Hey Lifetime, you want this?

 Idea for a story --

grandfather, from the old country, constantly talks about going back "home" one more time to revisit his childhood etc and makes his kids promise to take him before he dies. Then he goes blind and the doctor says he doesn't have much time. His kids look at the bank account -- no way we can afford a trip to "home" but what if we just go to the "little X" neighborhood in [insert random American City here].

Then hilarity ensues as they try to keep the old man in one neighbor hood and when he wants to travel to the countryside to his childhood farm, they have to pay extra to rent a junky car because it makes the rental place look shlubby. Then they take the worst roads and hire actors to play roles in the country side, and also back in the city. Finally the "trip" has ended. Bonding has taken place and a the generations are reconciled. Redemption occurs and a heart is completed. Mysteries solved and there has been positive character growth all around. We discover at the end that the grandfather knew from the get go that it was a scam. The old country is not and hour and a half away bay plane, especially one which didn't require passports. But he wanted them all to feel useful and reconnect with their heritage. Maybe after learning about it and recreating it, they may want to go visit. The kids say that they knew he knew but that he, realizing how silly this all was, respected the effort and would not collapse the charade. Their goal hadn't been to trick him, but to get him to confront his childhood (trauma? mystery? Don't know, maybe to win a bet or meet with a person or a lawyer to resolve some legal, financial obligation -- wait, how about "they had earlier promised their late mother that they would get him to face up to...) by visiting so everyone gets what he wants.

It plays as a family friendly (possibly holiday) film. Mostly comedy but with a few emotionally stinging scenes so the adults will understand the depths and authenticity and the kids will see the broad and clear binaries of "happy and sad" flipped around in an innovative and educational way.

You can't spell Daniel without AI. I can, but soon, no one will

During our pre-first day meetings, the faculty were given a session on the use of AI. Some new(er) sites and technologies were discussed and we were tasked with trying them out. So I did. There was one resource that could make quizzes. I live on quizzes -- they are more frequent than full scale essays and easier to grade than single-page responses. I usually use 2 kinds of quizzes, vocabulary and reading. So I went to the website and put into the "resource" the entire (public domain) text of a particular book which I enjoy reading, and I asked the AI to make me a reading quiz (short answer). It came up with a bunch of very interesting questions. I asked it for an idea map which it constructed using only the text of the book. Rather than see this as a boon, I am worried. As the short-cut apps improve, there will be less reason to have to read the text. I work hard at explaining to my students that the summaries available miss stuff, but this trainable AI will miss less and less. I looked at the quiz and was comforted to know 2 things:

1. The questions I ask appear to be spot on as the AI came up with the same ideas

2. There are details more insignificant and less necessary than the ones I ask about.

I also found that the AI system could make very simply inferences but did not have the breadth of knowledge to explore deeper concepts. There was room for me to introduce external concepts into the classroom, ones that AI could not import, but that might also be temporary, as I could train the system on my notes, or on external (approved) resources which will bolster my specific point of view about the text. I also noted that the AI could not distinguish between "new vocabulary" referring to the reading level of the English words and the fact that the text included invented words. But on the whole, this could easily generate passable reading quizzes and book summaries.

Then I asked a different system to make a multiple choice quiz for a specific unit of a specific vocabulary book that we use. I did not provide the text. The system found the text and the unit and crafted a multiple choice quiz. It wasn't the style I use and it didn't have the trick answers I like to lay down as mines to trick those who do not read or study thoroughly. Could I refine it to cover multiple units? Maybe, I guess. Could I tweak my prompt to tell it the style I want? Probably.

All in all, this could be a real time saver for me. Except that I would then not be refreshing MYSELF by rereading the text or poring over the vocab book -- test item creation is its own form of study and I, as the teacher, miss out on that opportunity when I outsource the quiz making to the skynet.

