Note -- this is a working draft that is changing as you read this. 

"First, LLMs do have robust internal representations. Second, there is an open question to answer about whether LLMs have robust action dispositions. Third, existing skeptical challenges to LLM representation do not survive philosophical scrutiny." -- Simon Goldstein & Benjamin Anders Levinstein, Does ChatGPT Have a Mind? - PhilPapers

"We should not be surprised, then, that a number of people sincerely believe, or at least act very much as if they believe, that some AI systems have sentience and understanding, and that number is likely to grow." -- Are You Anthropomorphizing AI? | Blog of the APA

The 4 Degrees of Anthropomorphism of Generative AI

"We explore the lives of people who are in love with their AI chatbots. Replika is a chatbot designed to adapt to the emotional needs of its users. It is a good enough surrogate for human interaction that many people have decided that it can fulfill their romantic needs." -- S6, Episode 3: Love in Time of Replika (April 25th, 2023) – Hi-Phi Nation

"... our concerns go beyond bias; we want to caution against the anthropomorphizing of AI. AI is not human, and we should not be using human-related terms to refer to these systems and tools because that can lead to misconceptions that cause harm not just to our students but to our communities as well." -- Anthropomorphism of AI in Learning Environments: Risks of Humanizing the Machine | EdSurge News

"Chatbots, and the large language models (LLMs) on which they are built, are showing us the dangers of dishonest anthropomorphism. Built with humanlike features that present themselves as having cognitive and emotional abilities that they do not actually possess, their design can dupe us into overtrusting them, overestimating their capabilities, and wrongly treating them with a degree of autonomy that can cause serious moral confusion. Chatbots programmed to express feelings or that provide responses as if typing in real-time raise significant questions about ethical anthropomorphism on the part of generative AI developers." -- The Danger of Dishonest Anthropomorphism in Chatbot Design | Psychology Today Canada

"By elevating machines to human capabilities, we diminish the specialness of people. I’m eager to preserve the distinction and clarify responsibility. So I do not think machines should use first-person pronouns, but should describe who is responsible for the system or simply respond in a machine-like way." --  On AI Anthropomorphism. by Ben Shneiderman (University of… | by Chenhao Tan | Human-Centered AI | Medium

"... worries are – at least as far as large language models are concerned – groundless. ChatGPT and similar technologies are sophisticated sentence completion applications – nothing more, nothing less. Their uncanny responses are a function of how predictable humans are if one has enough data about the ways in which we communicate." -- AI isn’t close to becoming sentient – the real danger lies in how easily we’re prone to anthropomorphize it

"When talking to an AI chatbot, users may feel comfortable sharing more information than they ordinarily would if the chatbot sounds human-like and uses first- or second-person language. It may feel like the information provided to the chatbot is being shared with a friendly person rather than an enterprise that may use those data for a variety of purposes. For example, people may talk to a chatbot for a while and eventually reveal sensitive information (e.g., health issues they are struggling with). Most chatbots will not warn users when they are providing sensitive information." --  The Privacy Pros and Cons of Anthropomorphized AI

"The tendency to humanize AI and the degree to which people trust it highlights serious ethical and legal concerns. AI-powered ‘humanizer’ tools claim to transform AI-generated content into “natural” and “human-like” narratives. Others have created “digital humans” for use in marketing and advertising. Chances are, the next ad you see featuring a person isn’t a person at all but a form of synthetic media. Actually, let’s stick to calling it exactly what it is — a deepfake."

"It’s not just an ethical problem; it’s also a security problem since anything designed to persuade can make us more susceptible to manipulation. In the context of cybersecurity, this presents a whole new level of threat from social engineering scammers."

"People form relationships with other people, not with machines. But when it becomes almost impossible to tell the difference, we’re more likely to trust AI when making sensitive decisions. We become more vulnerable; more willing to share our personal thoughts and, in the case of business, our trade secrets and intellectual property."

"This presents serious ramifications for information security and privacy. Most large language models (LLMs) keep a record of every interaction, potentially using it for training future models."

