Category Archives: technology

June 16, 2024 · 7:12 am

Why You Should NOT Trust Elon Musk (Or Any Promises He Makes)

As we get older, we often learn the hard way that the people we admire and those we’ve placed our trust in are painfully human. With very few exceptions, people are complicated. They have their flaws, failures, warts, and regrets. It doesn’t matter how high their profile or how long their list of accomplishments. They’re just as human as us. And sometimes, that same high profile can exacerbate their worst tendencies.

That’s what I’ve come to learn about Elon Musk, someone who I used to reference in admiration on this site. Like many others, there was a time when I respected and admired Musk for his efforts to forge a better future through technology and investment. Whenever he spoke on these issues, I listened closely and took his words seriously. I still believe the work he did making electric cars more mainstream and pursuing brain/computer interfaces are a net positive for the world.

However, recent years have caused me to re-evaluate many of my opinions on this man. It’s not just that I’ve become more jaded and cynical over the years. I’ve watched, along with many others, as Elon Musk has proven himself to be out of touch, egotistical, petty, ruthless, and increasingly unhinged with respect to his political leanings.

He’s also a billionaire who, like many others before him, has shown no qualms about ruthlessly exploiting his workers, even during a global pandemic. Let’s not forget about that.

Now, I freely admit my attitude towards billionaires has soured a great deal in recent years. I’m now of the opinion that billionaires really shouldn’t exist in a civilized society. I also believe it’s impossible to become a billionaire without being ruthlessly exploitative. But that’s beside the point.

Even if Musk wasn’t a billionaire, he still wouldn’t be someone worthy of his reputation among supporters. The past four years have shown that he is not the future tech visionary he pretends to be. He is also not a self-made billionaire in any sense, considering how much of his wealth was inherited.

At his core, Elon Musk is a sales pitch man, plain and simple. He’s about as honest as a used car salesman trying to sell cars that he knows aren’t what he claims them to be. This is not just my opinion of the man. You need only look up the long list of predictions/promises he’s made over the past 15 years.

He claimed he could get humans to Mars by 2024. He hasn’t even made it back to the Moon.

He claimed fully autonomous self-driving cars would be ready by 2018. He was wrong about that too.

He claimed COVID-19 would go away by April 2020. He was distressingly wrong in that prediction.

It’s an age-old tactic of many sales pitchmen. Make big, bold promises that you can’t possibly deliver, but deliver just barely enough to keep people from calling you a total fraud. And on the things Musk has delivered, there’s still a lot to be desired on that front.

Then, there are Musk’s politics, which he just loves sharing on social media to a disturbing degree. Some have claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic radicalized him. It was around 2020 when his politics became much more reactionary, so much so that it got him in trouble. And once he bought Twitter outright, he essentially emboldened everyone who shares in his reactionary outlook, including a few who have done serious harm.

There’s a lot more I can say about his political leanings, but that’s a rabbit hole nobody can dive into without losing too much of their soul. I’ll just say that people far smarter than me have been much more thorough in debunking the myths surrounding Musk’s persona. I’ll even concede that Musk is still capable of worthwhile efforts, even if he’s not a likable person in general.

But, as someone who used to buy into the hype on which this man built his fortune, I want to make one thing clear. Elon Musk is not someone you should trust.

If he makes a bold promise, don’t assume for a second he’ll deliver until he actually does.

If he makes a confident statement about politics, don’t assume it’s anything other than self-serving aggrandizement.

If he makes a bold prediction, don’t take it seriously until you remind yourself how many other predictions he’s gotten wrong.

And, most important, don’t forget for a second that Elon Musk is not normal in the sense that he’s a billionaire. You just can’t be normal and become a billionaire through wholly ethical means.

It still remains to be seen what Elon Musk’s legacy will be in the grand scheme of things. It’s very likely that, whatever it ends up being, it’ll be skewed by both his supporters and detractors. But while it’s being built, it’s worth being cautious, skeptical, and even a little extra cynical when it comes to this man.

1 Comment

Filed under futurism, Neuralink, rants, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 7, 2024 · 5:44 am

Revealing Attitudes Towards AI Art (When People Don’t Know It’s AI Art)

When I was a kid, there was a general attitude towards any movie or TV show that was animated. Unless it was “The Simpsons,” then animation was largely associated with kids. Even when there was a concerted effort to appeal to older demographics, animation was still seen as less mature form of storytelling. Even when it was exceptionally well done, this stigma persisted.

