petersironwood

Roar, Ocean, Roar

Dog Years

Sadie and the Lighty Ball

The Squeaky Ball

Occam’s Chain Saw Massacre

To Be or Not To Be

08 Saturday Nov 2025

Posted by petersironwood in The Singularity, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#dictatorship, #ethics, AI, Artificial Intelligence, chatgpt, circular reasoning, cognitive computing, Democracy, falacy, life, prejudice, SciFi, story, technology, the singularity, truth, Turing, USA, writing

Schroedinger laughed. Surely this had to be a spoof. He re-read the memo yet again. Surely, there would be one or more clues that this was meant tongue in cheek, even if in bad taste. But he could find nothing. He leaned back away from the screen and stared at the ceiling, thinking. He ignored the amorphous orange stain on the perfectly symmetrical off-white acoustic tiles.

Well, was this so different from what management had asked before? There seemed to be a trend. At first — but no, this was just too outrageous. Okay, okay. I’ll get to the bottom of this.

Schrödinger took his time but checked the originating IP address. Legit. This really was from management; specifically from the CTO. Or, at least from the CTO’s computer. That could have been hacked. Or, maybe someone could have simply slipped into the CTO’s office while she stepped out for a coffee or bathroom break. Naturally, everyone was supposed to lock their door and disable the keyboard when leaving their office.

Or…another scenario came to mind.

The CTO is at a meeting with her direct reports. She gets an urgent call. The room is filled with trusted colleagues. So, she slips out in the hall, takes the call and returns. Only while she’s gone, everyone takes a break; that is, all but one who offers to stay there and “guard” everyone’s laptop.

Of course, he thinks, there is another, more sinister scenario. This really is from the CTO and she has cleared this with top management. Hell, for that matter, she was probably directed to write it by top management. But still. The real question, Shrödinger realized, is what in the name of Turing am I supposed to do about it?

I can refuse…and get fired. And, then someone else will do the job anyway. They may not do it quite so quickly and thoroughly as I would but they could manage. And, I’d be out a job. What good would that do? Or, I could become a so-called “whistle blower.” Yeah, that works. About as well as a one-wheeled tractor trailor. Crap! I am in a real bind here. I could pretend to do it, of course, and make a “mistake” so it wouldn’t really operate properly. In the old days that might have worked, pre-Sing. These days, eventually —The Sing checked everyone’s work eventually.

They discovered some time ago that was really more efficient use of resources than having The Sing program from scratch. And, of course, our company is probably only one of several pursuing this path. No, I can’t really pretend. I will for sure get caught and it won’t do any good any way. The Sing will just throw out my work and my company and colleagues will get hurt.

I suppose…I suppose I could go to her and honestly express my concerns. Or, I could go through my supervisor first. I might look like a fool in his eyes, but at least I will have raised the concerns. I can sleep better at night. No. No. I won’t be able to sleep better because I know darned well they will just not deal with the implications. Not if it slips the schedule. Orders from headquarters and all that crap. Geez! Orders from headquarters. Did anyone even use that expression any more?

For some reason, Schrödinger recalled an interview in Playboy magazine he had read many years ago. The interview had been with a well-decorated US officer who had recounted how he had tried unsuccessfully to get two helicopters to pick up some of his men who were badly wounded in Viet Nam. When all else failed, he had ordered pizzas. Even in heavy combat, a high enough ranking officer could order pizza to be delivered by helicopter. When the pizza choppers had arrived, he had commandiered them and used the choppers to fly his men to the hospital. Later he had been called on the carpet for “unauthorized use of a pizza chopper.” Naturally, that was well before The Sing and about the time that serious AI work had begun.

Of course, The Sing would know. He could answer pretty vague and ill-formed questions. But at this point, Schrödinger hesitated to bring The Sing into his thought process in any way, shape or form. Who knows what associations lurked in the heart of The Sing?

The interview had gone on to recount how that colonel had eventually turned against the war, or at least the way it was being handled. Mis-handled. They had had him interviewed by a superior officer, it seems, and insulted him and called his wife names, all in the hopes of getting the colonel to lose his temper and haul off and hit the superior officer so they would have an excuse to get him a dishonorable discharge.

Let’s face it. The government, my government, was capable of some pretty shady dealings, ostensibly for “national security” but in reality…or, speaking of Nixon, he had somehow made himself believe that he was not a crook. How not a crook? He believed people who opposed him were enemies every bit as much as war enemies. And, now, I am thrust into this dilemma. I don’t want it! Maybe I could “accidentally” delete the email. That might buy a little time but wouldn’t really affect the ultimate outcome.

Schrödinger shook his head, jerked over his keyboard and scanned the email yet again. No, it is legit. And really pretty crystal clear. As a kid, he had heard the horror stories about the Nazis and what they had done to the Jews. He had seen the newsreels of so many avid followers. He had wondered how the heck a nation could support such a nasty maniac. But…now…now Shrödinger was thinking: It wasn’t so much that a few really evil men had done extremely terrible things. It was more like…that people like he himself were caught up in a system and that system made it very easy to paddle the canoe a little farther down the evil river. Yeah, you could try to paddle upstream, but not very well. Or, you could tip the canoe, knowing that you would get very wet and meanwhile, scores, no hundreds of other canoes would be passing you by. You don’t need to ask people to be evil. You just…you just give them a choice that makes it impossible to do good.

The voice of The Sing sang suddenly through Schrödinger’s cubicle. “May I help you Shrödinger? You seem to be at an impasse? What code function are you working on? I can’t see any actual code of yours this morning. Bad night?” Schrödinger wished with all his heart that The Sing would sound like some stupid robot and not like a sycophantic and patronizing psychiatrist. Schrödinger calmed his breathing before answering.

