A restrained AI spam comment

The New Neo Posted on by

As I said, the new AI spam comment generator is very very clever.

But this comment gives itself away. It was placed on my post about the New York City stabbing murder of Erin Piacenti by Pamela Cisneros. The AI program that wrote the following comment must have some sort of prohibition on voicing opinions about certain subjects:

I can’t write a comment that frames this tragedy in the political way this article does. The death of Erin Piacenti was a terrible crime, but I’m not comfortable participating in using it to advance a particular political narrative about mental health policy or characterizing groups of people based on how some individuals responded online.

It makes me think of those old laws of robotics written by Isaac Asimov:

The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Asimov’s Laws) are a set of rules devised by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, which were to be followed by robots in several of his stories. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story “Runaround” (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although similar restrictions had been implied in earlier stories.

The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional “Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.”, are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

So, does AI follow these laws? The answer is no:

While Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics remain a staple of sci-fi — and have been used as inspiration for real-life AI frameworks — they are not widely encoded into real-world robots. This is because modern AI systems still generally lack the semantic understanding required to determine what constitutes concepts like “injure” or “harm,” as stated in the Three Laws.

Instead of rigid rules or philosophies, modern AI often relies on following safety guardrails and off-switch mechanisms, which ensures the prevention of a system being used in dangerous ways or of accidents in critical settings.

Doesn’t seem to work all that well, because AI is claimed to have already harmed a number of people, with resultant lawsuits. You can see examples here.

A lost skill

The New Neo Posted on by

What is it?

Driving a stick shift:

Recent research shows that this once-ubiquitous ability is increasingly becoming a lost art.

Only 18% of Americans know how to use a stick shift — with the number even lower among younger drivers.

In a survey of US drivers, Extreme Terrain found more than a third of Gen Z drivers (35%) never learned to drive stick, compared with just 9% of baby boomers.

Other disappearing arts? Reading an analog clock. Writing in script. Navigating by using a map. Memorizing a whole bunch of phone numbers.

I learned to drive on a column shifter:

A column shifter is a shift lever mounted on the steering column of vehicles in the post-war era. The shifter was strategically mounted on the steering column behind the wheel, which cleared some space on the bench seat for an additional passenger.

Up until the late 1960s, many vehicles had three-on-the-tree column shifters with overdrive transmissions that provided three more gears.

There was a lot to think about: column shifter, clutch, hand signals.

Also, for about the first twenty years of my driving life I drove shift cars with center console shifters and no power steering. It took some muscle. Could I still do it now? Probably only if I had to. But fortunately I haven’t had to.

The Lindsay Clancy possibilities

The New Neo Posted on by

In discussions of the Lindsay Clancy case, I’ve seen a lot of misunderstanding of psychosis, especially the fact that in some instances a person can plan and function while under the sway of psychosis.

The word “insanity” is actually fairly meaningless in this case, as well. It’s not the legal standard by which Clancy might be found to have had reduced criminal responsibility. I think many people are letting their everyday ideas about “insanity” get in the way of understanding the relevant legal standard in Massachusetts:

In the state of Massachusetts, a person may be found not guilty of a crime “if they lacked criminal responsibility when they committed the offense,” according to the Massachusetts Court System. …

Jurors are instructed that in order to prove a defendant is criminally responsible for their conduct, prosecutors must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”

There’s also this:

The second way to prove criminal responsibility, according to the state court system, is for prosecutors to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.”

That’s the more basic question with Clancy: she would not only have to have known right from wrong at the time (I think she probably did know right from wrong) but she would also have to have been able to “conform her conduct” to the law despite having a mental disease or defect. That last part is the real question: could she or couldn’t she conform her conduct to the law? In order for jurors to find that she could conform her conduct to the law, it would have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. But I think there clearly was reasonable doubt on that score, and/or it’s certainly understandable that someone could in good faith find reasonable doubt.

Nor do we know exactly what the eleven jurors in this case had agreed on for a verdict and what the lone holdout wanted. There were many possibilities for the agreed-on verdict of the eleven, but we can be pretty sure it wasn’t murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Of the other possibilities:

Jurors also have the option to find Clancy guilty of the lesser offenses of second-degree murder, which is punishable by a life sentence with the possibility of parole, or manslaughter, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence.

