Large Language Models and Original Thought

 

Something that humans and machines can still agree upon. Original thoughts cannot be derived from data alone; instead, they should be seen as the process of committing to an interpretation, often against prevailing assumptions.

Mama, oh oh oh 

_____

This is an interesting conversation that I just had with a "Customer Service Representative" at HRSA- National Maternal Mental Health Hotline. 

Their services?

Okay! So I called to interact by SMS messaging with one of their Professional Counselors

Yeah, I do not think that I was interacting with flesh and blood!

Let's see what chatGPT5 thinks about this situation. 

Am I interacting with a human or with ones and zeros?

The answer is pretty clear-cut: ChatGPT's money is on the bot,
and in the odd event that this was not the case,
it suggests that I was interacting with a script.
What a consolation for a mother in need, right?

What makes a good decision?

I think this a good example of what close to two million people like to read daily. It makes you feel good, feel like there is an order to the things that you do and that if you prepare a PowerPoint presentation with the right animations illustrating these principles then your boss is going to tap you in the shoulder, good job!

But are people not able to think anymore on their own? 
Can anyone stand up anymore and say, no, this is not right, it does not make sense? 
Maybe it is better to just sit in the back of the room, sipping coffee from a mug with an inspirational quote and wait until 5pm of Friday because this weekend there is the game!

Based on followers numbers, it appears that these days workers seem to think only by slogans, heart warming quotes based on words play, and the "inspirational" automatic reply on LinkedIn and not that they would ever want to argue with me, (why spend some of my time with someone who does not have any followers?), but for the sake of the argument let's apply the proposed decision making process to problem of getting married. Let's follow the steps and the reader be advised that I am actually happily married (love you honey! ❤️):

1. Define the problem:  well, I want to get married!
Defining the problem in this way implies that 

    (a) this is a problem (ok, well at least for me now this is a problem) and 

    (b) there is a solution to this problem, i.e., that there is another individual that want to solve the same problem with me. 

But, oh, wait. Why just one individual? Perhaps a polygamic solution would be a better option, after all those who have agreed to that compact have found already a solution and they can be qualified therefore as experts. Experts do know better after all. Oh my head is spinning and I am questioning myself already if this is the right formulation of the problem. And worse, I have been trying to think logically, but that is only at step 5, I cannot do that at this stage!

2. Find Options: yes, options are good, I can only choose and therefore exercise my freedom only when I have options, else I would not be free and may need to enter into a pre-arranged marriage. Oh dear, I need to go back to step 1, I had not considered a pre-arranged marriage. Perhaps this is the solution already, maybe I am going to be lucky, and anyways the experts that have arranged this marriage know it better, they are experts after all! 
But I like options, where do I get them. Mhmm, I know Sarah, and Liz, and what was her name again? I need to evaluate fully my options: I am going to ask Sarah for a date, and Liz for a date and if I find her number I will ask (darn it, what was her name?) also for a date. Should I ask Sarah first, or perhaps Liz? and the third lady was certainly Sarah's friend, so I can ask Sarah for her name and number. 

3 Collect Data Maybe, I can invite the three of them on the same date so that I can make an unbiased experiment that does not depend on the order on which the dates were defined. Maybe if explain them my intent very well at step 1 they will understand and they will allow me multiple experiments, and counterfactuals. I will collect all the data that I can get from their social profiles, plus estimate measure of their body types, your know brassier size and all that good stuff, and don't forget the age, yes, especially the age of a woman is very important, and medical history. I will create a good data set so that I can run some machine learning models, there are so many open source models on github to choose from and see what they get me as an answer.

4. Evaluate the impact Before I pop the question, though, I need to carefully evaluate the impact, especially on my finances, maybe I should put in some expenses for a marital counselor, and the lawyers, ... ah yes, I forgot to evaluate the impact of a divorce. And not only on me, if we have children, yeah another consequence that I did not consider on step 3. I need to go back there and reconsider the machine learning models. But wait, I cannot go back to step 3, because that it is not in the flowchart on how to make a good decision. Maybe I did not use enough logic on step 3, but that was not contemplated in the flowchart, it is only required at step 5! Oh well, I have to trust the process!

5. Think Logically. oh, now you tell me to think logically? Think logically about what? I have already decided the problem, the data, and the method, what is that I need to think logically now?

