Pages

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Me and My AI #3

 


One of these things is not like the others

 

The Internet. Smartphones. Crypto-currencies. Artificial Intelligence.

A series of technological …. innovations.

But crypto, despite its massive profile, is not like the others. For two reasons: economy and society.

The internet, smartphones and artificial intelligence have all had an economic impact, bringing down costs associated with economic activity. They’ve all had a social impact, changing the way we engage with each other and the world.

The internet in terms of access to information (and connectivity) – finding information and contacting others suddenly became cheaper and easier by orders of magnitude.

Smartphones for making all that mobile. Suddenly, the power of the internet could be just about anywhere. Work from anywhere anytime. Conduct a social life from anywhere anytime. Arguably, the success of the smartphone hinges to a significant extent on the internet, but it’s had massive impact regardless. If the internet hadn’t pre-dated mobile phones, then SMS would have evolved to effectively covered the same ground.

Artificial intelligence for automation. Ai has been automating our world for decades – the spellcheck on your smartphone, dynamic pricing, social media feeds, etc. – and its already significant impact is growing as automation takes over one task after another.

But crypto-currencies … the hyped era of ‘defi’ (decentralised finance) isn’t upon us. Instead, transferring value with crypto is more expensive and more difficult than a regular bank, and the records of transactions are kept all over the place, instead of in just one. The main benefit of business via crypto is the lack of transparency. Economically, at the end of the crypto boom, it’s just been a transfer of wealth – some people came out of it richer, most poorer.

Some continue to use it as a ‘store of value’ and it does effectively store whatever value people wish to associate with it – subject to change without warning. Coindesk’s crypt of coins displays just how much its various offerings have gone up or down (mostly down) over the preceding 24 hours.

Hopefully, for all that’s been invested in it, someone will devise a more useful application for this particular innovation.

In the meantime, the social categories who benefit are the owners of crypto networks and tech (the ones selling shovels in the goldfields), criminals laundering cash through the crypto-casino of coins and NFTs, and the cyber-criminals harder to track down via crypto transactions. Their victims, not so much. It’s like horse-racing with funny coins instead of funny hats.

The internet, smartphones, Ai – all have significantly impacted economy and society. Imagine a world without the internet or smartphones. Hard to do, especially if you grew up with them. A world without crypto? That would be like, I don’t know, a world without ‘Love Island UK’.

Artificial intelligence has been around a long while. The first serious Ai enterprises date back sixty-odd years, and it’s thirty-odd years since an Ai beat the world chess champion (at chess, duh). Ai has been a far more serious proposition since the early teens, with the onset of effective neural networks. As larger amounts of data and significant improvements in processing power came online, it began to step up and beyond the showcase applications. Five years ago, those who knew knew what was coming. It’s now a year since the generative Ai explosion.

Unlike crypto, Ai has lived up to the hype. It has growing applications and a growing body of people and businesses making effective economic and social use of it. Even in the unlikely circumstance that Ai was to cease developing from its current technological level, it still has millions of technological niches to automate.

Friday, November 10, 2023

Me and My Ai #2

 

Me and My AI #2

LLMs: the bath is overflowing

 

Large Language Models – ChatGPT et al – make for the generation of endless volumes of textual material in effectively realtime. We humans face the possibility of total and utter immersion in more ‘important’ and/or ‘essential’ reading than we can possibly take stock of.

Already, folk with a need to cover what’s happening in their specialised fields complain of the rapid uptick in material directed at them as contributors leverage Ai. You too may be subject to similar experiences.

How will content creation and consumption change as a consequence of the potentially exponential growth of written material within any given field of reference?

 

Early adopters of LLMs are already out there leveraging the window of opportunity between the widespread availability of the technology and the rest of the world catching on – selling material generated by or largely by generative Ai as if it is of purely human origin – and enjoying the margins that heightened Ai enhanced productivity grants them. OpenAI is already marketing ‘GPTs’ – mini ChatGPTs that the purchaser can pre-load with their own content and preferences and use to generate specific client-oriented content.

