Being atoma got bugger on the heartanir, the hullah, the haman a heckol ah ers where auraslance Ladani, the tain knudov shoo that would kill nagatarhu la hula humperodes and udera lanse is phaederlatgun's throw tasha tapa siranashka agus nyav and erfad is fugulm more.
Hi.
A punk ie is called locrilala a on tudoros auraslanse if we real this in the heron, Hey, Mark.
How are you?
I'm not great a sore throat.
I think I'm coming down with a cold.
Know you should try a Vogel sre throat spray. It's a natural remedy with achinasia and sage and can treat symptoms of coals and flus, including sore throats.
Perfect. I'd give that a triso.
We leave sort throat symptoms with a vogel A quinapoor sore throat spray made from echinasia and sage herbs and designed to reach irritated parts of the throat, available from health stores and pharmacies nationwide.
Always read the leafless Oh hey, it's the tag that you wish you'd cut out of your shirt, Ali Ward, and for every one of us that has seen AI become more and more present in our lives and wondered, is anyone driving this bus? I have here for you a chat with an expert who tells us exactly who is driving the bus and where it could be headed. Is AI evil? Does AI even care about us? Is it going to kill us? Should we feel bad for it? Don't ask me, I'm not theologist. We're going to get
to it now. This expert is a Senior Fellow in Trustworthy AI and an assistant professor at the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. And they're cognitive scientists. They research ethics in artificial intelligence, and they've published papers with such titles as The Forgotten Margins of AI, Ethics, Toward Decolonizing Computational Sciences, the Unseen Blackfaces of AI algorithms, and the Values Encoded in Machine
Learning research. So they're on it, and I got to sit down and visit and chat in person when I was in Ireland just last month. Also just a pleasing aesthetic side note. They were born in Ethiopia but lives in Ireland, and this expert has the most melodic cadence, just like pyork I was mesmerized. We're going to get to all that in a sec but first, if you ever need shorter, kid friendly episodes with no adult language, we have Smologies their episodes and their own feed wherever
you get podcasts. Also linked in the show notes. That's Smologies. Also thank you to patrons for supporting ologies and sending in questions ahead of time. You can join for as little as a dollar a month at patreon dot com slash Ologies. Thanks also to everyone who's ever left a
review for the show. They helped so much, and I read all of them weirdly, including this recent one by Remily, who wrote, this podcast will expand your horizons and help you indulge in your hyperfrixations, both known and yet to be discovered. Remily also says sorry has taken me over five years to finally write a review. Emily anytime, it's a good time. Thanks for that. Okay, let's get right into artificial intelligence ethicology. It's the ethics of machine cognition.
Is a cognition, we'll talk about it. What does chat CHPT stand for? Why is Siri a lady? Can you ask a robot for a cheeseburger?
Yet?
What happens when you're rude to a chatbot? Also? How do artists prevent getting ripped off? How much energy does AI take up when we all lose our jobs? Booby traps, doorbell marks commonly used fallacies. How the creators of AI feel about AI? What is hype and what is horror? What are the benefits of AI? What happens if you
assign a chat bot your homework? And whether or not AI is the root of all evil or a pocket pal with embodied Cognitive scientist professor, scholar and artificial intelligence ethicologist, doctor Ababa Burhane.
Some questions that would take hours to one robin, and they expect you to answer everything like one minute, two minute marks.
They're rushing it again, So no worries.
I am above Abrahani, she.
Her great and AI. You have been an expert in this field for a while, but I haven't known about AI for that long. How long have you been studying it?
Technically speaking? I am a cognitive scientist, so I finished my PhD about three years ago in cognitive science. So halfway through my PhD, then around the end of my second year, I left the cognitive science department and joined a lab where people do a lot of tasting if I eating and tasting of you know, chatboats in various AI models.
And what is exactly cognitive science.
Cognitive science is very broad, so traditional cognitive science tends to be about you know, understanding cognition, understanding you know, human behavior, understanding human interaction, and so on. In cognitive science often is not taught at graduate level. It's either at a master's livery or a PhD level because cognitive science is really interdisciplinary.
And doctor Brownie says that cognitive science is actually a mishmash of disciplines or what sometimes called the cognitive hexagon, besides representing philosophy, psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and anthropology according to some institutions, and anthropology can also mean social sciences. Different institutions will phrase it their own way, but broadly speaking, cognitive science is a lot of stuff.
So the idea is you will take you know, important or helpful aspects from these various disciplines, and cognitive science then allows you to synthesize, to combine these various theories even computational models to understand human cognition. That's the idea. So from philosophy, for example, you will learn how to question assumptions. You will go down into the various questions around what's cognition, what's intelligence? You know, what's human emotions.
So philosophy really lends you the analytic tools. Same from neuroscience. The idea is you get to learn how the brain works and use it in a way to synthesize from all these different disciplines. So that's traditional cognitive science.
You can call cognitive science cogsie if you want to, And she says that she's in a really niche specialty within COGSI, and it's called embodied cognitive science, which isn't just about understanding the human brain.
Whereas embodied cognitive science is moving away from this idea of treating cognition in isolation. Your cognition doesn't end at your brain, and your sense of self doesn't end at the skin, but rather it's extended into the tools you use. Anything you do, you do it as an embodied self,
as an embodied person. So your body, your social circle, your history, your culture, even your gender and sexuality, all these are important factors that play into you know, your understanding, your cognition, your intelligence, your emotion and so on.
And when you're studying cognitive science, how do you not use your brain to think about your brain all the time? How do you get out of your brain you doing?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean you have to, you have to use your brain. So you're familiar, you know with the cards famous quote collegito or gossam, so I think therefore I am. The idea is you can't know who you are. You can know you are thinking big, you can know that you are someone. So that is like using your brain to understand your brain, so to speak. Whereas, again the emphasis with embodied cognitive science is that you know,
all that is really very individualistic. Even to confirm our existence, it's through conversations with others. So that's why embodied cognitive science emphasizes others and communities and your body as really important factors in understanding cognition.
So embodied cognitive science kind of goes downstairs a bit, and it considers how a person's body experiences the world and how the environment shapes thinking and perception. And cognitive scientists have this thought experiment that tickled me. And it envisions a little person in your brain interpreting inputs. But then who is in the brain inside that little person's brain?
