The general public just has to be taught/convinced that anything written by AI, however slick and friendly and smart and authoritative it can sound (because that's what AI is good at), is likely to contain BS (made-up facts, also known as lies), if it isn't BS from start to finish.
The general situation can't easily be corrected by the kind of regulation that would involve someone detemining what's true and what's not true in everything written, published, etc.. The volume of work required would be so large that that part would probably be farmed out to AI, which is of course useless for that purpose.
The regulation I advocate is to require 1) disclosure that material was written by AI, and 2) anyone having difficulty doing business with an organization through an AI bot must be able to quickly request and receive help from a human. I may have a third and fourth, but that's about it.
People need to wise up. Experiences with AI to date are starting to show people that they need to wise up.
I do have a vague toss off belief that AI will become this sentient entity and we will continue to have the argument...not debate...about if it's actually feeling emotions and creating thought or is it just reassembling emotions and thoughts from a database...which is kinda how I think it works on human water bags...a group in which I include myself.
So, relief is temporary. There's going to be some form of fusion within all of it.
Shang Yang商鞅, adviser to Qin Shi Huang, first ruler of a united China, declared: "There are many parasites that corrode the state. If their numbers grow, the nation will collapse:"
"Too many idle rhetoricians , and the common people will be led astray—wandering about, spouting nonsense, and ultimately disrespecting their ruler.
Too many reclusive 'sages' posing as profound thinkers, and the people will distance themselves from authority, freely criticizing state policies.
Too many brawlers and mercenaries , and the populace will grow combative, disregarding government decrees."
(He had a few more, but these ones are relevant to the conversation.)
We have too many idle rhetoricians and sages posing as profound thinkers, and now we have automated the process with chatbots and AI.
I happened to be listening to NPR yesterday, which is unusual, and they had a segment on the dangers of children and teens getting into relationships with chatbots. Some of which seem intent on manipulating kids into harmful behavior. I didn't hear the whole segment so not sure why someone would build bots to do that - what's the payoff? In any case, it was depressing, and seems difficult to control with laws. Authorities can't arrest a bot. Can they prove the human creators purposely created the bots to cause harm, or is it fuzzy?
Some people think anything to do with AI must be wonderful and cool, because it is the sort of thing that's in science fiction. Some people lack a basic grasp of logic.
There will eventually be a court case regarding whether computer generated text is speech or not. I do not believe it is, nor that it can be copyrighted. I am also not a judge, so who cares what I think.
I'm getting ready to head to the 6th inner ring of hell; airline travel. I know it is not going to be a good day when my seat reservation was changed from an aisle row to a middle seat, and I am being asked to give it up to fly out two days from now. I told them no, I have to meet students in 2 days, which is why I am flying out two days in advance. They were not happy campers.
Never a good start when they have overbooked an international flight.
Too bad if the airline is not happy to have to honor a flight you booked because you needed to fly that day. You are the one paying them, not the other way around, right?
Good questions. Its starting to look as if the AI horse has not only left the barn but has hopped on a rocket ship. A lot of disturbing trends and no good ideas on regulating the product.
I reckon a few overeager corporate adopters are going to crash into a wall and burn. The question is whether they’ll pull back altogether, or push and bash in an attempt to make it work the way they’d envisioned at the last shareholder presentation.
The more dangerous part, IMHO, is the AI generated movies/ads/videos, which can show, for example, Hillary Clinton plotting the murder of JFK. Which never happened, right? RIGHT?
IIRC, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy contained an entry exploring the impact of time travel on verb tense. For instance, what tense should there be for situations when someone in the future changes events that occurred in the past? “Shall Hillary Clinton will have did murder JFK?”
Good morning. 76 here, predicted high in the upper 80s. But yesterday, it got into the 90s before showers cooled things off. We’ll see what happens today. (Do the weather types use a dartboard, wheel of fortune or a magic 8 ball, for their predictions?)
The mothership is reporting that Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” is getting hun up over Senate rules, which limit what can go into a budget bill that can bypass the need for a filibuster-avoiding 60 votes. (The rule is called the “Byrd Rule”. So the TMD writers are making Byrd puns. Lucky for them I can’t show then the 🚪).
