Another Month of What People Are Doing with Artificial Intelligence

The users are finding more and more applications for the most newsworthy technology of the 2020s.…

Nikolas Lanum, in Fox News on March 22^nd, told us that a “Texas private school’s use of new ‘AI tutor’ rockets student test scores to top 2% in the country.”  At Alpha School, “students are placed in the classroom for two hours a day with an AI assistant, using the rest of the day to fucus on skills like public speaking, financial literacy, and teamwork.”  Their ability to work on things they call “passion projects,” and therefore have strong interest in, can explain these results, but for that AI may indeed be the way to go.

We saw also that “AI enables paralyzed man to control robotic arm with brain signals” (Kent Knutson, Fox News, March 30^th).  The experimental achievement started with “sensors implanted on the surface of his brain,” which “recorded neural signals as he imagined movements like grasping or lifting objects,” and “over two weeks, these signals were used to train the AI model to account for daily shifts in brain activity patterns.”  After months of practicing “controlling a virtual robotic arm,” followed by using a “real” one, “he quickly mastered tasks such as picking up blocks, opening cabinets and even holding a cup under a water dispenser.”  Promising, but will take years at best before it can be provided at scale.

The same source told us about “The dangers of oversharing with AI tools” (April 9^th).  While the likes “of ChatGPT have become incredibly adept at learning your preferences, habits and even some of your deepest secrets,” that means their “knowing” so much about you “raises some serious privacy concerns.”  Information they have may be relayed back to their manufacturers, but it is not clear how much damage that actually does.  It may take a known case of someone being badly hurt before we can effectively regulate, or even understand, the true threat.

More tamely, “These AI transcription voice recorders surge in popularity” (Christopher Murray, still Fox News, April 19^th).  With them, users can “record, transcribe and summarize content effortlessly,” using AI’s ability to “transcribe in 112 languages” and “generate comprehensive summaries” – now.  One, PLAUD’s NotePin, is wearable as a pin, a wristband, or a necklace, and, by using encrypted cloud storage, presents no privacy concerns.  The devices are generally low-priced but require paid subscriptions for the AI itself.  This is one use of AI almost certain to continue without existential scariness.

Could we say the same about coworkers who aren’t real?  On that, “Anthropic anticipates AI virtual employees coming in next year, security leader says” (Alex Nitzberg, Fox Business, April 22^nd).  That company is creating “digital AI employees” with “”memories,” parts to play within the business, and company accounts and passwords,” with “much greater autonomy than agents currently do now.”  Yet even Anthropic’s chief information security officer of the title said there are many such unsolved problems, such as “AI employees” being able to “hack the system in which code is merged and tested prior to being rolled out.”  Since this is more of a potential application than a real one, it may not belong in this post at all, but since users can clearly now create bogus employees of some sort, with small but growing capabilities, we should be aware that new names on organization charts may not be Homo sapiens – or anything alive at all, even if they can converse.  Yes, it may not be possible, as author Erle Stanley Gardner once had his character Perry Mason say, to “correspond with a corpse,” but it is with these electronic automata.  So don’t be fooled – or surprised – and that goes for the other four AI functions here as well.

Artificial Intelligence Regulation – Three Months’ Worth

Controlling AI has been more fun for some people than using it or thinking about what it can do.  What’s the story been?

Before the current regime, we watched as the “Biden Administration Adopts Rules to Guide A.I.’s Global Spread” (Ana Swanson, The New York Times, January 13^th).  The “sweeping rules… governing how A.I. chips and models can be shared with foreign countries,” included various limitations on the number of A.I. chips that companies can send to different countries, with no bounds on those going domestically or to “18 of (our) closest partners,” with those “already subject to U.S. arms embargoes” barred, and all others “subject to caps restricting the number of A.I. chips that can be imported.”  There were also rules governing how much American companies can sell chips they have acquired elsewhere.

Is it true that “The Rush to A.I. Threatens National Security” (Heidy Khlaaf and Sarah Myers West, January 27^th, The New York Times)?  The authors claimed that “now that Donald Trump is taken office, the tech industry is moving full steam ahead in its push to integrate A.I. products across the defense establishment, which could make a dangerous situation even more perilous.”  Companies involved in the “slew of new partnerships and initiatives to integrate A.I. technology into deadly weaponry” included OpenAI, Anduril, Palantir, Meta, and Scale AI.  Potential problems include hallucinations, “cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” and data that could manipulate software, issues that the authors did not think could be solved.