6. Take Action. The most accurate seemed to be a semi-supervised deep neural network. I ran it on a AWS Kubernetes cluster with GPUs, and the results were clear. Sarah 99.8%, Liz 99.7%, and what's her name only 99.1%. I just popped the question to Sarah over email, and if she says yes I will announce our engagement on X, formerly known as Twitter. Oh, wait, she just answered, I am so excited!! ... what the F? ... she just sent me to hell? How is that even possible? I have followed the process on how to make a good decision to the letter, and could I have possibly gone wrong? I am confused .. let me take a look at what is on step 7? Define the problem? but I just did!! Oh well, I need to trust the process after all making a good decision is just doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different answers, am I right?

_______________________________________________

As Author Nassim Nicholas Taleb aptly put it, "lecturing birds how to fly"

Scientific articles and weasel words

So that I cannot be accused of weasely appropriating images on the internet, you could potentially consider buying this

Take this Science Alert article: Quantum Batteries Could Provide a New Kind of Energy Storage by Messing With Time. This is a prime example of readings that have the only effect of turning me off.

The `could,` `would,` `mays,` `potentially,` and `in principle` do not belong to the scientific parlance.

But this is OK, one might object; this is not the science; it is just pop science!

And yet, digging deeper into the actual hard-science articles, one finds the exact weasel words and, mind you, not under a dedicated `Speculations` header, but throughout Methods, Materials, and Conclusions. This is unacceptable and a huge issue that serious (ahah) Journal Editors should crack down upon.

I want to share an interesting opinion article that illustrates my point more eloquently than I could ever do: Hedging, Weasel Words, and Truthiness in Scientific Writing, by Dr. D.E. Ott.

By the way, it is OK to speculate. Had we never had Jules Verne write on getting to the moon, we would have probably never planted a flag (ahi, more speculation!). Imagination (as individuals and as a society) is progress's most potent driving force. I cheer anyone with the bravery and moral fortitude to move the goalpost farther than anyone else could reach.

But I decry in the strongest terms any attempts at swaying economic interests. under the pretenses of potential science.

Let's go back to real accountability.

Do you, the researcher, or their scientific institution have a speculation you would like to propose? OK, put your reputation (your only real currency) on the line and tell us about timelines, stepping stones, investments, risks, and mitigations. We will believe you because we, as a society, will hold you accountable to those. If your predictions hold water, we will give you more research money.

But if your predictions are just vague speculations based on weasel words and aggressive PR push, good luck!

Funny Countries Facts

        Funny Countries Facts

Which country has the highest reverse immigration?  

Isbackistan

Which country has the most banks?                           

Cheque Republic

Which country has the fastest people?                       

Rusha

Which country has the highest rate of skeptics?             

Noway

Which country has the most relaxed citizens?                

Slowakia

Which country has the highest rate of stomach reflux?       

Belchium

Which country has the strongest soccer team?                

MonGOOOLia

Which country has the most electric guitar players? 

Morerocko

Which country has the fanciests fast food restaurants?

Luxenburger

Which country has the most classically trained musicians?

Mozartbique 

Which country has the most percussionists?

the Democratic Republic of Bongo

Which country has the most off-road vehicles?

Ejeept

Which country has the least number of food banks?

Hungry

Which is the most fragile country?

China

Where do John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John live?

Greace

Which is the most infected nation?

Germ-many

Which country has the most diabetic patients?

Sweeten 

Which has the most sheep?

The Baahaamaas

Which is the country with the fewest dissidents?

Yesmen

The country with the most marathon athletes?

Iran

The country with the least traffic issues? 

Parkistan

Which country has the largest number of black birds?

Crowatia

The country with the most singers?

Singamore

Which country has the strongest opposition movement?

Nopal

Which country has the worst traffic?

Honk-Kong

Which country has the most rocky terrain?

Stonia

CNN = Certainly Not News

I find it absolutely disgusting how the media outlets are treating the case of Edward Snowden. In this post I would like to focus on what I saw on the CNN website this morning. Take the CNN trends bar on their home page, how important do you think is the "NSA leaker" case?

Yet, when you click on the CNN trends page itself, all of a sudden it appears as the item number 3

Now read the incipit of the CNN article, "(CNN) -- European officials reacted with fury Sunday after a report that the U.S. National Security Agency spied on EU offices."

On Sunday???? I do not think so! The news , with all Schulz's declarations, was already news on Saturday morning (US time of course) on all the European newspapers ... but of course you could not find on CNN or elsewhere in the US mainstream media.

Of course, this is not just about the CNN, but all the mainstream USA media outlets, including NPR that, as of the time of writing, has not reported yet this news.

Now, is it so unplausible that all this stirring about gay marriage is not an elaborate cover-up for covering up the patently unconstitutional character of the actions of this and the past administrations towards the privacy of world citizens?

