Cognitive Fitness Tests for Presidents

The Wall Street Journal spent a lot of electrons on the utility of cognitive tests for Presidents and other government officials. The TL;DR version is that cognitive tests are only initial screens for cognitive ability; they cannot diagnose, only point at areas for more in depth examination.

That’s fine. Then don’t stop there for government officials as critical to our nation’s safety as Presidents and Vice Presidents, and House and Senate leadership and Supreme Court Justices.

Do the cognitive testing as a matter of course, and then do the follow-up, in depth, examinations also as a matter of course.

The importance of such in depth examinations is clearly illustrated by the obvious mental decline in our current President. Has his decline progressed to the point that he’s no longer capable in that office? We the People need to know, and sooner is better. And we need to know for future elections to high office.

Smart Bots

AI is making them smarter, smart enough to fool even some of the more savvy among us.

Gone are the poorly worded messages that easily tipped off authorities as well as the grammar police. The bad guys are now better writers and more convincing conversationalists, who can hold a conversation without revealing they are a bot, say the bank and tech investigators who spend their days tracking the latest schemes.

And

AI has enabled scammers to target much larger groups and use more personal information to convince you the scam is real.
Fraud-prevention officials say these tactics are often harder to spot because they bypass traditional indicators of scams, such as malicious links and poor wording and grammar. Criminals today are faking driver’s licenses and other identification in an attempt to open new bank accounts and adding computer-generated faces and graphics to pass identity-verification processes. All of these methods are hard to stave off, say the officials.

That much is on the banks’, et al., IT folks, and I’m unsympathetic to them. This sort of thing is an arms race, and the thieves usually have the initiative of the first move. However, harder, and hard, mean possible; there’s no excuse for being slow to respond—and by slow, I mean as late as the next day or two to advise the victim and to correct the problem.

Even the late Muammar Gaddafi’s widow is becoming a better writer as she appeals to each of us.

However, the victim and potential victim—you and I—have certain critical responsibilities, too. One of those is to check our accounts frequently to look for unusual, unexpected, unknown charges and expenditures. That means checking much more frequently than the monthly account statement: at least a few times per week. Sure that takes a bit of time, but what’s the cost of letting a bogus charge go undetected for so long?

There’s a proactive step we can take, too, that will take longer to bring to fruition because it involves our legal system, but it can have broader and more permanent outcomes. The bad guys are now…more convincing conversationalists. Since they’re willing to talk, ask the conversationalist straight out if it’s a bot or an AI-generated conversationalist. If the answer comes back “Yes,” you can continue or not with a better understanding of the risk you’re taking.

If the answer is to hang up the call or otherwise quit the conversation, you’ve gotten an even clearer answer.

If, though, the answer comes back “No,” and something untoward happens to you through that conversation, now you have the programmer who wrote the bot, and likely his employer, too, whether an otherwise legitimate company or a dark net entity, engaging in any number of frauds, including false advertising and theft. Convicting the programmer and burning the employer will take that longer time, but the outcomes are more permanent.

In the end, though, an old and tritely phrased aphorism is absolutely true: if the arrangement on offer seems too good to be true, it isn’t true.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

A portion of oral argument in Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation, et al v US Department of Education was relayed to Southeastern Legal Foundation Executive Director Kim Hermann while she was at a Heritage Foundation conference centered on addressing the Biden administration’s general penchant for putting boys into girls’ locker rooms and sports prioritize[ing] gender identity over sex in a broad range of milieus. That portion:

The judge allegedly asked a Justice Department lawyer to explain what expertise the Department of Education has on human biology and sexuality that justifies judicial deference to the feds’ new interpretation of “sex.” The DOJ lawyer replied “I guess I’m not sure,” according to Hermann’s colleagues.

What a sweeping indictment of Chevron Deference by the Biden administration defendants in the case.

That’s Not All

Amid the press coverage of a variety of recent video clips showing Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s apparent physical and mental decline—standing motionless in the middle of a number of dignitaries swaying and bobbing to some music, wandering off in the middle of a parachute team demonstration, being taken by the wrist and led off the stage—there comes Biden’s Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s full throated and angry denunciation of the video clips as cheap fakes and deep fakes.

Among the press’ snark corps commentary ridiculing Jean-Pierre’s claim there were a few suggestions that were more serious.

The least among the more serious is Guy Benson’s unsubstantiated denial:

But it’s literal misinformation to pretend the videos themselves are fake. They are not.

Based on what evidence, Benson?

Some more serious questions include these:

Senator Mike Lee (R, UT):

Wait, exactly which videos we’ve all seen—of Biden freezing or looking lost—are deepfakes?

Stephen L Miller:

A reporter needs to genuinely ask her what she thinks a deep fake is[.]

This line of questioning badly lacking, however, which is all too typical of today’s cute sound bite-driven media. A reporter—a myriad of reporters—also need to ask (to get back to Benson’s failure from the right) for the specific data that shows the videos to be deep fakes, or cheap fakes, or in any way altered other than—perhaps—being clipped out of longer videos showing more of Biden’s behavior both before and after the clips in question.

Maybe the lack of calls for hard evidence—and Benson’s evidence-free claim—is of a piece with what passes for today’s journalism: sound bites don’t have room for facts.

Journalist Complaining about Violation of Journalistic Ethics

This is rich. Here’s David Brooks, complaining about a journalist penetrating a private gathering hosted by a historical society and attended by some Supreme Court Justices:

It’s a complete breach of any—the basic form of journalistic ethics. And I was, frankly, stunned that all of us in our business just reported on it, just like straight up.

I’ve addressed this concept of ethics in journalism—rather the lack of ethics in journalism—before. I’m addressing it again here, now that the highly esteemed (at least in some circles) Brooks has brought the matter up.

Today’s journalists news writers and opinion personalities think it’s jake to base their pieces entirely on “anonymous sources,” leaving readers and listeners no means of assessing for themselves the accuracy of the claims made or the credibility of the unidentified claimers.

Today’s news writers and opinion personalities think it entirely appropriate to treat their anonymous sources as though they actually exist, and subsequently that they are truthful solely because the writer and personality say so. Never mind that such a source, if it exists, is likely violating his terms of employment if not his oath of office by leaking, and so is empirically dishonest at the outset. Alternatively, an anonymous source, if it exists, is hiding behind anonymity out of cowardice, and cowards will always and only say what he believes will be personally beneficial with his leaks.

Some writers and personalities think it sufficient to address those points by claiming the source is a whistleblower. They consciously choose to not provide any evidence that the source has exhausted all of his whistleblower avenues of objection before he chose to become a leaker. Again, we’re supposed to believe the writer/personality solely on the basis of his smiling face and congenial rhetoric.

Finally, and of overarching importance, journalism used to have a standard that required two on-the-record sources to corroborate the claims of anonymous sources.

Today’s writers and personalities have long since walked away from that standard. On top of that, today’s writers and personalities, and their Editors-in-Chief, refuse today to identify the standard of journalistic integrity they use in its stead.

“Journalistic ethics.” A canonical oxymoron.