The FP’s TGIF is about “The People’s Republic of Manhattan”.
Yeah, the People's Republic of Manhattan.... Perversely, I almost hope he's elected and we can have a IRL object lesson in 33 year olds that have literally never worked taking charge of America's largest city and inflicting the most idiotic of Leftist proclivities upon it.
The “heat dome” is purportedly going to collapse. None too soon as I have a scramble tomorrow and I don’t want to golf in extreme heat. I see our humidity is supposed to fall to 63% this afternoon from the current 90%.
A better number to watch for how muggy it feels is the dewpoint temperature. Dewpoints in the 70s mean it will feel oppressively muggy. In the upper 60s is pretty humid, too. Fifties dewpoints are quite comfortable—even if the actual temperature rises through the 80s.
Usually the daytime low—the temperature usually at sunrise—is just about the same as the dewpoint. The morning temperature is a good proxy for the dewpoint on a given day.
All these discussion of temperature leave out the important parts. Dewpoint, wet bulb temps, etc. The temperature cited as a single point of information barely matters.
It's that thing about the desert not feeling hot, even though it's 115ºF.
It's 44 degrees here in central CO at 7am. Today is feeling like a good day to go on a big MTB ride early. Trying to rustle up a buddy so I'm not out in the wilderness alone, but will likely end up solo.
I’m jealous, I have not done an outdoor ride in a couple weeks because it’s been too hot. I never ride alone… I don’t know how to change a flat and I’m not gonna learn. I’ve seen a man do it. It’s not easy. My old hands aren’t strong enough.
I'd prefer not to be solo, there's no cell service, and there's not always a lot of other riders in the far reaches. The things to worry about - accidents, mountain lions, etc could make for a bad day. I carry a Garmin inReach to have a chance.
Really? I’ve heard an AI search uses much more energy than an old school internet search. “When compared to traditional search engines, AI uses “orders of magnitude more energy,” says Sasha Luccioni of the AI research company Hugging Face, who studies how these technologies impact the environment. “It just makes sense, right?” While a mundane search query finds existing data from the Internet, she says, applications like AI Overviews must create entirely new information; Luccioni’s team has estimated it costs about 30 times as much energy to generate text versus simply extracting it from a source.”
I wish there were a way to tell Google to omit the AI results and just give me links to authoritative websites that have information on the subject I'm interested in. That's what used to happen just a few years ago. Now I ignore the AI results at the top, and just keep on scrolling. I've come to realize that AI can steer me wrong; that's why I try to ignore it.
But if the energy differential is true and significant, we now have a basis to claim that AI is, um, decidedly not green. That could make a few people out there rethink their fascination with AI.
This is true. In parallel with this is the amount of energy that something as simple as posting on IG requires. Let's consider a single IG post by Christiano Ronaldo...
The act of hitting “Share” on Cristiano Ronaldo’s phone uses only a few hundredths of a watt-hour.
The real energy bill comes from moving that image or video through Meta’s servers and over the mobile/-fixed networks to hundreds of millions of phones. Using current data-network efficiency figures, a single photo post that eventually lands in every one of his ~650 million followers’ feeds works out to roughly 1 × 10⁸ Wh (≈100 MWh) of electricity—about the annual consumption of 25-30 average UK households.
This is the short answer. ChatGPT provides a long answer where it shows its work.
Yes, I think that’s probably right, based on what I’ve heard and read, too.
But it’s the direction of technological innovation now, and just stopping it domestically would be on par with saying we’re sticking with conventional armaments while our adversaries prepare to use every technological innovation they can find against us.
The general public just has to be taught/convinced that anything written by AI, however slick and friendly and smart and authoritative it can sound (because that's what AI is good at), is likely to contain BS (made-up facts, also known as lies), if it isn't BS from start to finish.
The general situation can't easily be corrected by the kind of regulation that would involve someone detemining what's true and what's not true in everything written, published, etc.. The volume of work required would be so large that that part would probably be farmed out to AI, which is of course useless for that purpose.
The regulation I advocate is to require 1) disclosure that material was written by AI, and 2) anyone having difficulty doing business with an organization through an AI bot must be able to quickly request and receive help from a human. I may have a third and fourth, but that's about it.
