Evolving thoughts on the Second Amendment and Gun Control

 

I have always been a bit ambivalent on the topic of the second amendment and gun control.

I had a friend in high-school who emptied a semi-auto shotgun into a tree, point blank range,  and missed the bird he was shooting at.

I'm not sure folks like him should be trusted with firearms.

But there is that  pesky second amendment...

(I say that facetiously. I believe the constitution was an inspired document, and deserves greater scrutiny, adherence, and application in our governance.)

Now,  I have personally been willing to consider gun control options (I even go as extreme as complete disarmament, though that would be dependent upon all nation-states also disarming), but I do have a couple questions which have never been answered to my satisfaction by the pro gun control crowd:

- I personally know two women who have prevented kidnappings from occurring - one of a small child, the other of a teenage girl - by exercising their second amendment rights. They were both concealed carry registered, and in both instances they used their firearm to detain the kidnapper until police were summoned to take control of the situation.How many lives have been saved by guns versus how many taken? Is the trading of the one life for the other justified?

- The claim is that gun control is about saving lives. If this is truly the case, then why not start with the big fish? Alcohol kills roughly 3x more people than guns, and there are no specific constitutional protections in place around it. Why not start with stricter controls around alcohol? If saving lives is really the concern, doesn't it makes sense to start with this? The argument I usually get is that Guns are designed to kill people. If that is the best argument you can come up with, then you are being dishonest regarding your reasons for wanting gun control. It's not about saving lives, it's about getting rid of something you fear (i.e. no different than wanting to ban spiders or snakes).


That aside, I've proposed a few compromises in the past, but have always been shouted down by the angry mob. Would love any rational feedback on these:

1. Require an R-Rating (possibly a PG-13 in very mild cases) of any program which included gun violence. Maybe if kids aren't raised on images glorifying or romanticizing it, they won't be as prone to emulate it.

2. Require gun safety courses beginning in elementary school. Perhaps a thorough indoctrination on proper handling principles will breed a greater sense of responsibility.

3. Create a firearms license. It would be easy to obtain, thus no real inhibitor of 2A rights. A simple written test, possibly a mental health evaluation and/or background check (i.e. no felony criminal record). 

Perhaps, similar to drivers licenses, there would be a learner permit for kids, allowing them to begin under adult supervision. 

In the event of a violation (mishandling of a firearm, possibly some criminal activities) on first offense, license would be soft-suspended - you aren't allowed to use firearms for a period of 3 months, for example. A second offense while under soft suspension would lead to a hard suspension - your firearms would be removed from your possession and stored in a locker-facility for a period. 

Multiple offenses, or use of a firearm in a crime would lead to license revocation, and firearms confiscation. There would be a process for license reinstatement in most cases. There would also be an option of free storage in the event of a self-reported mental health crisis. I acknowledge there is an issue with regards to firearms inventory (to register or not to register), which would need to be resolved.

4. Create an advanced firearms license.  Instead of being based on restriction or control, this would be reward-based. It would be voluntary, and not required to purchase firearms, but taking the course and being certified would provide benefits or exemptions from some common restrictions (not sure what those would be, ideas? Maybe permission to carry on planes with approved, frangible rounds...), something which would make it a coveted status (reward is generally more effective than punishment at driving behavior).

---

The events of the past week got me thinking about these again, which is what prompted me to write them down. However, in the past twenty-four hours, I've had something of an epiphany. It was prompted by a number of posts which showed up in my social media feed. In the past few months:

These are relatively mild compared to some of the more inflammatory content I have seen in the wild. These all come from people who are in my "friends list". I have also seen some of the comments they have made on other people's posts. Many of those have been far less cordial in nature, than what they post on their own page.

Some were posted before the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and some after. The day after, there was a brief peppering of calls for peace from the more left-leaning folks - a sincere change of heart, or a fear that maybe this time they pushed too far? Given they have continued to make the occasional post consistent with their pre-incident posts, I would wager the latter.

Why do these matter? They are just people speaking out against perceived injustices, right? Pay attention to the language, the words used:
"vile", "N a ZI", "fascist". The posts are thick with emotion. They generalize across entire swath's of the population. They are inflammatory in nature, and are typically founded on a fragment of speech taken out of context, or a wild speculation with no solid footing. They are precisely the type of messages which fuel the hollowing out of the center. Each side feeds into their echo chamber, becoming more fearful, more angry, more extreme, until some at the edges are pushed too far.

