Showing posts with label companies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label companies. Show all posts

Friday, April 04, 2025

Philosophizing AGI

 kw: simulated intelligence, ai, artificial intelligence, companies, philosophy, artificial ethics


In the recent issue of Wired, in an article about the company Anthropic, where the founders plan to develop AGI (artificial general intelligence), this photo and caption appear. The caption reads, "Amanda Askell / A trained philosopher who helps manage Claude's personality". Claude is the AI agent that the Anthropic folks are trying to develop into an AGI that is benevolent and ethical.

The first thought I had was, "Trained philosopher? Huh! What does an untrained philosopher look like?" My inner philosopher immediately replied, "Like a human being."

My second thought: "Who decides what is ethical?" In a hyper-divided America, struggling to stay afloat sociologically in a chaotic world, we find this spectrum (not at all autistic…):

  • Radical (these days, Woke Leftists) - The bleeding-edge elites define ethics, to which you'd better kowtow, or else.
  • Liberal - Liberty, the most freedom for the greatest number, favoring plenty of government care and oversight.
  • Moderate - "Leave us alone."
  • Conservative - Don't change what works; keep government out of most affairs.
  • Reactionary - Whatever I say is good, is good. Contradict me at your own peril.

This doesn't even touch on religions, which have their own ethical standards, based on whatever god or scripture they believe. BUT! One thing is for darn sure: I don't want any trace of "what is ethical" to be decided within government.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Professors vs Rodent

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, companies, polemics

My family first visited Disneyland in Anaheim shortly after it opened in July, 1955. I was almost eight. I was an avid watcher of the Mickey Mouse Club show. As I recall, however, I've never had any Disney merchandise other than a set of plastic mouse ears bought at the park when we visited and a rabbit-fur "coon skin hat". Not so my contemporaries. Some had Mickey or Donald PJ's or even bed sheets, and some had themed lunch boxes or notebooks (the schools permitted that in the 1950s).

Somehow my family instilled in my brothers and me an almost total resistance to "theme products." I think I've visited the Anaheim park six or seven times, most recently in 1968 with my cousins. Then late in 2003 we took our 15-year-old son to Disney World in Florida for a few days. We know people who spend a few thousand a year on Disney parks and Disney merchandise.

In last Friday's post I recounted my struggles to properly read a book that is written in a difficult style. The "Fog Index" for four paragraphs selected at random ranged from 16 to 20, meaning one would need four to eight years of education beyond high school to be able to read the text without re-reading frequently to extract meaning. I have fourteen years of university education, but I found myself re-reading from time to time.

I did finish the book. It is The Mouse That Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence, the second edition, by Henry A. Giroux and Grace Pollock, professors at McMaster University. Given my difficulty reading the text, I find it hard to imagine there were sufficient sales to warrant a new edition ("Updated and Expanded"). However, there is no denying the authors have something worth saying. While I think they overstate their case, there is some validity to the image of a rapacious corporate giant (around $50 billion in sales in 2009) hiding behind a facade of innocence and childhood fantasy. The reach of Disney Co. is unmistakable. As stated on page 25,
"Like many other megacorporations, it focuses on popular culture and continually expands its reach to include not only theme parks but television networks, motion picture studios, music companies, radio stations, online entertainment, cruise lines, Broadway theater productions, publishing houses, and video game development studios."
In other words, like other megacorporations, they'll take over as much of the world as they can. Is anybody surprised? There is a major retailer about which this story is told: a customer, a U.S. citizen, purchased several major appliances on credit and installed them in his hacienda in Mexico. The appliances were purchased in the U.S. but trucked to Mexico by the buyer. Not a payment was made on the debt, and when the retailer sought legal redress, there was none available because the buyer was out of the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. So the retailer hired mercenaries to bring the fellow back to the U.S. to stand trial, and avoided charges of kidnapping because he was nabbed not on U.S. soil! In their own way, the major corporations have more power than the governments under which they purportedly operate. And let's not forget Ross Perot's rescue of his employees from Iran a generation back.

Companies exist to produce or obtain goods at the lowest cost or price possible, and sell them for the highest price the market will bear. This is how capitalism works. That Disney operates in a capitalistic manner doesn't surprise or distress me. However, there is one area in which I agree that the company bears watching: their forays into the educational field. To name just a couple of instances, the company assumed total control of Celebration, FL, including its educational system; secondly it has contracted with a few school systems to provide educational services.

Given the Disney take on American history—were they to perform a similar lobotomy of German history, it would include denying the Holocaust—there is little useful that children can gain from a Disney-supplied education besides how to most efficiently consume and how to "feel like a princess." They fit kids only for life on "Main Street, USA," but the kids will have to find out elsewhere that it never existed; that small-town "Waltons"-style living was never known by more than a few, and they all white, upper-middle-class conservatives.

Now, I happen to be white, almost-upper-middle-class, and conservative, but I wasn't born yesterday. I may have had a few years growing up in a quiet, white suburb, but it was no more than three blocks from the 8x8 shack, still standing at the time, where our next-door neighbor had been born and raised to age seventeen (sometime in the past forty years, the shack was removed; I went back and looked a few years ago). I've lived in a variety of places in eight states, but even more, I've learned history not just by reading textbooks but by reading journals and letters, and talking to aged relatives. Looking back at my own memories with a critical eye, I realize that the golden days we all remember are largely fabricated. We skip over a lot, and why shouldn't we? It is hard to remain optimistic if one harbors all the bad memories.

