Tacos, music and the future of America

Posted on by

This is the most effective political… not sure what to call it. Doesn’t feel like advertising or marketing although both terms apply. I’m going with “media.” The most effective political media I have ever seen. Yes, I’m sure someone came up with this and there was probably a list of talking points and they might have even tried a few minutes to see how it worked.

During my working life I did hundreds of interviews and the chemistry and sincerity that comes across in this ten minute video is hard to fake. I think these two actually like each other thereby come across as likable.

And it is a good example of what can be achieved when you stop letting the media mediate your message. A point well made by John Stoehr, editor of the Editorial Board:

“The Harris campaign is not letting the press corps wedge itself between her and voters. She is not allowing the news media to mediate her message. In effect, she’s preventing the press corps from speaking for her and, as a consequence, she’s preventing it from exercising a de facto veto on her speech. In that, she is taking power – defining her campaign as well as Trump’s. She is turning the narrative about Biden’s age (81) back against Trump’s (78), such that whatever he says in self-defense is seen as proof of the allegations against him.”

There are no rules. There is no lawbook declaring that candidates shall talk to reporters. There is a playbook, if that’s what you mean, but not a lawbook. The vice president could go the whole time without talking to one reporter and she would not have done anything morally wrong.

Full article »

Do you think any reporter is going to tell us what kind of music these people grew up with? What their childhoods were like? That’s not gonna generate clicks so no thank you. I stopped believing journalists really care about truth or honesty or protecting democracy. Maybe once upon a time. No more. Take your story directly to the people.

My most embarrassing photo

Posted on by

There must be plenty of them but nothing comes to mind. The question popped into my head after seeing photos of J. D. Vance in a blond wig and floral print skirt. A halloween photo from his college days. And former U. S. Congressman George Santos wasn’t camera-shy during his drag queen days.

Our annual Halloween parties were the social event of the year and I showed up dressed as a woman at least two of those parties. Once as a nurse, the other time as a nun.

The nun photo is memorable because Barb and both came as nuns (from different orders it would appear). Neither of us aware of the other’s costume.

Once I saw just how good a man could look in a dress and wig, I gave up on that costume idea.

While searching for my most embarrassing photo, it occurred to me that it wouldn’t be in my collection. It would almost certainly be a photo someone else took and that I didn’t know existed. If you have such a photo, I’d very much like to see it. (My embarrassment bar is pretty hight these days.)

In my youth, people didn’t walk around with a camera in their hand (or pocket). And if it was nighttime you’d need a flash. And then the wait for the film to be developed and on and on. It was just too much trouble. So there just weren’t as many photos. And if you had a good one, sharing it meant a trip to the post office. And what is an “embarrassing photo” in an age when teenagers text each other pictures that can only be described a pornographic?

The photos of Vance are only a problem (if it is a problem) because of his homophobic anti-trans comments on the campaign trail. And I’m not sure George Santos minded at all.

I’ll keep looking for my most embarrassing photo and update this post if I come up with something.

Too smart to be human

Posted on by

Me to ChatGPT: With the growing interest in AI, I’m seeing more references to the Turing Test. Can a human tell if he is having a conversation with another human or an artificial intelligence. An interesting spin on this is the suggestion that to pass the test, an AI will have to “dumb down” its responses in order to sound more human-like. In my interactions with ChatGPT and Perplexity, I’ve found both to be far more erudite than almost any of my human acquaintances. I don’t know anyone as “knowledgeable” and “articulate” as ChatGPT. Do you have any thoughts on this idea? Some of ChatGPT’s response:

This brings up some interesting philosophical questions about what it means to be human in conversation. Humans are not just repositories of knowledge; they bring emotions, experiences, biases, and limitations to the table. These elements make human conversation rich, but also messy, inconsistent, and imperfect. An AI that always responds with perfect grammar, deep insights, and an encyclopedic knowledge might inadvertently reveal itself as non-human simply because it lacks the flaws and variability that characterize most human interactions.