Eventually, animation and animated content, in general, matured to a point where the stigma really doesn’t work anymore. Cartoons aren’t just for kids. We now have shows like “Bojack Horseman” and “Rick and Morty” that have helped change the popular perception of animation. On top of that, the added influence of Japanese anime, from “Dragonball Z” to “Ghost In The Shell,” have helped attitudes about animated content evolve even more.

This shift all happened within my lifetime. It’s a simple recognition that attitudes, perceptions, and trends are always changing. And they’re going to continue to change, regardless of how we might feel about certain issues now.

This brings me to AI generated art. It’s a topic that, depending on where you discuss it, can generate a lot of debate, disagreement, and consternation. I’ve been in more than one discussion with someone who claims AI generated art can only ever be a bad thing in the long run because it enables trolls, assholes, grifters, and bad actors.

I’ve also been in similar discussions with those who claim AI art isn’t even art. It’s, according to them, nothing more than a fancy calculator that crunches numbers on where to place certain pixels on a screen. While I think that’s a gross oversimplification, I don’t think it takes away from the end result. Whether it’s produced by a human or a computer, the end result is still the same. An artistic rendering is created. But regardless of what form it takes, we have certain attitudes about it.

As I write this, I think the prevailing sentiments toward AI art are negative. Show someone an AI generated image and they might concede that it looks nice. But they’ll still have an aversion to it, knowing it’s created by AI. And if you how them a human-generated piece of art, even if it doesn’t look nice, that same person will still ascribe more value to it than they would an AI generated image. That’s just where we are right now.

But in a recent study by Scientific Reports, an interesting insight was uncovered. When the researchers conducted a survey that included approximately 200 people, they found that when people weren’t aware that an image was AI generated, then their attitudes about it were more positive. In many cases, they could not discern between the artwork generated by humans and those generated by AI. But as soon as they were aware that something came from an AI, their sentiments changed.

It’s probably not too surprising, but it’s also revealing. It speaks to where we currently are in our perspectives on anything created by an AI. It still has this synthetic, uncanny valley feel to it. We still inherently ascribe more value to something that is created by a human over that of a machine. And while that is certainly understandable, given that human generated art requires more labor and passion, how much will that value persist in the coming years?

That’s not an unreasonable question because the quality of AI art has changed considerably in the past few years. And it’s likely to continue improving in ways we’re not ready for. Not too long ago, it was somewhat easy to discern when something was created by an AI. The issues it had with rendering hands and fingers are well-document. However, those issues have been addressed and improved considerably, especially with newer models.

As such, you don’t need to be a wide-eyed utopian futurist to predict that AI art generators will improve to a point where it’s genuinely difficult to tell if it was created by a human. This study already showed how close we are. The participants weren’t able to surmise on a surface level that they were dealing with a mix of AI and human-generated art. With improved tools, even the most discerning and tech savvy among us might not be able to figure it out.

At that point, our attitudes towards AI art will have to change. Think what you want about AI and whether it’s capable of creating real art, let alone appreciate what goes into it. But if it’s capable of making something we can’t discern from its human-made counterparts, then those negative sentiments we have are entirely arbitrary, as well as subjective.

And those same attitudes might not be shared by younger people who have grown up in an environment surrounded by the internet, AI, and AI generated content. They might not have any issue with seeing AI generated art as real art. And anyone who just despises AI art as a concept might find themselves in the same group as those who still think all cartoons are just for kids.

It’s hard to know where these trends will lead as AI technology advances. It’s already affecting how we see art, knowledge, and what it means to be intelligent. And how we feel today might not be at all in line with how future generations will feel in the decades to come. Only time will tell.

I’ll simply note that humans, in general, are a visual species. We seek to create, admire, and cherish art, regardless of the source. For that reason, I think there will certainly be a place for any kind of art, whether it comes from a human or an AI.

Leave a comment

Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, psychology, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

May 17, 2024 · 5:31 am

How Much Are You Willing To Spend/Risk On Emerging Longevity/Anti-Aging Treatments?