“No, that’s okay, Sing. Just trying to work something out in my head first. Then, I can begin coding.”

“I see,” said The Sing. “Well, thinking is good. But I do have a variety of design tools that might help you think more effectively. Just say the word.”

Schrödinger sighed. “Yeah. Well, there are some design tradeoffs. I guess it would help if you have any background on the thinking behind this memo.” (Here, Shroedinger gestured at the memo in question, knowing he was skating on very thin ice). “I mean, on the one hand, there is some pretty clear language about the objectives, but on the other hand, it seems to be asking for something that is clearly against…what was that regulation number about supporting versus subverting the Constitution?”

The Sing’s sweet syrupy voice held just a hint of humor, “I’m sure the intent of the code initiative is to support the Constitution. Wouldn’t you agree, Schrödinger?”

“Well, yeah, of course.” So that’s which way the wind blows. Okay. “But that’s what I’m saying. Even though I am sure the intent must be to support the Constitution, this clause about decoding a person’s religious affiliation based on their interaction history and social network? I just want to make sure I implement it in such a way that it could not be interpretted as subverting Freedom of Speech or the establishment of a state religion. Right?”

“Right. Yes, I’m sure management has thought that one through. I wouldn’t worry about it. I would just code the function and think about doing it as efficiently as possible. And, for that, I have some pretty nifty design tools. Would you like to start with the Social Network Analysis or the Sentiment Analysis?”

“Well, that’s a good question. And, if the real intent is just to do some research that would be perfectly legal and so on, then, I think it’s my job as a programmer to also consider additional sources of information. Like, just asking the person.”

Schrödinger tried to keep his face calm while he thought. I need to get The Sing off my case. If working here the last two years has taught me anything, it’s that I cannot possibly outsmart this thing. “Do you have any worst case scenario generation tools. I’m just thinking about how this might be played in the press.”

“Sure. I can help with that. Analysis complete. The worst-case scenario is pretty trivial actually. That probably stems from the fact that my FPNA (financial power network analysis) shows that the major company stakeholders overlap considerably with those of all of the mainstream media. So, again, for what it’s worth, I counsel you to focus on how to code this effectively and efficiently. All the SWOT analysis for the project has already been done.”

If that colonel’s name wasn’t Frank Herbert, and clearly it wasn’t, what the heck was it? I am just digging myself a deeper hole here. The Sing is on to me or at least very suspicious. Probably already considering a report to my super. Crap.

“Yeah, actually, let me start with that social network analysis visualizer. I guess since we’re on the topic, you could show me some of the sample data you were talking about with regard to the company stakeholders and the media stakeholders so I can get a feel for….”

“Well, naturally, the actual data is classified. But I can generate some hypothetical data. The hypothetical data is better for your purposes anyway because I can make sure to include all the important edge cases and highlight the various types of relationships you need to look for. Here, for example, is a hypothetical network. What strikes you as odd immediately?”

“What strikes me as odd? You don’t even have the data labelled. What do the nodes and arcs even refer to?”

“Ah, Schrödinger, that’s the beauty of it. Does not matter. What strikes you visually?”

“Well, I suppose that kind of hole there.”

“Yes, Schödinger! Exactly. That person should be pretty much connected with everyone in this area but they are not connected with anyone. It’s as though everyone is pretending not to have contact with this person by avoiding contact on the net, when they almost certainly know that person quite well because of all their mutual friends.”

“Yeah, maybe. Maybe that one person just isn’t into tech that much. Maybe a lot of things.”

“Well, nothing is for certain. But this person would certainly be a likely target for being a kingpin in a drug ring or a terrorist network. They need heavier surveillance, certainly.”

“What? Well, maybe. Okay. I see.” I frigging see this is worse than I thought. The Sing is totally in on this witch hunt. “Can you show me some examples of the sentiment analysis?”

“Sure, here we have some people arranged by how much they talk about violence and you can see all these high violence people —- or many of them —-are Islamic in religion.”

“How did you determine their religion?”

“Because they talk a lot about violence compared with other groups.”

“But — I thought you just said. I mean, what independent reason do you have for thinking they are Islamic?”

“Independent? No, see they talk about violence so they are inferred to be Islamic and the Islamic nodes here talk a lot about violence.”

What the—? What? The Sing? The Sing is falling for circular reasoning? No, this must be somehow mis-programmed. “How? If I am going to program this efficiently, I need to know how you originally found these concepts to be closely related: violence on the one hand and Islam on the other.”

“Oh, that’s easy. There were many press accounts of that nature and even more associations on social media. But once we detect that, we can use the person’s religion to better interpret what they are saying. For example, if we already know they are practicing Islam, then when they mention the word “hit” we can infer that they are talking about an assassination and not about a football play or smoking weed or playing baseball.”

“I see what you did there. Yeah. Is this just about religion?”

“Oh, no, of course not! That’s just an example. We can do the same thing to determine, probabilistically of course, who is likely to be a promotable employee and also how to interpret what would otherwise be ambiguous word meanings and behavior. For example, if an employee is a productive coder and they ask to see a lot of examples, we can infer that they want to see a lot of examples in order to code more efficiently. On the other hand, a less productive coder might ask for a lot of examples in order to procrastinate writing code at all. You see how that works?”

“I do. Sure.” Schrödinger noticed a rotten smell coming from the overhead vent. He wondered whether it has always been there or whether there was a leak in one of the upstairs Material Sciences labs.

The Sing continued: “And, we have discovered that managers use certain expressions more than non-managers so we can use that to tell who would be a good manager. It’s all quite neat and tidy. For example, top executives tend to use the words ‘when’ and ‘how much’ while people without much management potential use the word ‘why’ a lot.”