Like does it have its own brain inside the little person's It's like Russia nesting dolls, and there are just infinity little humans inside humans brains to interpret what the brain inside the brain is braining. And this is called endearingly the homunculous argument. And yes, embodied cognitive science is like, it's more than a tiny person in your skull. And how can we truly understand artificial intelligence if we don't first grasp intelligence intelligently. And when we're thinking about who
we interface with with AI? Way back in the day, there used to be a search engine called ask Jeeves and it was like a butler who would find you the answers to things. And now we have Siri and Alexa. Why do you think with AI they've gendered and they've personified these voices that are actually a huge network of artificial intelligence? Is that to help our brains understand It's a little bit of like.
A marketing strategy, but it's also a little bit of appealing to human nature. We tend to kind of gender and personify objects. So if you are interacting with chat ChiPT for example, we tend to just naturally, you know, treat it as another person, an as a being, an ather entity. On the one hand, as you said, these chat boats, you know, there is no intention, there is no understanding, there is no soul in these machines. There
are just pure machines. But also the developers and vendors of these systems, they tend to market them as kind of personified entities because it's much more appealing to think that you are interacting withan asar synthy and think.
I always wonder if they made some of them female voices, because we're more accepting, we're less threatened by females. We're socialized to have a mommy figure come and help us with something. It's not as threatening that it'll turn on us. And also it's like, oh, Lydia, don't get it for you, you know.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, we naturally tend to think women are much more like nurturing and they have the role of helping you. So it is kind of related to the social norms that really dictate society. So it's really also to some extent, leaning on that stereotype that if it's a woman, you know, it's approachable, it's there to help you.
And yes, I am far from the first person to notice that digital assistance tend to be ladies. And some histrians and media scholars think that it starts early by hearing a female voice while you're cooking in the womb, and that's why people love a lady voice, or that the first telephone operator in the late eighteen hundreds happened to be a woman with a great voice and then it just stuck. But as these AI avatars start to have faces and personalities and pastimes and instagrams, why do
we see mostly younger, hotter avatars. Well, there was a twenty twenty four article published by Reuter's Institute and it reached out to this multimedia professor April Newton, who noted that a gentle, well modulated woman's voice is usually the default for AI assistants and avatars because, quote, we order those devices to do things for us, and we are
very comfortable ordering women to do stuff for us. And also, just a side note for me, did you know that the word robot it comes from a Slavic root for forced labor or slaves. Creepy. Historically humans have loved capable service, but not too capable or else you're just begging for an uprising. So the future, it's also the past. Am I rooting for the robots? Now? I don't know. When it comes to a sery or virtual assistance? How is that different than the AI that's been ramped up in
the last couple of years. Is Siri and Alexa? Are those ais? Or are those just search engines? Is Google an AI? We call something's AI and then other things just computing? What's the difference?
Yeah, so what's really difference between say traditional AI whizard it's you know, implemented as a chat boat or as a predictive system, you know, generative AI that has really exploded over the past two years, think of chat gipt, you know, Gemini in cloud and so on. The fundamental difference is that do I go into the technical details or remain clear of the.
You can give us some technical details.
I'll try to keep it light. There is no way of explaining the difference without getting into reinforcement learning. A typical classification system is an algorithm that you give it massive amounts of data. Think of like a face identification system, and these days data sets have to be really big. You might even have you know, trillions of tokens of images of faces, and you train your algorism like this is a face, this is a face, this is not a face, this is a face, this is not a face.
Called machine learning. If you have succeeded in your training, then your AI should be able to tell you it's a face or it's not a face. So this is like a typical you know, classification system. What we consider AI is a very broad term that encompasses so many different subcategories.
Just side out. How alone am I in not knowing that Apple Virtual assistance theory stands for something each interpretation and recognition interface. Did you know SIRI was an acronym? I didn't. Also, Apple is reportedly freaking out behind the scenes about Chat giput for the last three years being generative and having Chat bought capabilities and longer conversations and Siri.
So apparently a lot of their efforts in self driving cars got shuttled over to their AI division, and a lot of people at Apple are like, I can't even speak publicly about this.
The other big subcategory under the broad m brilav AA is NLP or natural language processing. So this is the area that deals with human language. So you have audio data that you feed into the AI system, and the idea there is that you know, you are building an AI system that even make predictions about human language, and ptools would learn, for example, predictive texts, so what the algorithm is doing is kind of predict what the next world is likely to be. So it's just predicting the
nix stoken the next stoken. So that's kind of traditional classification or predictive systems.
And that was machine learning or NLP, which is natural language processing, and those deal with visual data turned into tokens and they predict language like when your phone knows you better than you know yourself, and it's heartwarming and
it's scary. It's like love now chat GPT, for example, I didn't know this, but the GPT stands for generative pre Trained Transformer, and a transformer is this type of deep learning system and it converts info into tokens and can handle more complex processing from language to vision to games and audio generation. So it's definitely a step up from just simple prediction.
Whereas over the past year with generative AI, these are AI systems that do more than classification, more than prediction, more than aggregation, that are called generative A systems. They produce, you know, something new. So image generators, for example, you can put a TICS description as a prompt in the AI system will produce an image that resembles based on your description. The same with language systems, so chuch BT for example, you put in any prompt and it's able
to produce new answers. So this is where this is what's new with generative systems.
And the systems also need to learn which of the words in a language model are the important ones, which is part of the self attention mechanism, and then they generate based on statistics like what is the most probable way based on the data setts learned from from completing a certain sentence or prompt.
So the training data really has a really significant impact in what outputs, whether it's image or text. What outputs these those can't generate.
Let's get to the juicy parts. So with any tokens, would that data be in tokens? Like you were saying, facial recognition might have a trillion tokens? Does AI kind of scrub what we know of impressionist art and science fiction and anime does it scrub it and grab a bunch of tokens, so then it can have those as reference points.
So the training data sets is one of the most contested issues in AI because data is constantly harvested. So like your search history feeds into some kind of AI one way or anazon I don't know if you are like me, if you signed up for some kind of bonus point, you go to a grocery shop and you tap that, so that is kind of like in the background. That's kind of conllicting your behavioral data.
So that data may breeze through infrastructure like Google and then just be on its merry way to a third party aggregator or a broker or an AI company itself, and they're just yam yam yam gobble of the data.
So this kind of practice puts a lot of data gathering for the purpose of training AI systems either illegal or borderline illegal. Yes, because you know, first of all, there is no consent. People are not even aware that you know their data is being used to train AI.