We’re all born with youthful energy. As kids and young adults, this energy helps fuel us as with build lives for ourselves and our families, be they our close relatives or any children we might have. But over time, that energy fades. Our health, our looks, and our overall energy for living fades. It is an inescapable fact of life.

One of my old health teachers once summed it up with this endearing quote that I remember to this day.

“Once your body is done growing, it starts dying. The only part you can control is how rapidly that process unfolds.”

This has become more and more relevant for me, personally. I am no longer young by most measures. My teenage years and my early 20s feel like a lifetime ago. Who I was then is very different from who I am now. And while I have gotten much better at taking care of myself since I turned 30, I know that’s just slowing the aging process. It doesn’t stop it.

At some point, my body and mind will start to break down.

At some point, I’ll start succumbing to the many ailments often associated with age.

I am not looking forward to that. I prefer to delay that as much as possible. I’ve always been somewhat self-conscious about my looks and my health. I don’t deny that the prospect of aging is scary to me. That’s one of the reasons I often keep a close eye on advancements in biotechnology. And with each passing year, I also find myself paying more attention to advances in the fields of longevity.

I know there are many conflicting perspectives when it comes to body image, beauty standards, and the idea of aging gracefully. For everyone in human history, you didn’t really have a choice. You just had to accept that you were going to get older. Your looks, your energy, and your body was going to fade. But if this technology is able to mature, there might be other options in the future.

Whether or not I’ll live long enough to take advantage of those opportunities, it’s hard to say. It may already be too late for someone my age. Even if new treatments emerge, there’s a good chance they’ll be reserved for the rich and well-connected. Unless I win the lottery, I doubt I’ll be in a position to utilize them.

But that might not be the case for my nieces and nephews, who are still young children at the moment. It might not even be the case for those just graduating college at the moment. In the same way artificial intelligence has had a sudden surge of advancement, longevity might experience a similar surge, thanks in no small part to AI.

As I write this, science has uncovered so much about the mechanics of aging. We know considerably more today than we did 20 years ago. We’re sure to uncover more in the coming years. At some point, we may even develop effective treatments that don’t just slow aging. We might find a way to actually reverse it.

This sort of technology isn’t some far-off sci-fi fantasy on par with a warp drive. Reversing aging doesn’t break the laws of physics. It doesn’t even break the laws of biology, given how some animals never seem to age. It’s just a matter of developing the right tools, the right treatments, and the right approach. I have no idea what form that will take. I doubt it will be something as simple as a pill, an injection, or something you could buy at a pharmacy.

But if such a treatment were available, it’s worth asking how much you’d be willing to risk in order to take advantage of it. Because, like any emerging medicine, there is risk early on. When something is unproven in the long-term, you will be putting your mind and body at risk by embracing it so quickly. Even if it’s tested to a point where very major health organization gives it the thumbs-up, there’s always a chance something could go wrong. That’s just how medicine and biology works.

Some people might not be willing to take that risk.

For me personally, I totally would. Even if my health and appearance is generally good, I would definitely take a chance at a treatment that would help preserve both for a longer period. I would certainly expect side-effects. But if it delivers good results, I’ll endure those.

But there’s also the cost to consider. Even if a treatment is shown to be effective at keeping you feeling young, beautiful, and energetic, it doesn’t do you much good if it costs you every penny you have and then some. Sure, you’d have your youth and your looks, but you’d be broke and in debt. Is that worth it?

Personally, I wouldn’t be willing to spend everything or go that deep into debt, just to look young and remain healthy. Few good things ever come from indebting yourself to that extent.

But others might feel differently. Some might not want that kind of longevity, even if it were available. That’s perfectly fine. We should certainly respect anyone who makes such a choice. But we should also put real thought and effort into attacking aging the same way we attack any disease. Regardless of how we age or how we choose to approach it, we’re subject to the chaotic ravages of time.

Emerging technology will give us more options than we’ve ever had at any point in our existence as a species. How we choose to exercise those options remains to be seen. I might not get that choice. But I sincerely hope that some reading this do.

Leave a comment

Filed under biotechnology, CRISPR, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 14, 2024 · 8:31 am

Artificial Intelligence, The Entertainment Industry, And Their (Uncertain) Future

This is a video from my YouTube channel, Jack’s World.

