Tag Archives: law

August 21, 2025 · 8:40 am

Why Americans Should NEVER Talk To The Police: A (Relevant) Legal Perspective

These are strange, distressing times for America. As an American myself, I’ve never been more concerned or pessimistic about the future of the country I love. There are many reasons for that. But rather than get overly political and go on another rant, I want to offer some important advice to any American who might find this.

Regardless of what you see in the news or in rage-baiting headlines, you still have rights under the Constitution.

The current people in power have shown time and again that they are very willing to undermine those rights. You cannot let them. As an American, it is your responsibility to protect and defend those rights. Believe it or not, you do have the law on your side, even if those enforcing it would have you believe otherwise.

To understand, I’d like to refer to an old YouTube video from 2012 that I often share with people who don’t understand the law, the Constitution, or rights in general. It’s a lecture from a former criminal defense attorney at a law school. He makes the case better than anyone before or since that you, an American citizen, should never under any circumstances talk to the police.

It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never broken a single law in your entire life. Thanks to the Constitution, specifically the 5th Amendment, you have the right to not talk to the police. And you should use it. If you want to know why, just watch this video and share it with everyone you know.

Hopefully, you now understand and will act accordingly, should you ever encounter the police or any law enforcement official. There are plenty of other videos on YouTube that document police encounters. But this one is still the most informative from a purely legal perspective.

Also, I would supplement this video with a few other details that are worth mentioning. If the police ever knock on your door, don’t open it unless you have a screen door separating you and the officers. Unless they have a warrant, they cannot legally enter your home by force.

And if possible, record your encounter and let the officers know that you’re recording. It doesn’t matter if they have body cameras. Make sure you document every detail of the encounter. And make sure the video you’re recording is stored somewhere other than your phone. If you ever have any legal issues, that video will be instrumental.

Lastly, and this is something that I doubt the men in the video could’ve foreseen, but these rights apply to everyone in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. It doesn’t matter what anyone in the reactionary media say. The language of the 14th amendment is very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the bold text. It says person and not citizen. Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot, a liar, or both.

I really wish I didn’t have to make a post like this for my fellow Americans, as well as those aspiring to be American. But these are the times we currently live in. They suck. They’re probably going to get a hell of a lot worse. But at least for now, the Constitution says you have rights. And now, more than ever, you should cherish and defend them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, politics

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

February 28, 2024 · 6:59 am

Abortion, IVF Treatments, And The (Distressing) Trend Of Criminalizing Women

A few years back, I did a detailed breakdown of the potential implications of the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and effectively undoing a woman’s right to an abortion. When I wrote that, I did so with the sinking gut feeling that it would eventually happen. Ignorant, cruel, fun-hating, sex-hating, misogynistic right-wing assholes have spent decades of time and billions of dollars to undo this ruling.

It was never a matter of if this fundamental right would be overturned. It was only a matter of when. It just happened a lot sooner than I expected. And while there has certainly been backlash, the full extent of that backlash is just beginning. We won’t know how it’ll fully manifest for a number of years.

However, the same assholes who fought so hard to undermine abortion rights were never going to be content to stop there. I’ve met and dealt with enough of these people to know they weren’t going to be satisfied with stopping women getting abortions. Even with the backlash their efforts incurred, they were always going to keep moving forward. They just have too much time, money, and cruelty to stop.

And the recent ruling with the Alabama Supreme Court that effectively criminalized in-vitro (IFV) fertilization is yet another instance of where these assholes will be focusing their efforts. I certainly didn’t expect something like this to happen so quickly after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but I can’t say I was surprised.

The details of this case are remarkable, and not in a good way if you have any shred of humanity. But what’s more important, in terms of the bigger picture, is what this ruling does to the very perception of what IVF is and why it matters.

Because this is not some new, untested, unknown technology that most people haven’t heard of. IVF has been around since the late 1970s and to date, over 8 million children have been born through IVF that probably wouldn’t have otherwise been born. Keep in mind, these are all children born to parents who genuinely wanted to have a child, but couldn’t conceive due to various reasons.

These are not people who are in any way unnatural or less-than-human. And their parents are that much more admirable for seeking to have a child that they otherwise could not have had. Now, this ruling has completely reframed these millions of people and their parents by ruling that the procedure that helped them become a family was somehow immoral.

At the heart of the ruling is the notion that IVF requires fertilized embryos. And, according to the twisted logic and ethics of these religiously motivated judges, fertilized embryos are no different than infant children. That mirrors how the same logic these people utilize when they call abortion murder because for them, life begins at conception when the sperm and egg meet to create an embryo. So, for them, it means the destruction of any embryo constitutes the loss of a human life.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, a judge, or a legal expert of any kind. But even I have enough brain cells to understand why that logic is complete bullshit. You don’t even need to make any religious or philosophical arguments to prove it wrong.

