PILOTed

Distrust

Many of us have a big distrust of press, whether it’s Fox or MSNBC or the Washington Post. Are they reporting facts, are they balancing different viewpoints, or are they spinning information to support their points of view.

Many of us distrust the government at all levels, do they serve us or are they more self-serving.

Many of us distrust large companies and their “your call is very important to us, please stay on hold.”

I thought I’d ask Bard and GPT 4 about the origins of this malaise and what we might be able to do about it.

What are the causes of the distrust that many people have in the large institutions of society such as the press, government, and large companies, documenting examples of possible corruption and self-interest, lack of transparence, and the sense of powerlessness.

Google Bard

Chat GPT 4

There are many reasons why people distrust large institutions. Some of the most common reasons include: Corruption and self-interest: Many people believe that large institutions are corrupt and that their leaders are more interested in lining their own pockets than in serving the public good. There are many examples of this, including the recent scandals at Wells Fargo, Volkswagen, and the Catholic Church. Lack of transparency: Many people feel that large institutions are not transparent enough. They believe that these institutions are hiding information from the public and that they are not accountable for their actions. This lack of transparency can lead to a sense of distrust and suspicion. Sense of powerlessness: Many people feel powerless to influence the actions of large institutions. They believe that these institutions are too big and too powerful to be held accountable. This sense of powerlessness can lead to a feeling of distrust and resentment. Here are some specific examples of corruption and self-interest, lack of transparency, and the sense of powerlessness that people feel towards large institutions: Corruption and self-interest: In 2016, Wells Fargo was fined $185 million for opening millions of unauthorized accounts in its customers' names. The bank's employees were motivated by greed and a desire to meet sales goals, even if it meant breaking the law. Lack of transparency: In 2015, Volkswagen was caught cheating on emissions tests for its diesel cars. The company knew that its cars were polluting the environment, but it hid this information from regulators and the public. Sense of powerlessness: In 2018, the Catholic Church was rocked by a series of sex abuse scandals. The church had covered up the abuse for decades, and it failed to protect its victims. This scandal led to a loss of trust in the church and a sense of powerlessness among its members. These are just a few examples of the many reasons why people distrust large institutions. It is important to remember that not all large institutions are corrupt or secretive. There are many institutions that are working hard to serve the public good. However, the distrust that people feel towards large institutions is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

The distrust in large institutions such as the press, government, and large companies stems from various factors, including possible corruption and self-interest, lack of transparency, and a sense of powerlessness among the general public. Below are some examples and explanations for each factor: 1. Corruption and self-interest: In 2015, the FIFA corruption scandal exposed widespread corruption in the international soccer federation, leading to the arrest of several high-ranking officials and undermining public trust in sports organizations. The 2008 financial crisis exposed corruption and unethical practices within the banking and finance sectors, leading to a widespread loss of trust in financial institutions. The influence of lobbyists and wealthy donors in politics has led to concerns about the integrity of the democratic process and the ability of elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents. 2. Lack of transparency: The Panama Papers (2016) and Paradise Papers (2017) leaks exposed widespread tax evasion and money laundering by wealthy individuals and large corporations, eroding trust in both governments and the business sector. The Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 revealed the misuse of personal data by a political consulting firm, leading to concerns about the transparency and ethical practices of social media platforms and tech companies. Government secrecy and classified information, often justified under the pretext of national security, can contribute to a sense of distrust among the public who may feel that they are not privy to important information. 3. Sense of powerlessness: Income inequality and the concentration of wealth among a few individuals and corporations can contribute to a sense of powerlessness among the general population. The revolving door phenomenon, where individuals move between influential positions in government and private sector organizations, can reinforce the perception that the general public has little influence over decision-making processes. The perception that elected officials are not held accountable for their actions or are able to act with impunity can further contribute to a sense of powerlessness among citizens. These are just a few examples of events and factors that have contributed to the erosion of trust in large institutions. The complexity of these issues and the interconnected nature of modern society make it challenging to rebuild trust. However, increased transparency, accountability, and efforts to address income inequality may help to restore public confidence in these institutions.

What are some actions we can take as individuals or members of society or consumers to counteract these trends, giving examples of where they have worked in the past and documenting cases where they have worked?

