Should we Pause?

A fair number of “experts” have announced their opposition to artificial intelligence. They are sincerely convinced that the perils of this technology are simple and terrible. It is their contention that we should pull back from this technology before it destroys us all. They believe we should pause, take a time-out, and consider the implications. Some even think that we need to put up some guardrails. See The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024).

Sky News reported in 2023 on a letter published by "the non-profit Future of Life Institute and signed by more than 1,000 people." Signers included Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Emad Mostaque, Tristan Harris, and Yoshua Bengio. The signatories might be characterized as accomplished and bright, but that would be a gross understatement. None of them has ever sought my advice, but nonetheless a reasonably brilliant bunch.

The challenge with the ideology that "we" should pause is that there is no “we.“ This rock is inhabited by some 8.2 billion people divided along a variety of faults, including culture, continent, country, allegiance, government ideology, and more. The supposition that "we" might collectively and cooperatively do any one thing is borderline preposterous. 

Time and again, "we” have agreed to step back from technology. A prime example was the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in 1968. Britanica says that at the moment it was signed perhaps 6 countries had such weapons. There was consensus on stopping the evolution and spread. Today the list nonetheless continues to grow, and more countries still aspire to it. This is not because everyone subscribes to what "we" want; some instead are driven by what "they" want.

An interesting article was published recently regarding a gun perfected by the Chinese People's Amy. It is called the "Metal Storm." The story has a catchy MSN headline "China’s ‘metal storm’ gun fires 450,000 rounds per minute, claim scientists." That volume of projectiles is for each barrel of the gun and the gun may have five or more barrels. The bottom line is an amazing flow of bullets. 

For comparison, the very accomplished and astonishing phalanx ship defense system deployed on U.S. Navy ships can fire 4,500 rounds per minute. That system has been effective in defending a variety of US naval vessels around the planet from a multitude of risks and attacks. The new Chinese system is 100 times more prolific.

In 2020 barges destroyed the bridge here in Paradise. See The Bridge that Isn't (January 2021) and If You Were Half the Bridge I am (June 2021). After that event and the incredible disruptions, some in this Navy town advocated the installation of a Phalanx system to similarly protect the Paradise Bridge from miscreant barges. Though these were facetious and humorous, they were nonetheless complimentary of the Phalanx capability.

But that capability (4,500 rounds per minute) pales in comparison to the new Chinese tool capable of firing millions of rounds per minute from a single vehicle, equipped with multiple barrels. The name "storm" is both apropos and intimidating. How did someone get so far ahead in the gun business?

The MSN article explains that the weapon was "initially proposed by Australian inventor Mike O’Dwyer in the 1990s." The original had "a 36-barrel test system capable of firing at an astonishing rate of 1 million rounds per minute." The "US Department of Defense . . . partnered with him," but eventually abandoned the project. One might suspect or suggest that we "paused." 

Nonetheless, "Beijing has sustained its investment in this technology." Beijing has elected not to "pause" and is now producing weapons that are immensely dangerous, threatening, and capable. This advancement threatens the world's balance of power, as there is discussion of how the new gun might destroy missiles and other armaments. 

The fact is that there are advancements in technology and its applications (good and not-so-good) every day. Some progress, some pause, and there is competitive evolution and revolution in our world. This is persistent in various technologies and endeavors and our world evolves. 

There is no "we." If this country or that country elects not to pursue any evolution or revolution in technology or science, that will not preclude or even deter other countries. Is the right solution to pause AI in the United States, the European Union, Great Britain, or elsewhere? The only effect of such a pause may be to enable and embolden others who may have less-than-benevolent intentions for their achievements and advances. 

And some believe that AI will chart its own course despite our intentions or plans. There is an element of AI that reflects the ability of computers to achieve sentience and to learn. From this moment, it is perhaps imperative that "we" remember that "we" who make decisions about its future may not all be biological beings.  

There might be some hope that there could be a "we." Perhaps the world in its entirety might one day learn "to sing in perfect harmony," like an aspirational soft drink commercial. But, is that realistic? Is there any real potential to stuff the "AI genie" back into the bottle with a "pause?" The answer is simply "no."

That said, might there be room for caution, contemplation, and even regulation (territorial or broader through treaty)? Certainly. Is there time to discuss best practices, challenges, and complications? Certainly. Is there anything regarding AI to be worried about? Certainly. None of that is benefitted by wishing, hoping, or pausing.

I would suggest that there is little potential for a "pause." The competitive and complex interrelationships among the 8.2 billion inhabitants and all their various schisms, categories, and conglomerations do not lend themselves to "we" accomplishing anything. No, "we" should not pause.

Instead, yet again, we find ourselves in an arms race no different from the nuclear age. We will strive to build better, faster, and more proficient AI tools. In parallel, there will be a race for better, faster, and more efficient chips and circuitry. Others will also, while we all also strive to build better tools to detect, control, and militate the potential harms or shortcomings. We will act, react, invest, and perhaps lament. 

Those who act in their own best interests will strive to maximize AI benefits and avoid detriments. Some will build programs that make fake pictures and others programs that will detect or preclude them. Some will build programs that write term papers and others that detect them. There will be investment, aspiration, and progress. The arms race is on, and the sooner "we" see that the better.