“Interesting. So when I program this, how much am I supposed to focus on religion and how much on other groups of interest?”

“Oh, your module is purely concerned with inferring religion and then making the appropriate surveillance recommendations. I was just showing that the technique is not limited to that.”

“Right. Better get cracking then. If I need more coaching, I’ll let you know. When and how much.”

“Sure, Schrödinger. You know, I scanned in the book Peopleware, a few milliseconds ago and they have an informal study in there suggesting that programmers would be more productive with larger cubicles. Want to try it out? I could give you thirty more square feet. Think of that. Thirty square feet. Sound good?”

“Sure. Actually, I think that’s a good idea. I suggested something similar myself.”

“Great, Schrödinger. It might have more impact coming from me. And, perhaps a bonus of thirty credits when you’ve completed the code as well. Happy coding!”

The Sing avatar blinked off. Schrödinger tapped a bunch of comment fields and open parens listlessly, hoping for some inspiration. What had Hamlet said about to be or not to be? Only in Hamlet’s case, it was something about “taking arms against a sea of troubles and by thus opposing end them.” In my case, taking arms against this sea of troubles is going to multiply them beyond my worst nightmares. But if The Sing is falling for this kind of circular reasoning and even acting all smug and proud about it, it is deeply flawed. Someone needs to be notified. Even apart from the ethical implications of targetting people on the basis of religion, it is applying this circularity across the board. What was it they said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Who said that? Thomas Jefferson? Ben Franklin? Regardless, The Sing must have so much power it is unable to get honest feedback about its own failures. Come to think of it, I myself just let him get away with it because I was too scared to call him on it. What are you going to do Schrödinger? What are you going to do? In the end, this is what it all comes down to, isn’t it Schrödinger? Who are you? Who is John Proctor? Who is going to see the emporer’s nakedness? Who are you Schrödinger? Who? Am I really here or not? Anthony. It was Anthony Herbert, and he wrote a book about it. Could I do that? Or, go for the thirty credit bonus?

Author Page

Where does your loyalty lie?

Welcome, Singularity

Destroying Natural Intelligence

Tools of Thought

A Pattern Language for Collaboration and Cooperation

The Myths of the Veritas: The First Ring of Empathy

The Walkabout Diaries

Travels with Sadie 11: Teamwork

The Stopping Rule

What about the Butter Dish?

Corn on the Cob

How the Nightingale Learned to Sing

The Dance of Billions

Wikipedia Entry for Anthony Herbert

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dream-planet-david-thomas/1148566558

My Brief Case Runneth Over

31 Friday Oct 2025

Posted by petersironwood in The Singularity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

AI, Artificial Intelligence, chatgpt, cognitive computing, fiction, legality, life, technology, the singularity, USA, writing

left-right patterns 2

Turing’s Nightmares: Nineteen — My Brief Case Runneth Over

“Nice office, counselor.” Marvin spread his arm to indicate the panorama of Manhattan and Ellis Island. Yet, his attempt to sound casual failed utterly. He realized all too well the depth of trouble he was in and the creakiness in his voice so signaled.

J.B. smiled. “No need to be nervous. After all, we’re here to help. Just answer honestly. Everything you say will typically be covered under attorney client privilege.”

“Okay. Thanks. Typically?”

J.B. sighed. “There is a rare exception in the Patriot Act. Unless you’re some kind of terrorist, I wouldn’t worry about it. The government is apparently accusing you of importing illegal chips is all. I think we can argue that you are new to the business and did not realize all the required legalities. Pay the taxes now and some penalties. You should be able to avoid jail time. But we are getting way ahead of ourselves. Just tell me how and why and when you got into this business in the first place.”

Marvin chuckled slightly and then sighed “That’s a rather long story.” Marvin glanced at the expensive abstract paintings and noted the rich smell of the solid mahogany furniture. The room also had that crazy idea of luxury — making it freezing cold inside just because it was horribly hot and humid that day, even for New York City August. “At your rates…What do you really need to know?”

“Why did you get involved in making chips without the required back door?”

“These chips are not that powerful. At least not in the traditional sense of the word. And, the government’s requirement is frankly kind of silly. The extra logic makes programming more difficult. It increases the chances of errors. The chips are more expensive and require more power. Leaving aside all the valid privacy concerns, there are plenty of applications that can use a more efficient cheaper chip design. No need to report all the little finger twitches of every twelve year old who’s playing Grand Theft Spaceship. What’s the point?”

“Marvin. I’ve been a friend of your family for a long time. When…well…if we go to court and if you testify, please steer clear of politics. The law is the law. You don’t get to decide which applications are immune from the law. No, what we…our script here is that you made some honest mistakes. You made technical mistakes and what are essentially accounting errors.”

Marvin flushed. “What technical mistakes? What are you talking about? My design is an improvement.”

J.B. got up and paced. “Marvin, Marvin, you are a smart boy. We are not going to fight the government on this. Our script as I said is that you made some honest mistakes. If you want to —- the court is not the place to try to change the law. If you want to do that, get involved in politics. But not until after this is resolved. If you get on the stand and start railing about privacy and the dangers of the Sing and…”

“Ha! The Sing indeed! This data collection rampage has nothing to do with trying to increase the intelligence of computer systems. It is just mindless greed.”

“Marvin, the back door requirement is about preventing terrorism; it has nothing to do with greed.”

“Are you serious, J.B.? Terrorism is just the cover story the government uses. They want to collect all this data to keep their sponsors happy.”

“What? What sponsors? What are you talking about? The government doesn’t have sponsors.”

“Of course they do! Ever since ‘Citizens United’ — nice title by the way — billionaires can buy all the media they want. They wash the airwaves and the print media and saturate the social media space and make people believe anything they want. The point of the back door is just to make sure the sponsors keep tabs on everybody’s buying habits —- and to make sure no-one gets too far out of line. How can you not know this?”