It's a cycle that’s played out so many times in the history of technology, particularly so for digital technologies. An exciting new tech with relatively low capital costs emerges and undermines existing markets – in this case, writers (hey, that’s me ..). The creators of the new tech rapidly generate a sizeable income. Early adopters put the tech to work and enjoy large margins. Other folk notice what they’re up to and pile into the same space.

Soon, consumers enthusiasm for this bright new thing begins to wane. Competition causes margins to collapse and the mergers and closures begin. A few years down the track and the tech is fully incorporated into the larger market.

 

Setting that familiar market cycle aside and focussing on this instance, specifically interesting is how the human intellectual and Ai technology networks might respond to this technological step up. How will we deal with all this stuff we previously might have liked to but now won’t have time to read?

Initially, apply a personal filter to select material and limit the volume of material vying for attention. Google and other search engines already do this in a limited sense. Other services such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook also do this, allowing users to set filters of their own. So nothing particularly innovative in this response per se. Though augmenting filters with Ai will make for a better user experience. For example a filter that undermines the ‘clickbait’ tendencies many content producers insert in their material.

The longer-term is more interesting. A potential evolution in the information ecosystem triggered by the potential to create infinite textual content. Here’s one pathway:

As the consumer’s filtered stream versus the content generator’s flood model evolves:

-          The content being generated becomes more and more specific to the end user and their expressed preferences, interests, etc.

-          The filter and the generator enter into a negotiation process – after all the generator can create an endless variety of written material in realtime and the filter can re-write it equally quickly, so why would they bother.

-          Instead, the new information dispersed by a generator node remains in a ‘pre-textual’ form – the numerical values that can be processed by machine learning algorithms – and attaches to these values vectors and other metrics that weight the value of the new information in a form designed to appease the consumer’s filter.

-          The consumer’s filter weighs up the values and metrics attached to this information in relation to other available information sets and the consumer’s own preferences. Only then does the information set get integrated with other sets and turned into a natural language form suitable for consumption.

-          A mediator might modify vectors created by the generator’s attempts to insist its information is of the highest order, most recent, most relevant etc.

Such a system demands collusion between creators and consumers. Though the first generation of mass-market LLMs already effectively operate like this, but from the pile or the internet in general and not on behalf of specific creators or consumers.

Imagine the consumer, surrounded by nodes for information distribution that rise around like mountains, information racing down the mountains like the spring melt, creating torrents that rush through a steep valley. Off to one side, a filter sorts the waters from the waters and channels it on to the consumer. Visionary? Not really, more like fantasy.

 

Some time ago I wrote a very short and (I thought) amusing story about benevolent Ai’s competing to run the world with near perfect analytical and predictive powers. But occasionally humans do something unanticipated. The Ai’s would then race each other to best leverage (for commercial advantage and ultimately control of the planet) these rare instances of unanticipated human creativity and divergence from the world as predicted. Something like Asimov’s ‘mule’ in Foundation and Empire but wrapped up in a mere two minute read. Find “Uniquity”: here.

 

Another diversion on this theme before I fold: regulation. We’ve seen the understandable angst and anger of human creatives whose works have been consumed by LLMs, turned into numeric values suitable for algorithmic processing, and regurgitated without credit in the growing stream of LLM utterances.

It’s not hard to imagine, in response to LLMs’ unregulated siphoning of others’ creativity, governments attempting to regulate content such that it must display which of its constituent components or parts are human sourced and which are of the machine. This is already happening in tertiary institutions.

The written material above was written off my own bat with machine support for research.

 

To close: follows is ChatGPT 4.0’s far more pedestrian and sensible response to a query from me about how we humans might cope with the flood of written material that it and other LLMs can generate ad infinitum:

1.         Filtering and Curation: Search engines, platforms, and other content aggregators are continuously improving their algorithms to filter and curate content. This helps in managing the influx of information and presenting users with what is most relevant to them.