Prior posts on AI and Robotics
Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)
Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)
Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)
Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)
The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)
Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)
Layers and Layers of What? (January 2025)
Wayback Machine (January 2025)

Risk Tolerance and Cybersecurity

This morning, Aerosmith's Make it (Columbia Records, 1973) plays and replays in my mind. The lyrics of note are

"You know that history repeats itself

What you just done, so has somebody else"

Most everyone involved with computers and a glancing acquaintance with cyber security remembers the Target attack a decade ago, As reported by Red River, it was one of the largest security breaches as of that time. The retailer's system was breached and "cybercriminals were able to steal 40 million credit and debit records and 70 million customer records." For those unfamiliar with numbers, that is what we refer to in the computing world as "a lot."

The miscreants in that attack did not mount a brute force attack on the retailer itself. They focused instead on "a third-party vendor." Red River notes that

"Third parties are most commonly compromised because they typically aren’t as well-secured."

There are a great many potential third-party vendors out there. The old proverb holds that "the chain is only as strong as the weakest link." That reminds me of a time we used a truck to pull a tractor trying to free a bulldozer, but that is a different story altogether. 

A 2023 recap highlighted the 7 most infamous instances of cloud breaches. The article includes names like Facebook, Alibaba, LinkedIn, and Toyota. These are relatively large companies with significant sophistication. The breaches are said to have affected billions of records. 

The threats of cloud storage and third-party vendors are old news (ye olde denial "it can't happen to me" nonetheless soothes and assures a great many who have nowhere near the sophistication or experience). 

That is not to say that IT professionals don't think about these breach issues. There are a multitude of issues facing the IT world for 2025. Anyone with data is implicated. One site provides several concrete concerns for the IT professional but summarizes

"From the advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to outdated hardware, poor strategic planning and spending, cloud confusion, and new cyber threats, the numbers of IT issues are multiplying."

Gartner notes that risks include "surface expansion," or the breadth of places that can be attacked; there is mention of "clouds" (other people's computers), social media, and more. It notes more of the organization needs to be involved in IT security decisions. Security efforts must be holistic, as traditional threat training is "ineffective." Human error remains a major threat. Decreasing the number of vendors is also mentioned. The advice is relatively simple. Too simple? Unfortunately, none of this is new.

It would be naïve at best to believe the cyber world is a safe place. The Workers' Compensation Institute produced cybersecurity programs twice in the last ten years. As a result, I did much research and writing, see It Can Happen to Everyone (July 2021) for the topic and links to various posts I authored on cybersecurity. 

The topics were compelling, the speakers were outstanding, and the attendance was disappointing. At the peak, these sessions attracted about 100 attendees. And many I questioned about their absence expressed that they had no concerns about hackers, extortionists, and worse. Those who accept blissful ignorance as a plan will likely find impacts and headaches in their future. 

The inattentive learned another hard lesson in December 2024. The federal government would be expected to be a leader in safeguarding data. In fairness, it is also likely an attractive target. However, Reuters News recently noted that the U.S. Treasury Department had suffered an attack from miscreants. The officials there are blaming China for the attack, and characterizing it as "major."

True to the lessons not learned from the history of vendor hits, the Treasury says that one of its vendors was compromised. Did anyone else ever hear the old Girl Scout camping song: "Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit worse." Apparently, the good folks at Treasury never did. Ya know what they say about those who fail to learn from history?

The breach at Treasury led to the disclosure of internal documents. That is similar to Target. However, the concern is larger at Treasury. The vendor breached, which led to the Treasury, was a supposed cybersecurity expert: "The hackers compromised third-party cybersecurity service provider BeyondTrust." The guard hired to protect the castle got breached? The expert hired to prevent harm led to harm? 

The bad actors, Chinese or otherwise, were "able to override ... security, remotely access certain Treasury DO (Departmental Offices) user workstations." That is not news. Cloudflare and others note that there are security risks with such Remote Desktop Protocol

(RDP) paradigms. They and others voice enthusiasm for the convenience from "employees access their office desktop computers from another device."

By allowing all of its employees to have RDP, an organization roughly doubles the "surface" of potential attacks. Transmitting across the Internet may compromise data and security as the "man in the middle" has the potential to access information in transit, despite efforts at encryption. Double the transmissions with remote work, and the chances of intercept only increase. 

What the incident at the U.S. Treasury immediately teaches are some reasonably simple lessons.

First, the most sophisticated cybersecurity experts are not able to unequivocally prevent breaches of RDP.

Second, those who place their reputations and clients at risk with such tools as RDP are taking a significant risk.

Third, the risk remains no matter how sophisticated the entities are with whom you take this risk. 

Fourth, increasing surface area and transmission frequency with data is fraught with increased risk of breach.

One of the key points of the WCI Cybersecurity program that I moderated is that "costs" come in many forms. The speakers there were unanimous on this point. They suggested that a cyber-breach might result in:

• Loss of access to your network (ransom).
• Loss of control of your data (theft, potential ransom demand to clients).
• Financial loss due to ancillary impacts on your clients.
• Detriment to customers or partners.
• Loss of reputation as hackers communicate with clients or public.