So that's just number one on a general level. Let's get to art.
But you will also have noticed over the past year or two the creative community, writers and artists are realizing that their work, their novels, their writing, their their arts are being used to train AI systems, again without any compensation, or with very little compensation after the fact if they go and contest you know, the use of their data. And because large companies that are kind of developing AI, you know, think of Google, Deepmined, Meta, open AI, anthropic,
they are businesses. They operate under the business model. They are you know, commercial entities. Their objective is to maximize profits. My work is auditing, for example, large scale training data sets. People don't have access to what kind of data set this company is hold, So we don't have any mechanism to kind of take a look to scrutinize what's what you know, what's in the data is it, where does
it come from? How large is it? These are the kind of questions that simply there is just no mechanism for tach corporations to be transparent, to open up, for us to have an objective understanding.
So big companies are like, no, you can't see it. But auditors like doctor Bhaney and colleagues can observe open source publicly available similar data sets as proxies or substitutes to kind of figure out what might be going on organizationally behind the locked Willi Wanka factory gates, the other big tech companies.
So we do get an idea, but through proxy data sets. So to answer your question, I mean, if you are an artist, a writer, if you are produced novels and so on, it's very very likely that your work is being used to train AI. But there's very little legal mechanism to actually have a clear idea.
Is it like they're stealing a bunch of ingredients and then making something but they're like, you can't see our recipe, and you're like, you stole the ingredients and they're like, yeah, their resume, we made something with it. That is that sort of great.
Yeah, So the fact that they are protected by proprietary rights as a commercial entity means that there is virtually no mechanism to, you know, to force these companies to open up their data sets. Of course, you can encourage them, you can kind of you know, appeal to their good sites and so on.
But.
Yeah, there is no there is no legal mechanism. There is no law or regulation that says you have to open access or you have to you know, share your.
Data set, and why not you ask?
Of course, if that is to happen, then you know, all these AI companies would go out of business. As it is, a lot of them are under a lot of lawsuits. Oh yeah, you know, from from Meta to OPENAEI. Openae itself is under a lot of lawsuits, including from the New York Times. So the minute they open up their data, it becomes clear that a lot of people's suspicions, especially you know, the creative and artists communities. The minute the data sets are open, why they are going to court?
Is there any recourse that artists writers have like, is there anything they can do other than trying to open a really big expensive lawsuit.
Yeah, so writers in creatives are organizing for class action suits. I know there are a bunch of class action lawsuits. Was in the US and in the UK.
Now last August there was this landmark case and it decided in favor of artists. It found that generative AI systems like mid Journey and Devian Arts, dream Up and Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, that those were violating copyright law by using data sets A billions of artistic examples scraped from the web, and getty Images sued Stable Diffusion for copyright infringements, and the evidence was like almost funny if
it were such a bummer. But apparently the Generative AI so relied on getty images that it started adding a blurry gray box to some of its AI output, which was learned from the iconic getty images watermarks. Embarrassing now. In March of this year, a judge ordered that the lawsuit between the New York Times and open ai can proceed, despite open ai begging it not to, and the newspaper New York Times, along with a few other journalism outlets, alleges that open ai scraped a lot of their work
to train chat GPT. So there are lawsuits, but there are also just huge glaring holes.
But also in the UK, for example, they are considering a regulation that leaves massive loophole for intellectual copyright issues that leaves artists and writers with absolutely no protection at all. So people are really organizing on the ground and they have massive amounts of petitions signed and so on. But also there are technical, i don't want to say solutions, technical kind of remedies. So you can use data poisoning tools.
For example, you have oh yeah, so you have like booby trap like one of them is called to night shed. So for images, for example, you would insert various adversarial attacks that we make the data unusable for machines because it's maybe a tiny pixel that's been altered so that's not visible to the human eye, but it kind of misses with the automatage system or how machines kind of use this data as it. So there are various tools like that.
Another type of AI booby trap is called a tarpit, and it sends AI crawlers in this infinite loop where they just get stuck and they can't escape. And I just love to think of like the AI system on the toilet, just scrolling, just not being able to exit and get back to work.
Even if you find tachn care solutions, now, the big companies are likely to come back with another solution that makes your own solution defunct. So yeah, you really have to be adapting with that constantinly, so, I think a vibrent solution has to come from the regulation from the legal space.
And how do you feel about is that?
Sam s Oh my gosh, thank you.
I almost said Sam Edelman, which is a shoemaker, how do you feel about kind of some recent changes, Like last May. I believe he went before Congress in the US saying like, hey, we better watch out, and now I think he was like at the inauguration. So we chatted about this in twenty twenty three's Neurotechnology episode, because just a few months prior, in May twenty twenty three, Sam Altman was in the news a lot as a cautionary voice, and as we said in that episode, if
you're wondering why this was a big deal. Sam Altman is the head of open Ai, which invented chat GPT, and in spring of twenty twenty three, he spoke at the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. Hearing called Oversight of AI Rules or Artificial Intelligence. He also signed a statement about trying to mitigate the risk of extinction, and he told the committee that quote, AI could cause significant harm to the world.
My worst fears are that we cause significant we the field, the technology, the industry caused significant harm to the world. I think that could happen in a lot of different ways. I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong, and we want to be vocal about that. We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening.
And ultimately Altman urged the committee to help establish a new framework for this new technology. And though in twenty sixteen Altman declared that Donald Trump was terrible, he recently backpedaled on that and Altman said that he's changed his mind and donated one million dollars to Trump's reelection campaign in twenty twenty four. So Altman's thoughts on AI regulations likely have pivoted in the last few years since that hearing. It doesn't seem like regulations are gonna happen very fast.
Yeah, So this idea of oh, we gotta watch out because our AIS might become sentient and might be out of control, might cause existential risk and lead to human extinction. So unfortunately, this is a very popular and commonly dissimilated worry emerging out of AI, but there is very little scientific evidence for it. People have done a Toto analysis how such a possibility is just zero percent likely there, it's just.
Really yeah, but human beings can be so terrible and they're learning from us.
