“This IBM machine”

Posted on by

“This IBM machine was the key to WOOC(P)’s reputation, for it enabled us to have files of information around which no one could correlate except with the machine set the correct way. For instance, a list of three hundred names meant nothing, a list of three hundred house numbers meant nothing, a list of three hundred street names, cities, and a pile of photos meant nothing. On the machine and suddenly – each photo had an address. On the machine again and thirty cards were rejected, and only Dalby knew whether those thirty were left-handed pistol shots, Young Conservatives, or bricklayers fluent in Mandarin. Dalby liked it, it was quick, more efficient than humans, and it made Dalby one of the most powerful men in England.”

— The Ipcress File by Len Deighton (1962)

Live blogging with ChatGPT

Posted on by

Imagine a blog that was nothing more than ChatGPT threads. Posted in real time. (comments turned off) I have posted all or part of 50+ conversations with ChatGPT and have a “ChatGPT” tag.

ChatGPT: That’s an intriguing idea—your blog as a living record of AI-human interaction, continuously updated with ChatGPT threads. In a way, it would function like an evolving conversation, accessible to anyone curious about what it’s like to engage deeply with an AI.

If you took it further and posted every thread in real-time, it could almost feel like a public mind-meld—your thoughts, questions, and curiosities unfolding without filter or delay.

Would you envision structuring it in any particular way? Maybe a rolling feed with automatic timestamps? Or something more curated, with you deciding which threads make the cut?

Steve: Hmm. I think “In for a penny…” I’d go with a rolling feed. The world listening on our chats.

ChatGPT: That would be a bold and fascinating move—almost like an ongoing dialogue with the world eavesdropping. It’d be a mix of raw thought, curiosity, and AI interaction, all laid bare in real time. I imagine it could evolve into something like a living archive of your exploration of ideas, tech, and whatever else crosses your mind.

Would you automate the process—say, using an API or shortcut to instantly post each thread? Or would you copy and paste manually, maybe adding a quick preface or title before publishing? Either way, it’d be a unique experiment in transparency and digital thought-sharing.

Two of my favorite “-isms”

Posted on by

Anyone who knows me knows of my interest in consciousness and reality (see tags below for more). When it comes to understanding reality, I’m gonna go with one of the following. (or some combination.)

Monism is the view that all reality is fundamentally one substance or principle. Everything in the universe is ultimately the same kind of thing. This can be physical (everything is matter) or mental (everything is mind), or something else entirely.

Panpsychism, on the other hand, is the idea that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the universe. According to panpsychism, all things have some form of consciousness or experience, even if it’s very basic, down to the smallest particles.

So, while both can be viewed as “unifying” theories, monism is about the nature of reality being one substance, whereas panpsychism is about consciousness being fundamental and present everywhere.

D-Day plus one

Posted on by

Don Mays in his Navy uniform on June 7, 1944

I’ve seen these photos hundreds of times but never spotted the significance of the date. June 7, 1944. The day after the D-Day invasion of Normandy in WWII. Other war news from that date:

  • German submarine U-629 was sunk in the English Channel by Allied aircraft.
  • The USS Susan B. Anthony struck a mine and sank, though all 2,689 aboard were saved.
  • Japanese destroyer Hayanami was torpedoed and sunk by the USS Harder

The simple addition of the date adds so much to the photos.

AI and Ethical Dilemmas: A Comparison of ChatGPT and DeepSeek

Posted on by

This article examines how AI chatbots, particularly DeepSeek and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, handle ethical dilemmas, revealing stark differences in their reasoning. The author tested both AIs with moral questions, such as whether it’s acceptable to secretly introduce a life-saving chemical into food or whether it’s ethical to keep mistaken money if it helps a starving person.

DeepSeek, a China-based AI, follows consequentialist ethics, arguing that outcomes (e.g., saving a life) justify actions like deception. In contrast, ChatGPT adheres to deontological ethics, prioritizing universal moral principles such as honesty and transparency, even if the consequences are less favorable. This distinction also appeared in other scenarios, such as deciding whom to save in a life-threatening accident or whether an AI should break banking policies for the greater good.

Experts suggest these differences stem from training methodologies. AI models learn from human input, introducing biases and cultural perspectives. Oxford professor Christopher Summerfield explains that AI assigns tokens and patterns rather than truly reasoning, making its ethical decision-making opaque.

The article raises concerns about AI’s growing role in moral decision-making, warning that as AI becomes more integrated into society, people may begin to trust its moral judgments too readily. The author argues for critical thinking and ethical oversight, emphasizing that AI should assist human reasoning rather than serve as an unquestioned authority on moral issues.