"Do we really want our virtual assistants to reveal our private information to future users? Do business leaders want their intellectual property to resurface in later responses? Do we want our secrets to become part of a massive corpus of text, audio and visual content to train the next iteration of AI?"

"If we start thinking of machines as substitutes for real human interaction, then all these things are much likelier to happen." -- The dangers of anthropomorphizing AI: An infosec perspective

"With more human-like interactions, people develop a sense of trust and adapt to using AI technology quicker given its more innate to our human nature. Furthermore with the advent of Generative AI, humans are embedding natural language interactions with machines (as an evolution to Conversational AI) in the form of prompt engineering." -- (10) The Pros and Cons of Anthropomorphizing Artificial Intelligence | LinkedIn

"Anthropomorphizing isn’t always detrimental. For instance, it may improve your well-being by creating a sense of comfort and connectedness." -- https://psychcentral.com/health/why-do-we-anthropomorphize#recap

“We now have machines that can mindlessly generate words, but we haven’t learned how to stop imagining a mind behind them.” -- –A.I. expert Professor Emily Bender in The Washington Post -- Chatbots Are Not People: Designed-In Dangers of Human-Like A.I. Systems - Public Citizen

"He Would Still Be Here’: Man Dies by Suicide After Talking with AI Chatbot, Widow Says" -- 'He Would Still Be Here': Man Dies by Suicide After Talking with AI Chatbot, Widow Says

"anthropomorphism is shown to exaggerate AI capabilities and performance by attributing human-like traits to systems that do not possess them. As a fallacy, anthropomorphism is shown to distort moral judgments about AI, such as those concerning its moral character and status, as well as judgments of responsibility and trust." -- Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy | AI and Ethics

NATO/Russia -- Enough Already

NATO on Notice

The fact that a request for "long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia" (see September 2024 below) is on the table (though not yet agreed to) means that the use of nuclear weapons on targets in the West is also on the table—if they weren’t already. Perhaps it won’t be done, but Russia has made it clear that a red line was crossed when forces came to their doorstep. Crossing over into Russian territory challenges that, but is it just a bluff? -- Update: I am not alone in being concerned. https://www.icanw.org/will_putin_use_nuclear_weapons Nuclear weapons are horrific, but damage from low yield tactical weapons is contained enough that their use is plausible: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ It seems it is being seriously considered, but for whatever reason it is being downplayed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tactical-nuclear-weapons-russia-putin/ 

A military attack on a territory defended by nuclear
weapons seems like a bad idea. Volodymyr Zelensky frames it as a strategy to force Russia to the bargaining table. It may force Russia's hand, but not in a way anybody wants to see. The West has played a game of chicken with Russia in the past and won, but I don't think that is a reliable precedent for the current situation.

Below is a timeline of quotes that reflect my understanding before writing this. Russia has been clear in the past that NATO moving into former Soviet territory is unacceptable.

2008

"Nato membership for Ukraine and Georgia could threaten European security and undermine attempts to improve transatlantic relations, the Russian president-elect warned today." -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/25/russia.ukraine

"F. Stephen Larrabee, an expert on NATO and Eastern Europe, says Russia’s invasion of Georgia was an effort to limit "Western influence into the former Soviet space."" -- https://www.cfr.org/interview/russias-offensive-georgia-signal-nato-stay-away-its-space

2022

" ... in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO's eastward march represents decades of broken promises from the West to Moscow. ... "You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," Putin said ..." -- https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

2023

"Russian president Vladimir Putin launched his criminal war as a reaction to the possibility of NATO expanding into Ukraine, and the alliance’s refusal to swear it off — not once or twice, but three separate times." -- https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ukraine-nato-expansion/

2024

(July) "NATO condemns in the strongest possible terms Russia's brutal and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine - which is an independent, peaceful and democratic country, and a close NATO partner. NATO and Allies continue to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence." -- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

(June) "MOSCOW, June 3 (Reuters) - Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Monday the United States could face "fatal consequences" if it ignored Moscow's warnings not to let Ukraine use weapons provided by Washington to strike targets inside Russia."

