform them to the algorithm, insisting that the "machine" can only give the correct answers.
Meanwhile, the rest of us -- and ChatGPT only has an IQ of 85 -- instinctively know something is wrong, not just with the output but with the reliance on AI as a substitution for thought.
Matthew Crawford's "Shop Class as Soulcraft" is instructive here. Worth your read.
As far as Harari, it's been a few years since I read it. But if I recall correctly, he wasn't making the argument. He was presenting the work of others, to be considered. In that biologists had performed experimentation with subjects solving problems, and they were able to predict the person's solution before the person themselves were aware of it. I do not recall there being an intelligence means test in the discussion. More anatomy and EEG's than IQ tests. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
How does that deputy "know" that AI serves his needs? Same as with any other tool, I imagine. Feeback, usage, trial and error.
I remember when personal computers would solve all of our informational problems. Then laptops. What's funny, is recently a study came out in Scientific American that writing something down creates better memorization than recording it, typing it, watching it, etc. Something with the need to convert to writing invokes different areas of the brain, more closely associated with memorization. I had noted it myself in my classes, and have actually reverted to using old wire-bound notebooks for each of my business projects for note taking, rather than just laptop notes and photos. It's working.
Have seen over the course of 40 years CPR change from slow, with rescue breathing, to fast - without. And all along, people insisting that the current technique was the right one. Recently saw something called ECPR being tried out in Minnesota that could change CPR from a rare promise, to a workable resolution. AI and robotics will likely play a part in that revolution, if it comes to fruition. 40-50% recover rates compared to under 2%! A paramedic's dream. Point is, AI is a tool, same as any other. If it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't. But don't be afraid to try.
We would not look down on a diabetic using insulin to make his work day more productive. A manic depressive taking his meds. Or a paraplegic a wheelchair. A short man a ladder, a weak man a lever. Why automatically disqualify this tool?
You claim that AI is a type of theft, and that only the weak minded would imitate. But that is a matter of degree and subjectivity. We all hear tales. What writer hasn't pulled from what he has read, seen, or heard?
The point being, it is hard for us to define what exactly is "creative". By all means, challenge the machine's work. It's the rare authority I trust without challenge. Including this one.
But as you acknowledge, and I am in total agreement - we know very little. Astronomically little of what there is to know. And if that is the case, to insist on an absolute without being able to even define the term objectively, much less know everything about the subject - appears the very definition of conforming to an algorithm.
As far as what I believe?
I do believe in God. But I have little faith in the men who presume to speak for Him. I believe that the minute you bring the term organized into religion, it quits being about God, and more about the organization. God doesn't hide from us, we hide from Him.
If you want to know God, look to learn truth. A2 + B2 = C2 no matter where you are in the currently known Universe.
And should we ever find a condition where it doesn't, it won't mean that God has changed, but that we now know his universe better. But beware the man who insists you believe things that he cannot prove. Including you.
As far as whether God knows everything. I suppose He could, but I cannot figure out, if that were true, what would be the point.
For Him, I mean. Mathematically, it wouldn't make sense, if you believe in Maxwell's demon, and Shannon's information theory. In that it would take as much energy to know everything about a system, as it would to have the system.
I visualize it more as when I grow a garden. As I watch things brought to life come to fruit, and it pleases me, in so many ways.
And that in this infinitesimally short time that we have control of these bodies, these thoughts, and actions - though limited to within 6' of the solid surface of an obscure planet rotating around and equally obscure star, with our associated bacteria counting for more body mass than ourselves - yet pretend we are the universe's masters; all I can hope is to know God more, by obtaining knowledge.
And hope that when my time passes, that I will have made things better for those who come after me, and that He will have found my life, my song pleasing to Him. Until that happens, I'll just enjoy the ride, best I can.
Though I do not necessarily think those are original thoughts, in that I have found folks that I admire such as Goethe, Marcus Aurelius, Einstein, etc. coming to similar conclusions in their own way.
But yes, I do find your definition of the quality of a man or a machine being based merely on an arbitrary measurement as "IQ" whatever that subjective term means, about as off-putting as judging someone by their race, age, etc.
All have worth in God's eyes. So they should have worth in mine. And if there is a tool out there that helps them reach farther, do more, produce more - I'm willing to look at it based upon it's own merits. It might surprise you, as may those who use it.
What DQ's AI is that it is an algorithm presenting itself as a solution, not just a tool. The motte/bailey argument here doesn't fly -- those saying "AI is just a tool" aren't using it as a tool at all, but the entry to fields they would be arguably excluded from just two years ago.
Until we get to a point where AI can replace 40 years of experience? AI will only be a tool and little else.