Solar Eclipse

Some backyard pictures of the shadows generated by the Solar Eclipse 2012 in California.

Free Exercise Clause

In defense of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

... but the Obama administration just imposed a Trojan horse that, with the excuse of providing health care for all, forces employers to provide medical insurance for abortion and contraception, regardless of the moral beliefs. I did believe in Obama's promise of providing health care for all. Only now I understand what Chesterton meant when he said:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.

Gilbert K. Chesterton, The Suicide of Thought, Orthodoxy.

Another Cubicle Wall

Daddy's flown across the ocean

Leaving just a memory

Snapshot in the family album

Daddy what else did you leave for me?

Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!?

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!"

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the Division

Don leave them kids alone

Hey! Don! Leave them kids alone!

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"

"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

I don't need no pals around me

And I don't need no drugs to calm me.

I have seen the writing on the wall.

Don't think I need anything at all.

No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

A little math on the value of compressed air cars

I am looking forward to trade my 1995 BMW740i for a compressed air car:
hopefully I will able to fulfill this dream soon when MDI will be offering their model in the USA market.


These cars will sell in Europe for about Euros 3,500 (about $5,000) and they will make 125 miles without recharge at a $1.5 cost, or in other words, with a conservative estimate for the cost of gas at $3/gallon, an equivalent fuel consumption of 250 miles/gallon. If we compare to the current 25 miles/gallon this is a tenfold increase in the efficiency.

So let's do a little math ... how many of these cars could have been introduced on the USA roads by using the $25 billions used in the car industry bailout money? Easy math

25,000,000,0000 / 5,000

or 5 million air compressed cars, i.e., 2.5% of all the cars currently running in the US (about 200 millions).

This figure is certainly very conservative as we did not include the gas saving costs that derive from the use of the car. At an average of 12,000 miles/annum and cost of gas at $3, a 25 miles/gallon car costs about $1,250 /annum in gas, whereas the equivalent gas cost for a compressed air car will around $50/annum.

Moreover, the bailout assumes that part of the efficiency increase of going from 25 to 35 miles/gallon (in year 2016!) will be transfer to the cost of the car, and the estimate has been given in $1,300 which I will have to pay anyways to run a car that is 10 times less efficient than what I can buy in 2009.
Moreover, given the relatively cheap cost of this air compressed car, it will be easier to introduce the already announced "guzzlers junk trade" incentive for buying new cars ... say I will be able to get $1,000 for my old BMW

So let's take these costs off

25,000,000,0000 / (5,000 - 1000 - 1300 -1250 + 50)

and we are at about 8.5% of the number of cars currently running in the US, which reduces directly in a 8.5% CO2 emission reduction from cars ... now, not in 2016!
Such a number of cars is no doubt more than sufficient to pass the psychological threshold of changing the use of the car from status symbol back to its original purpose, a mean of transportation. Obviously, the more people you see running these cars, the easier it will be for you to accept the change, not counting peer pressure.

So, what's wrong in Washington these days? Is the current Administration a little weak in math?

Odd, as President Obama hired a Noble Prize winner for Physics as the US Secretary of Energy, who is absolutely familiar with the math level used above. So, what's wrong President Obama?

Maybe your "no-lobbies" policy isn't working after all? Or maybe, you are not really serious about the climate change to consider negligible such a reduction in carbon emission? Or perhaps, it is not worth the reduction in oil import from hostile countries to the US?

Just a few open questions ...


June 1st, 2009, Addendum
With today's announcement of GM's bankruptcy, there it goes an additional $30B ... and uncontrolled rumors give the cash for clunkers incentive in the $4k range ... do you really want me to redo the math?

The largest Farmers Calendar in the world

After spending a few hours playing with the newly launched Wolframalpha "computational knowledge engine", I was rolling on the floor, laughing in tears. Here is a beautiful example to the query "What is C++?"

Of course, while it knows everything about itself, it does not know other more mundane facts such as "What is Fortran" or any other language for that matter, not to mention its commercial rival Matlab!

An interesting answer was returned also to the query "What is Blaise Pascal first name?"

In short, the parsing capabilities of this self-proclaimed "computational knowledge engine" appear to be extremely poor, even when compared to less ambitious projects such as trueknowledge or cyc and make it closer to just a large database.

But what troubles me the most and ultimately prompted me to write this post, is the process of facts selection (curing) for this glorified Farmer's calendar known as Wolframalpha.

Wikipedia has, for instance, such a democratic approach to information that our collective knowledge becomes what the majority decides the truth to be, whereas in WA, the truth is nothing but what the oracle of Stefan Wolfram decides it to be.