(September) "President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged his Western allies to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia and increase pressure on Moscow to end the war."

Goodbye NDP!

Jugmeet Singh has announced that he is tearing up a crucial deal that keeps the current government in power. That will put the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre in power and that's a bad thing. It will injure the Liberal Party and put them out of power, but more importantly it will destroy the NDP. I used to work in elections for NDP candidates and family members still do. The NDP lost its way with its principles some time ago, so I don't work for them anymore, but I have always voted NDP. Given the current news that is set to change. 

It was quibbles about principles and struggles with a cynical party brass at the DNC that put Donald Trump in office. This current nonsense is reminiscent of that. In order to make some point of principle, arguably not even applicable in the current case involving Railways, Jugmeet Singh and whoever is supporting him in the NDP have decided to throw away the work of lifetimes by millions building the (formerly) socialist alternative to a capitalist hegemony. He/they do not have that right. They are custodians of  the NDP heritage, not the owner. 

My daughter called to ask if I had seen the news. I had not. While on the phone with her, I said the NDP site must have something to say about this, so I went to the site. Here is what I was confronted with, front and center: "Jagmeet Singh is running for Prime Minister. Rich CEOs have had their government. It's the people's time."

That is the worst of cynical, self-serving political hypocrisy. Destroying the party and implicitly putting a monster in power is hardly hopeful. Jagmeet has never realistically been in a position to be Prime Minister, so that is effectively either delusional or a flat-out lie. Calling an election right now does not end the "Rich CEOs time". I casts it in stone until the end of a decade. The "people's time" is about to be to strain under the yoke of the most heartless possible Canadian Federal Party for years. 

Polls are both fallible and/or rigged to be used for political gain, but they are generally in the ballpark. I'm not sure which axe they have to grind, but I just went looking for any poll to give a flavor of what I know to be the case. This is the first I found (https://338canada.com/federal.htm), current as of a few days ago: In an election called now, the PCs (the bad guys) would win a majority and rule the roost absolutely for years with someone truly reckless, mean-spirited, grossly misogynist, morally, and technically and financially illiterate. The liberals would take a huge hit getting knocked back by possibly half their seats or more. The NDP would, in my estimation, barely keep or even possibly lose their official party status. Jagmeet Singh is not only not going to be the next Prime Minister, if sanity prevails he will effectively not even remain the leader of his party. 

I will update later if it turns out not to be as bad as it looks, but I am not nearly optimistic. The very most optimistic look at this is that it was a terrible misstatement, they put together a new agreement, and they unwind the optics somehow. I dearly wish this is the case because a federal election now would be a disaster with no upside whatsoever. 

Note: Not that it affects my thinking in this matter, but in the interest of full disclosure I have family members who are still NDP members and still actively work in elections. Oddly enough, a family member that is a subject matter expert works for a Liberal MP. More importantly, I have been involved with politics a great deal over the past decade. By coincidence, the post before this was on the subject of a private members bill by an NDP MP (https://blog.bobtrower.com/2024/09/glbi-is-not-ubi-bill-c-223.html). Somewhat tangential to this, I am the designer of secure electronic voting and am authoring voting software. 

GLBI is not UBI Bill C-223

Bill C-223 Guaranteed Livable Basic Income

Vote

A vote is coming up for private member's Bill C-223 (Leah Gazan) for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI) in the Federal Parliament of Canada. GLBI is a poor substitute for the real thing: Universal Basic Income (UBI). However, the bill for GLBI may get the ball rolling so that we can achieve the real thing. AI and automation are advancing much more quickly than most people think, and many workers will be displaced. Our existing system (essentially a pretty terrible GLBI by another name) is absolutely not up to the task. The advantages of UBI over GLBI primarily stem from the 'U'. Because UBI is universal—everyone receives it by virtue of being a Canadian over the age of 17—there is no risk of people falling through the cracks or less savvy individuals being unable to navigate the convoluted entitlements systems we have put in place. With UBI, you can't be a citizen and 'cheat' to get it when you are not entitled because everyone is entitled, and everyone receives it. People with higher incomes simply have their payments clawed back by the tax system.

