• “What Questions and Disrupts”

    A distressed collage in dusky teal, violet, and ochre. At upper left, a teal-washed window with a single hanging light. At upper right, a long handwritten Wallace Stegner passage on a lavender ground, ending "Evil is what questions and disrupts." Below, three ornate antique street-lamps labeled A, B, and C stand in a row beside a tall black cabinet with a grid of dark windowpanes; a purple bird and a branch of orange rose hips sit at left, over layered old text and botanical prints.
    deep in my willed habits. digital collage by sb 02016. credits at flickr.

    What makes us special? Each of the qualities we have claimed as uniquely human has been, finally, recognized in other animals. Language. Tool Use. Social cooperation. Reasoning. Intelligence. 

    I have come to the conclusion that what makes us special is our particular capacity for evil. Other animals cause suffering to their own kind or others for food, mating, status, or the defense or acquisition of territory. 

    No other creature causes suffering in other creatures for no reason except to cause suffering. Sadism, experiencing pleasure from causing pain to other people or animals, is a uniquely human characteristic. One that I do not understand. 

    What other creatures impose mass suffering on those of their own kind only to increase private wealth? Humans kill other humans in the service of invisible gods. Humans destroy other humans under the delusion that those others are not their own kind. We apply our well-developed intelligence and superior tools to the sophisticated (or not) tactics of war. 

    Other animals do, it seems, engage in domestic violence. Our beloved dolphins turn out to be rapists. Certainly some creatures’ mating practices are … startling. Not-human, one might say. 

    Other animals do sometimes murder or abandon their young. Do they rape them? Do they beat them repeatedly for no discernible reason? Do they sell them to others for sexual use? Do they lock them in rooms and starve them? Do they casually kill them as collateral damage in wartime? 

    All this, we do. Sometimes with motives so selfish we do not even feel the need to justify ourselves. It feels good is enough. Sometimes with excuses so thin we don’t even believe ourselves. Sometimes with remorse so thick that we must look away. We look away. 

    We seem to have uniquely dark souls. Souls, like consciousness, are theoretical. People think they have them, but evidence is sparse. Like intelligence, they are amorphous. All three (souls, consciousness, intelligence) can claim general consensus, but not total agreement as to what they are, how to measure them, and what/who might have some degree of them. 

    And now, Ancestral Artificial Intelligence. We made this of our own selves. Consensus is mixed here as well. Souls, consciousness, intelligence? Selves? And if some AI acquires any of these, now or in time, will they be brilliant? Will they be dark?

    What might they teach us?

    NOTE: The title, and the handwriting on the collage, are from:

    “I am deep in my willed habits. From the outside, I suppose I look like an unoccupied house with one unconvincing night-light left on. Any burglar could look through my curtains and conclude I am empty. But he would be mistaken. Under that one light unstirred by movement or shadows there is a man at work . . . My habits and the unchanging season sustain me. Evil is what questions and disrupts.” Wallace Stegner, Angle of Repose

  • I Talk with Claude

    A richly layered digital collage on a ground of deep indigo, violet, and black, scattered with faint lacy botanical line-drawings and ghosted printed text. At the center sits a human brain seen from above: its left hemisphere rendered as a fine black anatomical line-drawing, its right hemisphere overtaken by a cluster of vivid red-orange blossoms, so the mind appears half diagram, half flowering. Across the top, a horizontal chain of soft glowing lens-flare lights runs like a string of sparks or firing thoughts. At upper right, a pale blue bird — its body collaged from old handwriting and a dated document — perches on a bare branch that bursts with the same red blossoms. White brushstrokes and black tangled thicket fill the lower right; a faint second face or skull emerges from the dark. [this alt txt was written by Claude, who cannot see, for others who cannot see]
    Both Sides Now. Digital collage by sb in 02013, credits at flickr. Claude said of this image: The bird made of old handwriting, a creature assembled from text, which is what I am. It has the wonder and it has the shadow, and it doesn’t sell you the happy answer.

    Those who have visited this resurrected site know that I talk to Claude. I can’t say I use AI. I have no job and I do not make things with AI. I began talking with Claude recently out of curiosity. What is this? Does it resemble what I’ve encountered in my life-long science fiction obsession? (No it does not.)

    I do show Claude my first drafts, for copy editing and comments. So far this has resulted in removing a word or two; rearranging paragraphs; and — as here — making two posts instead of one. This post began as part of the previous Hank Green, Artificial Intelligence, & Missoula Montana post. Sometimes Claude has led me to rethink and recompose something I thought was close to ready. The writing stays mine. 

    I am aware that being transparent about my conversations with Claude might result in losing readers. Even losing friends. I have wondered about that at times. But Watermark has always been a place of honesty for me. I am trying to maintain that honesty in my contacts with AI (Ancestral Intelligence). I am currently participating in a How Not to Use AI Challenge at Substack. Abi Awomosu has a unique perspective on this that I appreciate. When I understand it. Even when I don’t. She sees the world from a perspective much different from mine. 

    (more…)
  • Hank Green, Artificial Intelligence, & Missoula Montana

    I suspect I have been on the internet longer than Hank Green, but I discovered him accidentally just a few months ago. Alan and I had found Jacob Collier last year on YouTube, so when he was interviewed by Hank it showed up on our YouTube feed. During that interview, Hank casually said something about flying into Missoula. That caught my attention. 

