“AI is Satanic”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the headline on the WSJ article claims. The headline misleads, as the article itself goes on to say.

Experts call…tendency of machines to excessively agree with and flatter their users AI sycophancy. Vance chose spiritual terms. “I think that’s kind of satanic.”

Certain behaviors of AI can be satanic; that does not make AI satanic.

The larger issue for me, though, is what AI gets used for. It certainly can be abusive—or satanic, in the extreme—if it’s used wrongly, and misusing it can be done subtly enough that the user might not recognize the abuse. Vice President JD Vance (R) cited a friend who used an AI package for marital advice and got back validation of his own selfishness. Children have used AI packages for advice and have been led to suicide.

Those are uses of the tool, though. AI also has been used to good effect for business moves, to identify patterns in complex and/or noisy data, to point ways toward disease controlling chemistry.

 

Even where AI sycophancy leads to failure, even egregious failure, though, it’s not that AI is misbehaved or satanic, it’s that its human programmers have programmed the sycophancy into it through flawed programming and flawed testing.

AI in itself is just another tool, neither good nor bad intrinsically. It’s necessary to discriminate between the tool and what the tool gets used for. Build the data centers, and get training in how to use it. Then take care in its use, just as is necessary for any other tool, whether a power saw or a firearm.

Further Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

Or continued misapprehension. In his article on time and the Hormuz Strait blockades, Yaroslav Trofimov had this remark, citing a senior Gulf Arab official. The official was talking about who had the more time to outlast the other’s blockade.

…the clock is ticking more for the Iranians because they are under enormous economic strain.

The underlying, and greater, question is this: which Iranians are under enormous economic strain? Certainly, the Iranian people are, with a currency that’s worthless outside of Iran, extremely high and rapidly rising inflation, limited and declining amounts of gasoline, limited and declining amounts of food, and on and on.

It’s just as certain, though, that the Iranians reigning over the country don’t care about any of that. They care only about their personal power, encouraging their satraps—Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis—to continue their terror attacks against Israel, and doing whatever they need to do to effect the destruction of Israel and sever damage to, if not destruction of, the US. These persons are feeling no economic strain whatsoever.

And this:

The country’s civilian leaders, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the June negotiations with the US, have called for a return to the talks, pointing to the deteriorating state of the Iranian economy.

That’s just empty rhetoric. Just as in those prior talks, and just as their predecessors did in prior years of talks, all these persons would do in any further talks is yap, delay, and stall. They will propose nothing serious.

The only way, the fastest way, also, to put a favorable end (for the world, not just for the US) to the current conflict is to conduct a full scale, persistent kinetic and cyber attack on Iran’s military facilities and military-supporting factories and on all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-related sites, and to kill those persons reigning over Iran, both civilian and IRGC.

If Iran’s persons in charge become ready for serious talks, their decision-makers can be given safe passage to the talks location while the attacks continue unabated.

Some Labor Day Questions

Posted on by
Reply

First published in 2015, I’ve updated it for today.  In an ideal world, I’ll be able to update it again next year, with a yet more optimistic tone.

 

The Wall Street Journal asked some questions on Labor Day 2012, and supplied some answers.  Here are some of those questions and answers, which remain as valid this Labor Day.

  • Q: How are America’s workers doing? Not good. Over the past decade, over the ups and downs of the economy, taking inflation into account, the compensation of the typical worker — wages and benefits—basically haven’t risen at all. … The Labor Department recently said that 6.1 million workers in 2009-2011 have lost jobs that they’d had for at least three years. Of those, 45% hadn’t found work as of January 2012. … Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday that unemployment is still two percentage points higher than normal….
  • Q: Things ARE getting better, though. The US economy is creating jobs, right? Back in December 2007 when the recession began, there were about two jobless workers for every job opening.  When the economy touched bottom in mid-2009, there were more than six unemployed for every job.  At last count, the BLS says there were 3.4 jobless for every opening.
  • Q: How much of this elevated unemployment is because the unemployed just don’t have the skills that employers are looking for right now?  …the bulk of the evidence is a lot of the unemployment really is the old-fashioned kind: the kind that would go away if the economy was growing at a stronger pace. Mr. Bernanke said as much at the [2012] Jackson Hole conference….