What was “The Dangerous A.I. Nonsense That Trump and Biden Fell For” (Zeynep Tufekci, The New York Times, February 5^th)?  “America’s approach to A.I. safety and regulations,” which “was largely nonsense,” as “it was never going to be possible to contain the spread of this powerful emergent technology, and certainly not just by placing trade restrictions on components like graphics chips.”  “Instead… the government and the industry should be preparing our society for the sweeping changes that are soon to come.”  Specifically, “it’s time to harden our networked infrastructure,” “to start thinking clearly about how corporations and governments could use the A.I. that’s available right now to entrench their dominance, erode our rights, worsen inequality,” and determine “what we can do so that this powerful technology with so much potential for good can benefit the public.”  Perhaps regulation, Tufekci seems to be saying, is futile.

Some companies don’t mind that attitude, as “Emboldened by Trump, A.I. Companies Lobby for Fewer Rules” (Cecilia Kang, again The New York Times, March 24^th).  When under Biden “they wanted Washington to regulate them,” citing “the potential to disrupt national security and elections” and the chance to “eventually eliminate millions of jobs,” starting in late January AI companies have made “bold requests of government to stay out of their way,” by saying “it is legal for them to use copyrighted material to train their A.I. models” and “asking for the federal government to pre-empt states from creating A.I. laws.”  The Trump Administration has at least symbolically taken the less-regulation side through executive orders, statements supporting fewer laws, and invoking the value of “America’s global A.I. dominance.”

One form of regulation took effect April 2^nd, as “Deceptive deepfake media now a crime in N.J.” (Associated Press in Advertiser-News North, April 10^th).  New Jersey governor Phil Murphy “signed legislation… making the creation and dissemination of so-called deceptive deepfake media a crime punishable by up to five years in prison,” joining “at least 20 states.”  This version “defines a deepfake as any video or audio recording or image that appears to a reasonable person to realistically depict someone doing something they did not actually do,” and “establishes civil penalties that would permit victims to pursue lawsuits.”  Will the number of violations be small enough to allow enforcement?  Will such laws damage our need to assess veracity ourselves?  Will they turn out to be just adjuncts to others barring child sexual imagery?  I don’t think these questions will be easy to answer.  That makes this example, along with the others here, an artificial intelligence output which we will need to judge, accept, or reject.  It will take a while.

Eleven Observations on All Those Tariffs

As mentioned in a recent post, I have not been covering the day-in, day-out activity with the Trump Administration’s proposed, threatened, scheduled, started, stopped, and discontinued tariffs, as they have changed too quickly to put in a weekly blog with posts that will not be read immediately.  Most if not all seemed to me like negotiation efforts more than parts of any real economic policy. 

Now, though, they seem more permanent.  Reactions from other countries, from Canada and Europe to especially China, have changed from quick concessions to their own levies and threats.  Some may still be withdrawn, and some agreements will certainly take place, but we can’t count on that anymore.

As of Wednesday morning’s “Live Updates:  Asia Grapples With Punishing Tariffs as Its Stocks Sink Again” in The New York Times, “U.S. tariffs on its largest trading partners” listed the following effective or to be effective April 9^th:  China 84%, Mexico 25%, Canada 25%, European Union 20%, Japan 24%, Vietnam 46%, South Korea 26%, Taiwan 32%, India 27%, United Kingdom 10%,  Switzerland 32%, Thailand 37%, Malaysia 24%, Singapore 10%, Brazil 10%, Indonesia 32%, Israel 17%, Colombia 10%, Turkey 10%, Australia 10%.  There are others.  By the time you read this, there will be differences – I recommend either the New York Times or Fox Business for keeping up with changes too frequent for my reporting.

So what do I have to say?  Here are my views.

First, I am against all tariffs.  Not only do they go directly to the bottom lines of consumers, they prompt retaliatory ones which hurt our employment though reduced business profitability, and decrease product quality by reducing or eliminating healthy foreign competition.  Virtually all economists agree.