This video is part speculation and part thought experiment on the impact of artificial intelligence and the entertainment industry. Since the WGA/SAG strikes of 2023, the impact of AI on entertainment is impossible to ignore. While the technology is still in a very early stage, we’re already seeing it affect the course of multiple industries, but entertainment might be the most profound.

What could this mean for consumers?

What could it mean for the companies, studios, artists, and workers that produce our entertainment?

It’s difficult to determine at this early stage, but I make an effort to imagine what artificial intelligence could mean for the future of entertainment.

1 Comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, movies, Neuralink, technology, YouTube

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 2, 2024 · 5:09 am

How To Get Around (Certain) Paywalls

First off, fuck paywalls.

I understand why the exist. I understand that content creators, media outlets, and individuals need to make money for their efforts. It’s a necessary evil to fund the many good things the internet provides.

That being said, fuck paywalls. They’re one of the most annoying things to manifest on the internet that don’t involve whiny trolls with too much free time.

With each passing year, it seems, more and more websites are resorting to paywalls to restrict or limit access to their content. This is especially common with news outlets, including major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. But I’m also seeing it on smaller outlets that aren’t major newspapers, especially those that cover sports, entertainment, or various genre news.

They’re all annoying as hell. They’re basically asking for a newspaper subscription that can range anywhere from a couple of dollars to the equivalent of a yearly Netflix subscription. At a time when most people are already annoyed by the amount of subscriptions they have to pay for, this is making a bad problem much worse. It’s essentially segmenting the internet in ways that run counter to how it began.

But rather than lament on this annoying trend, I’d like to offer some guidance to those who hate paywalls as much as I do. Even if you too understand why they exist, nobody will blame you for not wanting to purchase an entire subscription just to read one or two articles. For those instances, there are some ways to get around that.

For the sites that offer a handful of free articles before requiring a subscription, you could always use a VPN. These VPNs, also known as Virtual Private Networks, basically mask your IP address so that it always seems like you’re coming from a new location. While some sites are aware of this tactic, it’s very difficult for them to filter it out. VPNs offer many other uses aside from getting around paywalls. They do come at a cost, but you do get a lot out of them.

But if you don’t want to invest in a VPN, another way to get around paywalls is to use certain free sites. They don’t necessary get around the paywall. They just allow you to see the content in a more raw format. It’s like seeing copying the sheet music instead of the song and letting another program play it. All you do is put in the URL to an article or site section into the site and let it work.

There a number of sites that do this. Not all of them work on every site, but here are the ones that work best.

https://12ft.io

www.archive.org

Please note that these don’t work for every site. For some media outlets, you will get errors or your browser will just freeze. But in most cases, you can usually expect to get around the paywall and at least read the main substance of an article.

It works for now. I don’t doubt for a second that many outlets are already looking for a way to block this sort of thing. And if there comes a day when all paywalls can be circumvented, then those same outlets will find another annoying way to fund their operations.

Again, I get why this happens. Before paywalls, there were all sorts of insufferable pop-up ads, banner ads, and mailing lists. Once those fell out of favor, site operators looked for another way to monetize their content. Paywalls are just the latest manifestation of that effort.

They’re annoying and most people still hate them. But, so long as they exist, we need to live with them and know how to get around them. I hope this helps.

Leave a comment

Filed under media issues, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 22, 2024 · 5:30 am

AI Chatbots May (Thankfully) Render Homework Obsolete

Homework sucks.

Let’s get that out of the way.

I doubt anyone will disagree with that sentiment. No matter who you are or how many years you’ve been out of school, you probably don’t miss doing homework. It’s one of those special shared hatreds reserved only for traffic jams, parking tickets, and slow internet. But unlike those undeniable frustrations, homework isn’t an inescapable force of nature or law. It’s something we, as a society, choose to continue.

I’ve certainly questioned that choice, going back to when I was still in school. Having to do homework was among the many reasons why I was so miserable in school. And even though it was required, I can’t honestly say it ever helped me learn anything. Most teachers and administrators often explained why it was important to ensure we were adequately learning the material. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to realize that, even if that were a valid reason, it still was still ineffective.

Just ask yourself honestly. Did you ever do homework because you were curious and wanted to learn?

Now, I could rant and lament on why homework sucks for days on end. But rather than torture myself to such an extreme, I wanted to highlight something that might offer hope to those who still remember how much homework sucked, as well as those currently in school at this very moment. It has to do with the impact of artificial intelligence and chatbots like ChatGPT.