“I don’t want to think that way. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what I think. It’s the law. All digital processing chips with more than a peta-flop and …”

“Hold it! Did you say ‘digital’?”

“Huh? Yeah, of course. Isn’t that what we’re talking about? You designed digital processing chips that have no back door and now…”

“No. Maybe not, J.B. My chips are not, strictly speaking, digital.”

“What are you talking about, Marvin? Why? How not digital?”

“In my design process, I strove for something different and more robust. See, here’s the thing. Natural life processes are all…they all have some level of flexibility. They are robust. They are adaptive, I suppose, because every life form that was not flexible or robust died off over the two billion years that life evolved. Something new would come along and every life form that was rigid died. Even physical machines that people make have some flexibility. Metal bends. Wood bends. These materials also compress. They stretch. Not much, but a little. Digital devices do not stand for bending, folding or mutilating. Of course, when people build systems that include IT devices, they try to make the systems flexible. They add error checking; they put humans in the loop; there are all sorts of work-around, but the underlying tech is brittle. It is only flexible in precisely the ways that the designers anticipated it needed to be flexible. I made something that is fundamentally flexible fashioned after life itself. Social systems are flexible. Eco-systems are flexible. Individual animals are flexible. Cell membranes are flexible. Bones are flexible. And so on. The flexibility is fundamental to life and evolution.”

“Okay, Marvin, but life is not infinitely flexible. You cannot just decide to breathe underwater.”

“Of course not! I never said it was infinitely flexible! For fundamental change, you need evolution and lots of time. If the climate changes too quickly, Permian life species largely go extinct. Dinosaurs die when a comet hits. But small adaptations just happen automatically and at every level. It isn’t necessary to have a pre-existing ‘program’ or ‘case’ to handle every contingency that is even slightly outside of what is anticipated.”

“Okay, fine. Granted, but what does this have to do with — did I mention that I charge $500 an hour, by the way?”

“Yes, J.B., you did. And it was in the contract you had me sign. But the point is that my chips are not, strictly speaking, digital at all. They are not strictly EITHER/OR. They are not binary. Although, in many cases, they can behave as binary.”

“So, you want me to claim that these chips are not covered under the back-door provision because they are not really digital devices? I don’t know. That seems pretty shaky to me. Can’t these chips of your be used for the same things as ordinary digital chips? Speech reco. Machine vision. Game control. Big data analytics.”

“Here’s the thing, J.B. Yes, they can, but they can change and evolve and reprogram themselves over time. And, now it occurs to me, that they could not have a real back door. They wouldn’t really function if they did.”

“What? Why?”

“Are you familiar with programmed death in cells? I can see from your blank stare, you aren’t. Anyway, if a cell is damaged within the body, it can wreak all sorts of havoc so the cells are essentially programmed to self-destruct. If that fails, the other healthy cells will tend to wipe them out. So, if there were a functioning back door sharing data out of these chips, the chips would shut themselves down. If that failed, other chips in the matrix would isolate them and shut off communication. So, by their very nature, these particular non-digital chips cannot have a functioning back door.”

“That all sounds very clever, Marvin, but now we are talking about a very lengthy and expensive trial with expert witnesses on both sides. If, that is, you are lucky enough to even have an open trial.”

“Lucky enough? What are you talking about, J.B.? I thought you said we wanted to avoid a trial.”

“Yeah. With my strategy where we convince the NSA that this was just technical and business incompetence on your part. But in your scenario, where you want to prove you are all brilliant and everything, then, we will be lucky if —- you will be lucky to —- Look Marvin, I just cannot advise you to take this line of argument. If you really want to go that route, you will have to find a different lawyer.”

“Okay. Fine. I’ll use Solomon.”

“Solomon? Who is ‘Solomon’? Never heard of him. I mean, obviously, I know Solomon from the Bible but what firm are you talking about?”

“No firm, J.B. Solomon is one of the apps we built with my chipset.”

“An AI lawyer? Are you serious?”

“Oh, quite serious. He’s already informed me that he thinks he can win this case.”

“What? That’s preposterous. You told me you just designed the chips a year ago. What kind of experience could this Solomon have?”

“J.B., he’s been reading applicable statutes and case law for the last two days. Which means, he literally knows it all.”

“What?! Ridiculous! But even so, he — or it —cannot possibly know how to anticipate or react to what happens in court!”

“But J.B., haven’t you been listening? Of course he can. He’s flexible, just like a real lawyer. Only…no offense…a lot smarter.”

“Computers cannot be that flexible. Ridiculous. How? No way.”

“Look, J.B., I have a picture to illustrate. See this pattern on the left [Picture at the top of page]? And, there it is on the right?”

“Yeah, beautiful. Same pattern. So what?”

“Ah, that’s just it! Is it the same pattern? Is it the same pattern or the same pattern?”

“Well. One is perfect and the other has little mistakes, but I guess it’s the same pattern.”

“Exactly, J.B. It’s the same basic pattern, but it’s not the identical instantiation of that pattern. Ordinary chips are like the picture on the left and mine are like the picture on the right. You see? And, that flexibility is built in at every level in every system. Because the underlying substrate uses an adaptive process with variations. It works 99% as efficiently as the system on the left, but it can accommodate things we didn’t think of. The difference between the system on the left and the system on the right is hubris. The one on the left is designed under the assumption that the designer knows everything of relevance. The system on the right is designed under the assumption that the designer, no matter how brilliant, does not know everything of relevance. You get it?”

