This is https://jim-quinn8.blogspot.com/ Software, AI, and Human I
and https://jim-quinn4.blogspot.com/ JQ detailed CV
and https://jim-quinn.blogspot.com/ World Stories
and https://jim-quinn6.blogspot.com/ Money and The Poor
and https://jim-quinn3.blogspot.com/ No EV cars, Protect Females.....
etc
3rd April 2025:
I think I now understand the Book Authors concerns about software stealing their IPR, from ITV News tonight - apparently META have been reading the book into their software, which I imagine tries to correlate the sentence structure and flavour throughout the book, and then is able to repeat something close to the "Author's Flavour" in a new book. The bit I do not know is "who inside META drives" the "similar flavour" book construct as if the book is a new, but different story - human most likely, not a software creating book. The Original Authors say that META do COPY their IPR flavour. Thus, it seems to me that META should pay the original author a big chunk of each new META copy royalty, as if the author themselves had shared the creation of it. Every author the same amount or an individual Court Case Agreement? Not my discipline nor best ability!!
Jim
.............................................
I keep telling you that Your Version of AI (not AI at all, but simply ordinary human generated software) has been around for decades - here the New Scientist on 5march2025 published:
Earlier this year, the technology world welcomed back a long-lost friend. ELIZA, the world’s first artificial intelligence chatbot, had wowed the computer scientists of the mid-1960s with its ability to engage in seemingly meaningful conversation. But, for decades, ELIZA was considered lost because its creator – Joseph Weizenbaum at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – never published the 420 lines of code he used to create it.
“At that time, it was actually kind of not normal to publish code,” says Jeffrey Shrager at Stanford University in California. Weizenbaum might even have thought that nobody would find it particularly interesting.
How times have changed: Shrager and his colleagues are so fascinated by Weizenbaum’s achievement that they founded the ELIZA Archaeology Project and began digging into the history of the ancient chatbot. A few years ago, their efforts were rewarded when they discovered the missing code in a box of Weizenbaum’s old documents at MIT, paving the way for ELIZA’s recent resurrection.
It is astonishing that we can once again talk to a chatbot that occupies such an important place in the history of AI. It got me wondering: is the ELIZA code the oldest out there, or are there even older snippets of computer code still performing impressive or important tasks?
Jim 19march2025
And I had my own 1960's 33rpm vinyl record of Eliza singing "daisy daisy give me the answer do......"
................................................................................................
The Difference between these two illustrates my 30 or so year OLD photo enhancement software, that Media and Govt today thinks is AI - this enhancement is all that Radiographers have wanted for decades, so they can spot problems much more easily, but some leadership has failed to recognise:
Do YOU see AI here? Of course not ...... but in Britain, Engineers (of the like that created this ArcSoft ware) are Despised by NHS England and Govt.......
and this is the contrast enhanced version:
Jim 17march2025
...........................................................................................................
12th February 2025:
CEng Fellow's like me want only to enjoy life, but earn enough to ensure income exceeds expenditure. We do not want to boss anybody around for we more enjoy contributing our ideas in a team of like minded thinking people, to produce advice or goods that help our Customers. We have no money of our own, and so look at recruitment posters to find something that is appropriately interesting. I have always been an aerospace enthusiast, and therefore an employee for I cannot possibly hold anywhere near enough IPR to build my own big aerothermodynamic solutions. As a result of my work in innovation in engines, I have been able to show that such Innovations, Investigations and Solutions are my big game, and that enthusiasm has led me on to other fields, like International Politics for example, where my digging deep approach has given big results and conclusions -
The Israeli are the Long Term Terrorists since 1948, not Hamas (even though they attacked Israel in October 2023) - Hamas have tried for years to promote the two state solution, but Israel and the USA have hugely rejected that idea, for they want a no-state solution to allow them to continue their very aggressive bullying, unbelievably supported by the Shallow Character of the Blind Politician "West"....