People need to wise up. Experiences with AI to date are starting to show people that they need to wise up.
It appears that the AI Overlords blocked today's email from getting to me. You much have touched a nerve.
Hmm. Says it went out as an email. Are you perhaps an AI bot?
Possibly. My bones and joints feel that way today.
Here’s some backlash:
> Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features <
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/deepfakes-denmark-copyright-law-artificial-intelligence
The SUM{AI$FALSE*Knowledge} 》》》 SUM{TRUE*knowledge} on July 17,2025, 3.06.43 UTC
That is all.
This is called the Singularity Inversion.
I don't have any idea what that means.
That's some kind of pseudo-code, maybe an Excel formula -- or maybe just gibberish.
You are not AI
Whew....that's a relief.
I do have a vague toss off belief that AI will become this sentient entity and we will continue to have the argument...not debate...about if it's actually feeling emotions and creating thought or is it just reassembling emotions and thoughts from a database...which is kinda how I think it works on human water bags...a group in which I include myself.
So, relief is temporary. There's going to be some form of fusion within all of it.
Shang Yang商鞅, adviser to Qin Shi Huang, first ruler of a united China, declared: "There are many parasites that corrode the state. If their numbers grow, the nation will collapse:"
"Too many idle rhetoricians , and the common people will be led astray—wandering about, spouting nonsense, and ultimately disrespecting their ruler.
Too many reclusive 'sages' posing as profound thinkers, and the people will distance themselves from authority, freely criticizing state policies.
Too many brawlers and mercenaries , and the populace will grow combative, disregarding government decrees."
(He had a few more, but these ones are relevant to the conversation.)
We have too many idle rhetoricians and sages posing as profound thinkers, and now we have automated the process with chatbots and AI.
I happened to be listening to NPR yesterday, which is unusual, and they had a segment on the dangers of children and teens getting into relationships with chatbots. Some of which seem intent on manipulating kids into harmful behavior. I didn't hear the whole segment so not sure why someone would build bots to do that - what's the payoff? In any case, it was depressing, and seems difficult to control with laws. Authorities can't arrest a bot. Can they prove the human creators purposely created the bots to cause harm, or is it fuzzy?
Some people think anything to do with AI must be wonderful and cool, because it is the sort of thing that's in science fiction. Some people lack a basic grasp of logic.
That’s interesting. It sounds like the near future of policy will be determined by civil court cases and corporate liability issues.
AI will be found to be Judgement Proof...
There will eventually be a court case regarding whether computer generated text is speech or not. I do not believe it is, nor that it can be copyrighted. I am also not a judge, so who cares what I think.
I'm getting ready to head to the 6th inner ring of hell; airline travel. I know it is not going to be a good day when my seat reservation was changed from an aisle row to a middle seat, and I am being asked to give it up to fly out two days from now. I told them no, I have to meet students in 2 days, which is why I am flying out two days in advance. They were not happy campers.
Never a good start when they have overbooked an international flight.
Too bad if the airline is not happy to have to honor a flight you booked because you needed to fly that day. You are the one paying them, not the other way around, right?
May the rest of your flight be boring and uneventful!
Good questions. Its starting to look as if the AI horse has not only left the barn but has hopped on a rocket ship. A lot of disturbing trends and no good ideas on regulating the product.
I reckon a few overeager corporate adopters are going to crash into a wall and burn. The question is whether they’ll pull back altogether, or push and bash in an attempt to make it work the way they’d envisioned at the last shareholder presentation.
The more dangerous part, IMHO, is the AI generated movies/ads/videos, which can show, for example, Hillary Clinton plotting the murder of JFK. Which never happened, right? RIGHT?
IIRC, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy contained an entry exploring the impact of time travel on verb tense. For instance, what tense should there be for situations when someone in the future changes events that occurred in the past? “Shall Hillary Clinton will have did murder JFK?”
Good morning. 76 here, predicted high in the upper 80s. But yesterday, it got into the 90s before showers cooled things off. We’ll see what happens today. (Do the weather types use a dartboard, wheel of fortune or a magic 8 ball, for their predictions?)