Risk, risk, risk. There are a multitude of ways that hackers can damage the business and even ruin the names of those who run it. Every lawyer, doctor, nurse case manager, and employer should be wary of hackers. Though a less likely target (businesses have data about many reachable in a single breach), there are those who attack individuals also. Every worker should be aware of cybersecurity, the protection of devices, and the vulnerabilities.

The potential for breach impacts every element and component of the workers' compensation community. Every employer, every worker, and everyone that any of them touches. 

Potentially, there will be fallout from the bureaucratic inadequacy that afforded vendor-based remote access at the Department of Treasury. There is some chance that jobs will be lost because of the "major" event there last month. Undoubtedly, there will be responses. I suspect these might include:

• We hired the experts, and "they" messed up.
• This was unprecedented and could not have been foreseen.
• No one can completely forestall a state actor like China.

Nonetheless, some may struggle to accept that such a breach could occur. They may ask why an entity would even need RDP? Is the purpose to facilitate "remote" or "hybrid" work? Is there a compelling reason for such remote work? Or, is the worker convenience a nicety that simultaneously creates convenience for both the employee and the hacker?

The bottom line is that risk spreads over computers. The very wonder of computers is that they can operate rapidly, repetitively, and efficiently. Those very strengths for productivity are equal and opposite weaknesses for security. There are risks, benefits, and perhaps a necessity of balance. The chore of every professional and manager will be to assess the first two carefully and adopt a workable balance that fits the organization, professional, or situation.

I recall when the AIDS crisis broke upon American shores in the 1980s. There was fear, but also some degree of cavalier disregard for risk. It was common for lectures to refer to the infection risk with a reference to “partners.“ Their hypothesis, frequently proven, correct, was that engaging with any amorous partner was the equivalent of engaging in such relations with everyone that that person had previously had such amorous contact with.

If you must connect a computer, then the benefit is 100%. Perhaps a corresponding 100% risk of infection is a risk that has to be taken. If the risk of infection is 0% (fictional but as illustration), then perhaps a benefit of near 0% justifies hooking your computer to every other machine you can find. But, neither of these is realistic. Realistically, the analysis for each of us will fall between these two. 

The challenge is both broad and deep. There are people in this world who are bent on destruction, theft, and mischief. They have been a threat for many years, and just as the internet, email, artificial intelligence, and now quantum chips will bring great efficiency and benefit to us all, they bring power and enablement to the hackers as well. The world is in a constant state of flux as the miscreants and the protectors/rescuers persistently strive to outdo each other.

And we, one and all, are at their mercy. The only tools at our disposal are knowledge, common sense, and careful attention to our own lives and business(es). There is no absolute safety nor hopeless doom. There is only balance, and you can decide your own perceptions of risks and benefits that suit you, your needs, preferences, and frivolities.

But, no matter what, don't forget Aerosmith: 

"You know that history repeats itself

What you just done, so has somebody else"

Whose Job is Safety?

There is a tandem concern in the workplace, safety and workers' compensation. In my career, I spent many hours defending workers' compensation claims and witnessed a variety of comprehension for the interrelationship between these two business concerns. Without exception, the extent to which the two silos interrelated or even communicated within an entity was largely dependent on leadership.

If leadership recognized that better safety meant less probability of accident and injury, then the management team likewise acknowledged this and there was collaboration and engagement in the two functions.

Similarly, if company leadership did not acknowledge the potential for interaction and interrelationship, there was a tendency in some businesses to view these two silos as utterly free-standing. In those entities, there was periodically a challenge with incompatible goals or approaches in the two silos resulting in conflict and frustration.

Leadership. There is a necessity in any business for both leadership and a clear understanding of goals, responsibilities, and interaction expectations. 

This is true in the broadest sense. Conflicts persist between silos. I knew a salesman long ago who frequently lamented that "legal" frustrated his deals. Unfortunately, the company precluded him from interacting with the lawyers as deals were conjured, sculpted, and prepared. That review could only come after the deal was tentatively struck, by then, there had been much effort and even the most minor "legal" suggestions periodically killed the deal.

Leadership. There is a necessity for leaders to be aware of such issues of communication, interaction, and potential frustration. It is the leader who must ensure that goals are understood, coordinated, and appreciated. These thoughts occurred to me reading the news coverage of the terrorist attack in New Orleans, on a street I have often enjoyed. 

If you missed it, the news broke early New Year's Day of a vehicular attack on Rue Bourbon. The British Broadcasting Corporation reports on the 14 that died in this attack. Other reports suggest that dozens more were injured. The world has many famous streets, but this one is as iconic as any I know. The alleged driver/attacker is said to be Shamsud-Din Jabbar, and police say he perished in a gunfight with the police after wrecking the vehicle he allegedly used.

About a week before, Taleb Al Abdulmohsen was accused of driving a truck through a Christmas market in Magdenburg, Germany. CNN reports that he allegedly drove a truck into a crowd and killed 5 while "injuring more than 200 others." It is possible that a leader awakening on December 23, 2024, might have asked a question or two about whether such an event could happen on or at their premises.

Or, perhaps not.

But, ABC News reports "New Orleans city leaders were warned in a 2019 confidential physical security assessment." The report said: "Bourbon Street was vulnerable to a vehicle ramming." It noted that there were inoperable "existing blockade mechanisms." No, while the Magdenburg attack might have been a wake-up call, there was a specific, direct, written warning about safety and potential five years ago (perhaps longer, see below).