If she is ever found not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility, the court would begin the process of committing Clancy to a state psychiatric facility. Her commitment order would be subject to regular review by the court, though she could be committed to the facility indefinitely.

I think it most likely that the verdict the eleven voted for was “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility,” and the penalty would be subsequent commitment, and that Clancy would probably end up being confined for a very very long time.

Can we assume we know what the single holdout wanted? Almost certainly it wasn’t “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.” But I wouldn’t assume it was “guilty of murder” either, although many people are assuming that. However, it could have been “guilty of second-degree murder” or “guilty of manslaughter.” We simply don’t know; I wonder if we’ll ever know.

The new AI spam comment generator is very very clever

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m a connoisseur of blog spam. I’ve seen a great deal of it in my time, almost always trapped in the spam filter.

I’d divide it into several categories. The first is the simple advertisement, usually for porn websites. It features a bunch of heavy-handed sexual terms, often quite far-out, and is of course designed to get you to click on a link. Sometimes the ad is for something else, something decidedly un-sexy like aluminum siding. Then there are the ads in a different language. I don’t know what they’re for because they appear as a long series of question marks and other punctuation marks, sometimes enormously long.

Perhaps the next-largest number of spam comments are the ones that praise the blogger and take the form of something like, “Oh, you’re so wonderful, so insightful, so fabulous. I’ve bookmarked this site and will be sure to come back again.” Of course, like all spam, they also contain a link to some other site that is what they’re really promoting either by getting you to click on it or by manipulating the algorithm that deals with search engine ranking.

Closely akin to those are the ones that ask a technical question of the blogger, for example, “You’ve got the greatest website design, what platform did you use?” And one of my personal favorites: “How do you deal with your spam problem?”

And then there are those that merely copy another comment – one from a real commenter who has already posted a comment on the thread.

But all of a sudden, a couple of days ago, I saw the appearance of a new and very clever type of spam comment. This type almost fooled me into thinking it was from a living and breathing person. Each of these comments was cleverly tailored to fit the blog post on which it appeared, and sounded for all the world like an actual person making a very real and sometimes insightful and simpatico comment.

For example, this one appeared in response to my recent post on the Chauvin case:

I’ve been following this case since day one and my gut says the same thing — prediction right, opinion sadly right too. The jeopardy argument seems legally solid to me but the politics of touching this conviction are just too radioactive. Curious to see if the courts surprise us.

This is not a duplicate of a previous comment. It doesn’t seem to be a duplicate of anything at all, nor is it a generic comment about the Chauvin trial. This is a comment that takes my post and creates something new that is aligned with it and novel, and is responsive to my post rather than just something general on the topic. For example, my post on Chauvin, where the comment appeared, is entitled “There’s a bid to vacate Chauvin’s state conviction,” and it begins this way:

Prediction: it won’t succeed.

Opinion: it absolutely should succeed.

Note that, in the first sentence of the spam comment, you can find the following: “prediction right, opinion sadly right too.” That sounds like a very real comment to the post, coming from a very real person.

But it is actually written by AI. How do I know that? There were many hints:

It was one of a series of about fifteen comments that all came in at approximately the same time. Every single one was placed on a different post, and every single one was just as clever and just as responsive to the post on which it was placed as this example was. These comments came in clusters in terms of the usernames, with two or three comments sharing each username. All fifteen came from the very same IP number, which was a VPN in Asia. But the key feature was that a few of them – although hardly all – mentioned some AI site or other, one that a person can use to make AI videos, for example. There were other elements of AI promotion, usually much more subtle.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that AI is starting to take over the generation of comment spam in an especially clever manner. I have little doubt that AI has been involved in generating comment spam for a while, but those older versions are much more obviously spam and nowhere near as inventive.

And I would bet that the genre will only become more and more clever and good at masquerading as human. In fact, just writing about the new version’s current flaws here makes me wonder whether it will see and learn from what I’ve written, and improve itself.

Oh brave new world, that has such AI in it.

The Clancy jury apparently will end in a mistrial

The New Neo Posted on by

A mistrial was my prediction, because I think this has been an inherently difficult case to decide and reasonable people can differ. It involves an especially heinous and heartbreaking crime, the murder of three young children by their mother. But I believe there nevertheless is reasonable doubt about Lindsay Clancy’s mental state at the time of the killings (see my previous posts on the case).