I know I’ve talked a lot about artificial intelligence in the past. I’ve also highlighted the impact and hype surrounding ChatGPT. It is definitely one of the most intriguing and disruptive technologies to come along in decades. But unlike other discussions about whether artificial intelligence and ChatGPT will lead to the destruction of the human race, this is one issue in which the impact is already happening.

Recently, Vox produced an intriguing video about how ChatGPT has impacted education, especially homework. Even as someone who graduated school years ago, I found the issues and insights of this video remarkable. I encourage everyone to check it out.

The long and short of it is simple. ChatGPT is rendering most homework assignments, be they essays or worksheets, obsolete. Students are using ChatGPT to basically do the bulk of the work for them. The only real effort they need to do is make sure that whatever they produce isn’t obviously the product of a chatbot.

That alone can be difficult. It is well-documented that chatbots like ChatGPT can be inaccurate. But when compared to having to do a long, boring assignment that a student probably isn’t interested in, that kind of challenge seems manageable by comparison.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I freely admit that I probably would’ve used ChatGPT when I was in school if I had access to it. I promise it wouldn’t be entirely out of laziness or an unwillingness to learn. I just found most homework assignments to be so dull and pointless that I cared more about just getting them done rather than actually learning anything.

I imagine I’m not the only one who feels this way. I suspect the majority of students simply see homework as a means of ensuring grades rather than actually learning something. And even if that assumption is flawed, it’s still an issue that speaks to major flaws in how we educate ourselves and others.

And until ChatGPT, it was easy to ignore that issue. Schools, teachers, and administrators had no reason to stop giving homework or question whether it was an effective tool. It was just one of those things that our education system had always done. So, why not keep doing it?

Well, now there’s a valid reason. Homework, as we know it, can be easily completed by any student with an internet connection. If there was any learning potential, it’s pretty much lost. As the Vox video stated, it has led schools and educators to consider an entirely new recourse.

The knee-jerk response that I suspect most will adopt is to try and ban or limit the use of chatbots. There are software programs out there that can help detect content that has been generated by a chatbot. However, I liken these programs to using scotch tape to seal the ever-widening cracks of a faulty foundation.

Because, like it or not, these AI chatbots are becoming more advanced. And the tools to keep up with them are always going to lag behind. That is a losing race and one no education system should attempt.

There’s even precedent for surmising why that’s a bad approach. When I was in college, there was a blanket ban on using Wikipedia. But enforcing that ban was a losing battle that caused more problems than it solved. It also created some nasty situations where students were accused of plagiarism when they did nothing of the sort. It took a few high-profile incidents, but most schools eventually came to embrace Wikipedia as a useful tool when approached correctly.

I think the impact of chatbots will have to go through a similar process. But unlike Wikipedia, the application of chatbots is a lot broader. These are tools that can effectively summarize books, write essays, and even write poetry with a few simple prompts. And in the same way young people have become more tech savvy than their parents, I suspect they’ll become more adept than most with respect to navigating chatbots.

That means homework, as we’ve been doing it for the past several decades, will be obsolete. While that’s certainly cause for celebration for many, it’s also an opportunity to take a step back and evaluate the process of education, as a whole.

It’s still very important that we educate young people in a meaningful way.

It’s also important to acknowledge that young people today will have access to resources that others have not.

If homework is no longer useful in that regard, what else could we do? What’s a more effective way to teach kids a concept, even when they’re not that motivated to learn it?

I don’t claim to know the answers. I am not a teacher, but I do remember how miserable I was in school and how little it really taught me. Hopefully, the impact of chatbots like ChatGPT will prompt a more thorough evaluation of how we approach education. Because if we keep clinging to old methods, then nobody will benefit in the long run, especially kids.

1 Comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 25, 2024 · 8:01 am

My Thoughts, Opinions, And (Mixed) Feelings About AI Art

This is a video from my YouTube channel, Jack’s World.

This video explores my thoughts, feelings, and overall sentiments surrounding AI art. You might have noticed that some of my more recent videos have been incorporating more AI art lately. I do so with the understanding there is a fair amount of controversy and concern surrounding this technology. I do my best to address that while offering what I hope is a balanced perspective on AI art and the use of generative AI. Enjoy!