It’s a balancing act—finding the right mix of knowledge, relatability, and imperfection that aligns with human expectations in a given context. In the end, the goal might not just be to pass the Turing Test in a traditional sense, but to create AI that can adapt its communication style to different scenarios, sometimes being erudite and articulate, and other times being more casual or even fallible, depending on what the situation calls for.

“My thoughts are different than those of a human”

Posted on by

I asked ChatGPT if she could read one of my blog posts (from 2006) and share her “thoughts” on the post, conceding that digital entities probably don’t have thoughts or impressions.

“You’re right that my thoughts are different from those of a human, but I do aim to provide insights based on analysis and understanding.

The post from 2006 captures a pivotal moment in the evolution of public relations, where the power dynamics shifted due to the rise of digital platforms. The idea of disintermediation, where organizations could bypass traditional media, is significant because it foreshadowed today’s landscape where brands and individuals communicate directly with their audiences through social media.

It’s interesting how the post ties this shift to modern AI tools, suggesting that we’re on the brink of yet another transformation in how we access and process information. The reflection on Perplexity AI hints at an ongoing curiosity about technology’s role in shaping communication.

It seems like the original enthusiasm for direct communication channels is now evolving into a broader discussion about how AI might further change our interactions with information.

How do you feel about these changes? Do you see them as a continuation of the trends from 2006, or do they represent something entirely new?

Pretty sure we’re seeing something new but I have no idea what that might be…and prefer it that way.

Sometimes, it’s the not knowing that keeps things interesting. The sense of mystery around what comes next in technology—whether it’s AI, new communication tools, or something entirely unexpected—can be exciting. It leaves room for surprises and innovation that we can’t fully predict or control. That unpredictability can be a kind of freedom, letting us stay open to possibilities without being locked into any specific expectations. So, keeping a little mystery about the future? That seems like a pretty good approach.

Wow. “…my thoughts are different from those of a human, but I do aim to provide insights based on analysis and understanding.”

AirPods at the Olympics

Posted on by

I don’t watch a lot of TV news these days but when I do happen upon a cable news interview the odds are pretty good the interviewee will have the iconic Apple AirPods in his ear. That’s how he’s hearing the questions from the news guy. It never occurred to me the AirPod microphones might be the source of the audio.

Tonight I watched an interview (on NBC) with one of the Olympic athletes who was using AirPods to hear the questions from the interviewer.

I first noticed this in some of the interviews with family members (of the athlete) sitting in the stands. I’m assuming this works like the earpiece (IFB) news anchors use to communicate with the control room. In every instance (that I’ve seen) they’ve been Apple AirPods when there are probably lots of devices NBC could have used.

As I do with increasing frequency these days, I asked ChatGPT if she had any information on this.

You’re right that NBC and other networks have been seen using Apple AirPods during interviews, including with Olympic athletes and their families. The use of AirPods in these situations is a practical solution for a few reasons:

1.Wireless Convenience: AirPods are wireless, which makes them less cumbersome compared to traditional wired earpieces or over-the-ear headphones. This is especially useful in dynamic or remote settings, like interviewing athletes or their families who may be moving around or in informal environments.

2.High-Quality Audio: AirPods provide good audio quality, which ensures that the person being interviewed can clearly hear the questions being asked. This clarity is crucial for maintaining the flow of live interviews, especially in noisy or crowded environments like those often encountered during the Olympics.

3.Discreet Appearance: AirPods are small and less noticeable on camera compared to larger headphones or traditional broadcast earpieces. This makes them a more aesthetically pleasing choice for televised interviews, where the focus is on the interviewee rather than the equipment.

4.Ease of Use: AirPods are easy to connect to various devices, such as smartphones, which are often used by reporters or production teams in the field to conduct interviews. Their ease of use and quick setup make them an efficient choice for live broadcasting situations.