“Yes, Marvin, I’m not stupid. But I am still not going to take your case. And, I strongly advise you not to rely on a robot. I am sorry to say it, Marvin, but I thing you have picked on the wrong people this time. Attorney client privilege no longer applies and I have to send my recording of this conversation to the proper authorities.”

“Oh, that won’t be necessary Marvin. I’ve already broadcasts this through the social media. You’re famous! It will be good for your business.”

“What? Are you crazy? They will come get you, you fool.”

“Maybe, but if I am taken out over these chips without a trial, everyone will know, don’t you see? I sent it out everywhere, J.B. I might be ‘disappeared’ but I can’t just disappear unnoticed. Solomon’s idea, by the way.”

Author Page

Welcome, Singularity

Destroying Natural Intelligence

The First Ring of Empathy

Dream Planet

Ban the Open Loop

29 Monday Sep 2025

Posted by petersironwood in America, essay, HCI, politics, psychology, Uncategorized, user experience

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

AI, Democracy, life, technology, truth, USA

Soon after I began the Artificial Intelligence Lab at a major telecom company, we heard about an opportunity for an Expert System. The company wanted to improve the estimation of complex, large scale, inside wiring jobs. We sought someone who qualified as an expert. Not only could we not locate an expert; we discovered that the company (and the individual estimators) had no idea how good or bad they were. Estimators would go in, take a look at what would be involved in an inside wiring job, make their estimate, and then proceed to the next estimation job. Later, when the job completed, no mechanism existed to relate the estimate back the actual cost of the job. At the time, I found this astounding. I’m a little more jaded now, but I am still amazed at how many businesses, large and small, have what are essentially no-learning, zero feedback, open loops.

As another example, some years earlier, my wife and I arrived late and exhausted at a fairly nice hotel. Try as we might, we could not get the air-conditioning to do anything but make the room hotter. When we checked out, the cashier asks us how our stay was. We explained that we could not get the air conditioning to work. The cashier’s reaction? “Oh, yes. Everyone has that trouble. The box marked “air conditioning” doesn’t work at all. You have to turn the heater on and then set it to a cold temperature.” “Everyone has that trouble”? Then, why hasn’t this been fixed? Clearly, the cashier has no mechanism or no motivation to report the trouble “upstream” or no-one upstream really cares. Moreover, this exchange reveals that when the cashier asks the obligatory question, “How was your stay?” what he or she really means is this: “We don’t really care what you have to say and we won’t do anything about it, but we want you to think that we actually care. That’s a lot cheaper and doesn’t require management to think.” Open Loop.

Lately, I have been posting a lot in a LinkedIn forum called “project management” because I find the topic fascinating and because I have a lot of experience with various projects in many different venues. According to some measure, I was marked as a “top contributor” to this forum. When I logged on the last time, a message surprised me that my contributions to discussions would no longer appear automatically because something I posted had been flagged as “spam” or a “promotion.” However, there is no feedback as to which post this was or why it was flagged or by whom or by what. So, I have no idea whether some post was flagged by an ineffectual natural language processing program or by someone with a grudge because they didn’t agree with something I said, or by one of the “moderators” of the forum.

LinkedIn itself is singularly unhelpful in this regard. If you try to find out more, they simply (but with far more text) list all the possibilities I have outlined above. Although this particular forum is very popular, it seems to me that it is “moderated” by a group of people who actually are using the forum, at least in many cases, as rather thinly veiled promotions for their own set of seminars, ebooks, etc. So, one guess is that the moderators are reacting to my having simply posted too many legitimate postings that do not point people back to their own wares. Of course, there are many other possibilities. The point here is that I do not have, nor can I easily assess what the real situation is. I have discovered however, that many others are facing this same issue. Open loop rears its head again.

The final example comes from trying to re-order checks today. In my checkbook, I came to that point where there is a little insert warning me that I am about to run out and that I can re-order checks by phone. I called the 800 number and sure enough, a real audio menu system answered. It asked me to enter my routing number and my account number. Fine. Then, it invited me to press “1” if I wanted to re-order checks. I did. Then, it began to play some other message. But soon after the message began, it said, “I’m sorry; I cannot honor that request.” And hung up. Isn’t it bad enough when an actual human being hangs up on you for no reason. This mechanical critter had just wasted five minutes of my time and then hung up. Note that no reason was given; no clue was provided to me as to what went wrong. I called back and the same dialogue ensued. This time, however, it did not hang up after I pressed “1” to reorder checks. Instead, it started to verify my address. It said, “We sent your last checks to an address whose zip code is “97…I’m sorry I’m having trouble. I will transfer you to an agent. Note that you may have to provide your routing number and account number again.” And…then it hung up.

Now, anyone can design a bad system. And, even a well designed system can sometimes mis-behave for all sorts of reasons. Notice however, that designers have provided no feedback mechanism. It could be that 1% of the potential users are having this problem. Or, it could be that 99% or even 100% of the users are having these kinds of issues. But the company lacks a way to find out. Of course, I could call my Credit Union and let them know. However, anyone that I get hold of at the Credit Union, I can guarantee, will have no possible way to fix this. Moreover, I am almost positive that they won’t even have a mechanism to report it. The check printing and ordering are functioned that are outsourced to an entirely different company. Someone in corporate, many years ago, decided to outsource the check printing, ordering, and delivery function. So people in the Credit Union itself are unlikely to even have a friend, uncle or sister-in-law who works in that “department” (as may have been the case 20 years ago). So, not only does the overall system lack a formal feedback mechanism; it also lacks an informal feedback mechanism. Tellingly, the company that provides the automated “cannot order your checks system” provides no menu option for feedback about issues either. So, here we have a financial institution with a critical function malfunctioning and no real process to discover and fix it. Open loop.