It is sad to remark how the majority of the people in the western world tends more and more to confuse information with knowledge.

While the origin of such confusion can be easily rooted in pure greed economy (information can be sold cheaper than knowledge, and it does not appear to be limited), it is as if we were given pig's pods to eat and not realizing it.
We need to come to our senses, realize our sin and ask forgiveness to Our Father, the true source of all knowledge.

In memoriam of Eluana Englaro

November 25, 1970 in Lecco (Italy) - February 9, 2009 in Udine (Italy)

____________

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord.

And let perpetual light shine upon her.

May she rest in peace. Amen

May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, 

through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

____________

Sister Earth

Is Earth a Mother or rather a Sister to us? 

The news , often prompted by comments of members of the scientific community, offer the rather consumed expression "mother Earth" when referring to naturally occurring events that involve the sciences of climate and ecology among others.  Women images adored as Goddesses were very common in matriarcal pre-Judaico-Christian societies: Mother Earth was one of these. 

The concept of Earth as a Mother, was virtually eradicated by the Judaic view of God Creator of Heaven and Earth and of Jesus' Our Father (the difference of gender is here irrelevant). God is the Creator of all things and creatures (hence the brotherhood) and all things and creatures need to adore. The Book of Daniel tells the story of the three young men who refuse to adore the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar, and when threw in the furnace sing their song of praise: 

Sun and moon, bless the Lord; Every shower and dew, All you winds, Fire and heat, Cold and chill, Everything growing from the earth, All you beasts, wild and tame, Holy men of humble heart, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. For he has delivered us from the nether world, and saved us from the power of death; He has freed us from the raging flame and delivered us from the fire.

Famous is San Francis of Assisi Canticle of Creatures, a praise to the Lord in the brotherhood of the natural elements: brother sun and sister moon. It is interesting to see how San Francis refers to the Earth as a sister-mother (sora nostra matre terra)  who nurtures and governs us. This is a a totally different concept from New Age's mother earth, Gaia, despite the recent ludicrous attempts from the environmentalist movement at appropriating for themselves the message of the poverello di Assisi.  This New Age movements attempt thus a replacing God Father and Creator, with Lovelock's Gaia. Lovelock introduced Gaia as

... an active, adaptive control system able to maintain the physical, chemical, biological, and human components of the earth in homeostasis.

It is interesting the usage of homeostatic ("to stand equally") union, as opposed to Christian's hypostatic ("to stand beneath") union (Latin's 'natura'), which is the basis of Christian's Trinitarian theology. As in a modern Eden, the creature substitutes itself for the Creator, and the original sin is passed from generation to generation. 

This neopagan (from Latin paganus, "country dweller, rustic") view of nature wouldn't bother me if it would not reflect the pre-scientific and socially dangerous attitude (hubris) that characterizes great part of contemporary science.  

Various openings

Monsignor Ravasi opens to the atheists.

Vatican City --- The president of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, Msgr. Gianfranco Ravasi, does not exclude that also some atheists will participate in the plenary assemblies of his ministry: "Having one or more interlocutors that see and interpret the world from the alternative point of view becomes almost, in some sense, essential" (Corriere della Sera, 10-03-2008, p.20).

Meanwhile, soccer coach Roberto Donadoni announced that he will call a few lame players to play in the Italian National Soccer Team: "Having in your team one or more lame players that see and interpret the game from the losers' point of view becomes almost, in some sense, essential for understanding modern soccer."

(Quoted from an untrusted anonymous source of unknown, unreliable origin)

Just a coincidence?

and of course an update to this post with Pope Francis' cover ...

There will be blood

Paul Thomas Anderson's There will be blood maintained his word: there was blood, but a fake blood, a blood that does not redeem.

Let's be clear on one point: Daniel Day-Lewis (Daniel Plainview) is an outstanding actor, unquestionably best Hollywood's villain, and deserves the Oscar for his magnificent interpretation. The Plainview character is reminiscent of one of the best villains ever, Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting, of Scorsese's Gangs of New York. But even Day-Lewis could not do much to save an utterly confused Anderson.

Throughout the movie, Plainview is not given a soul because he doesn't have one, and this makes Day-Lewis' interpretation unnecessarily flat. Daniel Day-Lewis tries hard to fill in an empty final scene, but even him doesn't know where Anderson is heading as it becomes evident from his exaggerate limping, the back and forth movements that breaks the tension between the two characters, and the pathetic chase scene around the bowling alley.