As for the metaphors for other scientific advances, the argument is too reductionist to be of any value. We know insulin works through experience and scientific method. The average user may have no idea precisely how insulin works, but they have a general idea followed up by a few decades of trial and error. I doubt seriously that any user of AI actually understands how generative AI works much less how large language modelling works, much less has any insight on how the algorithm protected by Google or Microsoft or Palantir is producing the output.
I lean towards Molina's "scientia media" when it comes to God's omniscience. After all, how did Newton allow the tortoise to finally beat the hare? You give the tortoise an infinite set. Similar to God and knowledge -- given an infinite set and infinite resources, that resolves the energy problem. Toss in Molina? That seems to be (closer to) an answer.
Onto this problem:
"I do find your definition of the quality of a man or a machine being based merely on an arbitrary measurement as "IQ" whatever that subjective term means, about as off-putting as judging someone by their race, age, etc."
As do I... but the problem is that when you embrace AI, you are surrendering to the materialistic logic that everything -- including you -- are valued only insofar as you can be measured, manipulated, etc. And when we sell people snake oil (or tools) which claim to produce results based on this reduction of the human person to what is measurable? Well... it sounds like we are in violent agreement once again.
Sighhhhhhhhh........
I was gonna let this one go. It wasn't about politics, it's readable, so hey!
But then I thought, nah. I'm sure old boy is counting on me. Wouldn't want to disappoint. Bless his pea-picking heart.
I can see why Thomas Jefferson and all he created is your ideal. More of a George Washington fan myself.
A doer, rather than a privileged, arrogant, hypocritical dreamer.
And if Wendell Berry's ideal of agriculture were THE ideal, wouldn't we be doing that?
Whatever benefits come of dreaming of utopias that never were - whether that be a 1950's sock hop or Walton's farm (nite Mary Ellen, nite John boy) - if that was what worked best in a capitalist society, wouldn't that be what we would have?
Who gets to decide who gets the 40 acres and the mule, and who lives in a inner city slum if not the free market?
And then Ted Kaszynski is your other ideal of modern thought? What, was Eric Rudolph taken? It's all you can do to resist emulating a schizophrenic bomber who terrorized and killed for a generation? Good to know. Pro-life, huh?
Meanwhile, AI is the "salvation of the low-IQ set" and the "bane of thinkers and innovation"? I dunno. Maybe.
Nuclear fission turned out to be a double edged sword. Most things have their pluses and their minuses. Yet, it's ironic that the software your publication uses for comments incorporates the very software you denounce.
Your columns are thought provoking, so I thank you for that. Even if they provoke profound disagreement.
I recently read Jack London's 1st article published in the Atlantic. I was struck by its similarities to Homer's Odyssey. It reminded me of something a read a while back, in that there are no new stories, only the same ones written in different ways.
Your column also reminds me of that. Because it doesn't matter if it was computers, printing presses, canned goods, and sliced bread. No matter the innovation, there has always been someone to fear it. Which is not necessarily bad, new ideas should be challenged (as should old).
But the problem is they often lead to dismissal of otherwise good ideas, by those who don't understand them, because they find it easier to dismiss than to truly consider them.
For themselves, as well as others.
Then again, I think there is SOME truth to what you say.
I am currently taking a pre-Calculus course. Which I am enjoying very much. But since the last time I took a higher math course was in the mid-1970's, let's just say there have been some changes.
In that when I last took it, anyone caught with a calculator would have been considered cheating. Now the teacher gives instructions on proper usage. Which for me is good. (Why do graphing calculators have TWO subtraction symbols? Why? Why???)
But I also find myself reminded of an old Asimov short story I read years ago.
Where a man found he had great powers over others when he learned to do calculations without a computer, when others could not.
In that my style is to either do a problem in my head, or on paper - whereas a great many of my much younger classmates are incapable of doing so without their calculators. Which allows me to now pay much more attention to the concepts and apply them to things that interest me, than I ever would if I did not have that freedom.
So I get it. I do.
Still, I believe there will always be those who will think freely and innovate, if that is their dream. AS there will always be those just wanting to get thru preCalc, because it is required for the degree they are pursuing. A box to be checked.
But then I think of the arrogance, the elitism your idea implied that there is something wrong with either a person or a machine that has an IQ of under 85. That's troubling. Especially for someone teaching children.
Other than coaching sports and raising kids, I never taught children (though I have done some adult teaching), but I did supervise people for a long time.
Your column reminds me of one of them in particular.
Now he wasn't the most scholarly of men. Probably a GED education, at most.
A written report over a simple matter would often need 3-4 revisions to be acceptable. But he was one of the best deputies I had. In that he accepted his limitations and asked for help, once he learned it would be given without contempt or ridicule.