Yeah, so there is no intention there is no wish or there is no desire to act on something, to do something. But at the end of the day, it really is a massive, complex algorithm. Of course, and that is to some extent, I'm predictable, But that doesn't mean you know AI systems as they develop further, you know, all of a sudden develop intentionality or wishes or interests or needs. I mean, you and I are you know, as human beings, we do something and we get satisfaction
out of it. I have a motivation for doing the research I do, and if that doesn't happen, I feel disappointed. I can feel sad. I also feel accountable when I put out, you know, a research paper. I know if there are errors in it, I know I'm the one responsible for it. So there is none of that. So when an AI system gives you an output, it's not because it might be worried about if it's an incorrect answer,
or it's because it wants to please you. It's just a chatbot that is designed to provide, you know, give answers again based on prompt So this idea of a systems causing existential risk leans on this huge leap of faith that requires you to believe that there is intention, there is emotion, there is motivation, all these human characters, all these things that makes us human, but it's just
not there. It can't emerge out of nowhere. That's part of what makes us different and unique as individuals, as biological organisms. These are things that are hardware on us. These are also things that makes us human.
This is why I fret.
Still, of course, we have to worry about powerful people using AI to do terrible things. And what worries me is over the past year and especially since the rise of Trump and since the Trump administration came to power, you have a lot of large corporations really abandoning their voluntary place to protect basic fundamental rights. So Meta has worked, for example, walked back their commitment for DEI, their commitment to fact check and monitor their social media platforms.
Against hate speech two as well, which is.
What exactly what really is worrying also now is you have superpowers and powerful governments like the US government, the UK government, even the European Union itself using AI, moving into AI for surveillance for military purposes, for warfares, and a lot of AI companies starting from you know, Open Ai, Meta, Amazon, Google, they had voluntary principles not to use AI for military purposes, but over the past year all of them have abandoned that.
So even here across in the EU you have a French AI company called Mistral announcing that they are open to working with European governments to provide military AI. So of course we have to worry about governments using AI under the guise of national security, which really means you know, monitoring and surveillance and squishing dissent and really this is against you know, fundamental rights for freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and so on. So we have to worry
about AI. But AI in the hands of powerful governments and people in position of power rather than the AI itself, because the AI can't do anything by itself.
Is it sort of like the guns don't kill people, people kill people kind of a situation, Yeah, exactly. How is that working out for us in the US? Though? Well? Death by firearm is the leading cause of mortality for teens and children in the US, according to the Pew Research Center, and over half of our nearly fifty thousand
gun deaths a year in the US are suicides. That's not going well, and that's because the NRA slogan guns don't kill people, people do is what is known as bumper sticker logic or a misdirection, also called a false dichotomy or plainly speaking, a fallacy according to philosophers. So giving AI a sense of technological neutrality is a bit misguided.
The regulations being walked back is terrifying, especially trying to put trust in a government to stop things when a lot of our people in power, like don't know how to use their own printers, you know. So some of the questions, and like the congressional hearings are like, how does this even work to track my movement?
Does Google through this phone know that I have moved here and moved over to the left.
Which is terrifying. So maybe they don't have morals and guilts and things like that and ambitions. But I was looking at some research showing that AI is being trained to become more and more sexist, more and more xenophobic, more and more racist us more and more hate speech. And is it learning from the worst of humanity? Is it amplifying it? Is that just exposing how much hate is in the world.
Yeah, so let's maybe walk back twenty years because that's when you know, real progress in AI started to emerge. I mean, we've had a lot of the core principles for AI, you know, since in the nineteen fifty sixty, seventies, eighties, Like some of the foundational papers about reinforcement learning deep learning were written in the nineteen eighties. So jeff Hinton's famous paper on I think what was convulsional learning was written, you know, late nineteen eighties.
We don't have to go too deep into it, but I do want to tell you that Jeffrey Hinton is apparently considered the godfather of AI and a leading figure in the deep learning world, and in twenty twenty four he won the Nobel Prize for his work. He's also worked for Google Brain, and then he quit Google because he wanted to quote freely speak about the risks of AI.
Quit Google so he could talk about it now. In twenty twenty three, during a CBS Saturday Morning news segment, he warned about deliberate misuse by malicious actors, unemployment, and existential risk involving AI. He is very much in favor of research on the risks of what could become a
monster that he helped create. He's like, you know, we need some safety guidelines and regulations, buddies, and that it's not really happening, but yes, he is among you who over the last many decades drove these innovations.
But what really made the AI revolution possible is the world Wide Web. With the emergence of the world Wide Web, became possible to kind of script to kind of gather harvest massive amounts of data from the world Wide Web, you know, through chat forums or domains like Wikipedia. They are really a core element of training AI, at least
for text data. So that means that a lot of our training material for AI comes from the world Wide Web, whether it's our digital traces, whether you know, it's the pictures we put on social media, pictures of your kids, your dogs, yourselves and so on, or the kind of infrastructure. Digital infrastructure like Google is everywhere has dominated whether you want to email or you know, prepare a presentation or write a document. Google has provided the infrastructure that means
they have the infrastructure to constantly harvest training data. This means that a lot of the data that we are using for training reflects, you know, humanities beauty, but also our.
In the ugliness of humanity, and just last week tech report released by Google admitted that its Gemini two point five flash model is more likely than its predecessor model two point zero to generate results outside of its safety guidelines, and images are even worse than text at that and I mentioned this in a twenty twenty three episode we did with doctor Nita Farhani about neurotechnology.
But around June teenth of that year, I saw this viral tweet about chatgept not acknowledging that the Texas and Oklahoma border the Panhandle was in fact influenced by Texas desiring to stay a slave state, which is fact that chat GPT would not acknowledge. So doctor Barhani notes that when an AI is built on racist, sexist, xenophobic, et cetera data set, the results, like history itself, are not kind to minoritized identities.
She says, it reflects, you know, societal norms, its reflections, you know, historical injustices and so on, unless you really delve into the data set and ensure that you do a thorough job of cleaning the data set. We've audited numerous data sets, and you find content that shouldn't be there. You find, you know, images of genocide, images of you know, child rip. One of the early data sets we audited back in twenty nineteen was a data set called eighty
million Tiny Images. It was held by Mighty, and we found several thousands of images, really problematic images, Images of black people labeled with the N word, images of women labeled with the B word, the C word, and words I can't really say on air.
So while the upside of AI is detecting cancer from scans earlier or predicting tornado patterns, there's also so much concern now. Doctor Martin Luther King Junior observed and proclaimed that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I think we might consider that the arc of the Internet is short, and it bends towards smart and hate.