Elon Musk has given me no confidence in his "enthusiasm to dig deep"..... his recent rapid knee-jerks in his new "Ministry of Waste" in the USA with President Trump's approval, shows ...... a bully, with no attempt to persuade thoughtfully (for he has no real data based argument). He is a business man, not a technical engineer - his BA physics suggests it is not a technical qualification - his cars, rockets and spacecraft are from his money to employ good Engineers, not his ability. This is NOT the Type of Individual that CEng FIMechE are.
And there are many jobs that we do NOT want to do, but Bristol Engines introduced the Specialist Rank separate from the Management Rank within Engineering - a most beneficial sudden freedom from management, for those who like technology, numbers, calculating, simulating, thinking in their own evolving deep field of expertise....
11th February 2025:
I expect President Macrons' Attendee Politicians with no practical knowledge of AI, have left Paris, having not even considered nor sought...... better Homo sapiens Intelligence than theirs,
instead of hugely Funding the so called "AI experts" within, say, Microsoft and Google who will obviously love much more funding to experiment with..... and which software will still not be able to effectively better "invent" nor answer "why" than Homo sapiens for so many Years yet!
Far better now, immediately, to ask CEng Fellow Qualified and Proven Thinkers, than any future hope for Artificial Intelligence to actually ask why, investigate, think...... like we already do (see my AAIB criticism in https://jim-quinn7.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-boeing-rr-heathrow-crash-in-2008.html where the AAIB and CAA both made a real mess from not-thinking sufficiently!!) Politicians are so far behind even the CAA for they are loud wordy, memory only, breadth first people.
Not depth first people, who are the real people that sort out how to solve problems - as illustrated in my books, and here below: where thinking might go down the dotted route (for only one solution at G, while another route given funding, might result in an alternative J with a worse or better cost-effective answer evaluated - a Vee Stage 2 necessity), but breadth first people will only know ...... G or J (from us thinkers), not being able to generate any innovative deep thinking for themselves!
As I found a long while ago when trying to help the breadth-first Government employee/loud MP - with many helpful ideas. A few shown in my several blogspots (https://jim-quinn.blogspot.com/ and jim-quinn0 and 3 and 4 and 6 and....) were: HS2, No EV cars, males are ALWAYS guilty in Female rape so must Prove their innocence, helping control teenage behaviour, Government Destruction of the British Airframe Industry and the RAF's quality, and ..... more:
Jim
10th February 2025: President Macron :
https://www.elysee.fr/en/sommet-pour-l-action-sur-l-ia 10&11feb2025 AI Conference
Many many many problems in business and industry can be solved or be more cost effective by using software - often a bit of thought can identify what would help, but MOSTLY, NOT using expensive so called AI software. For example, supermarket cashiers have simple add and subtract software having read a barcode, making their job so easy that they can enjoy chat with the Customers and implicitly encourage them to come back and spend again. This approach can work wonders for many people, relieving boredom in multi-repetitive jobs. AI as such is like spending an over complicated £1,000,000 to solve a £10,000 Quality Software solution to the problem - DO NOT be sucked into such expenditure!!
An example - Microsoft's Windows - Windows XP was perhaps their "best ever", but they decided to MAKE YOU SPEND MORE, by stopping XP support and saying that you have to take on...... so many money-making versions of Windows, because of human GULLIBILITY. Governments around the world should have insisted that XP was "maintained for ever", and no doubt provided some funding to ensure that, but far less expenditure than so many millions and millions of people buying the "poor" Windows updates! Government so often looks only at its own direct expenditure without helping the Population overall to NOT SPEND so much.
Wealth in a country means also not spending more than necessary - taxes could be raised for the Health and Care System, if the overall sum of the People's expenditure could be saved on things like ....... the new "FREE TO YOU" (!!) smart energy meter (the Natural Gas meter battery cannot be replaced, because of POOR DESIGN, except by sending the WHOLE unit back to the Manufacturer, now becoming VERY rich! While our Natural Gas bill ALSO mounts because somebody has to dis/re connect the Gas pipes SECURELY with the Replacement Meter, and SEND the whole OLD meter to....) -
an A4 page of CLEAR advice would have reduced OUR expenditure enormously, but UK Govt supported such a HUGE WASTE OF MONEY (meter costs hidden within electricity and gas bills)........ Each second a kettle is heated costs 3,000 watts of electrical Power to make a cuppa - DO NOT fill it more than necessary - 3,000 watts for a longer and longer time, costs a lot. What MORE ADVICE do you NEED?