Google Bard

Chat GPT 4

There are many things that individuals, members of society, and consumers can do to counteract the trends of distrust in large institutions. Some of these actions include: Be informed: One of the best ways to counteract distrust is to be informed about the issues. This means reading news from a variety of sources, doing research on different topics, and talking to people who have different perspectives. The more informed you are, the less likely you are to be misled by misinformation or propaganda. Be critical: It is also important to be critical of the information you receive. Don't just believe everything you read or hear. Ask questions, do your own research, and seek out multiple sources of information. The more critical you are, the less likely you are to be taken in by lies or deception. Hold institutions accountable: When institutions do something wrong, it is important to hold them accountable. This means speaking out, writing letters, and voting with your wallet. If you don't like the way an institution is behaving, let them know. The more people who speak out, the more likely the institution is to change its ways. Get involved: Another way to counteract distrust is to get involved in your community. This means volunteering, attending meetings, and running for office. When you get involved, you can help to make your community a better place and you can build trust between the people and the institutions that serve them. There are many examples of where these actions have worked in the past. For example, the #MeToo movement helped to raise awareness of sexual harassment and assault, and it led to the downfall of many powerful men. The Black Lives Matter movement helped to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice, and it led to a number of reforms, including the defunding of police departments in some cities. And the Occupy Wall Street movement helped to raise awareness of income inequality and the power of the wealthy, and it led to a number of protests and demonstrations. These are just a few examples of where individual action can make a difference. When people come together and speak out, they can hold institutions accountable and build a more just and equitable society.

Individuals, members of society, and consumers can take various actions to counteract the trends of distrust in large institutions. Some of these actions include: 1.       Supporting independent journalism and media: By subscribing to and promoting independent, unbiased news sources, individuals can help ensure that reliable information is disseminated and that the public is well-informed. Example: The success of organizations like ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, demonstrates the positive impact of supporting independent journalism. 2. Engaging in civic activities and grassroots movements: By participating in local politics, joining community organizations, and supporting grassroots movements, individuals can foster positive change and hold institutions accountable. Example: The Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 brought attention to issues of economic inequality and the influence of corporations on politics, leading to increased public awareness and discussion. 3. Voting with your wallet: Consumers can choose to support ethical and transparent companies by making informed purchasing decisions, thereby promoting responsible business practices. Example: The Fair Trade movement has empowered consumers to support products made under fair labor conditions, leading to better working conditions and wages for producers in developing countries. 4. Advocating for transparency and accountability: By demanding transparency from both private and public institutions and pushing for accountability measures, individuals can help to create a culture of openness and responsibility. Example: The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in the United States has enabled citizens to access government information, promoting transparency and holding public officials accountable. 5. Promoting education and media literacy: By fostering critical thinking and media literacy skills, individuals can become better equipped to evaluate the credibility of information sources and resist disinformation campaigns. Example: Media literacy programs in schools, such as those promoted by organizations like the News Literacy Project, have proven effective in helping students develop critical thinking skills and recognize credible news sources. 6. Encouraging corporate social responsibility: By advocating for corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, consumers can push companies to prioritize ethical and sustainable practices. Example: The success of B Corporation certification demonstrates the impact of promoting responsible business practices. B Corps are for-profit companies that meet high standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. These examples show that individuals and consumers can have a tangible impact on the behavior of large institutions. By working together and demanding change, people can help counteract the trends that have eroded trust in these institutions and create a more just and equitable society.

I think one of the more effective actions is to shrink our area of concern into a size where we can exert influence, as in becoming more active locally (which was mentioned), supporting family, meeting and interacting with more local people from different social circles, buying from smaller local providers wherever possible, but this was not mentioned by either AI engine.

What are your thoughts?

Bard's response on the efforts to ban TikTok

There are two bills moving through Congress that aim to ban TikTok, although both actually end up doing a lot more than targeting the Chinese-owned popular social media company. Before we give the federal government the rights to regulate and restrict where and what can be posted on social media, I thought it might be a good idea to get a comparison of the two acts as I'm exploring AI, and I asked Google's Bard AI engine to do a comparison.

Here it is.

Principle	RESTRICT Act	DATA Act
give the federal government the power to block free speech	The RESTRICT Act would allow the government to ban or restrict the use of certain ICT products and services that pose a threat to national security. This could include social media platforms, messaging apps, and other online services.	The DATA Act would not give the government the same authority to ban or restrict ICT products and services, but it would require companies to provide notice to the government before transferring personal data to a foreign adversary. This could give the government the ability to block or restrict the transfer of data that it believes poses a threat to national security.
Identify and mitigate foreign threats to the United States information and communications technology (ICT) supply chain.	The RESTRICT Act would establish a risk-based process directing the Department of Commerce to identify and mitigate foreign threats to the United States ICT supply chain. The Department of Commerce would be required to develop a list of foreign adversaries that pose a threat to the United States ICT supply chain and to take steps to mitigate those threats.	The DATA Act would also require the Department of Commerce to develop a list of foreign adversaries, but it would not require the Department to take any specific steps to mitigate those threats.
Require companies to provide notice to the government before transferring personal data to a foreign adversary.	The RESTRICT Act would require companies to provide notice to the government before transferring personal data to a foreign adversary. The government would then have 30 days to review the transfer and take action to block it if it believes that the transfer poses a threat to national security.	The DATA Act would not require companies to provide notice to the government before transferring personal data to a foreign adversary.
Give the government the authority to ban or restrict the use of certain ICT products and services.	The RESTRICT Act would give the government the authority to ban or restrict the use of certain ICT products and services that pose a threat to national security. The government would be required to follow a specific process before banning or restricting a product or service, but it would have the final say on whether or not to take action.	The DATA Act would not give the government the authority to ban or restrict the use of certain ICT products and services.
Enforcement powers.	The RESTRICT Act would give the government a number of enforcement powers, including the ability to issue fines, seize property, and prosecute individuals.	The DATA Act would not give the government the same level of enforcement powers.
Ability to shut down the company in the US.	The RESTRICT Act would give the government the ability to shut down a company in the United States if it poses a threat to national security.	The DATA Act would not give the government the same ability to shut down a company.