And if it took him 3-4 times to learn a new procedure when others would learn it within 1-2, once he learned it, he would follow it diligently. Where others might cut corners, he would not.
And because of his knowing of his limitations, he was humble and easy for others to work with.
Which made him a conduit for inmates who could identify with those limitations, which they often shared. Which meant that he was often able to identify problems before others, who had different skill sets. My job as their supervisor, was to match those individual skill sets to the tasks that needed performing. Not to denigrate their individual needs.
Now that man would have benefitted from AI assisting him in his paperwork.
And if it made him more productive, and able to spend less time on paperwork and more time interacting with the people under his care - I would be a fool not to welcome such a tool. Good use of taxpayer's money, in my book. I thought conservatives liked that sort of thing?
I'm happy you enjoy making your lesson plans and consider them a work of art. But just as AI may not be able to create a Shakespearean play; is a lesson plan about Shakespeare the equivalent of Shakespeare?
As far as the "low intelligence" of AI, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's quip regarding an innovation of his time, when asked of it's uses. And he replied, "What good is a newborn baby?"
Frankly, we don't know. But in a world where we are competing with others, with their own goals and ethics - hiding our heads in the sand seems like a poor solution.
And then as far as originality, I know I read a discussion from Yuval Harari a while back, where biologists were claiming that thru experimentation, that humans have NO free will. That everything we do can be explained thru hard wiring and software. Don't know that I agree with it, but there are those making such an argument. So maybe we are not as innovative as you presume. Even the "intelligent" ones.
Meanwhile, we learn that things we originally thought were merely human traits such as altruism, empathy, communication, training have been found in other species - from ants knowing to cut coriander seeds into quarters instead of halves like other seeds so they don't spoil, to navigation, etc. What is being defined as human is evolving with our growth of knowledge.
So, to presume that AI will never be capable of true intelligence or creativity reminds me of the NYT claim around 1900 that man would never learn to fly. They turned out to be wrong.
So anyway, thanks again for the thought provoking column. But you may turn out as wrong as they were.
Give it time.
You understand that when Harari makes his argument that humans have "no free will" that he is not talking about himself... he is talking about those with an IQ under 100.
That's the catch with the McDowell-Dreyfus debate. Your deputy might be a great soul -- IQ is certainly not a measure of character -- but how does he **know** that whatever AI is generating is reliable? If you believe that we are all souls piloting meat machines with wet computers, then McDowell and Harari (and the peddlers of AI as a substitution for thought) are right -- AI is the new leveling agent for the demos. Conversely, if Dreyfus and Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger and Chomsky are right? There is a great deal about the human intellect and human consciousness we simply do not know. That there is more to the human experience than what we can simply measure. Or that the irrationality of the human mind is (1) not purely a product of our minds but of our experiences as a person -- body, soul, and intellect, and (2) it is from that irrationality our creativity is produced.
AI being a contained system? Cannot produce creativity. It can mimic it... but it will never create. Which seems a certain sort of theft when we push AI onto others and then conform them to the algorithm, insisting that the "machine" can only give the correct answers.
Meanwhile, the rest of us -- and ChatGPT only has an IQ of 85 -- instinctively know something is wrong, not just with the output but with the reliance on AI as a substitution for thought.
Matthew Crawford's "Shop Class as Soulcraft" is instructive here. Worth your read.
As far as Harari, it's been a few years since I read it. But if I recall correctly, he wasn't making the argument. He was presenting the work of others, to be considered. In that biologists had performed experimentation with subjects solving problems, and they were able to predict the person's solution before the person themselves were aware of it. I do not recall there being an intelligence means test in the discussion. More anatomy and EEG's than IQ tests. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
How does that deputy "know" that AI serves his needs? Same as with any other tool, I imagine. Feeback, usage, trial and error.
I remember when personal computers would solve all of our informational problems. Then laptops. What's funny, is recently a study came out in Scientific American that writing something down creates better memorization than recording it, typing it, watching it, etc. Something with the need to convert to writing invokes different areas of the brain, more closely associated with memorization. I had noted it myself in my classes, and have actually reverted to using old wire-bound notebooks for each of my business projects for note taking, rather than just laptop notes and photos. It's working.
Have seen over the course of 40 years CPR change from slow, with rescue breathing, to fast - without. And all along, people insisting that the current technique was the right one. Recently saw something called ECPR being tried out in Minnesota that could change CPR from a rare promise, to a workable resolution. AI and robotics will likely play a part in that revolution, if it comes to fruition. 40-50% recover rates compared to under 2%! A paramedic's dream. Point is, AI is a tool, same as any other. If it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't. But don't be afraid to try.