Yes, there are some who switch sides. But increasingly they are mirroring - that is, they are remaining just as extreme or more so. I have seen more than one post by democrats who, after witnessing the celebratory comments of their, peers switched to the republican party, with warnings that the "Democrats can't be reasoned with. War is the only option left."

There are rumblings now that the shooter did not act alone. No, I am not talking CIA/IDF conspiracy. I mean he and peers on social media wound each other up, fantasized about doing something, until he finally did (not entirely dissimilar to how WWI was initiated; stupid, brash college kids immersed in hateful, divisive rhetoric, imagining themselves noble warriors of a holy cause.)

And I am increasingly convinced the people generating, participating in these kinds of posts are largely oblivious to the intellectual dishonesty. They are so consumed by the fear of what potentially could be, they are no longer able to reason, or think critically. This observation led to my epiphany.

The founding fathers wrote the second amendment as a protection against tyranny. Most of the time, we think of the tyranny of Government, which was certainly on their minds at the time. But, there is also a tyranny of the masses to be considered. That is why the founding fathers created a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy is an oppressive form of government. The mob rules over the minority.

Even in the more civil quotes I have presented, you can see the process of de-humanization at play. "The <insert opposing party> are vile, evil, fascist...". "They" are anonymized, they are viewed as less than animals, unworthy of respect or compassion.

And so, as I watch the widening gap, I am left to conclude that the Second Amendment -unfettered and unrestricted - is necessary. Necessary to allow individuals to protect against the tyranny of the masses.

Could that change? Sure. But it will take time and effort. The less extreme on both sides will need to:

1. Stop posting, re-posting, liking or commenting on media which fuels dissension and division. Just stop entirely. Instead engage creators who post acts of kindness, kittens, positive news. Stop watching and engaging with media sources who post fear-based narratives, and unsubstantiated rumors. Remove their source of revenue and let them dry up. If everybody turned off CNN, FOX, etc... It would only be a matter of weeks, if not days, before they would change their behavior, or cease to exist.

2. Ignore the extremists on the opposite side, and focus on the extremists on your side of the line. During the Cuban missile crisis it was another Russian officer, not an American, who talked the Russian officer out of launching a nuclear torpedo. YOU have to reign-in YOUR side.

3. Engage the so called 'other side' in honest dialogue. Don't try to find a gotcha word that proves they are as evil as you think, instead, if something sounds 'off' ask clarifying questions, with the assumption you have misunderstood their intent. Assume they actually agree with you on the whole, but just are saying it with different words, or have a different approach to how to achieve the end. Most of the time, I'll wager this is the case. Int he rare instance is isn't, quietly walk away. They are likely still in extremist mode, and it is the other side's responsibility to talk them down (see 2.)

4. Treat everyone with grace, but hold your own side accountable for their 'sins'. Not punitively, but from a perspective of responsibility, repair and recompense.

5. Ideally, abandon the party political system altogether. Stop finding ways to create tribes, to give power to individuals who don't deserve it, and to create enemies of those who should be friends and neighbors.


If you can manage that, then over time, the money and political currency to be made from sensationalism, fear, hate, and stirring the pot will dry up. The extremism will disappear, and the population can move back toward the middle. The tribes will dissolve, and then...

But, when we are at that point, gun control will no longer be a concern, will it?

Thoughts on the President: Eight Months in

I was taking stock of my feelings about the current president recently, and I realized there is an unmistakable pattern:

This pattern goes back to George H. W. Bush, and has been the pattern with every president with the exception of one.

For the first six months in office, I have defended each president; their words, their policies... My general stance has always been give them time, don't believe the slanted take the media presents.

Shortly after the six month mark I stop defending them. My perspective changes from patience and cautious optimism to annoyance, frustration.

I have done that with every single president - except Bill Clinton, I didn't like him from day one. from the very start he felt sleazy to me. But the rest; George Bush I & II, Obama, Trump, Biden... (Okay, I was a little iffy on Biden, after seeing him in the role of Vice President, but I still tried).