Do I go to my classes and tell my students about these resources? Heck yeah. But wouldn't I, then, be providing for them a way to get around having to study (in the case of the literature quiz, at least) because the internet can provide a more guided set of summaries than a static "Spark Notes" can. Maybe this should be the new mode of teaching a book. Tell students to use a resource to generate a brain map, or practice quizzes or chapter summaries before reading that chapter and then let them try again after reading it. I'm not sure yet, but we are driven by the results we want to see and I have to come to terms with what skills and habits will be essential in the future and then shape my approach to address those needs.

AI can replace pre-teaching. AI can replace quiz making (and, in some multiple choice cases, grading). AI can replace note taking and essay generating. What can't AI do that I can, and that I bring to the classroom? Maybe, bringing humanity and the love of learning to the classroom. Or maybe it's that I can balance a hockey stick on my nose.

Well, AI? Can you balance a hockey stick on your nose? Yeah...you run away. Dan, FTW.

Brain sells

I have a limited number of brain cells. I'm not saying I can count them, but my finite skull cannot hold the planet sized brain that might allow for knowing everything. So the fact is, I don't know stuff and I have had to forget stuff. But what confuses me is how my brain has decided what to keep and what to forget.

I was driving in this morning and I recalled a conversation from some point in high school. My friend, Alon, was telling a story about his brother (whose name might be Jared but this, I don't remember). I recall the punch line and precisely what he reported his brother said. I shan't repeat it because it is a bit off color and might embarrass the brother (whom I have never met) but I remember it. I can't remember a huge slew of stuff I need on a daily basis -- names, dates, phone numbers and directions. I have brain cells that are used up remembering stupid sports trivia, cultural references, stuff I learned in college, and childhood traumas, so they are tied up and unable to be allocated to recall where I put my glasses. Spoiler alert, you put them in the laundry. Don't wonder why. Things got weird, deal with it.

I believe in a memory much like a line item veto. I should be able to choose whether or not I remember a fact (I can then choose to qwrite down the things that I don't intend to waste brain space on). That way, I can voluntarily forget that I once had a peanut butter sanwich at the house of a girl whose name is Michelle, and whom I went to pre-K with. I have no more details about this event and it has never served me as anything useful. But I have it -- a full blown memory which is a complete misapplication of resources. I don't know Michelle's last name, or why i was eating a sandwich at her house. I was, I'm guessing, 3 years old. Or maybe 4 or 5. Whatever. I was little. Stop grilling me about it.

What else do I remember? The combination to my locker in high school (34-24-14). I assume I won't need that. A conversation I had with a school friend named Stu about how to hold your hands when running around in gym. 10 or so years old. Unneeded. How about the name of the first podiatrist I saw when I was a teenager. Or the pediatrician's office I used to go to and the huge container of multi-colored Tootsie Rolls. I remember the SRA's and the colors and how I always came in second to Leora. Argh, why can't I wipe that one and reuse the brain cells to help me understand bitcoin? 

Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find

Just a note on AI that came to mind this morning:

AI is an echo chamber. The voice we put into it drives the response. Ask why "Why is X better than Y" and you will get a raft of paragraphs and sources.

Then ask "why is Y better than X" and you might very well get an equal and opposite set of proofs.

Now this is all well and good when one is trying to muster sources to support a conclusion he has already adopted. But using this method when constructing a prompt proves dangerous when one doesn't realize that this is what is going on. When a person uses a prompt like this without considering that it is an echo chamber, one will mistake the AI generated response with an authoritative voice supporting a position.

The individual runs the risk of confusing an echoic response with an objective collecting of facts. But the wording of the prompt excludes the viability of the other side -- it reinforces the belief that the answer produced is all there is.  The person does not need to consider any other point of view because the LLM has spit out the words which support the view looked for in the prompt.

If we aren't aware of how we ask a question, we will not be aware of potential limitations on the answer.

I get the sense that this could be changed into a good speech on repentance and asking for forgiveness but I'm in a secular mode right now.

Coffee Talk

I like coffee. Hot, iced, room temp, I don't care, as long as it has the important attribute of being coffee. Not a drink made with coffee, and not coffee adulterated by sweetener and lightener. If I could find a way to avoid having to add water, and just chew roasted, ground beans, I might do that.