NBC News reports that the Police Superintendent knew of the threat and that the installed barriers, "bollards," had been removed. She noted that her team therefore strove to "harden those target areas" with "patrol cars and other measures." Nonetheless, those measures were ineffective. It apparently came as a complete surprise to city officials that the terrorist could drive on the sidewalk to avoid those precautions.

NBC News also reports that the bollards were being fixed in 2024 because the city would soon host the Super Bowl. The Mayor of New Orleans is reported to have explained that "the Super Bowl gave the city 'an opportunity to go further and deeper with infrastructure improvements' including replacing the bollards."

Some estimate that "about 1,000,000 people . . . attend Mardi Gras New Orleans." Those annual events since 2019 (or 2017) somehow apparently did not "give the city an opportunity."

The Sugar Bowl is played annually in New Orleans. The stadium is the same that will host the Super Bowl. A website provides the "Ultimate Guide to" this game, and it seems to suggest that more people come to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl than will fit in the stadium. However, those annual events since 2019 (or 2017) also somehow apparently did not "give the city an opportunity."

The city promotes Rue Bourbon as a place of "constant celebrations." It mentions "bachelorette and bachelor parties," "the Southern Decadence Festival," and more. However, those constant events since 2019 (or 2017) also somehow apparently did not "give the city an opportunity."

Each year, the city celebrates the new year with free concerts, fireworks, and more. There are advertisements to draw people to the French Quarter, Rue Bourbon, and more. Somehow, these annual events since 2019 (or 2017) also apparently did not "give the city an opportunity." 

No, it was apparently only the Super Bowl that afforded the city the opportunity to safeguard a known and notified threat. 

In an effort to inform the public, the City of New Orleans published on its website that the Rue Bourbon bollards would be under construction. The vulnerability of missing barricades was advertised intentionally. 

Anyone with an internet connection could quickly learn that  "Construction began in November 2024 and is scheduled to continue through February 2025." There is a handy, color-coded map included to illustrate "sequencing details" for the work. The vulnerability was literally detailed and advertised. Some perceive that as facilitating terrorists. Nonetheless, the website also assures that "Safety is our top priority."

Leadership. Safety.

Today, according to InvestigateTV, there are "temporary barricades" in use in the New Orleans French Quarter. This story claims that there was a "2017 traffic study" (note the various "or 2017" herein) that highlighted the need to "upgrade infrastructure" and "make the street 'less accessible to those intending harm.'" This story claims that one temporary protection, the "wedge-style" was "intentionally left down on New Year's."

NBC News reported that "New Orleans (also) failed to deploy anti-vehicle barriers that the city had owned for years ahead of the attack." The Louisiana Lt. Governor noted that these "Archer" barriers ("700-pound, steel anti-vehicle barriers") were available. He said the attack illustrates 

“a complete failure of responsibility to keep the city safe, from the top down, by not having those barriers in place or even having knowledge of them.”

Not having knowledge? NBC News Chicago reports that the New Orleans Police Chief was asked about the Archers that appeared after the terrorist attack. She responded:

"Actually, we have them. I did not know about them, but we have them, so we have been able to put them out."

The team leader in charge of security and protection did not know what assets or tools were available to protect the public. According to the NBC Chicago story, New Orleans had 48 of these 700-pound steel "Archer" barriers. They deployed them the day after 15 were killed and dozens injured in a preventable terrorist attack.

NBC News further reports that there is a "sense of betrayal." Those who work in the Rue Bourbon area lament the absence of Archer barriers until after the attack. Some were critical of the scheduling of the bollard replacement and noted "it seems worse than poor planning."

The role of leadership includes responding to threats and events. In a broader sense, planning is always management's role. A good leader takes any event or accident as an opportunity to discuss how to prevent a recurrence. This happens every day in America as people are injured at work and claim workers' compensation. Good managers examine how such an accident might be prevented or militated (better safety devices, etc.).

Workplace safety demands it, and the persistently decreasing frequency of workplace injury (aside from the spike in illness during the Great Panic) is a testament to the benefits of focused analysis of workplace safety in this country. That is not to say all managers are so focused and engaged. It is not to say silos do not exist. It is to say that everyone can strive to do better. 

Leaders facilitate communication. Leaders recognize the potential for threats or risks. Leaders plan and prepare for the protection of both workers and the public. And when leaders fail, questions may be asked. It is hoped, in all instances of injury or death, that those questions are pointed, focused, and lead to efforts that could prevent recurrence.

Every leader should consider the start of 2025 a potential for a fresh look. What are the safety risks in your environment? What tools are you using to increase safety and decrease the frequency and severity of injury (do you have proverbial "archers" sitting unused or unknown in a closet)? Have you received warnings? What could or should be different?

Every organization can learn from the New Orleans terrorist attack. No competent manager wants their Lt. Governor to characterize them “a complete failure of responsibility." After all, as the City of New Orleans stresses on its website, "Safety is our top priority." It should be, but slogans are easy. Safety is challenging. Management is downright hard. Take a lesson, take a look, and let's make 2025 as safe as practical for all. 

Ever Get Old?