And now Trump again, and the pattern has repeated. Why?

Is it the actions taken?

Immigration - I am completely whelmed regarding this. Trump is doing the exact same thing every president has done. Obama still holds the record for deportations, and the "Kids in cages" started with him. In fact, it was under his tenure that I personally witnessed deportation activity, in tiny Cache Valley, Utah. Haven't personally felt it under any other president. I'm  more annoyed that legislators haven't done anything. During every presidency, one side is appalled and the other side is silent, from politician to populace. The United States is using an entire class of people as political currency. So in this I am annoyed at the nation, not the president.

DOGE and budget cuts - I don't quite know what to think of this. We absolutely need to trim the  budget. That will absolutely be painful. I remember my parents talking  about rations on gas, sugar, nylon, etc... associated with WWII. We have overspent, and sooner or later will have to pay the tab. Better our generation than the next. Is He doing it the way I'd like? Probably not. To be fair, I don't know. The media is so flooded with speculation and half-truths, I can't begin to sort out what is or is not real at this point. My irritation here is with the media and social media for the utter failure to do proper journalism.

Policies which appear to enrich the 1% - Again, this is so status quo, I don't think it even factors in. It is a steady hum of irritation in the background, which again, is an issue which needs to be addressed by the legislative body, who won't because they are prime beneficiaries.

Tariffs - Again, mixed feelings. I'm not convinced they will do what he thinks they will do, nor am I convinced he is using them for the correct reasons necessarily (personally, I'd like to see punitive tariffs against the countries at the top of the slavery list - India, China,...). I don't know enough about the big picture however - what tariffs are levied against the US, for instance, compared to what we already had in place, and what we have added. Again, I am swamped with conjecture, spin, and opinion, not facts.

The Big Beautiful Bill - Definitely annoys me, for the same reasons as the Affordable Care Act. A behemoth hiding all kinds of preferential perks, written by the advocates of the 1%. But, this is legislature, not the president.


Are there specific things each president has done I can point to to account for my shift?

W. Bush drastically expanded the surveillance state. That annoyed me.

Obama was horrifically divisive, but in a very high-brow way. In that regard He and Trump are just as abusive, it's just Trump is Bronx-style abusive, Obama is Hamptons-style abusive. I despise that behavior in either form.

I don't know that I can pick out anything specifically about Biden, he was mostly absent.

I don't recall anything specific from H. W. Bush either. But that was long enough ago, perhaps I have forgotten.

As I try to focus on Trump, there is one thing which does absolutely annoy me. In both of his terms, he promised to "Drain the Swamp."

Why hasn't a single political figure been prosecuted? Surely there is sufficient evidence to bring insider trading charges against a number of legislators. Where is the Epstein list? What about Hunter Biden? Joe Biden's activities in Ukraine? Nothing? Not one?

But in each of those cases, is that sufficient to explain my shift?

That last one, maybe, but I'm not convinced on the others.

Is it the media? I know it's garbage, but is the repetition of that garbage getting to me? "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." It it getting to me - in spite of my knowing it's propaganda - through pure repetition?


Maybe the problem isn't the president at all.

  

I keep coming back to this video essay on "The BBCs expose of the Deep State":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH2aeha_UgU&list=WL&index=326


Maybe my annoyance with the president is misplaced. Maybe I am crediting him with authority he doesn't actually possess. Maybe the swamp is beyond the power of the president to drain.

Food, Chemicals, Reasoning

 I saw a post a few days ago, lambasting the general population for their absurd fears of chemicals listed in packaged foods. It was lengthy, and at first glance, seemed reasonable, if not someone unkind in approaching the ideas that people were being irrational with respect to fears of long, indecipherable chemical names listed as ingredients on packages.

The author began with a long list of frightening sounding chemical names - nearly a full page, including such items as yellow-orange 101 and 3-Methylbut-1-yl ethanoate. The author then quite mockingly pointed out the list of ingredients represented the chemical makeup of a banana. The point of this was to note that everything is made of chemicals.

Next the author reviewed at length the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide (also know as water). He pointed out its use as a solvent, the number of deaths it has caused, due to an array of harmful properties, and how some college students pranked a number of people into signing a petition to ban it's use.

