This one is too good at them
I just wasted an hour of writing and research by hitting the wrong chord on my keyboard here, after neglecting to save my work in progress. You can't teach an old dog old mistakes.
The other two don't
There is no contrast between the US, China, and the EU more stark than AI regulation. Here in the US there is effectively none (especially after yesterday's news). In China there is the usual state control, but with a strong AI development imperative. The EU has the AI Act, which I was briefed on yesterday during an online session with the Berkman Klein Center (which is covering the AI thing well). What I see with the AI Act is very little drag on innovation and implementation of AI, but the simple fact that AI regulation exists in the EU has the AI giants (all based in the US) pumping the brakes there. To me the main difference between the three regions is that only one of them cares about personal (or any kind of) privacy, and backs that care with policy.
Does that mean it's dead… or just a zombie?
The Democratic party has conducted an autopsy on itself.
Wisest words ever sung
Uncle Josh is my favorite Mike Cross song, especially now that I have the life expectancy of a puppy. Alas, the lyrics are nowhere on the Web. Should I put them there? They matter. Mike will be 80 this year and hasn't been active for a long time. His agency still has a page for him, if you run a search. His old URL, mikecross.com, redirects to the agency, but you can find what it used to be at archive.org. Here's one snapshot, with a popover explaining his absence. But listen to the song.
More here if you care to dig
Says here that Sports Illustrated deleted the entire archive of a writer accused of using AI as a co-author, or something like that.
A hole new approach
Hackrnoon: We Treated Potholes Like Software Bugs and Accidentally Built a Civic Hacking Playbook
And so will Big AI
The story above is written in the style of AI, which isn't much different from the way I sometimes write: short, bursty sentences, one-line paragraphs, contrasty ("not this, but that") phrasing, useful subheads, outline-like organization on long pieces. So I had originality.ai examine it. The result: "We are 62% confident that the text scanned is AI-generated, NOT to be interpreted as 62% of the text produced is AI-generated."
But is that unfair? The author, Bogomil Shopov – Бого, aka @bogomil, is writing to be read in thirteen very different languages. Why not use AI for writing in one language that will be translated and read in another twelve? The story is about a civic hack in Sofia. The writing (at least in English) is vivid, clear, and useful. Was it that in Bulgarian to begin with? Did @bogomil write it in English first, and is he that good at it—as good as an AI at sounding like an AI?
In fact, my only problem with how @bogomil wrote it is that it reads like AI. Everything else about the piece is perfect.
I'm not yet sure how to process that, but I do at least know that there is a learning loop that runs out through all of us, then through all the AIs that harvest and process it, and then gets fed back to us in an idealized style that makes us (or at least me) reflect on ourselves and our own styles, while knowing that we too are being hacked somehow—now by AI and not just by other humans.
I also know that we'll adapt.
Is the remaining 1% a problem?
As a kind of controlled study, I just ran this blog post through Originality.ai. It says, "Likely Original 99% Confidence." It also says I have only three scans left before I have to upgrade, which I probably won't.
















