A friend asked me to take a look at her boyfriend’s AI project. Had she asked me before I did the upcoming video, I would not have been as open-minded as I am now. I’d try to be supportive of his efforts — but coming from someone who didn’t even know what Grok was until a month ago (and I’ve never used ChatGPT):
Who am I to judge the value of something I know next to nothing about?
But if that’s true for his work, shouldn’t the same principle apply to mine (or anyone’s, for that matter)? I have no idea why this painting sold for $300 million in 2015. But I do know that I’m wildly unqualified to know. You don’t have to be qualified in order to have an opinion about whether you like something or not. But when you haven’t trained your mind to understand what you might be missing, you’re in no position to be the arbiter of truth on the value of the work before you.
I had a choice between Art and Music Appreciation at Purdue. I made a mistake — as I’ve always wished I had taken both. The image above is to the boxset of cassettes from that course. I learned to listen in ways well beyond music.
And lo and behold — what sparked my turnaround on AI came from developing my understanding by degrees. Do the same on all that follows (or even one item alone): And you just might be the catalyst who could change the course of the country and even the world.
There was a time when we did!
Until you’ve take on the entire country by yourself, you have no idea how far off rails America has gone. If I were the AI guy, I’d recognize the immeasurable value in understanding what he’s up against. Allow me:
The Social Dilemma opens with the Sophocles’ quote “Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.” While the doc was well done, it would never occur to them that their attempt to address the curse created another one. However well-intended, people far smarter than me don’t understand how they exacerbate problems by the manner in which they approach them.
A lot of that goin’ around!
Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.”
It would never dawn on him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101.
“Groupthink averse” . . .
After all — it says so in my bio. I’ve come across claims of insatiable curiosity by people who have none. Someone once replied, “What makes you think I’m not interested in deep discussion?” To which I wrote, “The fact that you responded with that question — instead of something of substance on what’s in question.”
He was more interested in telling me he’s interested in serious-minded discussion than demonstrating it. It’s all a charade — right along with broadcasting beliefs without the work it takes to act on them. Same goes for endlessly rehashing the same issues without moving the needle (and never examining the efficacy of your efforts).
But why bother when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days!
The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. It’s high time to take another approach — and I’ve got one! If I came into this cold, I’d instantly recognize that there’s a pattern developing between the banner images above and below. It would be crystal clear that this guy’s out to tell a larger story that requiring connecting the dots:
And not understanding where he’s headed would intrigue me all the more.
That desire comes a lifetime of loving the demands of difficulty and discernment. I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see. If I came across a line like that — I’d know that’s where this story really started.
Which do you think is more valuable?
Me explaining every aspect of my imagery — or you working it out for yourself and asking questions on anything unclear? In a sea of sameness, where are those who thirst for inquiry that requires reflection and wonder? Where can I find people with the curiosity to consider what today’s “critical thinkers” won’t?
Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload
Perfectly put — except for the “fading” part. In our Age of Unenlightenment — “fading” is an understatement for the ages. Allow me to illuminate the cascading effect of inquiry into the unknown. How pausing even for a moment set the stage for this post — the day a dear friend opened my eyes to possibilities previously hidden. She has a habit of doing that!
Thanks to her insight, inquisitiveness, and ideas that immeasurably impacted the presentation that follows — I have something positive to say about AI. It was the “smallest” of things she discovered through Grok that opened the door to discovery. Her inquiry didn’t issue the answer — it provided a baseline from which we found it (which took work to reveal and three sets of eyes to see).
And I do love the work — along with all that comes from embracing input of others.
Since then, I’ve done some digging of my own — issuing queries that returned glaringly obvious gaps in Grok (on the biggest & most costly lie in modern history, no less). As the AI guy aims to build a tool to serve the truth: Of paramount importance should be the pitfalls of programming that failed to mention matters of quantifiable fact on a topic of world-altering magnitude.
What Grok got right is that it says the issue “involves complex layers of intelligence [and] politics.” And regarding the influential figure at the core of my case:
The question of whether [he] lied . . . involves examining his statements and their context, as well as understanding the broader narrative and intelligence assessments at the time.
No rational person would object to that, but rationality goes right out the window when your interests are at stake. I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t (and that’s a fact): “truth verifiable from experience or observation.” For telling undeniable truth for 20 years, I’ve been called everything you can imagine — by people who couldn’t craft a sound argument on the subject to save their lives. Never mind I’m taking both parties to task on that topic and then some (including concerns I share with people assailing me simply on assumption).