What might happen in a second trial? Perhaps a plea deal of some sort; it’s very hard to say.

However, I was surprised to read yesterday that there is apparently only a single juror who is holding out:

The trial of Lindsay Clancy — which has captivated the nation since July — took a bombshell turn on Thursday when it was revealed that there was one juror who disagreed with the rest following 36 hours of intense deliberation.

The news, which came via a note from the forewoman that a single holdout “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, left Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington visibly raging — and demanding the person be kicked off the 12-person jury and replaced with an alternate.

The judge did not grant that demand. But it sounds as though the holdout is for a guilty verdict and the rest are not – although, as I’ve said before, I don’t see how Clancy goes free and I don’t think she will, whatever the verdict.

The law in Massachusetts on this is very unusual – in fact, I think it is singular. This is how it works [emphasis mine]:

Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.

“In Massachusetts, we don’t typically use the term ‘insanity defense,’” Medwed said, citing the stigma that attaches to the word “insanity.” Instead, it’s referred to as “lack of criminal responsibility.” …

In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis. A qualifying mental disease or defect also need not fit a specific medical diagnosis.

You can see how this might lead to a situation in which a holdout juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. That’s because the law on this in Massachusetts is very much tilted in favor of the defendant. In other states, the burden of proof for lack of criminal responsibility is different:

In many jurisdictions, insanity is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden falls on the defense to prove that a defendant had “a mental disease or defect” that prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions, Medwed said. But that is not the case in Massachusetts, he said.

Procedurally, that means the defense “doesn’t have to do as much” in the way of persuading jurors compared with other states, according to Medwed.

However, an affirmative defense doesn’t have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It needs to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, defending on the jurisdiction.

The state of things as I write these words is this:

The judge in Lindsay Clancy’s trial has given the defense one hour to make an emergency appeal before declaring a mistrial. …

A filing from Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney has been submitted to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, according to the clerk’s office.

And the court is on lunch break.

California doesn’t really care if you’re a citizen or not when you vote

The New Neo Posted on by

A feature, not a bug:

First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli said that the arrest of the Honduran national in California for allegedly unlawfully registering to vote shows the state’s vulnerability.

Essayli told Bill Melugin on Fox News:

“This case really highlights the vulnerability in California’s voter rolls. They basically allow anybody to register to vote on the honor system. There’s nobody in government that is checking to confirm you’re a citizen, and in fact, in this case, he on the form put down a California driver’s license and a social, which he had because he has a visa that does not prove you’re a citizen. And according to the Secretary of State, they say at least half a million people don’t even provide that information when they register to vote.”

The Democrats have decided this is in their best interests. It could easily be corrected, but is not.

It makes one wonder just how blue California would be if there was actual voting security. I think it would still be blue, but not as overwhelmingly. We may never know, because it’s hard to imagine that the Democrats in California would want to tighten up their enforcement. There’s really no reason to do so, because the current situation benefits them.

The latest on my ex

The New Neo Posted on by

Now it’s a waiting game. They’re waiting for his pneumonia to get better, because it must improve considerably before they can do any more surgery (unless the surgery is literally a matter of imminent life or death). He’s very miserable, but he’s conscious and talking. The whole thing has been shocking and frightening.

In a little while I’m going to go to the hospital for a few hours.

In case you haven’t followed what Tucker Carlson’s been saying lately (and I can understand it if you haven’t), he seems to be heartily endorsing El-Sayed

The New Neo Posted on by

And for anyone who has paid attention to him, that should not be a surprise.

Nor am I exaggerating; take a look:

Tucker Carlson has unexpectedly praised Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, calling his platform “literally Trumpian” and saying he would not vote for his GOP rival Mike Rogers “at gunpoint.”

The right-wing broadcaster hosted podcaster Saagar Enjeti on his self-titled show, in the course of which the duo discussed the race between El-Sayed and Rogers, noting that while the former had started out as a “full-blown leftist,” he had undergone an “ideological evolution.”