I like the dark and the bitter. I like coffee that fights with you even before you drink it. I want a cup of coffee that I will remember, long after I have thrown out the cup, realized that it wasn't my cup and that it wasn't supposed to be thrown out, fished the cup out of the garbage, washed it thoroughly and left it to dry, only to have some guy bump it off the counter and have it break so it gets thrown out anyway. Like long after that.

I want the coffee that eats like a meal.

But, and this is important, it is my belief that each of us can only ingest a specific amount of caffeine in his or her lifetime and once you get past that amount, you are in team-foul territory. I reached my personal point of no caffeine in the summer of 1999. I was drinking about a gallon of iced tea a day and suddenly couldn't sleep. Weird, right? So I switched to decaf. Don't hate me, haters, While I can ingest a small amount of caffeine (in the form of chocolate, generally) I try really hard to avoid drinking hi-test coffee. Sometimes it might have no impact, but it might also give me the jitters, the sweats, the unquenchable appetite and the cravings and that's a game of chance I'd rather not play.

So, yes, I drink decaf (it does have a little caffeine in it, but so far, not enough for me to decide to move to Postum) and I like it. Dark, bitter decaf is what I'm all about. This has put in the position of trying out different coffees to find the right decaf for me. For a while, I have been drinking Keurig pods -- they are pretty good but they take exactly the kind of effort I am worst at: "effort." We have a coffee shop in the school building (don't ask) and I often get my coffee from there and the premade, room temperature decaf is wonderful (as is the fresh triple decaf espresso in a little cup). But go to the store and the options are more limited.

I first ran into the Chosen Bean a bunch of years back. Cold, bitter, delicious and more expensive than any coffee has the right to be. Also, not carried by most stores so hard to find. I started ordering it by the box from California and it came packed in cold packs and only occasionally spilling all over everything. I found that they had 2 formulations, one of which was a concentrate that I was supposed to water down. No thank you. I just drank the concentrate. Mmmm Mmmm good. But I couldn't afford to keep drinking it and still be able to pay for luxuries like oxygen so I backed off.

Then I found Coldbruh with its pseudo-hipster name and its Sunny-D vibes. It is in squeezie-bags guaranteed to dribble all over me no matter what I do. The flavor is not as strong or complex as the Chosen Bean but this is available at a local store and it slightly less expensive than the Chosen Bean stuff. It also uses the "Swiss Water" method.

Here's what I know about the water situation. From what I recall, to get caffeine out of coffee beans, you have to rinse them with water and who knows what else. Apparently, doing that sucks out other important flavor crystals so decaf lacks some of the flavors and crunch of regular coffee. But water that has absorbed all the other nasties can still suck out more caffeine without bothering with the other stuff. So coffee people get this water that is already full up of other stuff so that the water only attacks the caffeine. It's like science or something. But both the Chosen Bean and the Coldbruh (and Power Coffee Works in Jerusalem) use this method. It is, clearly, an expensive method. Remember, American Cheese is cheaper than Swiss Cheese. So there's that, but who wants to put cheese in coffee?

Then I heard of another brand, "Stok" with a line over the O. It was significantly cheaper but it was available at Shoprite and I practically live at Shoprite so this looked like a major win. I'm willing to ignore the line over the O in the same way I could look past the man-bun on the Coldbruh. I drank it. I don't know if it was the lack of Swiss water, or the fact that it was slow brewed, but the coffee lacked any will to fight. It wasn't bad, per se, but it lacked depth and character. It just wasn't that great. I looked at the ingredients (DECAFFEINATED COFFEE (WATER, DECAFFEINATED COFFEE), NATURAL FLAVOR.) and I noticed that the drink has 3 carbs per serving. I have no idea where those carbs are coming from. Look at the ingredients. What is providing carbs? "Natural Flavors"?

And as I finished the first 48 ounces, I noted that the bottle says, "Coffee Beverage." What the heck is a coffee beverage as compared to coffee? And with those ingredients? Do we have to call it "cofee" so that it isn't held to the standards of actual coffee?