It’s a simple matter of observable fact. You can place a tube full of embryos in the freezer, which preserves them for future use. But you can’t do that with an infant child.

They are two different things. That’s why we use different words to identify them. It really is that simple.

But in this particular case, the Alabama Supreme Court focused on a single incident in December 2020 at an Alabama fertility clinic in which a special container of embryos was mistakenly destroyed. And plaintiffs in this case argued that constituted the wrongful deaths of living children.

Again, these were embryos in a freezer. If they were children, they would be dead. I wish I didn’t have to make that distinction, but this is apparently where we are with the discourse surrounding women, children, and health care.

But the court didn’t care for that distinction. Whether because of their religious convictions or ideology, these judges ruled these embryos are children. As such, IVF treatment cannot continue because it often involves the destruction and disposal of embryos, usually those that are not viable. It’s twisted, absurd, and irrational logic. But because these are judges, it’s now law in Alabama.

However, don’t expect it to stop there.

Remember, the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court includes the judges that eagerly jumped at the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. And at least one of those judges has publicly stated that there are just as eager to revisit other rights regarding women and the LGBTQ community.

Do not discount these musings as wishful thinking or unwarranted speculation. When bigots, assholes, misogynists, and wannabe authoritarians tell you what they want to do, assume they’re going to make a serious effort to do it. Don’t assume that our current safeguards, be they laws, norms, or basic human decency, will be sufficient to stop them.

In the meantime, this ruling is another instance of a trend that has been unfolding since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The same people who advocated for it are pushing beyond the scope of abortion to basically legislate anything having to do with women exercising any level of agency or autonomy. More than anything, this ruling further proves their agenda has little to do with protecting or promoting children.

In one act, they fought to criminalize abortion in the name of saving unborn children.

In another, they fought to criminalize a procedure that actually helps couples have children.

But even if the hypocrisy doesn’t disgust you, just note the common denominator here. It all comes back to women, their bodies, and their role in rearing children. That’s what these court rulings and all the efforts behind them seem to revolve around. It’s about micromanaging how they use their bodies and criminalizing anything that gives them more agency than their religion or ideology commands.

And that’s wrong, plain and simple. I won’t even present to hide my bias on this. No court or judge, no matter how supreme their building claims to be, has a right to legislate what women do with their bodies. They may not like that some women do things they don’t approve of, be it having abortions, enjoying sex, or using science to have children they couldn’t otherwise have. But that’s their problem.

Unfortunately, these people and the right-wing assholes who support them are determined to make it everyone’s problem. That means it’s up to us, those who can actually discern the difference between a child and an embryo, to be just as determined in opposing them.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, Current Events, politics, sexuality, women's issues

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

September 15, 2023 · 6:03 am

Here’s What Happened When I Asked ChatGPT To Rewrite The Bill Of Rights

I’ve talked a lot about artificial intelligence and the implications of this technology. In my defense, it’s an incredibly relevant topic that I just happen to be very interested in. From AI-Generated artwork to ChatGPT, these are truly exciting times for this field. I’m sure I’ll have plenty to talk about in the coming years.

However, I don’t just want to react to news or stories about AI. I’d also like to participate in this emerging field on some level, even if it’s just as a simple consumer. We don’t yet know the full capabilities of our current AI tools or how they’ll impact us in the short or long term. But that’s exactly why we should test it for ourselves and see what we can do with it.

To that end, I decided to do a little exercise with ChatGPT. Please note that I do not currently have access to ChatGPT-4. I’m still using the previous version, ChatGPT-3. That version is quite limited in a number of ways, but it’s still capable of providing insightful information.

So, I decided to see how much ChatGPT could offer in terms of understanding and articulating the basic concept of human rights. That’s something that has certainly been a hot topic in recent years. And for those of us in the United States, you could definitely argue that our current laws surrounding human rights are inadequate and need updating.

This is where ChatGPT comes in. I logged in and gave it a simple prompt. I told it to rewrite the Bill of Rights, the key part of the US Constitution that enshrines the basic rights that every citizen is guaranteed under the law. This is what it came up with.

The following document outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals in a modern, democratic society. These rights are to be protected and upheld by the government, and any infringement upon them is a violation of the principles of justice and equality.

Article 1: Freedom of Expression and Thought All individuals have the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of frontiers. No individual shall be subject to censorship or prior restraint, and any attempt to limit or suppress the free exchange of ideas shall be deemed a violation of this right.

Article 2: Right to Privacy All individuals have the right to privacy in their personal lives, including the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. No individual shall be subject to surveillance or monitoring without just cause, and any information obtained through such means shall be inadmissible in court.

Article 3: Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination All individuals are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection and benefit of the law, without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, or any other status. Any discrimination or prejudice against any individual or group shall be deemed a violation of this right.