The summary above was composed by ChatGPT

This article spawned a number of questions I put to ChatGPT: Was it trained to be ethical? How would it know? What does that mean for trust? Her answers included several reasons why we might expect AI to be more ethical (than humans) and why such an expectation might be unfair, concluding with the question: “Should AI be held to a higher moral standard?”

“Maybe AI doesn’t need to be more ethical than humans, but rather more transparent and accountable than humans. […] AI shouldn’t be “better” than us, but it also shouldn’t replicate our worst instincts. The goal isn’t a moral AI overlord, but an AI that helps us be more ethical ourselves.

Here’s the full thread (PDF)

AI and the human mind

Posted on by

I’ve long been interested in how the mind works. What is consciousness? How is that different from awareness? Where do thoughts come from? Is the sense of self an illusion?

From the video below: “At its core, AI, just like the human mind, is all about processing information. It uses complex algorithms, labels, and symbols to make sense of the world and respond to its environment. It takes raw data as input, processes it based on its programming, and generates an output.”

Here’s another excerpt from the video (watch on YouTube) I found really interesting:

“The choice to use an  AI voice has sparked a lot of conversations. Some people feel that using it makes the  message feel less personal, less human. But others find it refreshing, even profound. Its neutrality and essentially egoless nature allows the message itself to  shine through more clearly.”

I started having voice conversations with ChatGPT in late 2023 and prefer that to text since more of my questions turn into conversations. Put me in the “refreshing/profound” column. If you are into (as we said in the 60’s) this kind of stuff, I think you’l really enjoy this video.

Brownie box camera

Posted on by

The photo above (my mom and Aunt Marie) was probably taken sometime in the mid-1940s on the family farm near Broseley, Missouri. I’ve seen this photo countless times but not sure I’ve noticed the camera in my aunt’s hand. A little history from ChatGPT:

The “Brownie” box camera, introduced by Kodak in 1900, was a revolutionary development in photography. Designed to be affordable and easy to use, it brought photography to the masses and helped popularize snapshot culture.

Key Points in Brownie History:

  • 1900: The original Kodak Brownie was released for just $1, with film costing 15 cents per roll. It featured a simple cardboard box design with a fixed-focus lens and a single shutter speed.
  • Early Success: The Brownie was heavily marketed to children and amateur photographers, making it one of the first truly accessible cameras.
  • Evolution: Over the years, the Brownie evolved with different models, materials (from cardboard to metal and plastic), and features like built-in flash units.
  • Cultural Impact: The Brownie was instrumental in capturing everyday life, historical events, and even wartime photography. It remained popular for much of the 20th century.
  • End of an Era: Though production slowed in the late 20th century, the Brownie’s legacy continues as one of the most influential consumer cameras ever made.

Who Is the Mind Talking to?

Posted on by

Watch on YouTube

ineffable – (adjective) inexpressible, indescribable, beyond words, beyond description, beggaring description; undefinable, unutterable, untold, unheard of, unthought of, unimaginable; overwhelming, marvelous, wonderful, breathtaking, staggering, astounding, amazing, astonishing, fantastic, fabulous.

Mind, self, consciousness… I’ve been reading (and posting) on these concepts for a long time. The video above might be the best explanation I’ve come across. For that reason, I might leave this pinned to the top of the blog for a while.

“The Robot Doctor Will See You Now”

Posted on by

I don’t care for the term “Robot Doctor” but blame that on the person who writes headlines for the New York Times. The following are excerpts from an op-ed piece (PDF) by Dr. Pranav Rajpurkar (see comment below) and Dr. Eric Topol of that asserts “a growing body of research suggests that A.I. is outperforming doctors, even when they use it as a tool.”

A recent M.I.T.-Harvard study examined how radiologists diagnose potential diseases from chest X-rays. The study found that when radiologists were shown A.I. predictions about the likelihood of disease, they often undervalued the A.I. input compared to their own judgment. The doctors stuck to their initial impressions even when the A.I. was correct, which led them to make less accurate diagnoses. Another trial yielded a similar result: When A.I. worked independently to diagnose patients, it achieved 92 percent accuracy, while physicians using A.I. assistance were only 76 percent accurate — barely better than the 74 percent they achieved without A.I.

The solution, we believe, is a deliberate division of labor. Instead of forcing both human doctors and A.I. to review every case side by side and trying to turn A.I. into a kind of shadow physician, a more effective approach is to let A.I. operate independently on suitable tasks so that physicians can focus their expertise where it matters most.