In 2019, the jobs situation was drastically improved.  The overall unemployment rate was at an historic low, and there were more job openings than there were folks to fill them.  The black unemployment rate was at a record low.  The Hispanic unemployment rate was at a near record low.  The women unemployment rate was at a near record low.  Wages, both real and nominal, were growing.

The Wuhan Virus Situation severely damaged that, but by late 2020, our economy was in rapid recovery, GDP was up sharply, folks were getting jobs again, and inflation still was at an historic low despite that heating up economy.

We have today (2026) a new factor, recently and sharply risen, the plethora of Artificial Intelligence packages (eliding here the lack of actual intelligence in the packages; in fact they’re very good at teasing out patterns from very noisy inputs, but only those patterns their human programmers have programmed them to see). These packages have use in supporting research by those researchers with the professionalism and personal discipline to thoroughly check their AIs’ output rather than blindly accepting it, and the packages are very good at simple, rote work—the very entry level work that teenagers and newly graduated college students need in order to get started on their own careers. The actual impact of AI is not yet visible.

We now have a little high, if slowing inflation, and the necessities of life: food, shelter, energy for heating/cooling our shelter, and fuel for getting to work. These remain priced above what they were those nearly six years ago, albeit slowly improving yet, with real wages lower than they were then, even if that gap is slowly closing.

Labor Day is here, and this time around, it represents the traditional beginning of the mid-term election campaign season and of the newly structured Presidential election campaign season. The question before us now is which of the two parties and administrations currently on offer offers the better plan for getting our spending and borrowing under control while rebuilding our defense establishment in the face of growing threats from abroad, and getting our immigration system (finally) right—the one that wants reduced regulation and smaller government or the one that sees government as the answer to our problems and wants to grow it commensurately?

Happy Labor Day.

One More Pitch

Posted on by
Reply

In their editorial about the success of the Republican reform of the Federal Food Stamp program, the WSJ editors had this remark toward the end:

Congress ought to reduce the 90% federal payment match for the ObamaCare expansion population on Medicaid….

That would be a small first step, though useful in its way, and it prompts me to push again for something I’ve touted over the years: make Federal transfers to the States, not just for Medicaid, but all Federal transfers, block grants on a declining basis.

Designate the year of enactment as Year0, and tot up the total of all transfers to each State in that year. In Year1, send that amount to each State as a single, no strings attached, block grant. In each year of the interval Year2-Year11, reduce the size of the block grant by 10% of Year1, so that from Year11 on, there are no more Federal funds—which are the tax remittances of all of us American citizens—being sent to the States.

The citizens of each State should not be required to fund the profligacy of other States; those taxes sent to the Federal government should be for the sole purpose of funding the constitutionally mandated expenditures of the Federal government, those expenditures enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Each State’s governing politicians should be required to justify the tax levels and expenditures they want directly to their own constituents.

Of course, there’s one exception to this end of Federal transfers. In the event of a natural disaster that’s beyond the capacity of a State or a region to handle from its own resources, Federal transfers to the State or region would be justified. To hold down the incidence of manufactured emergencies (for instance, excessive spending leading to a risk of fiscal failure), a significant fraction of the transfer, or all of it, should be in the form of loans due in full within, say, five years of the onset of the claimed disaster.

“Democrats vs. the DSA”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s James Freeman’s headline on his Tuesday Best of the Web column in the WSJ. He’s badly mischaracterizing the matter, and he repeated his error in his lede.

Yes, it’s depressing how few elected Democrats are willing to stand up against the vicious Marxists intent on taking over their party. But rather than curse the darkness, let’s celebrate the brave few who signed their names and their sacred honor this week to an amendment that tells the truth about history’s most murderous ideology.

Freeman chose not to name the “four brave Democrats” who offered that (draft) amendment, and neither did the House Web site that published the amendment.

That’s relatively minor, though. Freeman’s error is his claim that only a few elected Democrats are willing to stand up to the Marxists taking over the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Party, in fact, is enthusiastically embracing those Marxists and their Democratic Socialists of America party. This is not a hostile takeover; it’s an enthusiastic marriage to the point of an elopement. The “only a few” who are opposing the merger are limited to Party’s extreme right fringe of Establishment Democrats.

And that is truly depressing.