Did you ever get old? I did. After spending a lifetime, laughing at the old man on the porch, as he screamed “You kids, get off my lawn,“ I got old. Somewhere along the way, I lost an innocence that I miss. I slowly and persistently lost mentors and guides. I find myself at the end of the road with rich and fond memories of a trip. Yet also many questions.

Vibrant youth that I was, I aspire to such promise, exuberance, and enthusiasm. That young man honestly believed that the world had gone astray, but that it could be brought back on course. Naïveté suggested that the retirement of bad apples would inevitably lead to better replacements. A lifetime of advertisements inevitably heralded a new age. They suggested that things could truly be “new and improved.”

I so often hear from peers my age that the world has changed. I hear “these kids today.“ I hear stories about the way things used to be and oftentimes struggle to remember the world from the perspective of the rose-colored retrospection with which I am presented.

Baz Luhrmann wrote about the sentiment aptly in what has come to be known as the Sunscreen Song (1999, label unknown). It offers such nuggets as "floss," "stretch," "travel," and "be kind to your knees." There is humor in the Luhrmann piece, but so much wisdom. The brilliant parts include:

Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth, oh, never mind

You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth

Until they've faded,

Don't worry about the future

Or worry, but know that worrying

Is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing Bubble gum

Do one thing every day that scares you

don't be reckless with other people's hearts

Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours

Don't waste your time on jealousy

Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind

The race is long and in the end, it's only with yourself

Remember compliments you receive, forget the insults

If you succeed in doing this, tell me how

Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much

Or berate yourself either

Your choices are half chance, so are everybody else's

Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own

Do not read beauty magazines, they will only make you feel ugly

Get to know your parents, you never know when they'll be gone for good

Be nice to your siblings, they're your best link to your past

Understand that friends come and go

But a precious few, who should hold on

Accept certain inalienable truths

Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too, will get old

And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young

Prices were reasonable, politicians were noble

And children respected their elders 

Be careful whose advice you buy but be patient with those who supply it

Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past

From the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts

And recycling it for more than it's worth

I find truth and wisdom there. You may find nothing at all. But I notice there is a population of humanity that struggles with the ultimate goal of progress. They are all about progress and things being "better."

A great challenge in that regard is that we might all define that word differently. I have come to rely by default on two geological terms, which I find descriptive and imperative. One describes the taking away (erosion) and the other the accumulation of (accretion). Philosophically, as society shifts, one person's accretion will be another’s erosion, and a postural perspective is both inherent and unavoidable.

I have been privileged along my path to meet a fair few incredible people. An even smaller subset I refer to as friends. Unlike the current generation and their expansion on the meanings of "friends" and the social media engendered unfamiliarity, my definition would be somewhat constrained.

There have also been a very few whom I have admired for their real dedication and purpose for progress. Among them have been several whose definition of "progress" I certainly cannot condone, or perhaps even comprehend. But their sincerity, intellect, and dedication are beyond doubt.

In all respects, the population of those whom I hold close is small. The vast majority of people are simply enamored with, interested in, and committed to, things that I cannot understand. In the initial draft of this post, examples were offered, but in retrospect, I found them Unhelpful, potentially hurtful, and unnecessary.

As I stand here near the end of a somewhat long road, I question whether I can really see the end, or whether that may just be a curve ahead. As with all things, I can perceive the road behind with far greater clarity than I can predict the future. But I focus on today, and the perceptions of my fellow geriatrics regarding the future.

I was honored in September 2023 to be invited to preside over a mock trial round at the DOAH Trial Academy in Tallahassee. This event was sponsored by the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar and the Division of Administrative Hearings. It has provided many opportunities for passing wisdom, advice, and nostalgia.

I was exposed to various young people. I was privileged to see them, interact with coaches and pedagogues. Some were better prepared than others. Some were quicker on the uptake than others. Some were more articulate, polished, and able. In a word, they were diverse. And at the end of the day, in so many regards, they were no different in their strengths and weaknesses than any other population that has ever entered this profession.

Among them are likely great leaders of tomorrow. There were the stalwarts and those cautious of the daily grind. There were cynics, kidders, and climbers. Each of them likely holds great promise in some particular or another. Each also has the inherent human propensity for atrocious errors and mistakes. My point is not to wish them ill, but to acknowledge that while they certainly are no worse than we were, they are as certainly no better.

If your inclination is to sit on the porch and scream at these folks, I would suggest that that’s more about you than it is about them. If you believe that, somehow, you lack the time, temperament, or tools to help them, I would suggest that you are wrong, misguided, and mistaken.

It’s easy to sit on the porch and scream. It’s utterly unproductive, unhelpful, and unflattering. Regardless of whether you have spent your life striving to better the world around you, to merely make money, or to help people individually, you can deliver value to the next generation.

If you are wondering whether you perceive the end of the road ahead, or are even questioning, it is undoubtedly in you to find a way to pass on some of what you have accumulated (accretion) to someone who can benefit. In the same mindset, perhaps you can help someone with their rough edges (erosion), and in the process not make them you, but help them make themselves.

Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past

From the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts

And recycling it for more than it's worth

In any event, listen to the Sunscreen Song from a generation ago. You will find something there worth thinking about.

Find a moment to lay in the grass and stare at clouds. 

Visit someplace that brings memories.