Easily Introduced

Aside from the need to overhaul our broken entitlements system (which needs fixing whether with UBI or not), the only requirements are to issue the money and adjust the tax rates. We should phase it in to monitor its impact and adjust other elements as necessary, but we can start that tomorrow. Yes, tomorrow. As automation begins to change work, we will seamlessly accommodate these changes.

Additive, Revenue Neutral

UBI is additive and can be net revenue neutral. People at the higher income level will take a hit, but it’s one they can easily withstand, and it will still leave them with much more than anyone else. Those individuals are most likely to benefit from the economic advantages of funds being spent by people at lower income levels because those at lower income levels must spend that money to make ends meet, while those at the top own, control, or benefit from everything.

Phasing to Prevent Inflation

Phasing it in means there will be no sudden inflationary shock. Adjusting the tax system to ensure it is revenue neutral means it will not impact other programs and will not create additional currency that drives overall inflation. After the UBI is accounted for, the government will still have as much revenue as it had before—that’s what 'revenue neutral' means.

Preliminary Sketch

The figures I used came from the federal government. They are not entirely current and do not account for the overall tax situation, but they provide a good picture of the concept, how it can be revenue neutral, how it affects everyone regarding taxes, and still noticeably benefits all of the bottom 60% of income quintiles while representing a clear step up for those in the bottom quintile.

Because it is revenue neutral, it allows for long-term adjustments to other entitlements to alleviate some tax burdens while still genuinely guaranteeing that everyone receives net additional benefits.

I need to gather better data for a complete picture, but I was surprised by how entirely doable this is, how it does not unduly punish the top quintile, and the incredible extent to which it benefits those who need it most. I highly recommend that people contact their MP to ensure it gets passed and to communicate that framing what should be UBI as GLBI unnecessarily invites failure, guarantees more expenses, and, based on past experience, ensures that it will not help all those who need it.

Contact Your MP

You can send a message to your own MP here:

https://www.leahgazan.ca/glbi_letter_2024?utm_campaign=roundtable_announcement&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mpleahgazan

A sample letter is in place there. I wrote my own text because I have a long-term interest in this issue and I have things to say. In particular, I am deeply concerned that the UBI idea will get lost and that an all-but-useless duplicative program for GLBI will end up consuming resources that could have gone to people as UBI but will instead be absorbed by a bureaucracy that forces our most vulnerable citizens to beg for assistance.

----------

To my MP:

I urge you to vote in favor of Bill C-223 to initiate meaningful discussions on basic income. If given the opportunity to speak, please emphasize that we already have a program resembling a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI) under a different name, and it has proven to be fundamentally flawed.

The concept of GLBI, which attempts to mimic Universal Basic Income (UBI), is not a viable solution. UBI is essential because it allows for a straightforward distribution of funds to everyone as soon as they are needed. It guarantees that every individual receives at least a minimum income, unlike GLBI, which is susceptible to mismanagement and lacks clarity regarding who qualifies for assistance.

The 'U' in UBI signifies that it is unequivocal who receives support (everyone) and how much they receive. UBI can be implemented without the extensive bureaucracy associated with means testing, ultimately dismantling the waste and unfairness inherent in current entitlement programs that often disadvantage the most vulnerable among us.

A genuine UBI could be initiated almost immediately, with a phased approach to ensure proper implementation. For instance, a monthly payment starting at $122.20 in the fourth quarter of this year, increasing by 15% quarterly, could reach $2,000 per month by the fourth quarter of 2029. This initiative could be made revenue-neutral by adjusting tax rates, primarily affecting the highest income quintile, while over 60% of the population would see an increase in their after-tax income. Those in lower income brackets would have the opportunity to fully participate in the economy, which would, in turn, benefit all income levels.

By 2030, we could establish a robust social safety net and foster a happier, more prosperous society, but this is only achievable through a comprehensive Universal Basic Income that reaches everyone. The current GLBI proposal is inadequate and fails to address the needs of those who require support the most.