So you can't assume any datail you collect from the web is really horrible. And in one of the reason audits, actually we found an overwhelming amount of women concepts really represented by images that come from the pornographic space. So massive amounts of the web is also really you know, pornographic and really you know, problematic content, So you have to do a lot of filtering. So as a result,
this is why you know DEI initiatives. This is why obligations to audit your data a set to ensure that you know toxic contents have been removed and so on. This is why it's so critical.
So an AI is only as ethical as its data sets. And the Internet is a weird dark place where people say things they would never say in person, So the data sets are feeding that.
But as we are seeing now a lot of these companies are abandoning their plages and we're really walking backwards. But for any given AI system, whether it's a predictive system or classification or generating, you can't assume that deeply heled societal injustices and norms will be reflected in how that AI performs in the kind of output the AI gives you. So that's the default. So we have to work backwards to ensure we're removing those biases.
Let's say that some of the comments online, some of the head online is AI generated comments, which I sometimes I'll look at now X and I'll say, who are all these people?
Like?
Why are comments getting meaner and meaner? With Facebook, with a lack of fact checking, more and more sort of hateful speech. Does that mean that the next tokens and data sets pick up on that and say, oh, this is how people think. And then the next one. So does it get amplified like mercury toxicity and like a tuna fish.
That's one way I'm putting you. Yeah, okay, yes, yes, you are encoding those biases and you are exaggerating them.
Yeah.
The technical drawback is that, so we train given AI for a next world prediction, for example, it's based on you know, these massive amounts of data that kind of tells you how people taket how people use language for English for example, how people you know, construct a core and sentence. That data, that training data comes from actual people activities, people interactions. That is your baseline, so to speak, in when you are modeling how you know language operates.
But now, as you said, as the world wide wave is feel more and more with you know, synthetic text or synthas data that comes from generative AI system itself, then your AI system has no frame of reference. It tends to forget, so the quality of the output starts to deterior it.
That's so scary.
So this is called model collapse.
Okay, does this keep you aver night?
Does that.
I mean, I know that it's like, don't be afraid, don't be afraid, but it's also like, this is very new territory for humanity, right, Yeah.
But at the end of the day, I mean, people should be in control. If an AI system starts producing outputs that is rubbish, that is irrelevant. I don't think it should scare us. It should make people like, Okay, that's not helpful to me anymore, so I'm not gonna use it.
Maybe the more it unravels and crashes out, the less people will rely on it. But of course that hinges on being able to tell that it's spitting nonsense at you. And in this day and age, the world is so
profoundly absurd that truly anything is believable. And doctor Burhannig says that public education is key and just getting the word out that a lot of what we think about AIS capabilities are just big corporations humping out hype and pr But the auditors on the inside, like her in her lab, know that boy, Harry hot damn, it is a bunch of horse packy flim flam, and not to believe the hype.
The actual performance is nowhere near what the developers claim, So these are the facts that we really have to communicate. A lot of the AI systems that we are interacting with are actually subpar in terms of performance, in terms of what they are supposed to do, in terms of what people expect them to do. Because these big corporations have really mastered public communication in PR, A lot of like the failures or the drawbacks of AI systems are
new to people when you actually communicate it. But this should really be like common knowledge, and if people want to use AI, they should know both the strengths and what they can do with it, but also where the limitations are or what it can't do for them.
Does abstention work? Does not going on matter and giving them more fadder? Does not using chat GBT? Does any sort of like boycott work?
Yes? And no. On the one hand, so a lot of these AI systems have really cleverly been integrated into the social infrastructure.
Yeah.
So for example, I'm not on Facebook. I haven't been on Facebook for over ten years, but the apartment complex I live in can only be communicated via Facebook groups. I still refuse to create a Facebook account, But situations like this really gives you very little option to abstain to not use these platforms, and you can't avoid Google, for example, Google Search and like you know, gimming and like Google Docs. It makes it really difficult if you
want to apply for a job. Almost all companies now use some kind of AI to filter your CV before it reaches human So in some senses you don't even have the option to opt out. If you are, you know, someone looking for a job, you can't say, oh, I don't want you to use an AI system to sift through my CV.
It's just like it's gonna happen.
Yeah, it's gonna happen.
Doctor Burhanne says that it's pretty unavoidable. And I have asked tech lawyers and even they don't read Apple's terms and conditions. They're like, I just checked the box.
So instead of using WhatsApp, which is owned by Meta, which you know really gathers all your texts, all your information, we can't move to other messaging apps like Signal. So Signal has you know, an to end encryption. There is no backdoor. Nobody can access it, not even governments. This
is one of the things. Meridith Witiker, the CEO of Signal, has been really strong and standing up to large governments is that nobody should have a back end access that gives them the opportunity to gather data.
And yes, Signal is run by a nonprofit foundation, a Signal Foundation dot org and Meredith Whittaker is Signal's president and she had worked at Google for ten years and she was raising concerns about their AI and she was also a core organizer of the twenty eighteen Google walkout in protest of sexual harassment there and pay inequities. She also advises government agencies on AI safety and privacy laws.
So signal, good, yay signal And many recently laid off government staff that I know of will only communicate for you a signal, which is kind of telling in terms of their own safety concerns. But yes, you signal, so we can.
Do some things. We can use less and less of these large corporations infrastructure, and we can use you know, more open source tools. But also sometimes you know, just out of your control. But every little helps in every awareness, you know, it kind of culminates and it will eventually lead to, you know, this massive switch.
I hope at least that's encouraging. I hope. Yeah, And can I ask you some questions from listeners. Is that okay, okay for sure? But before we do, let's give away some money. And this week doctor Behani selected the cause the Municipality of Gaza and un r WA, which directly supports Palestine refugees and displaced families in Gaza. They say every donation, no matter the amount, helps them reach families
with life saving food, assistance, shelter, healthcare and more. And for more info you can see donate dot un r WA dot org, which is linked in the show notes. And for more on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, please see our Genocideology episode with global expert in Crimes of a Trosty doctor Dirk Moses, which we will also link in the show notes. So a quick break. Now, okay, we are back. Let's run through some questions from your
real squishy brains made of human beings out there. There's some great ones job replacement Carlyn de Azevo, Alia Meyer's Red Tongue, Jennifer Grogan, Ian, Jenna Congen, Rosa, Rebecca Rome, Other Maya, Sam Nelson, Howard Newness. All these people wanted to know, in Ian's words, will all jobs be obsolete soon? Do the people working on AI give any thought to compensating people for the lost income? Jenna Congden said, when will AI get so good that human writers are basically
crowded out of a job? This goes for visual art as well. In a capitalist economy, when you got a hustle to make money as it is, what is going to happen job wise? Do you think or do AI experts such as yourself.