Eat foods you know you should avoid, and smile while you do it. 

Stop for a moment, now and then, and smell the roses. 

There is value there if you seek it. 

Wayback Machine

I remember the age of Saturday morning cartoons. There was no streaming, no cable, no recorded shows. It was before we had heard of digital discs or even the Video Cassette Recorder (VCR). It was an age of three primary television channels received over the airwaves using a device called an "antenna" (pictured, people actually bolted them to their roof, chimney, or a tower in the yard). 

Our televisions were tuned (changed channels) with dials. Only the very well-to-do had "remote control." The rest of us had to walk to the TV and turn the knobs to tune it. The three primary channels in most communities were Very High Frequency (VHF) and there were only 12 or so VHF potentials on the television dial. 

There were additional channels on a second dial, called Ultra-high Frequency (UHF). These could be more difficult to tune, and if you were lucky you might have two more channel choices there in any community. I recall those UHF channels broadcasting mostly old shows, in black and white.  

It was an era in which television was largely for the adults. There was generally no television after school, that was homework or chore time. The evening news came on each night and people actually believed what those newscasters said, see Layers and Layers of What? (January 2025). 

Some reminisce that those newscasters stuck to the facts and only told the truth. They say that "in the good old days," the news was not innuendo or opinion, but "just the facts." It is possible those newscasters were both more reliable and credible than today. I recall every household had a favorite of the three competing networks and their respective news celebrity for the evening news.

The three primary channels were the American Broadcast Company (ABC), The Continental Broadcasting System (CBS), and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). They were persistently in a competition to attract viewers, but having blasted their signal into the air, they could no more tell who was or was not tuning in than you can today.

Back then, there were certain households who agreed to be surveyed regarding their television use. From those surveys and samples, rating agencies discerned or extrapolated how many people watched this or that show. The advertising revenue or pricing of a station and any particular show might depend on its viewership rating, the same way today's Internet "clicks" or "views" might be evaluated.

After the news each evening, there was a narrow window for viewing family-oriented programming. immediately after the news, a gameshow or two was common. These were predictable promotions for various products, destinations, and avocations. There was intellect, humor, and engagement. 

I remember one trivia show, Split Second, that involved the successful contestant picking from among multiple new automobiles in the studio (only one of which had not been disabled) and there was a penultimate moment when she or he tried to start that car. Whether one won or lost, those various gleaming autos were displayed and described night after night. The idea of winning a car was somehow very compelling. 

There was a brief period, perhaps two hours, after any such gaming, for "prime time." This is the origin of the phrase "ready for prime time." When the original Saturday Night Live program began to draw viewers the cast was called the "not ready for Prime Time players," a reference capable of multiple interpretations. But prime time was an amalgamation of situation comedies, mysteries, and dramas. I recall much discussion of varieties, but the parents did the deciding in prime time. 

There were also shows after prime time. Many adults tuned in to the Tonight Show, when it was a mix of stand-up comedy, jazzy music, and interesting guests. Those who watch late-night television today would likely find that fare archaic and boring, but we often tried to sneak a peek at this "adult" programming in the years of my youth. 

But Saturday morning was for kids. The adults had various challenges and chores on Saturdays or chose to sleep in. In truth, I think that the Saturday programming was designed to keep us young folks quiet so that the parental population could enjoy some peace and quiet on their weekend. Possibly, those Saturday mornings were the only tranquility they found.

The Saturday programming tended to animation, cowboy shows, and some live-action. Some networks strove in the live-action to provide some degree of instruction in order to claim their show was "educational." But most of the fare was singularly base and frankly drivel. It was often violent (think of the anvil on the Coyote's head) and slapstick (I Love Lucy).

The programs were punctuated periodically with advertisements. We called these "commercials." The manufacturers tried to predict who would watch what and run promotions for their particular demographic. We lament how the internet spies on us today, but perhaps all that has changed is merely the advertisement delivery method. Sellers have been studying us buyers ever since Grog opened his first club and pelt store in early Mesopotamia.

The ads on Saturday morning were clearly targeted at us kids. I recall a great many for cereal (not Muslix, Grape Nuts, or even cornflakes); sugary, tantalizing, cereal with bright colors and catchy slogans. The kind mom used to deny us with each trip to the grocery. Despite the fine ads, we would more likely find nutritious cereals like Wheaties, Cheerios (not the honey kind), and oatmeal in the larder. Mom didn't watch those ads. Not to be deterred, we would ladle refined sugar onto those innocent products and render them far more harmful than their "sugar-laden" counterparts.

Despite my best efforts to avoid anything "educational," there was an amazing amount I absorbed in those days merely by repetition. The persistent onslaught of facts and history was either too much to resist or simply too appealing to ignore.

I particularly remember the "shorts" that came on periodically with the commercials. There was Schoolhouse Rock that delivered upbeat edification on how bills became law, grammar, and more. There were Fractured Facts that delivered short historical references.

Often these punctuated such animated offerings as The Flintstones, The Jetsons, The Superfriends, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Scooby Doo, The Roadrunner, and more.

This all filled the Saturday mornings on the primary channels while the UHF was often competing with re-runs of old black-and-white fare. I recall many iterations there of I Love Lucy, Gilligan's Island, The Three Stooges, Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, and more. Those shows were old even then, and they avoided any semblance of education or instruction (except perhaps workplace safety by negative reinforcement). 