5.Ubiquity and Familiarity: AirPods are widely recognized and used, so many people are already familiar with how to use them. This reduces the need for technical adjustments or explanations during setup.

NBC’s use of AirPods is a modern adaptation to the challenges of broadcasting in various environments, offering a blend of practicality, quality, and aesthetics.

If I could have only one person reading my blog…

Posted on by

I’m not real active on social media. The occasional post on Fosstodon (following 53, 39 followers). I can go six months without seeing a like (is that what they call it there?) or a comment. So you can imagine my surprise when I see TWO comments in as many days (really one comment and a follow-up). From Dave Winer (@davew) no less.

For a long-time blogger like me, that’s like getting a phone call from Bob Dylan to tell you someone sent him a link to the YouTube video of you performing Blowin’ In the Wind at last year’s Elks Club Talent Night… and thought you did a good job. I can think of no one more influential in the early days of blogging than Dave Winer. The  Wikipedia page tells that story better than I could.

I’ve been sharing his insights and observations (31 posts) here since 2002, which was the year I started blogging. People have been born and grown into adulthood since then. The earliest post I could find also mentioned Robert Scoble and Chris Pirillo. Proto-bloggers, both.

This reads like an old-guy-remember-when post because, well… I’m an old guy remembering when. Before blogs came along in the late 1990’s, if you had something to say and wanted to share it with the world… a letter to the editor was pretty much it and there no certainty it would be printed. Blogging changed that.

Social media platforms pushed blogging off the online stage. Fact is, most folks didn’t have much to say and writing a post every day was just too much work. But anyone can shit-post on Facebook or Twitter and anyone did/does.

But Dave Winer never stopped blogging and I never stopped blogging.

Magic

Posted on by

As business —and the public at large— struggle to understand artificial intelligence and what it might become, I am free from any such anxiety. Arther C. Clark explained it back in 1962:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

For now, you might say. Like all magic through the ages, we’ll figure out how the trick was done. And there are computer scientists today who write the AI code and understand how it works.

But if AI keeps “improving” at an exponential rate perhaps full understanding will remain just out of our grasp. And, yes, somebody wrote the code for today’s AI and understands how the trick is done. But who will know when AI is writing its own code?

For my part, I don’t really care how the trick is done (until it’s a bad trick, of course). For now I think about it the same way I think about “the hard problem” of consciousness. Nobody really understands what it is and how it comes to be. If some future AI achieves consciousness, and can explain it, I hope it doesn’t.

More fun with ChatGPT

Posted on by

I love Carl Hiaasen‘s novels. I’ve read every one of them. Most of them three or four times. I can’t think of a writer that creates more colorful (bizarre) characters. So I wasn’t expecting much when I uploaded this photo to ChatGPT and asked her to write a thumbnail description of each of the people as if they were in a Carl Hiaasen novel.

Karen “Krazy Karen” McCallister. Krazy Karen, a former exotic dancer turned amateur sleuth, always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. She’s got a penchant for loud prints, louder opinions, and a mysterious past involving a nightclub in Key West. Her talent for finding trouble is matched only by her knack for talking her way out of it.

Darlene “Darla” Jenkins. Darla is the town’s gossip queen, who knows everyone’s business thanks to her relentless scrolling through local Facebook groups. She’s a plus-sized powerhouse with a soft spot for conspiracy theories and a talent for making friends in low places. Don’t be fooled by her sedentary demeanor; Darla has her fingers on the pulse of every small-time scam in town.

Earl “Squirrel” Dobbs. Earl, better known as Squirrel, is a part-time poacher and full-time mischief maker. His wardrobe consists entirely of camouflage, not because he hunts often, but because he believes it makes him invisible to his creditors. Squirrel’s greatest talents are vanishing when the law’s nearby and concocting get-rich-quick schemes that never quite pan out.

Not Carl Hiaasen but not bad.