Article 4: Right to a Fair Trial All individuals have the right to a fair and impartial trial, including the right to due process of law, the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to legal representation. No individual shall be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, and all accused individuals shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 5: Right to Peaceful Assembly and Protest All individuals have the right to peacefully assemble and to protest, including the right to participate in marches, demonstrations, and other forms of peaceful assembly. No individual shall be subject to violence or repression for exercising this right.

Article 6: Right to Education and Information All individuals have the right to education and information, including access to a free and comprehensive education system and the right to access information through any medium. The government shall ensure that all individuals have access to the tools necessary to exercise this right.

Article 7: Right to Healthcare All individuals have the right to access comprehensive healthcare, including preventative care, treatment, and medication, regardless of their ability to pay. The government shall ensure that all individuals have access to quality healthcare and shall take measures to address any disparities in healthcare access.

Article 8: Right to Housing All individuals have the right to adequate housing, including shelter, sanitation, and security, regardless of their economic or social status. The government shall take measures to ensure that all individuals have access to affordable and safe housing.

Article 9: Right to Work and Fair Labor Practices All individuals have the right to work and to fair labor practices, including the right to a living wage, safe and healthy working conditions, and the right to form and join trade unions. The government shall take measures to ensure that all individuals have access to decent work and shall prohibit any form of forced or compulsory labor.

Conclusion: These rights and freedoms are essential to the establishment and maintenance of a just and equitable society. It is the responsibility of the government to protect and uphold these rights, and it is the duty of all individuals to respect and defend them.

It only took ChatGPT about 10 seconds to craft this. After reading through it, I am legitimately impressed. I think this is a considerable upgrade over what the Bill of Rights covers. This version actually articulates the importance of privacy, ranking it just a rung below free expression. It also recognizes that people can’t truly be free if they don’t have some level of material guarantees, like housing, health care, education, and fair labor practices.

These are all major issues that are debated across the country and throughout the world. This new version of rights essentially simplifies the whole concept, laying out that this is what people need to be free of coercion, free of exploration, and free of want. Some may think these rights are incomplete or too utopian. That may be the case to some extent.

But even if it’s not perfect, it’s still an improvement. And again, it only took ChatGPT about 10 seconds to craft this. We humans are still arguing over slavery. We have no more excuses. We have a tool that can help us figure out little issues and big issues. And regardless of whether or not it’s intelligent or sentient, we would be wise to listen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, Current Events, futurism, politics, Uncategorized

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

October 1, 2021 · 5:48 am

Thought Experiment: How Much SHOULD Society Seek To Control People?

Make and Enforce the Rules Without Making Enemies | FirstService Residential

The older I get, the more I realize how complicated the world can be. By the world, I don’t just mean complex socio-political or cultural trends that manifest over extended periods of time. I’ve found that most people, in general, are complicated.

Every individual has their own story to tell.

Every person has their own goals, wants, needs, morals, and methods for doing things.

Every community and culture has their own approach to molding a functioning society.

There’s no one perfect way to go about it. If anything, there are too many approaches that are good, bad, or some messy combination of both. Many of us like to think there’s a single way to maximize the happiness and potential of all individuals. Many even believe they know it when they’re young and idealistic.

Then, we get older and we realize that’s not just impossible. It’s untenable.

I say this as someone who went through his share of ideological shifts, especially in college. I won’t bore everyone with the details. I’ll just say that my perspectives on politics, religion, and culture when I was 20 were vastly different from what they were when I turned 30.

In developing those perspectives, there weren’t many common threads, especially when religion and politics were involved. I know I’ve touched on both many times before and while I try to be fair, I don’t deny I have certain leanings that I don’t hide.

I am generally mistrustful of organized religion, as well as the agendas of those who are overly extreme in their beliefs. I am just as mistrustful as those who take extreme positions on certain political ideologies, be they conservative or liberal.

I am deeply critical of conservative religious types who basically seek to impose a theocracy.

I am also deeply critical of extreme left-wing liberals who seek to impose a politically correct autocracy.

People on both sides will likely claim they’re not seeking anything bad or negative. They genuinely believe that their way will be for the greater good. They believe people will be happier and more prosperous of everything they believe is imposed and integrated into a larger order.

Sincere or not, I still say those beliefs are misguided. I also suspect those same people don’t understand the complexities and nuances of individuals or humanity, as a whole. At the same time, I do think they raise an important question, which also warrants a larger thought experiment.

How much SHOULD society seek to control people?

It’s a question both sides of the political/ideological/cultural/religious spectrum grapple with, even if they don’t say it out loud. It often comes back to this. Whether it involves determine morals, crafting laws, or developing a larger culture, this is one of the most common issues.