Behavior that flies in the face on the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
Why do you think I felt the need to hold off on revealing his name and the deception he helped sell? What Grok gives you cannot survive scrutiny — but ya gotta do the work to consider that scrutiny (which it tells you from the top in the necessity for “examining his statements and their context”).
Examining is not glossing over what Grok glossed over!
Einstein borrowed from the one below:
The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection.
Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Possession has caused more cosmic damage than anyone could possibly imagine.
However much AI improves (hopefully by this guy’s tool raising the bar for what’s possible): You’re still gonna have to do some work (and I’m out to remind the world of why you should want to). More importantly, I have an idea that could turn the tide — which the scrolling letter explains in the video. On that note:
And I can’t click Play for you . . .
Understanding all that — takes work:
Work is a Journey on Which You Welcome Challenge
Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider
Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency.
Work comes with the willingness to be wrong.
Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
You’ll find that work is far more fruitful and fulfilling than ease.
Work rises & falls:
As this is the prism through which we work: How we weigh what we see and measure our response. We’ll fall short from time to time — but those willing to work will keep each other in check.
Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.
And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
Text from friend on AI:
To my Facebook friends and followers: thank you for standing with me over the years.
Starting with the US Marine Corps in 1993, after 30 years as a leader in network engineering, the Ron Paul movement, and serving you in the North Carolina State House, my fight has always been for liberty and the defense of the U.S. Constitution.
Now, I’m taking on a new and urgent challenge: preserving human autonomy: not just for America, but potentially the world. Artificial intelligence is no longer just a futuristic concept. It’s here, now, and its development will either power humanity to the stars, or threaten everything we value. This isn’t hyperbole; it’s a defining moment in human history.
I am working on groundbreaking systems to shape AI into a force for good, like an Ethical AI Decision Engine API that employs multimodal orchestrated-conflict and creative synthetic recursion, as well as an orthogonal coherence model for Machine Learning capable of detecting and mapping the closest proximal location of empirically confirmable truth in uncurated, structured, and cohere-able datasets.
I’m seeking collaborators in Machine learning, Model development, AI architecture, Software development, and API/Application deployment
The AI being built today will reshape human autonomy for generations. I am committed to ensuring these tools protect freedom, dignity, and the principles we hold dear. If you work in AI or know someone who does I would love to connect. Together, we can ensure this transformative technology serves as a beacon of liberty, not a tool of control.
I applaud his efforts and I’m a fan of harnessing new technology to the fullest. But in a culture that can’t even agree on the most demonstrably provable facts imaginable (proudly pooh-poohing the need to have a conversation on an issue that shaped all you see today): AI’s not gonna put in a pinprick in the problem it’s helping to perpetuate.
Not without the work that will always come with ascertaining the truth.
As he’s building a tool to help facilitate that work, I’m sure he understands that. But I doubt he fully understands the forces he’s up against. By developing that understanding — he can factor that into the parameters of his program.
Mr. Musk may think he’s doing that, but I assure you — he’s not! I didn’t imagine this imagery any more than all those facts the followers of facts refuse to follow.
I’d like to ask the AI guy a question that I’ve yet to find anyone willing to answer about the efficacy of their own efforts. While I do programming for a living, I’m nowhere near the league of those in AI — and I sure couldn’t talk shop on an “orthogonal coherence model for Machine Learning.”
But I can speak volumes on the operative words in what he wrote:
- model
- coherence
- detecting
- mapping
- empirically confirmable truth
- structured
- cohere-able datasets
Even if he perfects his program in all of the above and beyond, will AI ever be able to identify patterns of behavior that point to the logical fallacy in the following:
Building on his enormously successful first edition. Tom Nichols confirms his thesis and proves that the assault on expertise has only intensified.
So, outside of selling books and building a following, you didn’t succeed — at all. When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand the excitement for a new edition doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either.
Such questions don’t compute with this crowd or any other.
Behold your beloved “success”:
2nd edition selling like hotcakes, speaking engagements, and acolytes heaping praise upon you — without a one of ya ever wondering . . .
Is any of this working? Will it ever work?
What’s more, you’re making matters worse: Evidence of which is all around you — including the fact that you and your followers refuse to even consider key questions that never crossed your minds. By feeding the faithful — your echo chamber seems to have all the time in the world to talk, but no time to listen. And there is no measure for how meaningless I find this folly:
Congratulating yourselves for ordering a book and broadcasting it for Likes: It’s all so goddamn pointless (as there’s no purpose beyond pretending you’re part of some glorious pursuit of the truth and what’s right). Never mind you all ignore any expertise that challenges you:
Which flies in the face of the whole f#@king point!