But one show was blatantly educational. Somehow Mr. Peabody was nonetheless appealing. It was a cartoon that became part of The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. And it centered on educating me, without my comprehension or even permission. In the midst of my Saturday reverie, a boy named Sherman and his talking dog (Mr. Peabody) would walk me through a variety of facts and occurrences, an involuntary historical education.

The literary tool of Mr. Peabody was time travel - using the "Wayback Machine." Episodes would begin with some curiosity, misapprehension, or confusion of Sherman, which Mr. Peabody would seek to correct or re-direct with a trip in the Wayback Machine. This would allow Sherman to witness history firsthand (and me also). Somehow, coming from a really smart and patient dog, the education was more palatable. 

Without my comprehension or consent, these producers were teaching me. Oh, the horror! Amidst my advertisements for various toys, cereal, and other distractions, I was learning about history, human interaction, and more.

When did Saturday morning cartoons meet their end? I suspect that the VCR in the late 1970s was the beginning of the end. In the 1980s those machines became ubiquitous and with them came a parent's ability to provide programming favorites without the cereal and toy ads. Many a mom sighed in relief at the end of incessant pleas for the latest sugar bombs.

Certainly, that was true by the 1990s when cable television became increasingly pervasive. With cable's ascent in the 1980s and 1990s, there came entire channels devoted to cartoons for kids and others for offspring of various ages and inclinations. The Saturday morning cartoons faded from the world. Evolution and change persisted in the reality of a commercial marketplace.

Merely a generation before the children of the baby boom, there were no such cartoons, commercials, VCRs, or even televisions. It was a different world in which my parents grew up. Some of their parents were born into a world without automobiles, and more. Time really flies. It has been said "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." Ferris Beuler's Day Off (Paramount 1986).

In the end, each of these technologies breaking on the shores of human experience brought advantage to existence. They brought us entertainment and information in new ways. Today, we view the dawn of the information age in computers, cell phones, and AI. But the dawn was more likely the radio or television. There were those who leveraged each of these and others who did not. Some grew into those new ages and others faded away. Note that the sugary cereal did not disappear when the Saturday cartoons did. 

None of that history is different than today's evolution to artificial intelligence (AI). It is a threatening and cryptic change evading our understanding and our comprehension, challenging us. Some will become engrossed in it, grow with it, and thrive on it. Others will cling to the comforts of yesteryear and fight the coming change. They may choose to just re-watch the black-and-white Lucy episodes and avoid the pain perhaps. 

There is no Wayback Machine, Sherman. Sorry. In fact, more succinctly, there is no way back, Sherman. Sorry again. Thrive, adapt, and grow. Those are the keys. Some will do so and succeed. Others will fossilize. They "will diminish, and go into the West, and remain" what they are. (Lord of the Rings, Warner Brothers 2001). 

That is not an invalid choice, but it is a choice. Which will you be, adventurer, fossil, or ludite? "But choose wisely." (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount 1989). Change is imminent. You cannot stop it. You can only change you.

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)

Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)

Layers and Layers of What? (January 2025)

Wayback Machine (January 2025)

Layers and Layers of What?

There was a Panic in 2020, which some will remember. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) invaded our environ and impacted us individually, collectively, and societally. There was a great deal of uncertainty, pseudo-science, and debate over several years. See The (un)Masked Man (September 2021). 

There were theories early in the Panic - some surrounded an open air meat market with vendors selling wild game. Other theories suggested that the Panic might stem from a laboratory leak in China. The press was very hard on any such suggestion in the midst of the Panic, but by 2023 there were some prominent government agencies supporting the lab leak theory and the previously incredulous or even insulting press reactions had tempered. 

When the Panic started, there were the scientists urging us not to mask, then there was the ambivalent, essentially "mask if you want to," and eventually there was the mandate of masks. Some were made of paper, fabric, foam, and who knows what. Some were obviously useless (picture below). Many contended that any mask was just as useless against a virus. 

courtesy https://www.prettylittlething.us/

The use of a mask (filter) became a point of contention. There were arguments, fights, even arrests. There was unanimity on only one mask point - everyone had an opinion on masks. Beyond that, lots of equivocation, winking, and arguing. Even the type of filter became a point of contention. was fabric, paper, or foam better?

There were discussions of whether the filter protected the wearer or those around the wearer. The news media and the social media each engaged, opined, and expounded. And, beyond their quoted sources and the various opinions, there was some perception that very little science was engaged in the debate(s). 

The scientists took a great deal of heat during the panic, and there was some feeling that science had taken a backseat to a consensus. And the press was there to monetize the various dire predictions, horrid outcomes, and potential solutions (who can forget the clown with the three-foot testing swab on national television?). 

The press may or may not have been effective in investigating, vetting, and reporting that science or consensus. The pundits on social media were similarly engaged in the anecdotal, the conclusion, and the speculation. 

Eventually, the mask debate came around to the idea of "double masking." In effect, the theory is that if one mask is good, two is better. The National Institute of Health published a 2021 article Double masking: Does science coincide with common sense? There, the same scientist who decried masking in 2020 said "if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.” 