It’s not an unreasonable concern, either. To some extent, society needs to exact some control over peoples’ behavior. Even in small, tribal settings, individual behavior can have a profound impact on others. If people just did anything they want without any regard for others, we couldn’t function. We couldn’t cooperate, coordinate, or collectively thrive.

Humans evolved to be a social species. One individual, on their own, can only do so much to function and survive. A group of individuals can achieve so much more. With a large enough group, we can create a civilization that can literally reshape the face of the planet.

That kind of coordination requires some level of control over the individual. Whether it’s by punishing or shaming certain behaviors or strongly encouraging others, we need some mechanism for maintaining social cohesion. It’s just a matter of extent.

Some ideologies go to incredible extremes. Religious conservatives can be particularly draconian in enforcing control. They don’t just seek to punish certain behaviors while censoring certain messages. They actively seek to police peoples’ thoughts and feelings, often in a way that’s damaging to many individuals.

Extreme liberals can be just as bad. There are those who seek to not just punish those who do so much as tell an offensive joke or depict video game characters in a way that’s too sexual. They seek to punish individuals in the present for the actions of those in the past. Like their religious counterparts, they also attempt to police others’ thoughts.

Then, you’ve got the extreme libertarians who try to minimize social control to the greatest extend possible. I would argue that too is not practical, if only because it ignores the nuances and complexities necessary for a functioning society at large.

For most people and societies, the extent of the control they impose varies. In some places, free speech is protected while in others, it’s tempered in the name of ensuring social harmony. The same goes for things like encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, like drinking, gambling, or promiscuous sex. Some involve laws while others involve shaming. The goal is still the same.

It all comes back to control. To complicate things even more, some individuals require less control than others. There are those who are perfectly responsible and don’t need the law or shaming to be decent, upstanding members of society. There are also those who are just pathologically incapable of following the rules and getting along with other people. What does society do about them?

I understand I’m using “society” in a broad, generalized term. That’s because the question, and any thought experiment surrounding it, needs to focus on the bigger picture. I know that’s not easy for any one individual. Like I said, we all have our biases, prejudices, and predispositions. We also tend to believe we’re right and are generally resistant to change.

I maintain that’s exactly why we should ask questions like this. It’s also why we should dare to think about how much or how little we control one another on a societal level. Civilization and society, for all the wonders they achieve, is an ongoing process. That means there are always opportunities for refinement. We can and should take every opportunity to do so.

If you have any insights on this thought experiment, please share them in the comments. Also, if you have any thought experiments you’d like me to discuss, please share those as well.

1 Comment

Filed under philosophy, politics, Thought Experiment

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

January 9, 2021 · 9:09 am

Jack’s World: The Utopian/Dystopian Dynamics Of “Demolition Man”

The following is a YouTube video for my YouTube channel, Jack’s World. It’s a somewhat lengthy video essay on one of my favorite action movies of all time, “Demolition Man.” I’ve written about this movie before. It’s one of those rare movies that has only gotten better with age and only gets better, the more you delve into it. This video highlights a few key themes that should help you appreciate the movie even more. Enjoy!

Leave a comment

Filed under Jack's World, movies, YouTube

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

December 8, 2020 · 5:53 am

Florida Strip Club Owners Lobbying To Lower Dancer Age Limit From 21 To 18: Do They Have A Point?

At what point does someone transition into an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities?

It’s not an unreasonable question. It’s also not easy to answer. There are plenty of laws regarding age limits and how people under a certain age are judged. I’m not a lawyer, but I do understand the intent. There are some things that children and people below a certain age just shouldn’t be able to do in a civil society.

At the same time, I don’t deny that not every adult is capable and not every child is ignorant. I’ve known people over 40 who have the maturity level of a 15-year-old. I’ve also known kids who are more mature than people twice their age. Everybody is different in terms of how and to what extent they mature. Some can handle adult situations better than others.

That brings me to strippers. I’m sure I have your attention now.

I bring it up because, this past year, a few strip club owners have been making waves in the news. Specifically, they’ve been protesting a law in Jacksonville from February 2020 that changes the minimum permissible age for a stripper from 18 to 21. That contrasts from many other jurisdictions, in which the minimum age is 18.

However, as what happened with the legal drinking age, this has become somewhat of a legal trend. Other jurisdictions have been seeking to raise the age limit, as well. They’re often met with protests, but so far the limits have been upheld. That may change with this case, as reported by AP News.

AP News: Jacksonville strip clubs fight to lower dancer age to 18

A lawyer representing 13 clubs and four dancers in Jacksonville argued before a federal judge that dancing is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment.

“This is just a ban on speech,” attorney Gary Edinger said.

The city law currently bans dancers under the age of 21 and was passed in an effort to reduce sex trafficking. The measure also requires dancer to have ID city-issued cards.