Leave a comment

Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, Jack's World, technology, YouTube

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 6, 2024 · 5:30 am

Neuralink Has Implanted Its First Brain Chip (But Don’t Get Excited)

I know it’s been a while since I talked about Neuralink. A few years ago, I followed news about this endeavor closely because I genuinely believed that brain/computer interfaces was an important technology to develop. These days, I still believe that. I think it has only become more vital as the progress in artificial intelligence has accelerated.

However, there’s a reason why I haven’t talked much about Neuralink in quite a while. I admit some of that is because some pretty significant world events got in the way of following technology trends. However, a much bigger part of my disinterest came from the one behind Neuralink, Elon Musk.

The long and short of it is this. I once respected and admired Elon Musk for his efforts to develop new and emerging technology. But then, once I started scrutinizing him, his background, his business practices, and his tendency to make ridiculous promises that he can never keep, I came to the conclusion that Elon Musk isn’t just an unscrupulous businessman. He’s an asshole.

Believe me, there’s a lot I could say about him, but I prefer not to. Insulting someone with billions of dollars and access to high-priced lawyers is risky these days. I’ll just say that the combination of COVID-19 and buying Twitter didn’t really break Musk. It just exposed the kind of person he really is and that person is not one worthy of respect.

Now, with respect to Neuralink, there is still some real value behind the company, the efforts, and the technology. Integrating the human brain with technology isn’t just a promising field. It might very well be necessary if humans are to adequately adapt to a future in which there will likely be machines much smarter and more capable than any person who has ever lived. Even if AI never becomes as intelligent as an average human, having humans that can interact with it on a more intimate level could fundamentally change our species and our society for the better.

And to that end, Neuralink has officially taken a critical first step. According to NPR, the company has successfully implanted its first brain chip into a human participant. We don’t know many details, nor do we know the identity of the person who received the chip. We only know what was conveyed in the announcement, which is rarely something you can take at face value with Elon Musk.

But even if you don’t trust Musk, and you shouldn’t, this feat has been in the works for a while. Neuralink has been actively recruiting volunteers for implants for over a year now. And this effort was authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration. The primary participants, at least for now, are those who have suffered brain or spinal chord injuries. So, it’s not like Neuralink is accepting applications from those who just want a brain chip for no reason.

That approach is to be expected. Even Musk has said that the initial efforts with Neuralink will focus on helping paraplegics or those suffering from conditions like ALS. If and when the technology matures, then it’ll expand access to other users, but still for therapeutic purposes. Eventually, it would get to a point where brain implants aren’t just treatments. They would be like smartphones that people willingly purchase and have implanted.

And it’s that last part where I believe proponents of this technology should temper their hopes. Until we know more about the patients, the nature of the brain implants, and the impact on the participants, nobody should be eager to get one themselves. These brain implants are not about to become the next iPhone. This is a technology that needs much more investment, refinement, and development.

And if history is any guide, you really shouldn’t trust someone like Elon Musk to deliver that level of advancement. Despite the persona he tries to convey, he is not Tony Stark. He is not a brilliant scientist or inventor. He just hires those kinds of people and has a nasty habit of screwing them over.

He is, and always has been, a salesman first. He may very well be a genuine futurist trying to make a better future, but his tendency to get into petty feuds on social media and say objectively dumb things should give everyone pause. But at the end of the day, he’s an obscenely wealthy, incredibly out-of-touch businessman.

That means he likely sees Neuralink as just another business that he hopes will make him even richer than he already is. Even if he believes in the inherent value of the technology, he will exploit it for billions if it ever becomes a viable commercial product. That’s just how billionaires operate. And given the distressing tendency for billionaires to be psychopaths, it would be unwise to give Elon Musk or anyone like him access to your brain.

Now, I’ll say it again. This technology is important and what Neuralink achieved is a vital first step. The successful operation of one brain implant means it’s no longer on paper. This technology is officially real. Like the first person who drove a car or the first person to fly a plane, this is a major leap in our ongoing efforts to develop better and bolder technology.

