A few weeks ago, in preparing for a blog on the concept of “coming home,” I used a popular search engine to find out how far the sun moves in one year as it speeds through the galaxy. Before listing links, the search engine first provided an AI summary answer to questions. It gave an apt answer that seemed quantitatively correct. Then, astoundingly, it added the gratuitous gem: “This is called a light year.” 

It isn’t of course. A light year is how far light travels in a year, not how far the sun travels in a year. The sun travels at 6,942,672,000 kilometers per year. A light year is 9.46 trillion kilometers; more than a thousand times farther. It’s understandable in the sense that the word “sun” is often used in the same or similar contexts as “light.” But it’s an egregious error to be off by a factor of 1000. It would be like asking me how much my dog weighs and I answer 55,000 pounds instead of 55 pounds. A standard field for American football is 100 yards, not 100,000 yards (over 56 miles!). 

Generated by AI — note the location of the tire! I asked for a 55,000 pound dog, but this looks about the same size as the car which likely weighs far less than 55,000 pounds.

When I checked back a few days later, the offended nonsense no longer appeared. I have no idea how that happened. I forgot about this apparent glitch until Thanksgiving dinner. The topic came up of Arabic and I mentioned that I studied a little in anticipation of a work assignment that might make it useful. I mentioned that in Arabic, not only are nouns and adjectives gender-marked but so are verbs. One of the other guests said, “Yes, just like in Spanish and French.” I said, “No, that’s not right. German, Spanish, and French mark adjectives and nouns with gender but not verbs.” But they were insistent so I checked on my iPhone using the search engine. To my astonishment, in response to the question, “Which languages mark verbs with gender?” I got the following answer:

“Languages like French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, and most Slavic languages mark gender in verbs, meaning the verb conjugation changes depending on the grammatical gender of the subject noun; essentially, a verb will have different forms depending on whether the subject is masculine or feminine.” 

This is not so. And, in the next paragraph, incredibly, there are examples given, but in the examples, the verbs are not marked differently at all! The AI had made an error, but an error that at least one human being had also made. 

Now, I sensed a challenge. Can I construct another such query with a predicted “bad logic” result? Is there a common element of “misunderstanding” between the two cases? Intuitively, it feels as though there’s a way in which these two errors are similar though I’m not sure I can put a name to it. Perhaps it’s something like: “A is strongly associated with B and B is strongly associated with C, so A is strongly associated with C.” That’s typically not even a fallacy. The fallacy comes with actually equating A and C because they are strongly associated. 

It reminds me of several things. First, my wonderful dog Sadie knows the meanings of many words—at least in some sense of “knows the meaning of.” When we go for a walk, and other dogs come into view, I remark on it: “Oh, here comes a doggie” or “There’s someone walking with their dog.” Or, when a dog barks in the distance, I say, “I hear a doggie.” For several weeks prior to getting her little brother Bailey, my wife and I would tell her something like, “In a few weeks, we’re going to get a little doggie that will be your friend to play with.” When we got to the word “doggie” she would immediately alert and even sometimes bark. She has similar reactions to other words as do most dogs. They “understand” the word “walk” but if you say something like “I can’t take you for a walk now, but later this afternoon, we can go for a walk” you can well imagine that what she picks out of that is the word “walk” and she gets all excited. Same with “ball” or “feed you.” 

The AI error also seems vaguely human. I can easily imagine some people concluding that a “light year” is the distance the sun travels in a year. A few years ago, a video was widely circulated in which recent Harvard grads were asked to explain why it was warmer in the summertime. Many answered that the earth is closer to the sun in the summer. It’s totally a wrong answer, but it isn’t a completely stupid answer. After all, if you get closer to a heater or a fireplace, it feels warmer and when you walk away, it feels cooler. We’ve all experienced this thousands of times. 

The AI errors also seem related to the human foible of presuming that a name accurately represents reality. For example, many people believe that the sun does not shine on the “dark side of the moon.” After all, it is called “the dark side.” Advertisers use this particular fallacy to their advantage. When we moved from New York to California, we paid for having our stuff “fully covered” which we falsely believed meant “fully covered.” What it actually means in “insurance-speak” is that things are covered at some fixed rate like five cents a pound. Huh? Other examples of misleading words include “All natural ingredients” which has no legal significance whatsoever. 

As I suspected, the AI system has an answer that is not unlike what many humans would say:

There are several advantages to buying food with all-natural ingredients, including:

• Health benefits
  Natural foods can help with blood sugar and diabetes management, heart health, and reducing the risk of cancer. They can also improve sleep patterns, boost the immune system, and help with children’s development. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Environmental benefits
  Organic farming practices prioritize the health of the soil and ecosystem, and are less likely to pollute water sources or harm animals. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Supporting local economies
  Locally grown food is picked at its peak ripeness, which can lead to more flavor. Buying local food also supports local farmers and producers. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Nutritional superiority
  Organic ingredients have higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional ingredients. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Superior taste
  Fresh ingredients can taste much better than non-fresh ingredients. 
  
  

• Health benefits
  
  
  
  
  
  

The first statement is problematic. Why? Because claiming something has all-natural ingredients has zero legal significance. The advertisers, of course, want you to believe that “All-Natural Ingredients” means something; in fairness, it should. But it doesn’t. Everything that follows lists positive benefits of things that are often associated with claims of being all-natural.

The AI answers reflect what is “out there” on the Internet and much of it is simply propaganda. There are many scientific facts that can also be found on the Internet too, but popularity seems to define truth for the AI system. Imagine that one of the major political parties mounted an effort funded heavily by extremely wealthy people that claimed there was genetic evidence that rich people should be rich. There is nothing (apparently) to prevent the AI system from “learning” this “fact.” And, there is nothing (apparently) to prevent many citizens from “learning” this “fact.” 

————————

The Self-Made Man

Dick-Taters

Tools of Thought

A Lot is not a Little 

Turing’s Nightmares on Amazon

A Mind of Its Own

As Gold as It Gets

All that Glitters is not Gold

How the Nightingale Learned to Sing