City attorneys said younger people are more susceptible to the coercion that’s often part of trafficking and argued that 21 is a safer age.

Now, set aside your feelings towards strip clubs for a moment. As someone who has been to more than a few and had a genuinely good time, I’ll make that effort too. I understand that, being a man, my perspective is going to be skewed. I still think it’s a relevant issue. Beyond the titillating undertones, there’s a bigger picture here worth considering.

It goes back to the questions I raised earlier about when someone becomes a legal adult. For much of the United States, reaching age 18 is often seen as a major milestone. It’s the age when you can become legally emancipated, which permits you to do all sorts of things like buy a car, buy a place of your own, and sign a contract.

What is it about that age that is so special? Legally speaking, it’s fairly arbitrary. We, as a society, just agreed that most people when they reach this age are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. Sure, some take longer than others. Some reach that point before that age. It’s an imperfect judgement for an imperfect society.

However, we do make some exceptions, as we did with alcohol. Now, I don’t know if that exception is warranted. When I was in high school, I knew plenty of people under the age of 21 who drank regularly. Most were fairly responsible. A few couldn’t handle it. They’re just lucky Instagram wasn’t around back then.

If that exception is so flimsy, then what makes 21 better than 18 when it comes to strippers? We’re not talking about ingesting a substance that can kill you if taken in large quantities. We’re talking about people being allowed to show off their sexy bodies for willing customers. What’s the justification for raising the age requirements just three years?

The lawyers say that it’s a means of combating human trafficking. That’s a perfectly respectable effort, but one that is often misused and abused to attack the sex industry, as a whole. It can also be very counterproductive, as I’ve noted before. I can’t find any evidence at how raising the minimum affects human trafficking, but I doubt the lawyers involved in this case need it to win the argument.

You’ll never lose political points for saying you’re against human trafficking. The problem is when your efforts are largely symbolic or arbitrary, the results will lack substance.

Beyond this shallow justification, it’s also inconsistent. How can we explain to a legal adult that 18 is not old enough to allow them to strip for money? At 18, you can legally skydive, give blood, and join the military. All three of those activities come with dangers, but we let 18-year-olds consent to doing them. So, why do we make an exception for stripping?

Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I have a hard time justifying that exception. I’ve heard coherent arguments about the drinking age being 21. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument about making the minimum stripper age 21.

Just saying it’ll help combat human trafficking isn’t enough. I’d like to see some evidence of that. I’d also like to understand why it’s still legal for an 18-year-old to have consensual sex, but they need to wait another three years before they can get naked for money. That just too arbitrary and inconsistent.

I understand age limits will always be arbitrary to some extent. I also understand that people get very uncomfortable when it comes to sex, nudity, and the people who do it for a living. We can never stop people from being horny or doing sexy things for money. We should have some reasonable regulations in place to govern that sort of thing. My question here is simple. Is raising the age requirements for strippers to 21 reasonable? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, gender issues, men's issues, political correctness, politics, prostitution, sex in media, sex in society, sexuality, women's issues

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

December 7, 2020 · 5:54 am

Why Liars, Cheaters, And Hypocrites Get Away With It

We all deal with them.

We all encounter them.

We all despise them on some levels.

Call them any vulgar insult you want. It’s perfectly warranted, but it doesn’t change what they do. The liars, cheaters, and hypocrites of this world will keep doing it. They’ll keep lying to your face, cheating you out of money, and breaking promises or precedents without a second thought.

I know it’s a depressing thought. It has become a lot more in our collective faces in recent years, given how political rhetoric has become so heated. Both sides argue with one another. They each lie or cheat to varying degrees. They jump at the chance to call the other out on it, but nothing really changes.

They keep on lying and people who align with their politics buy into it, even when they know it’s a lie. It’s frustrating. I argue it’s gotten even more infuriating in recent years. It does, however, raise an important question.

Why do people who lie, cheat, and break promises keep getting away with it?

It’s a valid question. Nobody likes being lied to. Even kids know on some level how wrong it is. So, why does it keep happening and why does nobody seem to pay a price? Well, the very nature of those questions already answer that to some extent.

In short, people keep getting away with it because they never get punished, pay a price, or face any consequences for their dishonesty.

It’s not a very comforting answer, I know. It’s probably just as infuriating as being lied to. That doesn’t make it any less true.

Think about it. What price does someone really pay for lying? Sure, there’s the accompanying guilt that comes with it, but for some people, that’s not much of a price. You don’t have to be a psychopath incapable of guilt to lie. You just have to be capable of enduring the momentary discomfort that comes with it.

That’s not much of a price for certain people, especially when there’s money to be made and power to be gained. Granted, certain liars and hypocrites will lose credibility with certain people. Lie too much to one person and they won’t trust you, let alone be inclined to do you any favors.