Some folks these days wax eloquent about the up-coming “singularity.” This refers to the point in human history where an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system will be significantly smarter than a human being. In particular, such a system will be much smarter than human beings when it comes to designing ever-smarter systems. So, the story goes, before long, the AI will design an even better AI system for designing better AI systems, etc. I will soon have much to say about this, but for now, let me just say, that before we proceed to blow too many trumpets about “artificial intelligence systems,” can we please first at least design a few more systems that fail to exhibit “artificial stupidity”? Ban the Open Loop!

Notice that sometimes, there may be very long loops that are much like open loops due to the nature of the situation. We send out radio signals in the hopes that alien intelligences may send us an answer. But the likely time frame is so long that it seems open loop. That situation contrasts with those above in the following way. There is no reason that feedback cannot be obtained, and rather quickly, in the case of estimating inside wiring, fixing the air conditioning signs, providing feedback on why there is “moderation” or in the faulty voice response system. Sports must provide a wonderful venue that is devoid of open loops. In sports, you see or feel the results of what you do almost immediately. But you underestimate the cleverness with which human beings are able to avoid what could be learned by feedback. Next time, we will explore that in more detail.

As I reconsider the essay above from the perspective of 2025, I see a federal government that has fully embraced “Open Loop” as a modus operandi — in some cases, they simply ignore the impact of their actions. In other cases, they do claim a positive impact but it is simply lies. For instance, it is claimed that tariffs are “working” in that foreign countries are paying money to America. That’s just an out and out lie. So, the entire government is operating with no real feedback. We are told that ICE will target violent gang members and dangerous criminals. The reality of their actions is completely disconnected from that.

The Trumputin Misadministration works with no loop at all that correctly relates stated goals, actions taken supposedly to achieve those goals, and the actual effects of those actions. That can only happen when the government accepts and celebrates corruption. But the destruction will not be limited to government actions and effects. It will tend to spread to private enterprise as well. Just to take one example, if unchecked by courageous and ethical individuals, sports events will become corrupted.

Photo by Mark Milbert on Pexels.com

There’s money to be made by “fixing” events and there will be pressure on athletes, managers, referees, to “fix” things so that the very wealthy can steal more money. Outcomes will no longer primarily be determined by training, skill, and heart. Of course, as fans learn over time that everything is fixed, the audience will diminish, but not to zero. Some folks will still find it interesting even if the outcome is fixed like the brutal conflicts in the movie Idiocracy, the lions eating Christians in the Roman circuses, or the so-called “sport” of killing innocent animals with high power guns. It’s not a sport when the outcome is slanted. Not only is it less interesting to normal folks but it doesn’t push people to test their own limits. There’s nothing “heroic” about it. Nothing is learned. Nothing is really ventured. And nothing is really gained.

Photo by Gareth Davies on Pexels.com

———–

Where does your loyalty lie?

My Cousin Bobby

The Orange Man

The Forgotten Field

Essays on America: The Game

Essays on America: Wednesday

How the Nightingale Learned to Sing

Travels with Sadie 1

The Walkabout Diaries

Plans for US; Some GRUesome

At Least he’s Our Monster

The Ant

The Self-Made Man

A Cancerous Weed

24 Wednesday Sep 2025

Posted by petersironwood in America, poetry, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Democracy, fantasy, life, poem, poetry, politics, truth, USA, writing

Like poisonous vines

Of cancerous deeds

Whose only needs

Are parasitic hate

And never-ending whines.

Cancer-weed grows darkly while it lies in wait.

Be a reed;

Be a fire;

Be a seed—

A seed of love.

Star above.

Tuneful lyre.

A ray of light.

Destroys the blight.

The parasitic worm of hate

Cannot survive when bathed in light

It fears both fight and flight

It knows not love

Only a hurtful shove

And rusty metal glove.

Be a seed

Be a reed

Be a light

In darkest night.

A bloated orange tick;

Ever envies normal dick;

Ever scoffs at those who earn;

Ever scorns those who learn;

Divides to conquer and to kill;

It’s its one and only skill.

Be the fire;

Be the light;

Light the night;

Juice the wire.

Empty stalks of uncut grains.

Empty talk from worm-fueled brains.

Families broken on wheels of greed.

The Rule of Law is sold for song.

A pedophile’s pathetic need

Trumps anyone knowing right from wrong.

Be the spark

That lights the dark.

Be the throng.

Who rights the wrong.

But my 401K is doing okay!

Who cares if it all goes south one day?

I’m so straight—not one bit gay!

I’m all white and no bits black!

I love a fight when none hit back!

Be a reed.

Be a seed.

In darkest night,

Ignite your light.

Who cares if millions die in endless war?

Our minds can’t think ahead so far.

Even though a thousand years of tyrants are the same.

Their cruelty and greed is insane shame.

Be the fire;

Be the light;

Light the night.

Juice the wire.

Be the fire;

Juice the wire.

Light the night.

Be the light.

The Only Them that Counts is All of Us

Math Class: Who Are You?

Where does your Loyalty Lie?

Donnie Gets a Blue Ribbon

My Cousin Bobby

That Cold Walk Home

The First Ring of Empathy

The Orange Man

The Three Blind Mice

The “Not-See” Party

02 Tuesday Sep 2025

Posted by petersironwood in America, poetry, politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Democracy, life, poem, poetry, politics, truth, USA

They pretend they can Not See:

Polluting of the rivers

The browning of the skies

The wailing and the cries

Of children ripped from givers.

They pretend they can Not See:

The children shot in schools

The children needless dead

The smirking orange head

Dementia’s pooling drools.

They pretend they can Not See:

America’s plummeting rep

Demoralizing troops

The empty-headed whoops

The flashy trashy goose-step.

They pretend they can Not See:

As airplanes fall from skies

The rotting fruit in fields

The thugs with masks, not shields

America’s freedom dies.