9th February 2025: The most important decision you have to make about AI is to ask "what does it do", and is that "what I want"? Humans and software find it easy to identify "what" something is - like recognising "scissors", but the big AI and Human problem is identifying "WHY" that occurred, or how do I "INVENT" something? These both require questioning, the deeper the better, and Today's AI CANNOT do that! Databases searches by "machine learning" produce "what", but not "why" that result exists since active Q&A and Cognition is so necessary.
I do "WHY" well when I am interested, but do not expect me to think of everything, though I will try - I enjoy working in a team of interested multi-disciplined people discussing accordingly, but I find wordy or memory only people most "unfriendly" in their ignorance. They take enormous amounts of time just to explain the simplest of concepts, BEFORE getting down to the task at hand! Thus I do not want such people in "my" team.
And Lawyers and Justices in Court are FAR TOO ignorant for ME to bother with explaining some high intensity activity........ that only I (or my Chartered Engineering colleagues, or the REAL Operators of ...... Aircraft, Police, MotorSport.....) can make a Judgement about (impossible for their wordy, ignorant of the Real Intense World, take a long time in remote plush seating, selves)!! The Post Office Sub Postmaster TRIALS illustrate the Justices incompetence all of whom CONVICTED the Innocent - they ACTUALLY believed the Post Office computer output!! No questions such as an Engineer would naturally think...... a software CEng would have easily found that Terminal where Fujitsu were inserting numbers so freely...... the only way anything is input to a computer is by the software regularly checking whether any key has been pressed, reading that key and any subsequent, including the address where that input was to be stored...... so easy to find that Input Keyboard location in the software, but taking a while, for there are so many lines of code!
I could construct a presentation to identify what I have discovered/suggest, and welcome questions to supply "answers" as best I can, but not "ignorant silly's" - no thanks.
Jim
Artificial Intelligence is either:
Systems that think like humans and that act like humans, or Systems that think Rationally and that act Rationally
The difference is that humans are emotional - In England they support the England football team because they are English, but Rationally they should support another more successful team !
However, how do we actually use the words Artificial Intelligence? Surely we mean systems that think, not just data collect like ChatGPT, which common parlance says produces thoughtful output and is AI, but which actually it is not, for it is comprehensively software programmed to link words together that can be understood. There is a problem with the MEDIA and GOVERNMENT definition of AI, because we can programme software to do many jobs, except THINK for itself and be creative like humans can – that is years away.
Robots have for many years, decades even, been able to talk to us, by stringing words together in response to a comment (all pre-programmed into software) - like "My name is Jim" and it responds in writing or speech with "Hullo Jim, my name is Eliza". This might be termed AI in its very simplest form, for the System gives you a meaningful response, but it is not AI at all, for it is not thinking for itself. It is simple software.
ChatGPT (version 3 or 4) is like a Google search engine - ask it a question and it searches the internet just like Google producing lists of results, and then strings the words together that it finds from the responses that it finds. It probably uses a comprehensive dictionary to link verbs and nouns etc that have related meanings, to link all of the internet search paragraphs or sentences together. ChatGPT probably just uses the top 5 or 6 popular results from the search without prioritisation. Search is what we humans do, selecting which result seems reasonable by our thinking, but ChatGPT can make mistakes by using fake news as its source among others. Luckily fake news is not so common, but it may become so, especially if ChatGPT produces lots of output that refers to itself. The problem with ChatGPT is that it creates text that looks good, but is nowhere near as good as a human content researcher or strategist thinker could produce - businesses that use ChatGPT should recognise that it's text could be over simple and could be fake, or not well thought. Business should be aware, and employ good people, not go for cheap possibly woolly results.