On a larger scale, though, that’s less of an issue. Add mass media and the internet to the mix and it’s basically an afterthought. Right now, anyone can tweet or post some completely dishonest information to any number of major sites.

They could claim a certain politician beat up a child.

They could claim that a certain celebrity sexually assaulted someone.

They could claim that the theory of evolution is a plot by the Illuminati to keep people from finding out about the shape-shifting lizard people that secretly run our government.

That last one is a real conspiracy theory that some people actually believe, by the way. I wish I had made up something that absurd.

Some of these lies may incur lawsuits or blocks, but again, is that really much of a price? Some people can afford frivolous lawsuits. Many don’t care if certain people block them. Even when major websites try to clamp down on it, that only seems to fuel the liars.

That’s another critical element as to why it keeps happening. Not only do liars, cheats, and hypocrites pay little to no price for their dishonesty. In some cases, they’re rewarded. In some cases, the reward is huge.

We may hate hypocrites and liars, but so long as they have something to gain and little to lose, not much will stop them. If they have no sense of guilt or shame, as many politicians and CEOs often do, they have every incentive to do what they do. There’s just too much money and power to be gained.

On top of that, there are some people who want to believe in their lies. Everyone has their own reason for doing so. It often boils down to the lies being more appealing than the truth or reinforcing some position they already have. Whatever their reason, they keep give even more incentives to those willing to exploit that inclination.

I say this not to be dire, although I don’t deny the election last month is a motivating factor. I offer this as a means of adding perspective to those frustrated by the dishonesty and hypocrisy that seems so prevalent, no matter where you look.

There’s a reason it’s there and is a painfully valid reason. As long as the liars, cheaters, and hypocrites we despise keep gaining so much and losing so little, they will continue with their deplorable behavior. They have no reason not to. It’s just the nature of our flawed world.

We can only do so much to make it less flawed. One way you can help is to keep voting, even if it’s just for the least dishonest candidate. It’s not a perfect fix, but it’s a start.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, human nature, media issues, outrage culture, philosophy, political correctness, politics, psychology, rants

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

October 26, 2020 · 5:44 am

Artificial Intelligence Is Learning Law: Is Government Next?

It’s inevitable. As technology advances, certain industries are going to become obsolete. That’s why the horse-and-buggy industry is incredibly limited. It’s also why companies don’t make typewriters or LaserDisk movies anymore. Once better tech becomes available, an industry either adapts or disappears. Just ask Blockbuster.

Sometimes, it’s obvious that an industry is becoming obsolete. Again, just ask Blockbuster. As soon as something better, easier, and more convenient comes along, it’s only a matter of time before it takes over. However, it’s when things aren’t quite as obvious where more dramatic changes occur.

In terms of dramatic change, few things have the potential to generate more than artificial intelligence. I’ve highlighted that many times before, but a lot of that potential depends on advances that haven’t happened yet. They’re still likely to happen at some point, which may or may not be in my lifetime. They’re just not there yet.

That said, AI doesn’t have to become advanced on the level of Skynet or Hal 9000 to impact and/or disrupt major industries. The AI technology we have now is already having an impact. It may only be a narrow form of AI, which is AI that’s focused on performing a specific task, like playing chess. Its potential is still immense and some fields are feeling it more than others.

One industry that might feel it first is law. Now, at the risk of inspiring one too many lawyer jokes, I’m going to try and keep things general here. I’m also going to try and fit in some personal experience. I know some lawyers personally. I’ve been in law offices and I’ve seen how they work. You don’t have to be that much a visionary to understand how AI could change this industry entirely.

Recently, TechNews did a story on how artificial intelligence is learning basic legal operations and learning it quite well. Given the massive amounts of data and technicalities included in American law, a narrow AI is ideally suited to handle such tasks. However, I don’t think the piece fully grasps the implications.

TechNews: Lawyers Beware: Artificial Intelligence Is Learning Law – And Doing Frighteningly Well

AI or artificial intelligence is starting to find its footing in the legal field. The world is now on the brink of revolution in legal profession spearheaded with the extensive use of AI in the entire industry, specifically by the in-house lawyers.

Just like how email greatly changed the way people conduct their business on a daily basis, AI is also expected to become an ever-present force and an invaluable assistant to almost all lawyers.

But the million-dollar question now is, what does the future look like for AI as far as the legal industry is concerned? A much bigger question is, will AI soon replace real life lawyers?

These are not unreasonable questions. What will happen to the current legal industry if much of the legal grunt-work can be handled by an AI? What will happen to the industry when it’s no longer necessary to have a huge team of overpaid lawyers to conduct competent legal operations?

As someone who has been in his share of law offices, I can make a few educated guesses. I can easily imagine firms shrinking their office space, but expanding their operations. Most of the legal offices I’ve gone to dedicate 80 percent of their office space to storing documents and secure research material. Very little is left or necessary for the actual people doing the work.