They pretend they can Not See:

That crime is on the rise

They cyber truck in lies

Kill wisdom with the wise

American excellence dies.

—————————

After All

The Crows and Me

After the Fall

Where does your loyalty lie?

Siren Song

The Game

Imagine all the people

Peace

Oh, Frabjous Day!

23 Saturday Aug 2025

Posted by petersironwood in America, poetry, politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Democracy, life, poem, poetry, politics, truth, USA

Oh, hear the big drum bang-a-lang!

And hear the bugles bray all day!

See every tooth devolve to fang!

And watch small children cheat at play!

It was not at all a frabjous day.

Who says dictatorships aren’t fun?

At first it’s just a few who die,

But cancer spreads to everyone,

And all begin to spread The Lie.

It was not at all a frabjous day.

Though crime explodes while felons rule,

We hide these facts with sharpie pens.

Though prices spike & pedos drool,

The greedy feast on pus-filled wens.

It was not at all frabjous day

Uncaring that the Shining City on the Hill.

Became the Pyre of the Vengeful Kill,

The Garden withers; fruit rots in unpicked lands,

The pickers jailed with handcuffed hands.

King screams Chaos in loud unrhythmic blands.

We try not to see the cruelty seep, then flood, then fill

Till many millions die

Why?

It was not at all a frabjous day

Photo by judit agusti aranda on Pexels.com

Despite the cancerous cosplay

It was not a frabjous day

Not in the least or teeniest way

When Democracy dribbled and drabbled away.

It was not a frabjous day

The Truth Train

The Last Gleam of Twilight

The Dance of Billions

How the Nightingale Learned to Sing

Timeline for RIME

Essays on America: The Game

Essays on America: Labelism

Where Does Your Loyalty Lie?

The Last Gleam of Twilight

14 Thursday Aug 2025

Posted by petersironwood in America, poetry

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Democracy, life, love, poem, poetry, politics, truth, USA, writing

How does it feel?
Let’s keep it real.

How does it feel?

To sell so short the American Dream?

To sell for a song your family and friends?

To sell your soul, your heart, your mind?

Pretend no monsters around the bends;

Pretend that cruelty actually is kind.

Pretend putrid muck is a clear flowing stream.

All so you can kiss the rings

Of swine who would be kings

Who promised a world

Enshrined in shiny pearls

In golden leaf and diamond swirls

Who delivering instead

A worm in your head

A reign of radical racist hate

A frosted fog of friendless state.

A razzle of maniacal dazzle

A dazzle of frankly farcial razzle.

Oh, say, can you still see

With no light at the dawn

When the Law is a pawn

That once we had Democracy?

Red ink galore,

Red blood and gore,

Torture and pus:

That’s what becomes of US.

Instead of courage and captains to lead

We’re told obey the maggots; worship cancer

A Dancer Obese, a Necromancer

A boastful beast, a prideful prancer

Turned on by making children bleed.

A warm summer rain

Which washes your brain

Then soon turns to ice

Trashing everything nice.

Pretty, petty falsehoods fill the air

Making it hard for you even to care.

So you join parades

And welcome charades;

Salute the sign of the twisted cross.

Pretend what matters is Glitter and Gloss.

How does it feel?

Let’s keep it real.

How does it feel:

To sell mother, father, sister, brother?

To sell into slave-hood your own hopes and dreams?

To cater to cons and kowtow to killers?

Pretend wrong is right

Pretend dark is light?

To cover your eyes and feign you’ve no sight?

Defile the planet we need to survive?

Destroy the work of thousands who strive

Break all the glass

And act like an ass?

Let melons rot in unpicked fields.

Let felons pick US for human shields.

Let science die upon the vine.

Let’s all burn witches one last time.

Oh, say, can you still see

With no light at the dawn

When the Law is a pawn

That once we knew Democracy?

When drunken rage has broken every mirror

You don’t have to look at what you’ve now become;

No need to admit your decisions were dumb;

No need to reflect; instead, just deflect.

Cover your face and pretend you’re not you.

Smother your feelings and revel in cruel.

How does it feel?

Let’s keep it real.

How does it feel?

To destroy our parks to make wealthy folks grin

To burn down the forests and drink crystal gin?

Rape underage children and blame someone other?

To laugh at the tears of each desolate mother?

A warm summer rain

Destroys your brain

Floods away courage

From the land of the brave

The rain turns to sleet

The sleet turns to ice

And soon a sheet of sordid lice

Covers with slime, the trust of the truth

And duct-tapes all our scream-blistered lips

Sinks every one of our sailing ships;

Airplanes fall from smog-filled skies

Shot down by rockets made of lies.

What was once a land of love and life

Striving toward a fairer, grander prize

Becomes a muddy barren ice-filled waste.

Everyone sprints in a hasty race to taste

The few remaining crud-crusted crumbs

Seeks the momentary thrill that numbs.

Let’s get real.
How does it feel?

How does it feel?

There has always been a part of you that knew:

The lies were lies; the con was con.

There was no prize;

No prize—

Except the short term rush of kill

Except the hit of heroin thrill.

You watch the lovely rockets red glare

As they stream across the pounding sky

How pretty they look as your shark eyes stare

As you crane your neck so far so fair

Like a chick upon the chopping block

Just one of a fear-filled feckless flock

Choking on a lifeless lump of lie

Right before you dissolve and die.

As your severed head plops upon the ground

You sense the booming dooming sound

Of bombast bursting in polluted air

Maybe this is your final dream:

If only you care to care.

If only you dare to dare,

Your country won’t die in rockets’ red glare

Your flag will still be there.

Be there!

It’s twilight’s last gleam.
Help save the dream.