We don’t know where this feat will lead or whether it’ll pan out in any meaningful way, but it’s worth being hesitant and a little extra cautious. It’s not wrong to trust in the sincere efforts of others who want to improve the lives of others. But it’s always wise to be skeptical of the intentions of unscrupulous billionaires with inflated egos.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, Neuralink, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 1, 2024 · 5:24 am

Update On (Non) AI George Carlin Special: New Details And Implications

Things tend to move quickly in the world of technology and artificial intelligence. And since the arrival of ChatGPT, the pace seems to have accelerated. I try to keep up with it as best I can. And I only really write or make videos about it if I have something meaningful to contribute.

But there are some stories I follow more closely for personal reasons. One such story has been the controversy surrounding the AI-generated George Carlin special that came out in early January 2024. I certainly hope I made my feelings on that issue clear. As much as I support the development of AI, I felt like this was in really poor taste.

It didn’t sound much like George Carlin. The humor, while funny at times, didn’t hit as hard as Carlin’s unique brand of comedy. And, most importantly, it was done without the consent of George Carlin’s family, namely his daughter, Kelly Carlin. It’s one thing to impersonate a dead celebrity with living relatives. It’s quite another to use an AI to create what could amount to a post-mortem piece of work that’s done in the mold of that celebrity.

Well, not surprisingly, Kelly Carlin didn’t stop at just scorning the creators of this AI special. According to the Hollywood Reporter, she filed a lawsuit against the creators of the comedy special on the basis that it’s an unauthorized use of George Carlin’s copyrighted work, while also illegally using Carlin’s name and likeness for promotional purposes.

Make no mistake. This case will be of immense interest to those concerned about how we use, abuse, and develop AI in the future. This, on top of new concerns about deepfakes for artists like Taylor Swift, is set to create some major precedents. And they’re bound to affect users, companies, and the nature of the AI’s themselves.

However, the filing of this lawsuit has added a new wrinkle to this controversy that is definitely worth acknowledging. It has since come out that the script for this “special” wasn’t a result of an AI generating it from a compilation of all of Carlin’s past works, as claimed by the creators. It was entirely written by a human named Chad Kultgen.

And, with all due respect to Chad Kultgen, his is no George Carlin. That really showed in the special.

Also, fuck Chad Kultgen for thinking he could match Carlin’s brilliance or even the capability of a non-human AI.

Now, this complication isn’t going to stop the lawsuit. If anything, it might strengthen the case of Carlin’s estate because it makes this special a much clearer violation of illegally using someone’s likeness or brand for promotional purposes. It might even raise to the level of fraud by claiming to be the product of an AI, but was actually just some guy trying to write a special and using George Carlin’s likeness to sell it.

And, regardless of how you feel about the legal implications here, that’s still a dick move. I can’t imagine that makes this any less difficult for Kelly Carlin or the rest of the Carlin family.

But, based on what we now know in wake of this lawsuit, the only thing AI was used for in making this special was to create the not-so-compelling voice that delivered this human-made script and the images included within the video. In terms of capabilities, that’s not a very impressive use of AI. If anything, that makes this special even less impressive.

One of my biggest criticisms of it was that it sounded nothing like Carlin in terms of tone and style. Considering that there are many existing AI tools right now that can closely mirror the voices of celebrities, this just makes the creators of this special seem cheap and lazy. But the script being entirely human-written does help add another important perspective.

As impressive as AI is at the moment, it is a long way from fooling anyone that it could mimic the nuance or mannerisms of a human, let alone one as special as George Carlin. I do wonder if those behind this special actually tried, but quickly realized it couldn’t be done. I also wonder if maybe someone who is even more unscrupulous will actually try again at some point, possibly with better AI tools.

If they do, then this lawsuit becomes even more important. Because the law tends to move much slower than technology. And if AI continues to advance, then incidents like this will become more common. For now, only time will tell what this will mean for the future of AI and those it impacts, living or dead.

Leave a comment

Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, funny, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 23, 2024 · 5:29 am

An AI Version Of George Carlin Just Released A Comedy Special (And That’s Disturbing)

There are certain celebrities and pop culture icons that we tend to appreciate more after they’ve passed away. Like everyone else, they too must face death at some point in their illustrious lives. And when they do, all the work they did becomes inherently more precious because it is now finite. There can be nothing new added to their body of work. It’s as set as the strongest bedrock. It might be upsetting to many fans, but it’s just a fact of life.

Then, artificial intelligence comes along and suddenly, there’s a crack in that bedrock.