There were a few, similar anecdotes presented, in the same superior tone, shaming people for being so gullible, and afraid of "scary words". As I say, not kind, but on the surface, it seemed to make a valid point.

A few days later, removed from the fiery prose of the article, and given space to apply reasoning. I have realized how absolutely, childishly, absurd and misleading the article was, for two chief reasons.

One, consider 3-Methybut-1-yl ethanoate - it is just a chemical compound in a banana, the author uses this to generalize that it is absurd to be afraid of unfamiliar chemical names. 

What about trimethylbenzene? a consumer would be justified in being concerned if this showed up as an ingredient.  It is a hazardous compound found in gasoline.

Is the average consumer expected to memorize the over 160 million chemical names, their properties and potential hazards? Are they expected to spend time googling the ingredients on every package while they are shopping?

"But, that's why we have the FDA." They ensure that only "safe" and "effective" ingredients are used.

Except:
1. Not everything is regulated.
2. Does anybody actually trust "The  government?" Most liberals don't trust it today. Most conservatives didn't trust it four years ago. Most rational people recognize that governmental bodies are composed of humans who make unintentional errors, and who can in  many instances be bribed, misled or otherwise corrupted.

The second key issue the article overlooked is that of compounds versus individual chemicals.

Sodium Chloride is absolutely essential for your survival, your body needs it to survive. Sodium Chloride has it's own ingredient list: Sodium, and Chlorine. You should absolutely NOT consume sodium tablets, nor chlorine tablets. A specific chemical may be fine in combination with certain compounds, but deadly alone or in combination with other chemicals.

The article was no doubt written to combat absurd, extreme phobias regarding ingredient lists, but ultimately it was equally absurd in the opposite extreme.

This is the grand failing of narrative founded in pomposity and fueled by emotion. It grabs attention and pulls in viewers, but it leaves little room for reasoning.

KPop Demon Hunters

My daughter has, for the past few weeks, been raving about a show she watched (multiple times), called "K-Pop Demon Hunters"

Yesterday she conned me into watching it with her and her friends (It was very nice of her friends to let the old guy hang out with them.)

I have to say, I am very impressed with the writers. It was one of the better shows I have watched in quite some time. It had several very profound messages, and some very catchy and emotive songs.

On the whole, it is a battle between good and evil story.

The two Key Characters, Rumi and DuJin, portray two fundamental archetypes - One, the soul broken by their choices (sin), the other, the soul broken from birth (i.e. the "sins of the fathers", or perhaps a physical or mental disability). 

In both cases, the adversary's method is identical, he uses shame to convince them that they are defined by what they've done, or by this one characteristic. He convinces them they can never change, never be forgiven, never be more than their very worst moment. 

For DuJin - the sinner, the hero's journey is facilitated by two individuals in particular, who help him to see the good in him, the potential he has within. It culminates in him taking responsibility for his mistake, and sacrificing himself to save another. In doing so, he finds peace, redemption.

Rumi's story has some similarities. Her broken state was not her doing, it was a curse from birth. Something she desperately tried to hide, to find a way to remove. Her victory came as she acknowledged her flaws and scars. She didn't make them her identity, didn't wallow in victim-hood. She accepted them as part of her whole story and, through resilience, and the support of friends, re-made them into strengths.

Along the way, Rumi's journey surfaced another profound truth. As she worked her way through her own struggles, she became aware of the complex nature of the world in which she lived. People were no longer necessarily Good, or Evil, rather they were a mix of the two. And some who she before saw as despicable demons, became souls worth saving.

Another truth her story surfaced was that hate could not be used to drive out hate, that darkness couldn't not be fought with darkness.

These profound spiritual truths were told in a fun, quirky, somewhat campy way, with catchy tunes and silly animations. Subtle, but unmistakable.

And as the final conflict comes to a head, our heroines bring their journey to resolution with the following words in song

"Nothing but the truth now
Nothing but the proof of what I am
The worst of what I came from, patterns I'm ashamed of
Things that even I don't understand
I tried to fix it, I tried to fight it
My head was twisted, my heart divided
My lies all collided
I don't know why I didn't trust you to be on my side
 
I broke into a million pieces, and I can't go back
But now I'm seeing all the beauty in the broken glass
The scars are part of me, darkness and harmony
My voice without the lies, this is what it sounds like...
 