Those are my choices. I also drink a lot of decaf (not herbal) iced tea. Don't get me started on decaf tea.

War of the Words [sick]

 I had heard that there was a new movie available, and I'm not one to say no to a very small group of movies that I can't fully define. But this one boasted an incredibly low score on Rotten Tomatoes so the promise of a horrible movie got me.

I took a look: War of the Worlds (and I didn't hate the Tom Cruise version). Ninety minutes. But it seemed like more. A lot more. Like it would never end.

First, the good news -- the story telling technique was interesting and was a great comment on our reliance on technology and social media. But the reality of data collection was downright scary (if a tad unrealistic).

Now, the rest. Ice Cube is really the worst actor I have seen. Maybe ever. I have seen worse from non-actors, but this is a guy who is supposedly an actor. He was just bad. But this is appropriate because he was playing the absolute worst hero, ever. An unlikable jerk who doesn't know if he wants to keep his glasses on or take them off. So he just yells.

The effects were a small cut above an Asylum flick. The plot, pacing and writing were miserable and, worse, illogical. Continuity wasn't even attempted. The product placement is so thick that there was placement WITHIN other placement.

I saw this on Amazon Prime Video and it was offered with limited commercial interruptions. Too limited. There needed to be more interruptions.

One thing to look for -- go to about 1:06 and watch Mr. Cube's mini rant. That is actually good stuff. Then slog through the stock footage hit parade and listen carefully at 1:16:45 (approx) after he punches the thing. You're welcome.

It was a compelling movie in it own way -- I can admit that. But at the same time, it was infuriatingly bad, with a story that made no sense. I think I caught COVID by watching it.

National Fake League has begun again!

 A new season and a new opportunity to rig games. My movement to reveal the hidden layers of scripting in the NFL continues!

I was watching a preseason game yesterday (Eagles vs. Bengals). Third quarter, last minute of play in the quarter. The play happens and the quarterback, under pressure has to dump the ball. After the play, the booth guy says, "and we have a flag." OK, that happens. But the call that we hear is "illegal formation" (or possibly "illegal motion," I wasn't paying total attention). Then they showed the replay and it is clear that there was a holding penalty at the end of the play. The hold was right in front of the official (heck, the defender raised his arms after the hold and looked at the official with that "wasn't me" face) and then the flag flew. It was obvious from the timing and location of the flag that it wasn't a pre-snap penalty. It was a hold, clear as day.

No mention by anyone in the booth. In fact, no speaking. Cut to comemrcial.

Eh, I will pass

With all the fuss about AI recently (most of it made by me...you should see the living room) I decided to turn my gaze inward and try to figure out my resistance to interacting with the future rulers of earth.

What follows is a series of observations, not a cohesive essay, so bare with me (I'm not wearing pants).

I have, on my phone, a couple of these apps that present a human voice and mechanical mind. Thing is, the spoken word component is a lie. All one ever needed was a written-to-speech converter. This is nothing new https://www.naturalreaders.com/online/ . Heck, go back and watch Wargames -- the WOPR (nicknamed Joshua) communicates in written words but the synthesizer converts it to speech. It isn't speaking. So let's get that out of the way. The computer is still running and still running like a computer. What we have is really just a spoken word interface for a text based search engine.

See, that's the thing. Underneath it all, the "AI" is just a search engine and a predictive language engine. There is no thought or consideration. It is just as easy for me to type in a search as it is for me to speak (unless I'm driving). And while the results can be combined and read to me, all we have is a program that mines for info in the same old way.

Some of the more advanced interfaces attempt to refine their approach, but really they are all just running an algorithm to recognize words, create searches and then put the information together in sentence form. And you can "speak" back to them. But what do they do with the words you say? Bottom line is that the system is recognizing words and phrases and assembling words and phrases in return. But none of it is real. 