Even as someone who has closely followed and written about artificial intelligence for years, I did not see this coming. And it took a form I never would’ve expected.

Recently, a couple of comedians utilizing an unspecified AI created an hour-long comedy special featuring the late, great George Carlin. That “special,” and I use that term loosely, is currently on YouTube right now. For reasons that I hope are understandable, I’m not going to link to it. Just know that, as of me writing this, it has racked up over 427,000 views and 11,000 likes.

Now, in general, I support the development of artificial intelligence. I still genuinely believe it is the most important technological advancement we could develop as a species. But this particular manifestation of its use has me both concerned and distressed.

For one, George Carlin is my favorite comedian. I would go so far as to call him the single greatest comedian of all time. And that’s an opinion many share. Ask most people who the best comedian of all time is and George Carlin is usually in the top five alongside the likes of Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Rodney Dangerfield, Sam Kinison, and Robin Williams.

To me, George Carlin is the best and there’s no close second. He’s one of those comedians who didn’t just find success over the course of multiple decades. You can still go back and watch his specials from the 1970s and his material is still relevant. His jokes, his style, and his brilliant insights are still on point, as well as hilarious.

George Carlin really was a one-of-a-kind artist, comedian, and philosopher. And when he passed away in 2008, his death hit a lot harder than most. But his legacy has only strengthened in that time as more people discover or re-discover his comedy. But this AI version of him is sure to complicate that legacy and for all the wrong reasons.

For one, this “special” was done without permission, review, or compensation to George Carlin’s family. His daughter, Kelly Carlin, has gone on record as stating that she did not authorize this, let alone receive compensation for it. This was not an instance of a celebrity willingly licensing their voice or likeness to a company, as James Earl Jones did with Disney in 2022. This was done without any consideration whatsoever for how Carlin’s family might react to this or what it might do to his legacy.

As for the special itself, I do admit I have listened to it. And I can confirm that it sounds nothing like George Carlin. The voice sounds like a terrible impersonation of George that someone half-drunk would try to do on a five-dollar bar bet. I promise nobody is ever going to mistake the voice in this “special” for George Carlin. I don’t know if that’s by design or just a limit of the current technology.

But with regards to the actual substance, this is where it gets even more distressing. Because in many instances, there are jokes and comments that actually sounds like something Carlin would say. Yes, they lack his distinct delivery, tone, and mannerisms. But many of his comments on politics, pop culture, people, and society really do feel like they might come up in a real special.

That said, there are also instances where it says things Carlin probably wouldn’t say. There’s nothing too egregious. He never says anything that sounds so out-of-character that it’s jarring. But it’s also clear that the content was edited. There are distinct breaks in the audio that indicate someone edited this to sound more refined. That leads me to believe that, whatever AI was used to make this definitely conjured some content that would’ve been too obviously out-of-character.

I’ll even go so far as to say that there are some parts of the special that are funny. It still doesn’t resonate as well as one of Carlin’s classic comedy specials. But there are jokes in this special that probably will make some people laugh. It’s not entirely clear if those jokes were purely the product of the AI or if those behind it tweaked the language. But the humor is there.

Be that as it may, just listening to a small part of this special feels off. Beyond just sounding painfully synthetic, it establishes a precedent that the estates of other dead celebrities would be wise to consider. Because George Carlin isn’t the only one with a long catalog of comedy, writings, interviews, and movie credits.

Who’s to say that an AI like this won’t do the same for Robin Williams or Richard Pryor? It wouldn’t even be restricted to comedians, either. The works of musicians like John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, Michael Jackson, and Elvis Prestly could also be used to create entirely new songs that might sound eerily similar to something they might have created.

If that happens, what does it do to their legacy? What happens if an AI creates something in the mold of a dead celebrity that says or does something outrageous, offensive, or detrimental? What would it do to their legacy? What would it do to their still-living families?

I honestly can’t imagine how someone like Kelly Carlin must feel hearing a poor imitation of her dead father. But I can easily imagine other celebrity heirs or estates willingly licensing their dead relatives to make extra money somehow.

It could mean we’ll be seeing more strange, distressing content like this in the coming years. And as AI technology continues to improve, it will likely get to a point where it’s so capable that it’s almost too believable. I don’t claim to know what kind of world that might create or lead to. I just know that “specials” like this won’t stop with George Carlin.

4 Comments

Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,