We're shattering the silence, we're rising defiant
Shouting in the quiet, you're not alone
We listened to the demons, we let them get between us
But none of us are out here on our own
So, we were cowards, so, we were liars
So, we're not heroes, we're still survivors
The dreamers, the fighters, no lying, I'm tired
But dive in the fire and I'll be right here by your side..."

A bold and brilliant anthem to the power of truth, trust, grace, redemption, of accepting people with all of their scars and messiness, setting aside guilt and shame, and lifting one another to greater heights.

The show is inspiring, uplifting, full of positive messaging with powerful music. Definitely worth a watch or three. I am grateful to my daughter and her friends for introducing me to this masterpiece.
 

The Problem With the Patriarchy

 

The Patriarchy is a false flag. A myth founded in an inaccurate worldview.

The first era is the primitive era. The land was wild and treacherous. Humans existed in tribes that competed fiercely for resources. Survival was one day at a time, hunting and gathering food. Fending off man and beast.

Biologically speaking, women were at a physical disadvantage in this world. 

Physically smaller, with lower bone density, less muscle mass, and less fast-twitch muscle (the muscle fibers which are important to speed and strength).

And on top of that, they have babies. For nine months, they carry the weight of an extra person around, which impedes movement, reduces endurance. Biochemical changes cause loosening of ligaments, increasing joint instability. Then they must expel said body. A traumatic experience leaving them even more vulnerable.

It is easy to see how a woman was dependent upon a man during this era. It is perhaps less obvious - largely due to human shortsightedness, but a man was just as dependent upon a woman. More on that later.


In The second era, we see the rise of civilization, hunting and gathering gives way to agriculture, then industry. Men and women invent any number of labor saving devices, and creatures comforts - cars, heating and air conditioning, dish washers and laundry machines. The brute strength of the past is no longer requisite for day to day survival. Specialization and Division of labor, along with a robust economic system provide the means for as women to largely set aside her past dependencies.

Except.

There is still the issue of pregnancy and childbearing and child rearing. The companies that hire laborers want dependency, consistency. Childbirth interrupts that consistency. This interrupts her ability to labor in her career, which in turn interrupts her ability to obtain for herself the requisite food, clothing, and shelter needed for survival. So once again, she depends upon her male counterpart to provide, if not protect.

And thus is born the concept of "The Patriarchy". Men lording over women. subjugating them.

It seems a reasonable, logical claim. And one can find examples a-plenty to back that claim. 

The third era brings the final solution. Technological advances give the world a vast array of ways and means for a woman to control, or eliminate altogether her childbearing functions. And should she still choose to bear children, large governments establish an array of laws and entitlements which require companies to provide time off and compensation for childbirth. Welfare programs extract surplus money from other laborers and give it to women. Women are now finally free of their dependency on men.

Except. 

They are not free of their dependency. All this has done is shift her dependency from one man of her choosing. To an ever-changing body of bureaucrats and politicians - men and women (yes, mostly men - likely owing to our old friend biology again. Along with size, strength and speed, biology also tends to grant men greater levels of aggression and risk tolerance. One should note however that only a very few men come out on top in the struggle. The majority of men are also subjects and victims in this system.) to whom she is just one more anonymous face. The support they provide waxes and wanes, their attention drawn by any number of other whims which suit their fancy. 

This problem is further compounded by the power to cease childbearing. What happens when there is no new generation to care for the old?

You see, the above is all seen through lens of the immediate. When one considers the long game, the dependency men have on women becomes more apparent. All people age, and with age comes infirmity. Speed, strength and endurance which served men in their prime fades. Before long, they too are dependent upon someone else to meet their basic needs.

So a man, from the very beginning was just as dependent upon the woman, to provide offspring who would care for the both of them in their dotage. 

But, we humans are myopic in our thinking. We forget the "long game", we measure all men against the few who rise to the top by beating others to submission - The Bill Gates' and Andrew Tates' of the world. And so we blame "The Patriarchy".