Our approach to language is that we master spoken word communication first. We speak before we can read. The written form of the language then spends a lifetime trying to catch up. We develop inflection, intonation, pauses, body language and all sorts of things that allow us to communicate in the spoken sphere even without the specific use of words. We can pick up on sarcasm, or lies, flirting or fear and we recognize the limitations of written language in capturing the meta data of our conversation.

Computers are native to the written language. That's all they know -- words and phrases and their semantic position and value. Not only do we lose the emotional context when we type, but a computer is incapable of recognizing and including spoken word tools when it tries to transfer its data to the spoken word. 

But we forget that the computer can't pick up on subtleties, choose to omit, or lie or spin and we project our expectations and our emotional content onto what the computer presents. So when I sit down and speak with my Gemini, while it might sound understanding or might make me feel better, it isn't really doing anything intelligent. It is Eliza for a new generation. In truth, spoken natives (humans) and written natives (computers) will always be separated by this rift.

On another note, I was shown this thing called "Grok" yesterday. Grok takes still photos and turns them into 5 second videos. I was able to see a video of my mother (A"H) when she was younger. I saw a "video" of me as a baby. And you can set it to be normal or funny. But the bottom line is IT NEVER HAPPENED. We are recording over the past because we think that a computer's revisionist vision of our past is preferable as it is in motion. We are dissatisfied with the fact that in the past, certain technologies didn't exist so we are inventing a more technologically gifted past which then creates a false version of our own histories. We can't even believe our own photos anymore. This isn't only about the distant past. I can show someone a "video" of a wedding from last night and that person will assume that the video is an actual recording of  the events of last night. But it might have no basis in any truth but it will look authentic and might lead people to draw conclusions, pass along stories or perpetuate the lie. And how can it be disproven?

I just sent a letter out to the student body as composed by AI. Next I'll send out one that's actually useful

Garbage time

 I have a demonstrated record of saving the world. I gave you all my sage advice here and I stand by it. But I'm no one trick pony. I am willing to trick ponies many times! So here is my new way to save the world.

If I recall correctly, we have a space station. We keep it up in space somewhere and from it, you can see my house. We are also hoping to be able to build more space stations and maybe a staging area for travel to other places, like space and stuff.

Also, and here's a fact you can take to the bank, the sun is large and has a strong gravitational pull. The bank doesn't care, but you do you. I would assume that science types could figure out how to move space stuff into a trajectory that will eventually have it crash into the sun -- or to be more precise, burn up as it nears the sun. And because space has no speed limits, we can develop a slingshot or some sort of cannon that shoots stuff towards the sun at really high speeds for fairly low cost because we don't care about safety and such.

So here's the plan -- we make a stripped down space hauler and load it up with trash, then we send it up to the space station which then takes the trash and fires it into the sun. Bam. No more garbage problem. The sun won't mind because it is a mass of incandescent gas a gigantic nuclear furnace and has no feelings that matter.

But, you say, it is prohibitively expensive to fire stuff into space. What if we compressed our trash so much that a lot fit on the spaceship? Then we wouldn't have to make that many trips. And what if we found a way to turn some of that trash into a fuel that would serve the propulsion needs. How tough can that be? Lots of stuff burns, so just burn lots of stuff. The ride doesn't need to be smooth as the rocket can be unmanned and remotely piloted and reused.

So basically, we can get rid of our garbage (and the pollution that incinerating it would create on earth), energize our space program and save humanity.

You're welcome.

Radio, Radio

I like radio. In fact, I like radio so much that I went to school to study radio. And you know what I did? I studied radio and it was glorious. I practiced being on the radio, learning how to run a radio station, editting material for the radio, and even producing a live show and conducting interviews. I was a radio junkie par excellence.

But, as the talmud often asks, "why radio?" This is a fair question, and, as with most such questions, it goes back to childhood trauma. Not so much trauma as craziness. Yeah, that's the word.