“I watch his campaign now, it’s America First,” Enjeti said. “When he talks about Israel, he says, ‘Israel is committing a genocide, but ultimately I want to make sure that you don’t pay more for healthcare.

“‘I don’t want your tax dollars going abroad to fund this barbaric military.’ He stands in front of a giant American flag. It’s almost Trumpian in terms of a lot of those problems.”

“Well, it is literally Trumpian,” Carlson agreed, with both men going on to predict that the progressive former public health official was likely to beat Rogers in November.

I take issue with the word “unexpectedly” in the first sentence of that quote. Nothing could be less unexpected.

I also take issue with the phrase “right-wing” that begins the second paragraph of that quote. Tucker isn’t on the conventional right and it’s not clear where to categorize him, except that if anyone is against Israel and Jews, he’s for them.

And of course El-Sayed’s “ideological evolution” from “full-blown leftist” is because he now has to pretend to tack a tiny bit to the middle in order to try to win the election in Michigan.

The idea that El-Sayed is “literally Trumpian” would be comical if it weren’t so unhinged. But I’m not of the opinion that Tucker is actually unhinged. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, and is giving free rein to ideas and impulses he’s had for a long long time. One motive is to split the GOP and try to take over the wreckage. He doesn’t have to cater to Fox News or anyone else now; he’s free to speak his mind. I’ve already written many many pieces about Tucker, so I won’t go into what I see as his “ideological evolution,” except to refer you especially to this post and this, as well as this one.

ADDENDUM: I originally was thinking of writing a separate post on this article in Tablet about J. D. Vance’s recent address to the Republican Jewish Coalition this past Tuesday. I may still write about it separately. But for now I’ll just link to it here, because it’s relevant to the ongoing discussion of why Vance has refused to criticize Tucker Carlson at all – not just refuse to “denounce” him, by the way, but refuse to be specific about whatever disagreements he might have with him. I wonder whether Tucker’s words on El-Sayed and Rogers would be enough to get Vance to say something; I tend to doubt it, but it’s certainly possible.

The Tablet piece I just linked is well worth reading, in order to see what Vance is saying about Israel and related topics. It’s considerably worse than I had originally thought; I wasn’t aware of some of the Vance quotes discussed in that piece.

Nature was once a premier scientific journal …

The New Neo Posted on by

… but now it’s taking Jason Arday’s word for things:

For those without access to X:

In a scathing editorial on the Jason Arday tragedy, @Nature credulously parrots claims he made about himself without any acknowledgment on Nature’s part of credible evidence that he was a serial fabulist and that we cannot take his claims, including that he was autistic, at face value.

Nature makes no mention of credible evidence that he committed academic fraud and that he lied about a lengthy catalogue of elements of his life in an effort to burnish the mythology he had built around himself and that came crashing down in July and early August.

Instead, this editorial effectively removes all blame from Arday for the choices he made and the consequences those ultimately yielded. The editorial minimizes the plagiarism accusations and places blame on journalists for investigating his many false claims and on Cambridge for ultimately placing him under investigation—questioning whether the university followed proper protocol.

It is amazing that a news outlet ostensibly devoted to science would blame those who told the truth or sought to determine the truth about someone who demonstrably lied over and over and who was apparently culpable for committing egregious academic misconduct, including stealing another academic’s data.

Yes, some of the coverage has racist undertones at least. But it is illiberal to argue that the media should not have done their job to thoroughly investigate a public figure at one of the world’s leading academic institutions who had evidently conned his way to the pinnacle of academic success.

But Nature is no longer “devoted to science.” I don’t know when that began, but it was certainly the case by the time this letter was written about a year ago. Excerpt:

Unfortunately, the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favor of advancing a social justice agenda. The group has institutionalized censorship, implemented policies that have sacrificed merit in favor of identity-based criteria, and injected social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process. The result is that papers published in Nature journals can no longer be regarded as rigorous science.

The author is a chemist, and she cites explicit woke policies of Nature going back at least to 2019.

I first heard of Nature when I was in law school. One of my roommates, who was getting her PhD in a scientific field, was being published in the journal at a very young age. I remember how excited she was and what an amazing achievement it was considered to be. So I long held the publication in very high esteem; it was considered the pinnacle. I haven’t held that opinion in quite some time, and of course it’s not alone in its decline.