I support education that helps youngsters see the world as it is. I also support the option to enjoy fantasy on occasion, as a healthy escape. Disney is criticized for "inane mottoes" taught to the "cast members" at its theme parks, such as, "We work so others can play." Well, whether I am at Disneyland, or on a Holland America cruise, or at a ski resort, or even at the local burger place, I am playing while others work. That's what it is about! When I worked at Cedar Point (run by Doc Lemmon, previously with Disney), I worked my butt off; then at quitting time, I changed clothes and became one of those playing! The next shift was working now. I am glad that Disney and others have become so good at having their workers ("cast") do so in a cheerful manner. Helps me be cheerful also.

Having struggled through the whole book, what have I learned? Primarily, that I am right to complain about the Bowdlerization of history seen in popular entertainment, and not just from Disney; that I was right to undertake a major portion of the education of our son, to be certain he learned even better than the public school could offer; and that thinking is such hard work that few people ever think unless faced with a disaster, and sometimes not even then, so that corporations that provide "edutainment", of which Disney is the first, go largely unwatched. But they do need to be watched!

The basic rule of practical politics is, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." I work for a major corporation. This reduces my inclination to investigate them. But it doesn't reduce my responsibility to do so. The same goes for the Rodent who is taking over the world. Of course Disney bears watching. It is salutary to be reminded of that.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

This virtual environment is very real

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, computer revolution, companies

Hmmm, let's see what I've used today. Of course, I do most of my searching with Google, often starting from an iGoogle page when I'm logged in. I've used Google Maps to see how close a certain hotel is to one of the Septa rail stations in Philly; searched Google Images to find a good pic for a presentation (preferably at a .gov site so it has no copyright); updated a Knol I've been writing; and now I'm using Blogger. This is just the first half of my day. I may use Google Earth later (trying to find seafloor scars of trawling…maybe the supposed Atlantis is unique); there is a chance I'll do a patent search, though I have professionals to call on for that; and at home this evening I am as likely to use Chrome as Firefox and I may fire up Picasa if I have time.

I wonder how many people bother to click the "more" button at the top of the Google search page. For me it is easier to state what I haven't used: Shopping, Groups, Calendar and Finance.

The last button on this list opens up a big page full of offerings (not all unique, by the way), which I've shrunk by half for the image below.

Randall Stross has researched the Google revolution for his book Planet Google: One Company's Audacious Plan to Organize Everything We Know. (I toyed with titling this post "The Audacity of Google", but decided to leave such conceits to our Socialist-in-Chief.)

Google's unofficial motto is "Don't Be Evil." So far, most people have given them the benefit of the doubt. While Google has about 70% of the searching action, it is also becoming dominant in video (with two offerings) and digitized books. Its principals make no bones about their desire to index everything that is digital and to digitize (and index) everything that isn't. The famous PageRank™ Algorithm ("THE Algorithm") produces the index that makes Google Search so popular. Its power results from the completeness of the collection on which it is based: a trillion web pages so far.

At the other end of the spectrum, Google Books is the first major salvo in Google's attempt to get everything into digital form. They've already gotten a couple million titles digitized, but copyright issues often mean that you can get only a glimpse into a book's content, and must follow a link or two to find the book at a bookstore or library. They have the best nationwide library search method I've used. Company spokesmen are candid that the entire project is long term; they claim it will take 300 years (not just for books, but for "everything").

Supporting all of this are some very big data centers. A typical center cost $600 million to build and equip, and they are located near power plants to minimize power line losses. They suck down electricity like a steel mill. Google's investment in these centers is approaching $4 billion. That's a lot of disk space; their first terabyte cost nearly $20,000. Today a 1Tb disk costs less than $100 (I just gave one to my son). The Google datastore is measured in Petabytes, or thousands of Tb.

This reminds me of an old joke: IBM invents a disk with literally infinite capacity, called the God Drive. The Government orders two. These days, I suspect Google has more storage capacity than anyone. I suspect they're close to an Exabyte.

This capacity and completeness has made Google Translations, which is statistical rather than rule-based, work better and more consistently than nearly all others, nearly all of the time. When you have a few trillion words and word combinations as a basis, the statistics of even obscure expressions become meaningful, and therefore parseable.

Google is not yet quite the size of Microsoft (Its market cap is ~70% of Microsoft's), but it has equaled IBM and surpassed Coca-Cola, and its market cap is bigger than three of the five largest oil companies. Its primary source of revenue is still the ads on its search results pages. Some enterprises, such as Books or YouTube, seem to be more like loss leaders.

As the author reports, Google wants to be an environment that we never exit. Of course, every business would like to have such ultimate customer loyalty. Over the years, cinderblock entities such as Sears and Wal-Mart have been "the place for everything you need", and in the online world, Alta Vista and then Yahoo vied with Microsoft for the title.

Google has gone farther than all of them. Looking at this menu of offerings (click for a more readable image), the items I see lacking are Travel, Job Listings, and Real Estate (among things I use with some frequency).

Can Google become the place we never leave? They have yet to face the kind of trust-busting challenge faced by Microsoft and others. I wonder when one will come. Until then, do you know what is another term for Conspiracy? Business Plan.