The recent pandemic has only revealed that plenty of this work can be done form home or remotely. Some legal proceedings are even unfolding through Zoom calls, albeit with mixed results. It’s a step in that it undermines and disrupts the traditional model for handling the law. It also raises a much larger question that the TechNews article didn’t ask.

Once AI learns the law, then is learning government next?

It’s a natural progression. Governments make and administer laws. An AI that specializes in the law would also have to learn government, as well. A narrow AI might be able to process the general bureaucracy of a government, but what happens when those systems become more advanced?

I’m not just talking about a scenario where an AI becomes the government, which I’ve already speculated on. An AI that has perfect expertise in both law and government operations could have many less obvious effects. Inefficiencies that often go unnoticed in a bureaucracy are suddenly harder to overlook. Inconsistencies that rarely get fixed, due to that bureaucracy, can finally be remedied.

In theory, a sufficiently advanced AI, which need not be as intelligent as a human, could do more than just document legal and government proceedings. It could formulate new laws and policies on its own. Some may seem outrageous from a basic non-lawyer human perspective, but make perfect sense within a functioning legal system or government.

It may still seem like just another tool for lawyers to stay organized, but I think it could be more than that. If an AI makes both legal and government systems more efficient, then what will that mean for those in government? Would politicians be better able to implement their agenda if they have tools like AI at their disposal? Would that necessarily be a good thing?

This is where things get both tricky and political. No matter how confident you are in your political persuasions, the party you favor will not always be in power.

It may seem like politics is trending a certain way, but those trends change quickly. People who think their party is strong now can’t imagine a time when they’ll lose that strength. It happens regularly in any democracy.

Like it or not, your party will one day be out of power. When that happens, do you want the other party having a more efficient means of implementing their policies?

I’m sure everyone’s answer to that question will vary. What no one is certain of is how we’ll keep up with ever-improving AI systems, regardless of what industry they’re in. It’s one thing for a system to make it easier to stream movies or keep track of groceries. It’s quite another when it becomes intimately involved with our laws and our government.

The TechNews article expressed some concern, but only with respect to how it affects the current law industry. I believe AI, even if it’s focused only on law, will have a far larger impact. That’s not to say that AI will render law firms and governments obsolete.

If ever there was one domain in which foresight is critical, it’s this. Some industries can and should become obsolete. Others, like how we govern our society, need a more careful approach. We simply cannot afford our laws and our government to end up like Blockbuster.

3 Comments

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, Current Events, human nature, Neuralink, politics, technology

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

February 24, 2020 · 5:56 am

How Do We Regulate Artificial Intelligence? Seriously, How?

In general, I don’t pay much attention to doomsayers who claim the end is near and we should all cower, tremble, and give them our credit card number. Don’t get me wrong. I still believe there are serious existential threats facing humanity today. Some are worth taking seriously and dedicating resources to addressing. Others are not. Some simply require a more balanced perspective.

There’s a long list of failed apocalyptic predictions. The fact we’re surviving and thriving by most measures shows just how resilient, adaptable, and capable humanity is. There are some threats that I believe humanity will eventually resolve, thanks largely to our accelerating progress in science, technology, and logistics.

Others, however, have me more concerned. While some are more immediate than others, one in particular continues to confound me, as well as some of the smartest people in the world. It involves artificial intelligence, an emerging technology that’s as promising as it is unpredictable. Given the complexity of this technology, it’s difficult to explain in totality, but it can be best summed up by one simple question.

How do you regulate artificial intelligence?

That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s not a thought experiment either. It’s a serious, honest question that people far smarter and far more capable than me are just starting to ask.

Elon Musk is one of them. Very recently, he called for more regulation on artificial intelligence. That, alone, should be both telling and worrying. This man is a billionaire. Usually, billionaires are more inclined advocate removing regulations. Whenever they make an exception, that’s a sign they know it’s serious.

Even though Musk is one of the top advocates for solving big problems with technology, he still has concerns about the problems associated with artificial intelligence. In AI circles, it’s often called the control problem. It’s not a very creative name, but it gets the point across.

How do you control something that is potentially as smart, if not smarter than a human?

How do you manage something that thinks, adapts, and evolves faster than any machine or living thing?

How do you regulate an artificial intelligence that was built by humans, but isn’t at all human?

These are all difficult questions to contemplate, let alone legislate. Even Musk doesn’t provide specifics. Chances are he doesn’t know any more than the rest of the non-billionaire population. That’s a problem because if we’re going to try and regulate this technology, we need to understand it. On top of that, politicians and lawmakers have a long and embarrassing history of failing to understand technology.