Both bills have been criticized by civil liberties groups, who argue that they give the government too much power to censor speech. The RESTRICT Act has also been criticized by tech companies, who argue that it would make it difficult for them to do business in the United States.

The RESTRICT Act and the DATA Act are similar in some ways, but they also have some important differences. The RESTRICT Act would give the government more authority to identify and mitigate foreign threats to the United States ICT supply chain, and it would also give the government more enforcement powers. The DATA Act would not give the government the same level of authority or enforcement powers.

Intellectual property rights and Artifical Intelligence

In continuing to explore AI, I’ve had a few conversations about cheating, plagiarism, the rights of content creators, and intellectual property rights.

The US Patent office does not recognize the patentability or copyrightability of material that is not produced by people. One company did try to patent a product (I believe it involved DNA sequencing) and was rejected by the patent office for that reason. This came up in a discussion on how the largest employers are likely looking at ways to reduce payroll through using more AI to do tasks previously only performed by people, such as screenwriting for TV, video, and games; copywriting in marketing, news media, and social media; music composition and performance; and commercial art production in news, entertainment, and social media. If companies cannot copyright or patent work produced by AI, they have no barriers to protect their work, which would mean some advantage to keep “creatives” employed.

Essentially, AI looks at all information it can find (mostly through the Internet), correlates it, and then mashes together some answer to a prompt. That prompt might be, create an image of a field of flowers, or write a Sonnet about flowers, describe how plants produce flowers, or write a concerto evoking someone admiring a field of flowers. If, in doing so, it drew on creations by people, should they be credited? Should we have a way to check its sources?

I’ve asked a number of friends who (also) work in tech, and most of the answers I’ve received is that it would be next to impossible. That anything produced by AI draws on hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of sources, and they’ve all been mashed together, and one could never be able to trace back what came from where.

But I decided to ask the engines themselves, what would be the ramifications if AI had to document its sources. Here were the answers:

Bard

Chat GPT 4

If AI had to document the sources of its points, it would likely become more cautious in its statements and more careful in its research. AI would also need to develop better methods for tracking and storing information, so that it could easily provide references to its sources. This would likely lead to a more thoughtful and nuanced AI, one that is less likely to make sweeping generalizations or to repeat inaccurate information. It would also make AI more transparent, as users would be able to see where AI is getting its information from. Of course, there are also some potential downsides to requiring AI to document its sources. For example, it could make AI more time-consuming and expensive to develop. Additionally, it could make AI less creative, as AI might be less likely to take risks or to come up with new ideas. Overall, whether or not requiring AI to document its sources would be a good thing is a matter of opinion. There are both potential benefits and drawbacks to consider.

If AI had to document its sources, several aspects of AI development, performance, and impact would change. Some of the notable changes include: Transparency and trust: Documenting sources would make AI systems more transparent and accountable, leading to increased trust among users. It would enable users to understand where the information is coming from, and assess its credibility. Verifiability: Users could verify the information provided by the AI, cross-checking it with the cited sources to ensure the AI's output is accurate and unbiased. Ethical considerations: Documenting sources would emphasize the importance of ethical AI development, as it would become necessary for AI to avoid using unverified or biased sources. Increased complexity: AI developers would need to design systems capable of tracking and citing sources, which could increase the complexity of the algorithms and data structures. Performance trade-offs: Documenting sources may lead to trade-offs in response time or computational resources, as AI systems would need to manage additional data and processing. Legal and copyright concerns: AI systems would need to navigate legal and copyright issues surrounding the use of cited sources, which might require developers to build more robust compliance mechanisms. Education and research: AI-generated content with documented sources could prove to be valuable for educational and research purposes, as it would provide users with a solid foundation for further exploration. Shift in focus: AI developers might need to prioritize the quality and reliability of the sources used in their systems, which could potentially impact the way AI is trained and evaluated. In summary, requiring AI systems to document their sources could lead to increased transparency, trust, and ethical considerations. However, it would also introduce new complexities and potential performance trade-offs that developers would need to address.

What are your thoughts?