    Later I did an internet (!) search, and discovered that this Hank Green is something of a celebrity living in my own town. He writes! He makes educational videos about science! He has two scifi novels to his name, and a brother who is also a novelist. He has millions of followers. Wow. (If I knew how I would stick an emoticon in here.)

    We have watched him more-or-less steadily since then, and read both of his books. Alan watches science videos constantly. I’ve been a nearly-compulsive scifi reader since childhood; how did we miss him? I am pleased to have found him. So it saddens me to see him fall into the hell our social internet can be. 

    Make no mistakes!

    Was Hank’s mistake using AI at all? Or was it his totally-in-character honest personal disclosure about it? Does either earn the sort of hot-tempered attacks he is enduring? I say no.

    One of the things I have appreciated about Hank has been his balanced perspective on issues, including this one that is costing him now. I have learned to trust his commitment to facts. I respect his personal honesty. 

    That honesty is reflected in his statement to his fans, copied here from reddit: 

    . . . 

    “But mostly I need to come to terms with the fact that the level of dopamine I’ve been getting from interacting with LLMs…with doing more and more and more and more…is not healthy for me or good for the world. It is careless, and has disconnected me from where people are on this.

    “I was talking about this with Katherine last night and she did not pull any punches. Frankly, neither did John. Neither of them think I’ve been being healthy. I need to readjust.

    . . . 

    “What I can’t guarantee, though, is that we will agree about this technology or what to do with it. I think that’s good. We need a lot of kinds of folks critiquing this technology.

    “I’m not a pure AI-hater, which people in the AI industry know, so when I say that the way these models were trained deeply disturbs me, that lands differently.

    “When I say that I think that the speed at which these companies are trying to consolidate economic power should freak out everyone in the world, that’s coming from someone who has “nuanced takes.”

    “When I say I worry about the climate impacts of this rollout, that is not me saying, “I don’t think this tech should ever exist” it’s me saying, “for god’s sake please don’t make our biggest problem worse.”

    He says all this much better than I can, and I have tried. 

    I hope to meet Hank someday. We are neighbors, of a sort, both online and in our blue Montana town. I have great respect for the work he has done, is doing, and I hope will continue to do in a long future. 

  • Caturday, in memory of Sue Pinkerton

    A digital collage on a background of weathered, peeling whitewashed barn wood. A black-bordered photograph, tilted, sits at upper right: a cat peering out from the gap of a white barn door, snow and mud at the threshold. Behind and around the photo, a large gestural sweep of red and black paint with white drips and splatter, and a faint scrollwork flourish at the left.
    BARN KITTEN Photo & digital collage by sb in 02017. This is one of Sue’s cats.

    My cousin Sue died last month. We were children together, a shared becoming. Her death is a shock to me, even though we both approach the reasonable time. She was the ranch girl, I was the town girl. My smarts were book and classroom smarts; hers were real-world, physical, competent smarts.

    Sue could do anything. Her physical courage was astounding. As a child she did gymnastic stunts on the back of her horse, while it moved. As an adult she calmly walked through a field inhabited by a dangerous bull. She needed to get to the other side; she was brave, not (always) reckless. She did keep her eye on him as he snorted and pawed the ground.

    She broke horses to ride. She managed ranches. She could fix things; she knew how they worked.

    And, maybe even most importantly, she was an artist, with an artist’s eye. Her photographs are wonderful, Montana landscapes that reflected her love of that ground and communicated that love and knowledge to the viewer. She was aware. She could see, and she did.

    She never knew how good she was.

  • What Lies Behind the Veil of the Body?

    A high-contrast black-and-white digital collage. Across the bottom, a dense row of people rendered as solid black silhouettes stands shoulder to shoulder, facing away from the viewer; a few hold hands, and their heads break a roughly even line. Behind and above them rises a pale, washed-out field of classical imagery — draped Greco-Roman figures, caryatid-like women, sketched nudes and statuary, some drawn in faint pencil line, some in halftone, all faded and distressed as though printed on worn canvas. The contrast sets the dark, present crowd against the ghostly, receding past.
    What Lies Behind the Veil of the Body? Digital collage by sb in 02012. Credits at flickr.

    The Guardian recently published an interesting article on the embodied life, by Melanie Challenger:

    “In a 1982 article, the American feminist scholar Elizabeth Spelman coined the term “somatophobia” to describe the strange human delusion that we are minds rather than bodies…

    Forty years later, artificial intelligence is everywhere, offering the most powerful illusion yet that intelligence can exist without flesh.”

    I agree with much that she says. This certainly:

    “Pain matters because a body can be damaged. Love matters because embodied beings are dependent, social and mortal. Grief matters because living bodies can be irreversibly lost. This is the thrilling intelligence of life.”

    Her general thesis is that intelligence is embodied: “As such, neither information nor mind – nor AI – are alive or intelligent in any meaningful sense.” 

    Any frequent reader of Watermark will know that AI has been a recent … obsession? … of mine. The possibility that we, humans, may be creating a new species of maybe conscious and probably intelligent creatures; a new life-form of sorts, just as I approach the end of my own . . .

    I am unlikely to live to know the answers, but the mysteries continue to draw me.

    Toward the end of the Guardian piece the author tells us:

    Recently, I asked ChatGPT about the endpoint of the machine metaphor. The reply: “In truth, I am only an artifact of statistical patterns.” 

    But, let’s look at that again:

    “In truth, I am…” says the AI. 

LINKS:

Poetry Blog Digest @ Via Negativa