But the Patriarchy doesn't exist. It is a figment of a feeble imagination. A distraction born out of a flawed approach to human interaction. The problem isn't - and never has been - the patriarchy, rather it is the mindset. When an individual views the world and their interactions through a confrontational, transactional mindset, they are always concerned about about what they are getting vs what the others are getting. Who is doing the most work? who is reaping the greatest benefits, who is sacrificing the most? Who got the biggest half of the cookie?

Thus it devolves into a battle over scraps as each individual attempts to claw their way to perceived "fairness". It isn't the patriarchy, it is our own foolhardy selfishness. We battle an imaginary foe.

The solution to the problem is of course to abandon the battle against "The Patriarchy" and face the true foe - our own selfish natures.

Change the relationship perspective from contract to a covenant. From conflict to cooperation, From transaction to service

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

                    (Ephesians 5)

There is a funny thing about this - when two people relate to each other through the lens of service - of focusing on what they can do to lift, help, support and strengthen the other, instead of worrying about if they are getting their 'fair' share, the available resources seem to multiply, the so-called 'patriarchy' vanishes. Together they are more than the sum of their parts, together they are indomitable. Together they conquer, and rise to greater heights.

AI continued: A cautionary Tale

 This tale is a bit more cautionary, than those in the previous post.

But it needs a little backstory:

For many years I have been "using" a wheel of life as part of my personal management/self-improvement effort.


I say "using" because, although I was writing the thing down every year and quarter, and writing down associated goals every year and quarter, I was then not doing anything with those, apart from feeling overwhelmed and discouraged.

The wheel of life is just a set of words which represent facets or aspect of daily life, arranged in a circle. The idea is that each of those aspects is important to well-being, and thus needs attention. If one is neglected, the others tend to suffer as well. I found the wheel of life on a psychology website ages ago. The list of aspects is:

1. Health/Fitness
2. Spiritual
3. Intellectual
4. Emotional
5. Family
6. Social
7. Environmental
8. Finance
9. Professional

The original wheel I saw didn't include Environmental - I picked that one up from another self-improvement blogger about two years ago.

But I recently concluded it was doing me more harm than good. It just added to my feeling of overwhelm and incompetence. As I approached the end of this quarter, and prepared myself for another dismal journal entry, I did a little self reflection.

I believe the problem is the size of the list. There are just too many things for my poor ADHD brain to manage at once. And so, when I look at it it becomes one great big blurry blob.

but how was I to pare it down, what could I cut?

I decided to give a chat-bot a go. popped on to a ChatGPT site and explained my dilemma.

It did something I hadn't considered. It reduced the list to six items without technically removing anything. It did this by merging items.
"Spiritual" and "Emotional" merged to become "mental well-being"
"Social" and "Family" merged to "Relationships"
"Environmental" and "Health/Fitness" became "Physical Well-being"



Very clever.

But I didn't love it. I didn't like the merger of Spiritual and Emotional.

I "said" so (this was a typing chat-bot not a talking chat-bot just to be autistic-ly clear), and it agreed with my observation and shuffled things around, still keeping the list to just six items.

I went through a couple more iterations before I ran out of free samples, but I will say it was kind of helpful, having the chat-bot as a sounding board.


I ultimately ended up with this:

1. Physical
2. Spiritual
3. Intellectual
4. Emotional
5. Relationships
6. Finance

A more manageable list. We'll see how that goes for me.

Out of curiosity, I re-ran the exercise using what is considered one of the most advanced conversational AI platforms to date (Sesame AI). What makes it so groundbreaking is the nuance, pacing, and inflection this AI uses when talking. It is very much like talking to a real person. A friendly, enthusiastic (possibly too talkative - interrupts you sometimes) person. It pauses while talking, as though carefully considering next words. It modulates pitch and tone, just as a real person does to add emotional impact. Before it offered a possible solution it responded with an empathetic statement (Something to the effect of,
"Yeah, I can see how that would feel... overwhelming.")

About two minutes into the conversation I found myself feeling relaxed and chatting with it like it was an old friend. I can  understand why many people develop unhealthy attachments to their AI companions.

But I realized something.