So some of the worry about your displacement is is genuine and grounded on, you know, real worry. You hear even the so called godfathers saying things like you shouldn't bozer learning code, or like the job of software engineering, for example, will become obsolete and so on.
So whether you're a software developer or a writer or an artist, Doctor Behannie says.
I don't think AI will fully automate AI will fully replace human task force, because at the end of the day, what even the most advanced AI systems do is really kind of aggregate information and kind of outputs a very mediocre whether it's image or text.
Some of them are so good, though, some of the artists so good, and you're like, like.
The arts, Yeah, it's not just the pure the row outputs. People have tweaked probably like a thousand times. People have twik dates, people have spent hours perfecting the right prompt and so on. So there is always people in the loop. There is always whether it's data preparing, you know, data and notation, data curation, to building the AI system itself, to them kind of ensuring the output is something appealing. You really you need people through and through.
So for me, as a former newspaper journalist and I was also a newspaper illustrator, I I'm not as optimistic. So so many writers are copywriters who are making content and articles for websites to raise their profile. And now I'm hearing from those people that articles are just written by AI and they are full of shit. And just doing this acide is making me depressed and my chest hurts. But doctor Burhani is an expert, so I'm gonna try
to find some bright spots. And before she had mentioned that lawsuit with open AI and the New York Times, and I was looking for it and I found a recent art this was published literally yesterday, which had the headline AI is getting more powerful, but its hallucinations are getting worse. A new wave of reasoning systems from companies like open AI is producing incorrect information more often even
the companies don't know why that's the headline. And this New York Times article explained that AI systems do not and cannot decide what is true and what is false, and sometimes they just make stuff up, a phenomenon that some AI researchers call hallucinations. And in one test, the article says, hallucination rates of newer AI systems were as high as seventy nine percent. And I also want to note that my spellcheck tried to get me to change that it's in the headline to one with an apostrophe,
which is incorrect. So computers, what's going on? But yes, doctor Bahani says that a lot of journalism has been replaced by AI, even though we all know that the generative system is unreliable.
Loosen it. A lot of the time. It gives you information that sounds coherent, that seems fuctual, but it's just absolutely made up. It just there is. It even sometimes gives you citations and so on of things that don't exist. So we always need people to babysit AI, so to speak. So a writer might be, you know, your hours might be reduced and you might be getting paid less, and your company might be bringing AI to kind of do
the bulk of the job. But still you can't put out the raw outputs because most of the time it's not even you know, legible. So the role of writers and artists and journals and so on becomes more of kind of a babysitter for AI, verifying the information that's been put out, kind of ensuring it makes sense and so on.
Right, Kenny, the babysitter is dead to.
Some extent, The answer is yes, and no. Humans will always remain at the heart of AI. The minut human involvement seizes the minute AI stops operating, because AI is human thru and through. As I said, you know, from the data as gathered from humans, and so much work goes into data preparation, data annotation, cleaning up the data, detoxifying the data, and unfortunately a lot of these tasks
allocated to you know, the developing world. So you have a lot of data workers in Kenya and Nigeria and Ethiopia, in India for example, that really do the dirty work of AI. There are even a bunch of stories where you have Amazon checkout for example AI checkout or self checkout, where Amazon was introducing this AI where you can just collect groceries and your items and just walk out, and the AI is supposed to kind of identify what you have picked up and charge you from your credit cards
for whatever you have used. But then it turns out that it was actually data workers in India that's where scanning every item you are picking up.
So oh man, what word?
Yeah? Yeah, and I mean MacDonald also recently partnered with IBM or one of those companies to have like an AI drive through where AI systems take order and they have to close it within the next few weeks because people were getting orders of like, you know, bacon on top of ice cream and things.
Like that, you added bacon to my ice cream? I don't want I bake it. I raised the national minimum wage for the first time since two thousand and nine when you can just spend billions of dollars tweaking unpaid machines like welcome to the future. Maybe so, I.
Guess the point I'm trying to make is like you always need humans for AI to to function and operate as it's supposed to, because at the end of the stem these days, these are like really mare machines that don't have you know, intense understanding, motivation and so on, Like we human star So.
Maybe our jobs will look different, but there will be jobs. Yes, I know a lot of people myself included, wanted to know the environmental impact Lily a bunch of folks and first time question askers elean Or Bundy and Meghan m And we also did a recent episode of Earth Day with this climate activist and humanitarian rightsler Adam Met, who said that AI could be solving some environmental concerns, which is optimistic. But what does an AI experts take on that?
Megan Walker asked environmentally, how bad is AI when compared to the current computing we do? Yeah, what's going on?
Yeah? Yeah yeah?
How much energy does it use?
Yeah?
So again, like we have very little information about training data. The kind of energy consumption used by AI systems is very OPQ. There is very little transparency.
Okay, but what is the damage generally?
So, generals of AI really conceives massive lout of power compared to traditional AI. For example, if you are using Google to put a prompt say you know, how many glasses of water should I drink per day, and if you do the exact same prompt and you ask the generative systems such as chat ChiPT, people estimate you use about ten times more energy to process that query into generated answers.
I wanted to go straight to the source, so I used Google AI and chatchipt for the first time, asking them both how much energy does chatchipt use as opposed to Google now. Google AI said in what I hope is a snotty tone that chat gpt consumes significantly more energy per query, five to ten times more electricity than a standard Google search. Now. It cited a twenty twenty four Goldman SAX report titled AI has poised to drive one hundred and sixty percent increase in data center power demand.
Then I asked chat schiapt and it said that its version four can use up to thirty times more energy than a basic Google search, and it also noted, I like to think defensively that Google has had decades to optimize for a lower footprint now. Doctor Behanne says that the energy consumption of generative AI systems has become indeed a big issue, and that in countries like Ireland, the data centers are power hogs.
The computer resources required to running AI systems equals or is more than the total amount of energy that's required to run Irish households. But in places like takes Us sometimes that energy consumption is taken away from households to run data centers. Wow, so it kind of results in reduced energy for households. And this is before we even get into the massive tons of water that you need to cool down data centers.
Oh yeah, didn't even think about that.