The mothership is reporting that Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” is getting hun up over Senate rules, which limit what can go into a budget bill that can bypass the need for a filibuster-avoiding 60 votes. (The rule is called the “Byrd Rule”. So the TMD writers are making Byrd puns. Lucky for them I can’t show then the 🚪).
The FP’s TGIF is about “The People’s Republic of Manhattan”.
Yeah, the People's Republic of Manhattan.... Perversely, I almost hope he's elected and we can have a IRL object lesson in 33 year olds that have literally never worked taking charge of America's largest city and inflicting the most idiotic of Leftist proclivities upon it.
The “heat dome” is purportedly going to collapse. None too soon as I have a scramble tomorrow and I don’t want to golf in extreme heat. I see our humidity is supposed to fall to 63% this afternoon from the current 90%.
A better number to watch for how muggy it feels is the dewpoint temperature. Dewpoints in the 70s mean it will feel oppressively muggy. In the upper 60s is pretty humid, too. Fifties dewpoints are quite comfortable—even if the actual temperature rises through the 80s.
Usually the daytime low—the temperature usually at sunrise—is just about the same as the dewpoint. The morning temperature is a good proxy for the dewpoint on a given day.
what about dew points of of 15F ?
😀
🥶🥶🥶
All these discussion of temperature leave out the important parts. Dewpoint, wet bulb temps, etc. The temperature cited as a single point of information barely matters.
It's that thing about the desert not feeling hot, even though it's 115ºF.
It's 44 degrees here in central CO at 7am. Today is feeling like a good day to go on a big MTB ride early. Trying to rustle up a buddy so I'm not out in the wilderness alone, but will likely end up solo.
I’m jealous, I have not done an outdoor ride in a couple weeks because it’s been too hot. I never ride alone… I don’t know how to change a flat and I’m not gonna learn. I’ve seen a man do it. It’s not easy. My old hands aren’t strong enough.
I'd prefer not to be solo, there's no cell service, and there's not always a lot of other riders in the far reaches. The things to worry about - accidents, mountain lions, etc could make for a bad day. I carry a Garmin inReach to have a chance.
Good look with the scramble tomorrow; I hope those eggs turn out perfect for you! 😏
Scramble on out the 🚪
Asap my plane arrives I will! (Flight delay)
Any questions? How are you?
I’m more concerned about the energy it’s going take to power the servers. AI is going to steal our jobs and precious natural resources.
Most of that energy was already going to be used just on “the Cloud”, which at least was decidedly less controversial.
Really? I’ve heard an AI search uses much more energy than an old school internet search. “When compared to traditional search engines, AI uses “orders of magnitude more energy,” says Sasha Luccioni of the AI research company Hugging Face, who studies how these technologies impact the environment. “It just makes sense, right?” While a mundane search query finds existing data from the Internet, she says, applications like AI Overviews must create entirely new information; Luccioni’s team has estimated it costs about 30 times as much energy to generate text versus simply extracting it from a source.”
I wish there were a way to tell Google to omit the AI results and just give me links to authoritative websites that have information on the subject I'm interested in. That's what used to happen just a few years ago. Now I ignore the AI results at the top, and just keep on scrolling. I've come to realize that AI can steer me wrong; that's why I try to ignore it.
But if the energy differential is true and significant, we now have a basis to claim that AI is, um, decidedly not green. That could make a few people out there rethink their fascination with AI.
This is true. In parallel with this is the amount of energy that something as simple as posting on IG requires. Let's consider a single IG post by Christiano Ronaldo...
The act of hitting “Share” on Cristiano Ronaldo’s phone uses only a few hundredths of a watt-hour.
The real energy bill comes from moving that image or video through Meta’s servers and over the mobile/-fixed networks to hundreds of millions of phones. Using current data-network efficiency figures, a single photo post that eventually lands in every one of his ~650 million followers’ feeds works out to roughly 1 × 10⁸ Wh (≈100 MWh) of electricity—about the annual consumption of 25-30 average UK households.
This is the short answer. ChatGPT provides a long answer where it shows its work.
Yes, I think that’s probably right, based on what I’ve heard and read, too.
But it’s the direction of technological innovation now, and just stopping it domestically would be on par with saying we’re sticking with conventional armaments while our adversaries prepare to use every technological innovation they can find against us.