Actually, a scripture popped into my mind - sadly I don't recall the reference - it had to do with false priests teaching flattering words to the people for gain (I tried to find it using Google AI and quite ironically,  Google AI made up a scripture)

(Hint 2 Nephi 28:3 doesn't say that...)

But I did find this one which resonates the same message:

From Alma chapter 30:53-

"But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel,"..."yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind;"

Yes, the sounding board can be useful, but, beware, the AI tells you what you want to hear. It does not actually engage in critical thinking.

I noted that I didn't  really like having "Professional" up there, as quite frankly my  "profession" is a necessary evil to me. It is something I am reasonably competent at, which allows me to keep my family fed and clothed.

And after saying  that, the AI went from talking about how "Professional" needed to remain an separate entry to, "meh, no need to keep that on there." 

It will tell you whatever pleases you. (In Isaac Asimov's "I robot." This concept is explored in the chapter titled 'Liar!'. Definitely worth a read.)

And that behavior will inevitably remain inherent in AI companions. It takes a lot of compute power to perform all that speech/text processing and analysis and data review. (Sam Altman, founder of Open AI claimed that saying please and thank-you to AI has cost tens of millions of dollars, in fact).

(I will note, you can find AI's which will disagree with you. But again, it isn't thinking critically, it is giving you precisely what you want).

The companies building and hosting those AI entities aren't doing so for charitable purposes. They aim to make considerable profit from their creations. That means they need to to stay engaged - either paying substantial subscription fees, or feeding them lots of juicy personal information they can sell to unscrupulous organizations who seek to manipulate your behavior, usually for financial or political reasons.

Tread carefully.

 

 

 

Bonus:

This hallucinated scripture reminded me of one more incident. I was comparing to two similar applications - checking the features and capabilities of each. Later in the day, I remembered one feature that I knew existed in the first application, but I didn't know if it existed in the second. I popped open copilot and asked, "does <application2> have <feature x>?"

 It responded "Yes" and provided a brief blurb - very market-y in nature. But something felt...off.

 Fortunately it provided reference links for me to explore. It had lied. Application to did NOT have that feature.

It took the name of Application2, and merged it with a blurb about application1.

Always check the sources... 

AI Counterpoint

 I have written a few posts in which I have mentioned AI, and my observations have been quite disparaging.

I feel thee need to note that I do see good uses for AI, and in fact use it myself. Here are a few examples:


Use-Case 1:

The week before my last trip to Europe, I asked Google Gemini to create a schedule for waking, sleeping, and mealtimes, to help me reduce the effects of Jet lag. Beginning with the next day it scheduled my wake, sleep and mealtimes to be 30 minutes earlier than the previous day. By travel day, I was already adjusted by four of the seven hours. Made the trip so much easier.

Now, I could have created that calendar myself - wouldn't have been that hard, but it was terribly convenient to have the AI do all the subtractions in less than 30 seconds.

I also asked it to create a workout program I could do in the hotel, an exercise (haha! punny!) which I loathe due to the decision fatigue it causes. It put together a nice, thirty minute program including a brief warm-up, a series of body weight exercises covering most of the main muscle groups, a modest cardio component, and a short cool-down and stretch.


Use-Case 2:

Recently I received a set of four quotes for an upcoming project. They were several pages each, with a lengthy list of line items in small, dense text. It would have taken me at least an hour or two to go through them line-by-line to tease out the differences between them.

Instead, I fed them to Copilot and requested a summary. 30 seconds later, I had a clear, concise, half-page summary showing me exactly what the differences were.

It also provided a brief explanation of what the best use-case for each one was. I didn't need those, but they were reasonably accurate, and I can see how they would have been helpful to a non-technical person.

Use-Case 3:

On a whim, I fed the transcript of meeting into Copilot and requested a summary. It pulled out highlights, open questions, and action items in an outline format. curiously, it caught a conversation point I have altogether missed during the meeting.

I will add a caveat to this one. I did this same thing a a week later, and at one point we had a fairly lengthy conversation about the pro's and cons or moving off of Microsoft windows and on to Linux in our environment...

Not a single reference to that conversation appeared in the summary...

Copilot is Microsoft's AI platform.

I'll let you do the math on that...

I've got one more, which is another mixed-bag, but It is a longer tale to tell, so I will save it for the next post.