Yeah, and the water also has to be pure because you can't use say, you know, ocean water or seawater because of the sea salt that might damage the servers and so on. So again there is competition. It tends to be when you use water that is used for households. As a result, you know, people tend to pay for the consequences of that. So yeah, water consumption is another massive area as well.
And do you think that more companies will look toward some sort of nuclear power for their supercomputers or is that still too highly regulated?
I think companies like Google are actually talking about using nuclear power, but yes, that option is being considered.
Yeah, how about healthcare? Several people Benjamin Burnish weared analyst to young Nikki g asked, how can AI be ethically apply to healthcare like data analytics, treatment options, medical imaging interpretations. Second opinions, Is there some hope there for it?
Yeah, I think there is some hope. There is some hope for sure. I think there is some hope in you know, numerous domains for AI to be useful. Okay, However, that just remains a theory. It's it's possible in theory. But the problem there are a bunch of problems. One
of them is that generative systems are fundamentally unreliable. So, for example, there is a new audit that came out I think towards the end of January where they looked at this new AI tool where the system kind of records your conversations between say a healthcare provider and a patient, and it summarizes the conversation, and it kind of it's supposed to reduce a lot of the work for nurses
and so on. And what they found was that in some cases, eight out of the teen summaries where hallucinations.
No.
So generative systems tend to be unreliable. And the other thing is because a lot of these tools that are supposed to be used in health care tend to be built by businesses with the objective of maximizing profits. They tend to have a different kind of objective than say,
you know, what's good for the patient. So another famous case is United healths that is in court at the moment where they were using a suit of about fifty algorithms to look at mental health services, and what they found was that they were using you know, costs as a proxy rather than the need of the patient as a proxy, and they were cutting a lot of services, a lot of like, you know, therapy services and meditations and other necessary services. Again because they are you know,
they're looking at the wrong motivation, their own proxy. They're looking to save the company money rather than to ground what they do in the needs of the patient. So if we correct, for example, hallucinations and biases in AI systems, and if we kind of it's impossible to strip down
all you know, capitalist motivations. But if you know, capitalist motivations come second to you know, the needs of the patient, then it's possible to kind of develop a systems in various areas of fALS care that prioritize patients that prioritize people as opposed to just you know, inserting technology for the sake of having technology, and also for using technology to maximize profit, as opposed to ensuring patient safety.
Which is once again good luck. I mean, our healthcare is above and beyond frustrating. But a lot of people wanted to know. Sam Wise, Emily heard, Amalia Magda Casawka wanted to know. Kier Henrickson asked for some question, asker, how do we feel about AI and chatbots and using them in high schools schoolwork? Same ways AI used in schools thoughts is there a way to flag it? Or are we doing education and injustice?
Yeah?
So, on the one hand, I know some people that find using AI chatboats really helpful. You give it a prompt, it gives you just a bunch of answers. Of course, these are people that know how to craft the perfect prompts, that know where AI can be useful and where it might fail you. So with all that in mind, it can't be useful, but you need to be an expert.
Having said that, for young kids, studies are starting to emerge that for example, they did a control study I think we is over three thousand students where some of the students were given chatbots to help them with I think it's maths problems. The others weren't, and they did a taste. So what they found was that the kids that had chat boats did better than the kids that didn't have. Then they performed another taste a few weeks later, and they found that the kids that used chat boats
performed way worse than the kids that didn't have. So people are realizing that these systems inhibit learning. Of course, you know, education is not just information dissemination, the teacher going into class and just like taining the students facts, but rather it's an interaction. It's a two way street, both for the student and the teacher, developing the skills, especially critical skills to analyze and to decipher fact from fiction.
You know, pormon for misinformation and so on. And when you use AI chatbots without knowing their limitations, you tend to kind of trust the output, you tend to treat it as facts. But also it inhibits your learning. It inhibits your critical skills. And if you don't have the knowledge to begin wish to verify the answer, you have no way of knowing what you have, what you are
getting is correct or incorrect. So in the long term, studies are coming out to show that they might seem helpful in the immediate term, but in the long term, these chatbots might be inhibiting the learning process.
Last listener question and I know my husband has this question too. DV and C share rample and Chelsea and her doctor Charlie want to know. Chelsea asked, why does AI do better when you threaten it? Is that ethical? Because it doesn't feel like a good president to set in any part of life. VNC asked, is it weird that I feel the need to say please and thank you? We're talking to chatbots. Will the AI overlords be nicer
to me when they take over? I assume all of my conversations will be logged for eternity and Jarett, my husband also doesn't use chat ChiPT very much, but when it came out, he was trying to teach it to be civil and I was like, boy, I don't think that's gonna work.
Yeah.
Do manners matter?
Yeah?
Yeah, yeah yeah. So for models like chat chipet, they have what they call a knowledge cut off dates, so the training data, the you know, your interaction won't really input into into the learning system of the model. It's the training data set for I think Chad Chipet that ends I think around twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two. So Jadechipt, for example, can't give you a cohorrent answer for any event that has happened recently.
So different models are using data from different timelines. They have to collect it and clean it and process it first, so it's not as real time as I thought it was, or some people might expect.
For I for kind of when you speak to it, was it aggressively cratly?
Yeah, threateningly? Why does it do better? Threaten it?
So it's the first time I'm hearing this, so I should I should try it out. I should check it out and see if that also happens to me. But yeah, it's it's the first time I'm hearing it.
Okay, let's hit the books for this. Specifically a twenty twenty four study about how to interact with large language models, and it's titled should We Respect lms Across Lingual Study on the Influence of prompt Politeness on LM performance. So this abstract explains that they did testing in English, Japanese, and Chinese language models and that as the politeness level descends,
the answers generated get shorter. However, on the far side of the rude scale, impolite prompts often results in poor performance, but overly polite language does not guarantee better outcomes, and the best politeness level is different according to the language. And they say that this suggests that lllms not only reflect human being behavior, but are also influenced by language, particularly in different cultural contexts. So what about the future.
The researchers say that it is conjectured that GBT four, being a superior model, might prioritize the task itself and effectively control its tendency to quote argue at a low politeness level, so as it matures, it just won't engage. It's like this AI new generation has been the therapy if it were a person, which it's not.