Anderson portrays in this movie an apology of the lie: family is a lie, religion is a lie, God is a lie. Only blood and oil are real. Yet, he shamelessly draws from the Bible to put forward his truth.

• In the first scene we are presented with Plainview's fall, where he gets of the forbidden fruit, the oil: this is the only moment where Plainview is obliged to look up above his plain view.
• When death strikes one of his co-workers in a derrick construction, he feels compelled to adopt his baby: an evident new Moses left in the basket, as it becomes evident by the end of the movie when Plainview-Pharaoh doesn't want to let his adopted son go to pursue his own business in Mexico: "You're a bastard from a basket."
• The twin brothers Paul and Eli Sunday, are put before us as Jacob and Esau, as Plainview says : "You're not the chosen brother, Eli. It was Paul who was chosen" and as Eli savagely attacks his own old father for being stupid and idle, for believing a lie.
• Plainview is baptized while proclaiming a lie.
  
• Eli Sunday dies after confessing his lie. (I would go so far as to say that Eli is the anagram of lie).
• Plainview-Cain kills his brother Henry Bardy-Abel : but that's also a fake brother, a lie.
  

In Anderson's view everything is a lie, and this movie becomes his new Bible, the new Third Revelation, where he composes his moral conundrum.

In conclusion, we would like to address director Anderson with Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting very own words:

"Here's the thing... I don't give a tuppenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack... That's pretty much the thing."

God and the Vacuum Cleaner

In a previous note, I discussed the role of the observer and the observed in the context of the philosophy of science.

In that note I affirm that, in the context of a scientific observation, the observer has a higher ontological status than the the observed, and that we can escape the state of desperation induced by the event-self, only by admitting an act of creation for the whole reality.

One of the implicit assumptions that were not explicitly stated in that note, is that when we formulate a theory, we are necessarily making a judgment on the object of our observation. Our brains are hard-wired in this type of thinking and we constantly use in our interpersonal relations. Let me explain my point with an example of daily life.

Adam comes back home from work and finds that Eve has perfectly vacuumed the carpet, but forgot to put back the vacuum cleaner in the closet. Adam perceives the out of place vacuum cleaner as a phenomenon in the sense indicated by my previous considerations. Adam finds himself disturbed by the presence of the vacuum cleaner and asks Eve to please put it away. The situation repeats for many days on end: Eve diligently keep on her duties, but forgets to put the vacuum cleaner away. Adam needs to make sense of the situation, needs to create a theory to explain what is happening, and finally concludes scientifically that: "I have told Eve many times to put the vacuum cleaner away: either she does not listen to me, or she does it on purpose. In either case: she does not love me."

The consequences of such an event (viz., the product of the theory) are clear even to most unexperienced newly weds. The comic in this situation also evidences that there is something wrong somewhere, and this can be found in the fact that Adam's theory implies first a judgment, and then a displacement of the object of the observation from the vacuum cleaner to Eve that is using it. Obviously, Eve is not at a lower ontological level than the observer (Adam), as it was previously the case for the misplaced vacuum cleaner. Adam's judgment breaks the unity, and as such represents a negative attitude.

We note here that this type of behavior, is also common in our personal theology. If we happen to assist to the unfortunate event of a heavy stone rolling down a cliff towards a car, crashing the vehicle and killing the passengers, we hardly jump to an objective judgment on the theory of cliffs stability, and/or the theory of gravity that caused the movement of the rock. More often, instead,we displace the object of our judgment towards God, who is at a completely different ontological level with respect to the stone, and we respect to us. Like Adam, we formulate the same theory: "I have told God many times I do not want to see anymore suffering, God does not listen to me, hence God does not love me."

The movement from man to God is therefore impossible. We cannot access the infinity of God, by starting from the analysis of our human condition. Note that we know that God is there because every human being is born with an innate tendency to find the Creator.

The original sin is the visible sign of our broken unity with God. Hence the only possible movement is from God towards man, and this is the essence of the redemptive message of Jesus Christ.

1. Does this mean that we cannot relate ourselves to God? On the contrary, I believe that we can relate ourselves in a personal way to God, right at the moment that we leave out our misplaced judgments, and we accept the will of God in our life.
   
   
2. Does this mean that we do not have to take any action against the public administration that did not take care of the stability of the cliff? On the contrary, we can definitely make a judgment on their actions, and act accordingly to the law of the land against the responsible.
   
   
3. Does this mean that it is not our duty to change the world for better? On the contrary, this is our imperative duty, a duty that needs to be carried out though without a pre-judgmental attitude. I believe this has profound consequences on the foundations of the sociological, economical, and historical sciences.