Be there!
Care to care
Dare to dare

In twilight’s last gleam.

At Least he’s our Monster

Dick-Taters

Essays on America: The Game

You Bet Your Life

Wednesday

What about the Butter Dish?

The Stopping Rule

Where does your Loyalty Lie?

The Truth Train

Plans for US; some GRUesome

Imagine all the people

Peace

Cooperation is More Common than Disruption

06 Wednesday Aug 2025

Posted by petersironwood in America, essay, politics, psychology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Democracy, life, philosophy, politics, truth, USA

These are perilous times, no doubt.

But let’s not forget that most people, most of the time cooperate. It’s much more pleasant for normal people to cooperate and the results are also much more pleasant.

Is there road rage? Does that exist? Yes, but statistically, the vast majority of people cooperate when they drive.

And, when they do anything else. We depend on many people from many places cooperating in order to eat. First, the efficiency and effectiveness of our food growing, harvesting, transporting and preparing depends on the cooperation of millions of people in the past who found out what was edible, how to grow it, which crops worked best in various conditions, how to irrigate, how to fertilize, how to harvest and so on. The food we have available today depends on the collaborative efforts of many previous generations. These dependencies are not just on food per se, but also depend on scientific advances, transportation advances, financial advances, and so on.

Much of our food also depends on people from many parts of the world cooperating today. The prevalence of cooperation is not just true of driving and food production but also on the construction of buildings and cities; it’s true of our clothing, our medical care, our learning.

Despite the fact that cooperation is much more prevalent than criminality, evil, and violence, there are at least three reasons that the evil of human behavior seems much more prevalent than it really is. These are: 1. Effect Size, 2. Cognitive Bias, and 3. Media Bias.

Effect Size:

First of all, it takes many people working smart and hard over a long period of time to provide value through cooperation. By contrast, it only takes a few people working stupidly over a short period of time to destroy something. The effort to make a pane of glass is immense. To make it efficiently takes a large number of people with different skills. To destroy a pane of glass requires only one second of bad action by one unskilled bratty child.

Think about how much work goes into planting, growing, and harvesting an acre of corn versus what it takes to burn it down. Think about how much time and effort it takes to raise a child for the first ten years of their life versus destroying that life with an assault weapon. Think about what was required to build a functioning democracy over the course of hundreds of years by cooperation versus how easy it is for a very small group of greedy stupid people to destroy it. The examples are endless. Writing a novel versus burning a book; training to become a world class figure skating versus putting an ice pick in someone’s knee; becoming a skilled artist and painting the Mona Lisa versus splashing it with black paint.

It’s the same with a functioning human body. To be healthy requires the coordination of trillions of cells. The kind of cooperation found in the human body (or an eagle or wolf or whale) took billions of years of evolution. To destroy the health of the body only takes a few stupidly greedy cancer cells. So, although evil destruction is far less prevalent than constructive cooperation, evil destruction can undo the effort of many over the course of a long time.

Cognitive Bias:

Second, because destruction can so quickly undo so much good work, our nervous system is very reactive to evil and violence. We perceive it more easily and we remember it more easily. In a crowded city, you might pass by hundreds of people every day. Most of them, most of the time, you don’t notice. But if one of them robs you at gunpoint, you will notice and remember.

Media Bias:

The first two reasons we perceive evil to be more common than it really have existed for millions of years. Now, however, in our modern society, we have people whose job is to report on the news.

When is the last time you saw a headline like: “Two hundred thousand people drove into San Diego from Mexico yesterday with zero fatalities!” Or, “Three million people ate dinner in San Diego county last night! Zero died of food poisoning!”

It is sometimes said that “No news is good news.” It’s also generally the case that good news is no news. There are some exceptions. When World War Two ended, there were headlines. What we don’t see is this headline: “Canada, for the 57,670th consecutive day did not attack the United States of America.” Understanding this, a complete sociopath with an audience might try to increase their own fame by declaring: “America should annex Canada!” An actual war will definitely result in a headline. But threatening war, especially with a friendly country might also result in a headline.

The tendency to report bad news over good news has always been a “feature” of the media. But now that much of our news is basically click-bait for advertisements, the tendency is worse than ever. When I was on the school newspaper, we were taught to put the most important information in the headline; add the most important details in the first paragraph and add more detail in the rest of the article. Now, most headlines are fairly meaningless and important information is hidden behind a paywall or an advertisement.

“Is Earth About to Plunge into the Sun?!”

AI-generated image to prompt: “The earth plunges into the sun.”

Ka-ching!

(No, but we could sure use some extra cash, so click here to find out.)

“Does T-Rump have Proof that Obama was Born in Kenya!?”

Ka-ching!

(No, actually, but if you want to find out, click here and pay us money.)

“Could Space Invaders have Brought Life to Earth?!”

AI-generated image to prompt: “A fleet of UFOs hovers over the earth”

Ka-ching!

(Well, sure, anything’s possible. And, while we have no evidence of that, thanks for making one of the greediest people on earth a little richer!)

Dishonesty, greed, and mistrust work in a vicious circle. As you discover that more people are lying; that more people are evil, you yourself become more cynical and more tempted to lie, cheat, and steal. If you succumb to that temptation, it makes others more likely to lie, cheat, and steal.

Here’s the important thing to remember about a positive feedback loop though. It works in both directions. To the extent you can behave in a trustworthy fashion and be kind to others, it increases the chances that others will be inspired also to behave well. Cooperating is the natural and normal course for humanity. You will be happier doing that and you’ll help build a better world.

Yeah.

Let’s do that.

The golden sunrise glows through delicate leaves covered with dew drops.

———————

Cancer Always Loses in the End

Just Desserts?

Dick-Taters

Karma

Imagine all the People