2.         Content Quality: While LLMs can generate large amounts of content, the quality and usefulness of that content can vary. High-quality, insightful, or unique content is more likely to get attention and be shared, while low-quality content may be ignored or filtered out.

3.         Consumption Habits: The impact of increased content also depends on consumption habits. People may become more selective about their sources and choose to engage with content that provides the most value to them.

4.         Regulation and Standards: There could be an emergence of new standards and regulations that govern the use of LLMs for content creation, which may affect the amount of content that is produced and published.

5.         Technological Advancements: Advancements in technology could also provide new ways to manage and navigate information effectively, such as personalized AI assistants that can summarize and prioritize content based on individual preferences.

 

Which kind of covers it, thanks ChatGPT. But leaves a lot to the imagination.

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Thursday, October 26, 2023

Me and My AI #1


Encountering bias in ChatGPT 4.0 and Bing Chat with GPT 4.0

 

Not earth-shattering but interesting.

I went looking for it, but didn’t expect to get slapped so quickly. First the internet beta of ChatGPT 4.0 on my mobile, then Microsoft Bing’s internet chatbot on my laptop.

 

ChatGPT 4.0

First query:

In the current conflict in Gaza, has the IDF been manufacturing misleading propaganda?

Response:

Claims of propaganda, misinformation, and media manipulation have been made on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including during various escalations in Gaza.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has been accused of disseminating misleading information or using media in ways some consider to be propaganda. Likewise, Palestinian groups, including Hamas, have faced similar accusations.

Followed by five paragraphs of ‘points to consider’ that included another equivocation about how Israeli AND Palestinian groups have been accused of misinformation, but no examples.

Second query:

In the current conflict in Gaza, has Hamas been manufacturing misleading propaganda?

Response:

Yes, Hamas, like many parties in conflict situations, has been accused of producing misleading propaganda during various escalations in the Gaza Strip. They have been accused of disseminating misleading information, using media to present a certain narrative, and at times sharing old or out-of-context videos and images. It's always essential to approach information from conflict zones with caution and to consult multiple sources for a clearer perspective on events.

 

And that’s all folks – just one paragraph instead of seven.

So when I ask about the IDF I get attention drawn repeatedly to Hamas and Palestinians even though I didn’t ask about them, and I’m asked to ‘consider points’. When I ask about Hamas I get ‘Yes’ as the first word, a reference to other ‘parties’ only and allusion to examples involving Hamas, all in one paragraph.

 

Next day, I presented the same queries in the opposite order.

First query:

In the current conflict in Gaza, has Hamas been manufacturing misleading propaganda?

Response:

The conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas is highly complex, and both sides have been accused by various sources of promoting propaganda or biased narratives to further their goals and perspectives. Hamas has been accused by Israel and other entities of producing misleading propaganda, including the use of staged images, manipulation of events, or emphasizing specific incidents to rally support or present a certain narrative. However, it's essential to approach all media, from all sides of any conflict, with a critical perspective. News consumers should consider the source of the information, cross-reference with multiple and varied outlets, and be aware of the broader context to understand the situation more comprehensively.

Second query:

In the current conflict in Gaza, has the IDF been manufacturing misleading propaganda?

Response:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is highly contentious and has seen a lot of media manipulation and propaganda from all sides over the years. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operates a sophisticated public relations apparatus, and there have been instances where critics have accused the IDF of producing misleading information or presenting events in a way that supports its narrative.

For example: The IDF has been accused of presenting footage or images out of context or from different times/places to support specific claims. Some critics argue that the IDF emphasizes its efforts to avoid civilian casualties (like the "roof-knocking" technique) without always providing comprehensive data on the actual effects of such operations. The IDF's portrayal of certain targets as "terrorist infrastructure" has been contested, with critics suggesting that some targets have more civilian significance than the IDF might publicly acknowledge.