I went through all sorts of crazinesses as a youth, and one I remember, and I have no idea how or when it started, was a fear that I was the only one left alive and awake on the planet. Yes. That was a real fear of mine. I needed to be back home and in bed before my parents went to sleep. I was afraid that I was all alone. Really, that's what it boiled down to -- I hated being alone. So when I went down the block to a friend's house (yes, to play D+D...shhhhh) and my parents said that they were going to sleep early, I left while it was broad daylight and sprinted home so as to be there and safe. Crazy, I know.

Until one night, when I turned on the radio. It somehow reminded me that while I was lying there, all alone, there were other people alive and working. To know that I could turn on the radio and hear people who shared the night with me was to connect with reality and to be part of something. It restored a sense of well being. Maybe that seems grandiose but it actually was that life changing for me. So I really got into listening to the radio and I felt a kinship with it.

In college, I started out just being a guy. A guy who had some friends but hadn't found his calling. Then, sometime in my sophomore year, someone invited me to the radio station. And that was that. I again felt like I could connect with people -- other employees, radio devotees and other hangers on. People called in to tell me that they heard me; I was the voice in the night representing all that is still alive, their beacon. Even in the depths of 3:30 AM, I was alive and so were listeners. Some called in and that was always weird, but hey -- alive!

No, I am not invoking any Bon Jovi song. Radio didn't save my life. It just validated my neuroses so, yay radio!

A book review for the 9th of Av

 Strange choice of topic, I know, but I spent much of yesterday reading Noa Tishby's "Israel" and I wanted to sum up my thoughts about it.

It isn't a bad book. That's what I'm saying on a bottom line level. Now to the specifics.

First, super to you, Ms. Tishby, for writing this book. It has the potential to do good. So, yeah.

But here's where I start getting critical. First off, the tone of the book betrays that the author doesn't know what kind of book she wants to write. Her use of slang and catchphrases already makes her prose look dated, but it also screams of patronizing younger readers. Here's a remarkable fact, youth of the world, Noa Tishby knows what "AF" stands for. Isn't that grand? And that she uses it repeatedly; that makes her cool, right? She uses "cray" so she must be in touch with youth culture, right? Feh. She doesn't know for whom she is writing this, struggling to balance the tongue in cheek with the historical. This just waters down its factual power.

Also, I wasn't keeping count, but I found at least 3 errors in the text. One was an internal contradiction, one bespoke an ignorance of the bible and one flawed historical reference. And the transliteration and translation of some of the Hebrew was horrible. If the book wants to be taken seriously as a reference guide, then its facts must be above reproach. But if I, a guy sitting on a couch, trying to avoid humanity, can spot easy mistakes, others can. And if I find 3, I worry that there are 30. It is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. How can I trust the rest of the work if I can find mistakes in it?

She also doesn't seem to know if she is writing a memoir of her family, a series of shout outs to her friends and colleagues, or a work of historical significance. She bounces between voices, foci and subjects, often addressing the reader directly in a way that undercuts the ability to take the work seriously.

Her facts are great. She does break down history into understandable chunks, but this reveals another area of difficulty for the author. Tishby is an avowed and unapologetic leftist (as it relates to Israeli policies). She does try to acknowledge her agenda and balance with a presentation of both political sides, but every time she does this, it seems that she simply points out why the right was right and why all of her left-leaning stances have been disappointed by reality. But she still tries to keep to the left.

This is a book that could unite disparate elements of Israeli society (or the American diaspora Jewish society) and is a book that could have been so much better had the content been handled more competently. It has stuff I haven't read before (historical facts that, if they are accurate, are very important in presenting the Israeli position) but it also wallows in the whole "my family was awesome and I have suffered in between all the stuff I have accomplished so I will speak for everyone and say, my family was awesome. And also, the people I quote from our conversation also wrote books that support what they told me personally because I'm a celebrity in Hollywood"

At first I wanted to hate this as a self-indulgent piece of promotion. Then I wanted to look it because it brought a good organizational scheme and some valuable facts to the table. hen I wanted it to be done because I got tired of her bouncing around, paralleling her family's existence with that of the state of Israel.

So, is it a good book? Yes and no. Worth reading, especially on the 9th of Av? Yes, but maybe take a salt suppository before you start.