We would not look down on a diabetic using insulin to make his work day more productive. A manic depressive taking his meds. Or a paraplegic a wheelchair. A short man a ladder, a weak man a lever. Why automatically disqualify this tool?
You claim that AI is a type of theft, and that only the weak minded would imitate. But that is a matter of degree and subjectivity. We all hear tales. What writer hasn't pulled from what he has read, seen, or heard?
The point being, it is hard for us to define what exactly is "creative". By all means, challenge the machine's work. It's the rare authority I trust without challenge. Including this one.
But as you acknowledge, and I am in total agreement - we know very little. Astronomically little of what there is to know. And if that is the case, to insist on an absolute without being able to even define the term objectively, much less know everything about the subject - appears the very definition of conforming to an algorithm.
As far as what I believe?
I do believe in God. But I have little faith in the men who presume to speak for Him. I believe that the minute you bring the term organized into religion, it quits being about God, and more about the organization. God doesn't hide from us, we hide from Him.
If you want to know God, look to learn truth. A2 + B2 = C2 no matter where you are in the currently known Universe.
And should we ever find a condition where it doesn't, it won't mean that God has changed, but that we now know his universe better. But beware the man who insists you believe things that he cannot prove. Including you.
As far as whether God knows everything. I suppose He could, but I cannot figure out, if that were true, what would be the point.
For Him, I mean. Mathematically, it wouldn't make sense, if you believe in Maxwell's demon, and Shannon's information theory. In that it would take as much energy to know everything about a system, as it would to have the system.
I visualize it more as when I grow a garden. As I watch things brought to life come to fruit, and it pleases me, in so many ways.
And that in this infinitesimally short time that we have control of these bodies, these thoughts, and actions - though limited to within 6' of the solid surface of an obscure planet rotating around and equally obscure star, with our associated bacteria counting for more body mass than ourselves - yet pretend we are the universe's masters; all I can hope is to know God more, by obtaining knowledge.
And hope that when my time passes, that I will have made things better for those who come after me, and that He will have found my life, my song pleasing to Him. Until that happens, I'll just enjoy the ride, best I can.
Though I do not necessarily think those are original thoughts, in that I have found folks that I admire such as Goethe, Marcus Aurelius, Einstein, etc. coming to similar conclusions in their own way.
But yes, I do find your definition of the quality of a man or a machine being based merely on an arbitrary measurement as "IQ" whatever that subjective term means, about as off-putting as judging someone by their race, age, etc.
All have worth in God's eyes. So they should have worth in mine. And if there is a tool out there that helps them reach farther, do more, produce more - I'm willing to look at it based upon it's own merits. It might surprise you, as may those who use it.
Moving on. Happy Easter.
What DQ's AI is that it is an algorithm presenting itself as a solution, not just a tool. The motte/bailey argument here doesn't fly -- those saying "AI is just a tool" aren't using it as a tool at all, but the entry to fields they would be arguably excluded from just two years ago.
Until we get to a point where AI can replace 40 years of experience? AI will only be a tool and little else.
As for the metaphors for other scientific advances, the argument is too reductionist to be of any value. We know insulin works through experience and scientific method. The average user may have no idea precisely how insulin works, but they have a general idea followed up by a few decades of trial and error. I doubt seriously that any user of AI actually understands how generative AI works much less how large language modelling works, much less has any insight on how the algorithm protected by Google or Microsoft or Palantir is producing the output.
I lean towards Molina's "scientia media" when it comes to God's omniscience. After all, how did Newton allow the tortoise to finally beat the hare? You give the tortoise an infinite set. Similar to God and knowledge -- given an infinite set and infinite resources, that resolves the energy problem. Toss in Molina? That seems to be (closer to) an answer.
Onto this problem:
"I do find your definition of the quality of a man or a machine being based merely on an arbitrary measurement as "IQ" whatever that subjective term means, about as off-putting as judging someone by their race, age, etc."
As do I... but the problem is that when you embrace AI, you are surrendering to the materialistic logic that everything -- including you -- are valued only insofar as you can be measured, manipulated, etc. And when we sell people snake oil (or tools) which claim to produce results based on this reduction of the human person to what is measurable? Well... it sounds like we are in violent agreement once again.
Christos Anesti!
Witty, insightful, rude. crude AND refined.
Keep up the good work!
John East
I am a river to my people, sir.
Thought provoking as always. Thanks, Shaun.
uh oh. How many more exchanges before Shaun calls Leo a "hater?"
For you? Just one... and it shows (even on Easter).
and there it is...
No — here you are. Doing the thing.
Maybe one day you’ll explain why you hate me so much. Is it the Arab thing? Catholic? Republican?
It’s Easter. Be well.