Second, the end does not justify the means.  That is a solid principle, with few if any exceptions.  Even if the administration knows something vast numbers of knowledgeable people on both political sides do not, which I have no reason to think, there should not be any tariffs.

Third, presidential overreach, here and in general, should be checked and balanced by the legislative and judicial branches.  If either one is unwilling to do that, we have a structural problem, or, more likely, the national lack of will has reached people we need to trust the most.  Either requires our attention and action.

Fourth, we still don’t know how long these tariffs will last.

Fifth, for top management at large businesses, uncertainty is as bad as poor business results.  That will pull down their stocks under this administration even if the tariffs go away.

Sixth, Trump has refused to use blind trusts or make his financial moves public.  Is it possible that he or his agents are selling stocks short before announcing tariffs or other moves certain to hurt the market?

Seventh, trade deficits are meaningless when considering tariffs.  They reflect relative richness and number of customers, at which the United States almost always outranks its trading partners.

Eighth, the April 5^th protests were better attended than many expected.  As the tariffs continue, and the administration does other things to attack prosperity, they should continue.

Ninth, maybe the strongest point against gun control is that any invaders would have to conquer not one government but over 100 million armed households, making that in effect impossible with today’s technology.  The same thing goes for people speaking up against our government – the more who do that, the safer they will be.

Tenth, when this is over, and it will end sometime, there will be a reckoning.  Those who did not resist Trump when they had the opportunity and capability will be identified and possibly punished, formally or informally.

Eleventh, my personal investment decision now is to sit tight.  As The Motley Fool said in a recent Facebook message, bear markets don’t destroy wealth – panic selling in bear markets does.  I will not make any stock trades, indefinitely.  If you choose that course too and it turns out to be wrong, at least you won’t die alone. 

The time will come when we have a better government.  In the meantime, keep living, do what you can and have to, keep the faith, and look at least to 2026 and 2028.

March Jobs Data Showed More New Positions Than Expected, with AJSN Giving Latent Demand Down 400,000 to 16.7 Million – No Clear Tariff Effect Yet

A combined published estimate for today’s number of net new nonfarm payroll positions was 138,000.  The result in this morning’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation Summary exceeded that by 90,000, a welcome surprise.  Except for one area, the other numbers, though, changed in light and variable ways.  Both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted unemployment were 4.2%, the former up 0.1% and the latter, as we moved to an average employment month, down 0.3%.  The adjusted counts of those unemployed in general and those out for 27 weeks or longer stayed the same, at 7.1 million and 1.5 million.  Those working part-time for economic reasons, or looking for a full-time position while temporarily keeping a shorter-hours one, lost 100,000 of last time’s 400,000 gain to reach 4.8 million.  The two measures showing how likely it is for Americans to be working or one step away, the employment-population ratio and the labor force participation rate, stayed the same and gained 0.1%, to 59.9% and 62.5%.  Average hourly private nonfarm payroll wages rose 7 cents, or close to the inflation rate, to get to $36.00.

The area with the clearest pattern was partial labor force attachment, the second through eighth rows on the chart below.  While the count of those claiming temporary unavailability was up, the other six were down, some substantially, with the group of people saying they wanted work but were not looking for it for the past year showing the largest loss.

The American Job Shortage Number or AJSN, the metric showing how many fresh positions could be quickly filled if all knew they were easy to get, improved by 404,000 to reach the following:

About 300,000 of the loss was from official joblessness, and almost all the rest was from the categories of marginal attachment.  The share of the AJSN from unemployment edged down from 39.8% to 39.0%.  Compared with a year before, the AJSN gained about 400,000, with increases in those unemployed, discouraged, not wanting work, and not looking for a year or more mostly offset by fewer expatriates. 

What does the overall picture look like?  Except for the higher-than-expected number of new jobs, and the mostly seasonal increase in employment, up 868,000, not much happened.  Lower figures in the marginal attachment statuses may start a trend, but they are only down to about where they were a year before.  As it usually does during increased employment months, whether seasonally caused or not, the labor force grew, with 362,000 fewer out of the labor force and 153,000 fewer not interested.  Next time we will see the effect of Wednesday’s announced tariffs, if they are still in place, and other labor-affecting presidential moves.  For now, though, I saw the turtle take a tiny step forward.  I hope that the May report will not be worse.