However, this isn’t just about writing laws that protect citizens from being exploited by tech companies. Artificial intelligence, especially the kind that exceeds human intelligence, has capabilities that go beyond sending text messages from bathroom stalls. If handled improperly, it wouldn’t just be an existential threat. It could destroy humanity in ways we literally cannot contemplate.

Now, I try to be an optimist in most things involving emerging technology. Humanity has found a way to manage dangerous technology before, namely with nuclear weapons. However, artificial intelligence is a different beast entirely. Regulating it isn’t as easy as simply controlling the materials that make it. The very concept of regulating this technology lacks precedent.

The closest we have to date is Isaac Asimov’s famous three laws of robotics, which were introduced in 1942. Asimov was a brilliant writer and very ahead of his time on some concepts, but this is one issue where we need more than just three simple tenants. We need to think bigger and bolder. If we don’t, then an advanced artificial intelligence will quickly leave us behind.

After that, it won’t matter what kind of regulations we try to pass. It’ll be smart enough to circumvent them. That doesn’t mean humanity is doomed at that point, but we’ll be distressingly vulnerable. I know it’s in our nature to procrastinate on things we don’t see as vital, but if ever there was an issue to make an exception, this is it.

2 Comments

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, biotechnology, futurism, philosophy, technology, Thought Experiment

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

February 20, 2020 · 6:03 am

Laws Regulating Sex Robots: A First Draft

Sex robots are coming, literally and figuratively. That’s not just a bit of dirty innuendo from someone who often writes sexy stories around it. That’s an objective fact. Bill Maher’s recent rant about it was just the latest. Rest assured, there will be more.

There will be a lot of doom-saying and fear-mongering. There’s already an organized campaign against sex robots. That’s to be expected. There’s always that kind of rhetoric when new technology or trends emerge. I’m old enough to remember when parents, politicians, and pundits thought TV was going to ruin an entire generation. If someone told them about social media, they might have had a heart attack.

As sex robots get more advanced and become more mainstream, expect to hear from those same people. They’ll bemoan how this latest trend will destroy the culture. Unlike jazz, rock music, Elvis’ hips, MTV, cartoon violence, and marijuana, this might actually do it. If I could write that with any more sarcasm, I would.

As annoyingly absurd as these comments are sure to be, I don’t deny that sex robots raises some serious issues. I’ve covered a few of them in discussing this issue. I’m sure there are plenty more that I’ve yet to explore. In the meantime, I’d like to try and confront some of those concerns that I’m sure the doom-sayers of the near-future will bring up.

Technology progresses rapidly, but the law rarely keeps up. Given how many laws there are regarding sex, some more archaic than others, it’s inevitable that sex robots will be subject to some form of regulation. It’s hard to contemplate how far that regulation will go. Some might go so far as to try and ban sex robots altogether. I doubt that will ever fly, if only because there’s way too much money to be made.

Even if sex robots are illegal, they’ll still arise. Human beings are just too horny, too lonely, and too greedy to ignore their potential for ever. For that reason, I’d like to propose a first draft for appropriate regulations regarding sex robots. Now, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not at all qualified to make legal arguments.

However, someone will have to take this seriously at some point. When it comes to a technology as disruptive and groundbreaking as sex robots, we need to be proactive. As such, here are my preliminary laws for the regulation, sale, and use of sex robots. If anyone has any ideas to tweak or add to them, please present them in the comments.

Also, if you’re a lawyer or a lawmaker, please take this seriously. Do not let the discussion be guided by the same people who claimed Elivs’ hips would ruin America’s youth.

Law #1: The law shall hereby distinguish sex robots from sex dolls insofar as a sex doll is considered a sex toy, and subject to all current laws governing their sale, but a sex robot is classified as a robot with measure of intelligence that is designed specifically for engaging in sexual activity with another person.

Law #2: No individual under the age of 16 shall be permitted to purchase a sex robot.

Law #3: The production, sale, and distribution of sex robots shall be subject to common industry standards that are to be agreed upon by all producers and subject to approval by the courts.

Law #4: The production, sale, and distribution of sex robots that resemble children or individuals of a pre-pubescent appearance is illegal and shall be punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Law #5: The production, sale, and distribution of sex robots that facilitate the act of rape, assault, or coercive conduct against another person is illegal and shall be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Law #6: The production, sale, and distribution of sex robots programmed to cause serious harm, injury, or death to a person is illegal and any person, persons, or organizations that create such items are henceforth liable.

Law #6: The production, sale, or distribution of sex robots designed to resemble a specific person without their explicit consent and/or fair compensation is illegal.

Law #7: It is unlawful to engage in sexual activity with a sex robot in a public area or any area that would constitute a disturbance of the peace. Violators will be subject to local ordinances governing indecency.

1 Comment

Filed under sex robots, Thought Experiment

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