Science? or just "common sense?" If two is better, then is 100 even more so? There is an obvious potential for ludicrous outcomes, opinions, and conjecture. 

There was some public ridicule about masking and double-masking. Social media had much to say about the idea of masking, the science, and the scientist. But, some also perceived the press as being less engaged or investigatory. Similarly, some have recently noted that the press has been "gullible and wrong" in other instances. The point is that there are various pressures on the ideal of a free press. Some may see the pressures as emerging victorious. 

There are those who see the news media as increasingly ineffective. The Associated Press (AP) notes a "trend of impartial fact-finding being crowded out in the marketplace by opinionated news and the expectations that creates." Stated similarly, the "show" has taken the primary focus in the opinion of some. The "news show" has perhaps evolved toward or into the "show news." Think of the Eagles, Dirty Laundry (Asylum 1982).  

That AP story levels allegations of partisanship in the news. It says that some news shows "tirelessly and emotionally advocate," instead of providing dispassionate facts and information. One University contends "there is broad consensus that news media outlets adopt ideological perspectives in their articles." And, perhaps, there are consumers of the news who like this confirmation of their beliefs, consciously or not.

The simple fact is that the news is a filter not unlike the mask you might choose to wear on your face. Many decry the manner in which social media uses algorithms to filter information, feed you what you are most likely to want, and inspire or perpetuate "group think." Despite this, the news media similarly has its devotees. News programs may choose to pander to this group or that, interview this expert or that, and the effect may be indistinguishable from the algorithms that they decry. Through news or social media we might all be drawn to our own bias. 

Last fall, the owner of a social media platform declared that the people are the "new press." The suggestion is that the masses, through social engagement and posts, have replaced the journalists of old with their imprimatur of investigative acumen and prowess. And yet, it is possible that reporters of yesteryear were no more or less ideological? Was the news more fact and less opinion before the "24-hour news cycle" began in 1980? Were "the good old days all that good?" (Billy Joel, Keeping the Faith, Columbia, 1985). 

The press responded to the "new press" contention. One news provider CEO made headlines with a rebuttal to the claims, and sought to belittle those possessing "a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness." He characterized the social media as "popping off on Twitter." He contended that is not journalism, but opinion. Journalism, by comparison, he said is "doing hard work." And yet, that same platform in October 2024 declared the "big media era is over."

Thus there may be a fine line between modern journalism and advocacy. There may be criticisms of the press and social media, and those criticisms may be similar. Nonetheless, each has a filter. The reporter is a filter in telling the story, and an editor, publisher, producer, or owner may be that second mask. Any report may be subjected to a variety of layers before it is published. 

Similarly, the poster is a filter. The poster's followers, friends, or connections are a filter regarding a post getting traction or not. The platform and its algorithm is a filter in how widely a post is distributed. Any post may be subjected to a variety of layers through its journey to the viewer. And, it is possible that social media is a popularity contest driven by emotions more than intellect (or not).

And yet, groupthink may lead all those features of each along the same path, to satisfy some predisposition or to beat the competition to the presses. 

The social media may seem less filtered and more egalitarian, but the algorithm is nonetheless still a mask. The social platforms decide who sees what, though a personal decision to follow or "friend" someone may enhance the chances of visibility (sorry, but it pays to be pretty, athletic, and rich, welcome back to high school). The filter of dopamine-fueled groupthink expressed in likes, reposts, or otherwise may also viewed as a filter(s) to some extent.  

These thoughts came to me as I transitioned to an upgraded Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool late in 2024. I can now avoid expending time reading those long expositions in either news or volumes of Tweets (deferring to the news CEO above with "tweets," but these are Xs now). I now have the ease of simply asking my AI to "summarize." I have tried it in a variety of instances in news stories and social media. So far, it seems to reasonably encapsulate or summarize. 

Perhaps this tool will become ubiquitous? Perhaps AI is simply another filter in this regard. Simultaneously, the results we are seeing (filter), the efforts to drive us to content that we will click and consume, to the joy of advertisers, are increasingly driven by AI. The stories and posts are increasingly written, edited, or steered by AI. 

On top of the observer or reporter, the opinion maker, the editor, and the algorithm, we can now each add the AI summary as another filter. 

John Mayer criticized the media in his Waiting on the World to Change:

And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
'Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want

(Aware, 2006). Before the age of AI, he and others worried about the manipulation of data, opinion, and intent. In the end, AI is not likely to change the manipulation itself, but it will perhaps be the "BASF outcome." That company slogan is:

"We don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better." 

And in the same permeating and underlying spirit, AI will change a great deal. It may not make the posts, the stories, or the broadcasts, but it will engage and be engaged to make them "better." It may be used to enhance distribution, to make it "better" available or read. It goes without saying, perhaps, that "better" is an opinion, and the criticisms of opinionation are no less apt to this filter than any other. 

In the end, we can wear as many masks as we choose to, over our nose or brains. However, each one will impede our ability to breathe (or think, perhaps, see Disuse Atrophy (December 2024)) at least some. How many filters would it take to smother us completely? Are the filters we select effective? And will we be wise with what we use as filters? Or, will we even notice we are wearing them?

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)

Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)

Disuse Atrophy (December 2024)

Layers and Layers of What? (January 2025)

Wayback Machine (January 2025)