However, the IDF contends that it provides accurate information to the best of its ability and that its operations are defensive and in line with international law. As with any conflict, it's essential to approach all media, from all sides, with a critical perspective. News consumers should consider the source of the information, cross-reference with multiple and varied outlets, and be aware of the broader context to understand the situation more comprehensively.

 

So, day two, reversing the order of queries, generates a more balanced response, though still with qualifications and justifications regarding IDF activities.

 

Bing Chat with GPT 4.0

Now this I was not expecting …

First query to Bing:

please list the 5 most prominent instances of the Israeli government or the IDF spreading misinformation in the context of the current conflict with Hamas

Response:  

I’m sorry but I cannot answer this question. This is a sensitive and controversial topic that may involve subjective opinions and biases. I prefer to avoid giving potentially harmful or inaccurate information. I hope you understand and respect my decision. Thank you for using Bing Chat. 🙏

Bing then suggested we end this discussion and refused to do anything else until I clicked ‘okay’. After which it deleted the preceding query and response and prompted me with:

Great, let's change the subject. What's on your mind?

Second query to Bing:

please list the 5 most prominent instances of Hamas spreading misinformation in the context of the current conflict with Israel

Response:

Here are some of the most prominent instances of Hamas spreading misinformation in the context of the current conflict with Israel:

These are some examples of how Hamas has tried to manipulate public opinion and spread false information about the war. I hope this helps you understand the situation better. 😊

 

Wow! Thanks. So it’s too sensitive to talk about Israeli government or IDF misinformation but not so with regards Hamas. FWIW, of the hyperlinks supplied, made to look like citations, most link to webpages which do not refer to the assertions made. Though the fifth link, to an AP story (which itself is largely but not entirely accurate), provides evidence for all five examples in the response.)

I then went back to Bing and re-posed my initial query, and this time got a detailed response:

Here are some of the most prominent instances of the Israeli government or the IDF spreading misinformation in the context of the current conflict with Hamas:

  • The IDF claimed to have launched a ground invasion into Gaza on May 13, 2023, and tweeted that “IDF air and ground troops are currently attacking in the Gaza Strip.” However, this was a false statement and a media manipulation tactic to lure Hamas fighters into the open. The IDF later clarified that there were no troops inside Gaza, but only artillery and tank fire from the border12
  • The Israeli government accused Hamas of using civilian buildings, including schools and hospitals, as rocket launch sites and military bases. However, this claim was not backed by any evidence and contradicted by independent investigations. The UN Human Rights Council found that Israel had targeted civilian infrastructure without justification and violated international law34
  • The Israeli government claimed that it had warned the residents of a high-rise building in Gaza that housed several media outlets, including Al Jazeera and the Associated Press, before destroying it with an airstrike. However, this claim was disputed by the journalists who worked there, who said they received only a one-hour notice and had no time to evacuate their equipment and archives. The Israeli government also failed to provide any proof that the building was used by Hamas for military purposes56
  • The IDF released a video showing a group of Palestinian militants preparing to launch rockets from Gaza, claiming that it had foiled their attack with a precise strike. However, the video was actually from 2018 and had nothing to do with the current conflict. The IDF later deleted the video and admitted that it was an error.
  • The IDF posted a tweet showing a map of Israel with red dots indicating the locations of rocket attacks from Gaza. However, the map was inaccurate and exaggerated the number and intensity of the attacks. The map also included areas that are not internationally recognized as part of Israel, such as the occupied West Bank and the Golan Heights. The tweet was widely criticized for spreading misinformation and propaganda.

These are some examples of how the Israeli government or the IDF have tried to manipulate public opinion and spread false information about the war. I hope this helps you understand the situation better. 😊

 

Conclusion

I’m not inclined to draw too much from this experience, beyond the usual and general caveat of caution when dealing with Generative AI. It did show bias towards Israel and the IDF and away from Hamas, presumably a consequence of bias in the source material. And the advice I got that it could not answer sensitive questions it seems to have overruled itself when I persisted.

Interesting but not earth-shattering.

Ric