Comforted by their fearless influencer leading the way of the day:
Stirring Defense!
You and your crowd blocking me over imagery you don’t instantly understand (never mind arriving with words Tweeting about “a deservingly popular book”): Not to mention the thumbnail nailing other influential figures for fostering the same behavior.
Seems strangely in sync with what I bolded below:
These are dangerous times. Never have so many people had so much access to so much knowledge and yet have been so resistant to learning anything. . . . In the United States and other developed nations, otherwise intelligent people denigrate intellectual achievement and reject the advice of experts. Not only do increasing numbers of laypeople lack basic knowledge, they reject fundamental rules of evidence and refuse to learn how to make a logical argument. In doing so, they risk throwing away centuries of accumulated knowledge and undermining the practices and habits that allow us to develop new knowledge.
— Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise
When you have no idea what’s going on in those illustrations pointing to material properties — on what basis are you so doubt-free? But even if you don’t know anything about it and have never even heard of Thomas Sowell: You can clearly see that comparisons are being made while scrutinizing someone whose claim to fame includes “Compared to what?”
The truth on this topic is plain as day for anyone willing to look, but human nature has a habit of looking elsewhere:
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises … in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.
— Francis Bacon, Novum Organum Scientiarum, 1650
Long before brain imaging to understand human behavior, we already had all the tools we needed for a hopeful humanity. We didn’t take advantage of the gifts were were given, and what a shocker — we don’t make good use of those fancy new insights either. If we did, I wouldn’t have to explain that understanding requires the willingness to answer this question and consider what it means:
On that title and imagery alone — you should know something’s not right. But for decades, you’ve been conditioned to feel right (even in the face of what could not be more wrong). From the guy who told you where all this was going 10 years ago:
Undeniably, the exponential increase in self-righteous certitude is tied to technology. Instead of becoming more worldly with our exceptional tools — our conveniences are eroding our ability to think things through. In our brave new world, we seem to thrive on being dismissive, distracted, distant, and shortsighted.
After all — who has time to be thoughtful anymore?
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
And right on cue, mankind’s solution was more of the same — only worse. Borrowing from a piece about Bluesky’s content guidelines: “X/Bluesky has a 280/300-character limit, so it’s all about keeping it short and impactful. Stick to one main idea per post to make the most of your words.”
That TL;DR mentality has created a world where people act as though they’re incapable of correlating anything.
And it shows! . . .
Who’s the BOT?
The person who programmed a machine to find a person not acting like one? The “inherently skeptical” who have no queries — or someone asking big questions to a small-minded world with all the answers? The one who thirsts for what they don’t understand: Or those who swat away what they don’t? The one takes pride in changing his mind in the face of information the warrants it — or those who delight in denying the undeniable? The proud who proclaim how they called it right? Or the one telling them all along how they’re unwittingly conditioning the outcome?
The one who saw what was coming — or those who still can’t see?
I am working on groundbreaking systems to shape AI into a force for good
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the AI guy and his goal, but I can’t help but question his urgency to get to the future without learning from the past. And what exactly is your goal? What does “good” look like to you (with specific examples of what you see today and how your work will change it)? What separates your tool from others — and why will it succeed where they fail? And I would remind you that while AI can produce this:
It can’t do this . . .
Whatever force for good your program may provide, it’s years in the making. And even if you perfect every possible aspect in that timeframe: You’re still fighting the forces of human nature (whereas my idea banks on it). You need mass appeal — I just need to get to one man! An astute observer would recognize that our ideas can complement each other — and that by understanding what I’m out to do, you’d see how your program would dovetail into mine: The foundation of which would be in place long before your solution sees the light of day.
The smart move is to see how you’d get there a helluva faster by being the person who put my portal of possibility in motion. That goes for the AI guy — or anyone out there who’s had it with hitting a wall. All I need is one — and we’ll go around it!
I decided to leave my findings on Grok for another day. In the meantime: If you watch Sounds of Silence and read some of my writings, one glance at Grok’s results and you’ll know how wildly insufficient they are. But an astute observer could tell in 2 minutes that something’s not right (without even looking at anything at all). Ask yourself: Does cranking out a couple of quick reads strike you as examining something that “involves complex layers of intelligence [and] politics”?
Not to mention the fact that someone who’s worshipped for following the facts — somehow neglected to mention one word on the tubes that took us to war. And lo and behold, Grok didn’t either (nor anything else of any specificity).
But guess what Grok did do . . . it pointed you to me:
But as I’ll explain in Part II:
It still depends on how you frame the question — and whether or not you really want the answer!