Thinking is more than just collecting data together, so ChatGPT is not AI, even though it has that label.
How do we create things? That is surely more like the real definition of AI. As a Professional Engineer, I have creative ideas about how to design something, but I test those ideas after making it, so I have to prove that my news is not fake. A creative idea is also defined by the Patent system - it has to be a new idea, and it involves an inventive step and it can be manufactured. By searching the List of Patents, I can obtain ideas to help me form an inventive step which is new because it is not listed. I have yet to see any software create such a new idea other than a random assortment of untested lines on paper, for real AI does not yet exist.
Thinking means more than just accepting a data search - double or triple checking is necessary, looking at various data sources and rationally working out what is most likely. A good understanding of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) helps to identify fake news. I had to triple search Google to find that the human brain only becomes human in two halves at about 30-35 weeks, just a month before normal birth. How do you trust what you see from ChatGPT? We already have a problem online, identifying what is correct as this Google search illustrates.
AI has a heightened risk in surveillance (facial recognition software is a data search engine comparing two photos together, one in the database and the other in the crowd, but often mis-identifies black people), discrimination among minorities, and a lack of accountability for when things go wrong. We have to challenge these things.
Bioethics can be described as a combination of two subjects – Biology and Philosophy. Philosophy shows the ropes of a perfectly moral life in society for any human being and ethics stick to the notion of right and wrong, good and bad. In the field of medicine and healthcare, professionals come up with complex issues and disputed points.I think the principles of bioethics are: Beneficence (doing good) Non-maleficence (to do no harm) Autonomy (giving the patient the freedom to choose freely, where they are able) Justice (ensuring fairness). It seems to me that current versions of AI like ChatGPT could do harm - it can generate fake news without caution, it could make documents too simple, it could fail to prioritize its messages, it could make all our jobs low money earners, it could actually destroy jobs.
Current versions of AI might also save lives such as the argument that autonomous cars might save lives, but we all argue that taking our hands off the steering wheel is a big NONO without good demonstration of reliability – a Recognised Certificate is helpful! Tornado aircrew use software in their Terrain Following Radar Control, but they were trained to accept its safety and reliability, and in the Iraq War Tornado travelled at high speed at 50 ft altitude at night! Their Safety Certificate was well founded, by Professional Engineers, such as to avoid detection by the enemy through being too low for the enemy radar to pick them out and know where they were.
Software Engineers will be bound to explore new concepts, for it is intellectually stimulating, and there are needs for helpful software in spotting the needle in a haystack situation (like for Radiologists searching for that almost invisible tumour that needs photo enhancing software). Indeed the Radiologist will tire during the day trying to find tumour’s, so good software would help them to view more patients if it speeded up their search – this software would not replace thinking for a Radiologists job is more than just searching.
I am happy with Google searches, for they show huge lists of potential data which I can explore and think about, but ChatGPT potentially stops us thinking for ourselves by presenting an apparently finished argument, and that really worries me, for then it is difficult to spot misleading errors. We respect a qualified Human Professional, but there is NO qualified Professional in ChatGPT output. I think we should hang a notice around ChatGPT and its ilk, which says “This output may mislead”, just as we have notices on cigarette packets that say “this might kill”, so many years after unscrupulous business claimed that cigarettes do not cause cancer. And I would extend that argument to Declare that ANY software which appears to produce a conclusive argument should have a “This output may mislead” label stuck to it. Thus, facial recognition software should have such a label too. The new UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is in the process of forming an AI group that could consider Regulations such as I suggest.
What is democracy, other than the freedom to think and communicate between ourselves – why should we allow software to support Autocracy, where the Autocrat is AI itself?
We cannot all be trained into Software Engineering. Supermarket Cashiers have long been used to automatic pricing totals, and still be cheerful with the Customer. There are many jobs in between that software may help or change.
We need to be cheerful in life: Let us enjoy it and take care with current versions of AI.