And as to the AI overlords, again, I mean, it's just models. It's just you know, data sets in algorithms, and you know connection of networks. Okay, there is no kind of all knowing godlike or seeing AI. But of course you know, the people that are running AI companies come close to that because they have access to the data, because they have access to the algorithms, so you might worry about those people. You know, using your data has
like almost invisible but very nuanced downstream impact. So in the US, for example, authorities as you are forcing companies like Meta to give up data so that authorities are hunting down women that had abortions. For example, in areas where abortion is prohibited. Law enforcement is working with Amazon for example, for was it Amazon bail ring bail ring?
Oh right, this is that camera enabled an Amazon owned ring door bell.
So law enforcement like ice uses that kind of data from those two to do something to even deport people. So what we should worry about is not really AI overlords, but this company is working with powerful entities to really kind of identify people that might be in trouble with the law or that might be doing you know that that Violet the know because that data gives them access, gives them the knowledge about the whereabouts in the interactions and the activities of people.
Yeah. And previously, according to a twenty twenty Newsweek article titled police are monitoring Black Lives Matter protests with ring doorbell data and drones, activists say it's reported that Amazon Ring has video sharing partnerships with more than thirteen hundred law enforcement agencies across the US. However, in January twenty twenty four, Ring said that it would stop letting police
departments request and receive user's footage on its app. Now, on the flip side, some Ring doorbell owners are posting on the Ring Neighbors app when ice rates are going down locally and they're alerting their community. Now, Ring of course notes that those are user generated posts and has nothing to do with them. Whether or not they'll censor those user generated posts is like anyone's guess, Hey, let's take a welcome departure from reality for sex? Shall we do any movies get it right?
Like?
Does it make get it right?
Any?
Does AI? That old Spielberg movie? Does anyone actually get it AI right? Or does that drive you absolutely insane to watch TV?
So I love science fiction actually, like The Matrix is one of my favorite movies.
I knew it, I knew it.
It's a good one. But also that's like, that's nowhere you have to treat science fiction as science fiction for the sake of like it's really some really good science fiction really brings you into a world that you couldn't even envision. So I love that element about science fiction. But a lot of these like Robot Uprising, Terminator like movies are really just for entertainment. There is nothing that can be extrapolated and said, oh, this could happen to
really AI. But you have kind of very nuanced sci fi movies. That's nail it. So you have Continuum. It's not a movie, it's a series. It wasn't on Netflix a wild but a.
Few years side for what for what you're going to do?
So what happens here is that you know, as AI companies become powerful, they take over government and they become you know, the bodies that really govern society. So that kind of sci fi is very close to reality than you know, Terminator like movies. Yeah.
How about Black Mirror?
Oh black Mirror.
Is so good?
I mean Black Mirror. There are some things that are like, eh, Now, when Black Mirror came out, it was just like wow, this could happen. And now I was like, oh that has happened, or it's like oh yeah this is you know, this is what's happening? Is this in that government?
So yeah, wow, yep. And the last two questions I always ask her is worst and best. I guess your your most loathed thing about AI and your favorite thing about it. I guess we've talked a lot about cautionary but like in terms of what you do or in terms of your job, worst and best thing.
Yeah, so the worst thing is really just the hype. As a researcher, I have my own research agen, but the hype is so destructive. You see something that's not true being disseminated, going viral, and you know, as an expert, it's really traveling, so you have to stop what you are doing and do some work to kind of correct it or at least that tempt. So yeah, a lot of the hype really is what really gets on minor and it becomes also a problem in terms of getting
my own work done. But what excites me about AI is I'm still extremely optimistic about AI, But unfortunately a lot of the AI I get excited about is not
something that results in you know, massive profits. So you know, using AI for disaster mapping, using AI for soil heads monitoring, and so on, these are things that really excite me, but there is no monetary value in developing AI for these system So these are the things that really get me excited, that really make me feel like, Wow, this is powerful tool that we can use to actually do some good in the world.
Yeah.
We could make sure that everyone is fed and has healthcare and that resources are allocated in a way that's fair. And we just don't because of money.
Yeah, because it doesn't make you money.
Yeah, which is I think once again, money is the root of allie.
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Thank you so much for doing this. This has been so illuminating and it's great to talk to someone who knows their shit about it.
Thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed our conversations.
So ask real people, real not smart and important questions, because how else are we supposed to learn anything. So thank you so much to Trinity College's doctor Rohney for sitting down with me and making the trip to Ireland so eventful. I loved this talk and you can find links to her and her work in the show notes,
as well as to the Cause of the week. We are at ologies on Meta owned Instagram and on Blue Sky, and I'm giving my data as ali Ward with just one l on both, and our website has links to all the studies we talked about and that link is in the show notes. If you're looking to become a patron, you can go to patreon dot com slash Ologies and you can join up there. If you need shorter, kid friendly versions of Ologies episodes, we have them for free
in their own feed. Just look for Smologies that's also linked to the show notes. Please spread the word on that, and we have Ologies merch at ologiesmerch dot com. Thank you to Aaron Talbert for adminting the Ologies podcast Facebook group. Aveline Mallick does our professional human made transcripts. Kelly R. Dwyerd is the website. Noel Dilworth is our Flesh and Blood scheduling producer, Human Organism. Susan Hale managing directs the
whole show. A live editor Jake Chafe helps put it together, and the Connective Tissue lead editor is Mercedes Maitland of Maitland Audio and Nick Thorbern made the theme music using his brain and ears and fingers. And if you stick around to the end of the show, I tell you a secret, and this week it's two. One is that I think I'm going to be shooting something next week and I want to tell patrons about it. For a but also i'll do some posting on social media if
and when it happens, I'm really excited. I don't mean to be secretive, but just send good vibes. Next week i'll tell you as a secret effort happens. And the other secret is, before I went to Ireland, I got a couple of those film cameras disposed because it's like, ooh, what is this a film in this? And I took all the pictures and I haven't gotten them developed yet, and I kind of feel like the longer you wait
to get them developed, the more you'll like them. And so I don't know what the appropriate amount of time is to forget about this disposable camera and then get it developed. If it should be like a couple more months, or if I should get it developed in a year. And so now I just have this disposable camera in my backpack and I don't know how long I should I also don't know where to get it developed, if I'm being honest. But anyway, if anyone has thoughts about that,
feel free to advise me. That is a very analog update here for me, all right, fucking please do not use chat GPT to write papers, or illustrate anything important. Hire an illustrator if you can. Illustrators, writers, artists, musicians, please let them live. They are alive, okay, be good.
For by pacodermatology, homology or doo zoology, lithology, technology, meteorology, pertology, anthology, seriology, elinology.
We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to a r