And continuing with the theme of stupidity, here is an AI-generated video that speaks much truth.
WARNING: Do not watch if you are offended by crude language.
Although I have written on this topic before, stupidity's myriad manifestations continue to hold me in a perhaps unhealthy grip. But I know that I am not the only one who is both fascinated and repelled by this subject. Last week, on one of my regular walks with a few of my retired colleagues, all of whom actually read and are aware of the world around them, the topic of stupidity as it relates to Trump's followers arose. As is always the case when we gather, we had a spirited discussion as to possibly explanations of the cult for whom the Chief Grifter can do no wrong.
Later that day, one of them sent me an article by a neuroscientist named Bobby Azarian who offers this interesting definition of stupidity:
Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.
Indeed, to add to the above, I would say that having some humility about our own limitations is part and parcel of being critical thinkers. Thus, for example, I accept the scientific consensus on Covid vaccines, a topic that so many with no expertise claim to oppose because they read something contrary on the internet or in a chat group. It is a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby people think they are smarter than they are and know things that others don't. As Azarian says, they are ignorant of their own ignorance.
The problem is especially worrisome because such people tend to be attracted to confident, strong-man leaders.
For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their over-confidence (i.e., stupidity).
I hope you will find an opportunity to read the entire article, but I shall close with one more excerpt from it:
This new theory of stupidity I have proposed here — that stupidity is not a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but a lack of awareness of the limits of one’s intelligence or knowledge — is more important right now than ever before, and I’ll tell you why. The same study by Anson mentioned above showed that when cues were given to make the participants “engage in partisan thought,” the Dunning-Kruger effect became more pronounced. In other words, if someone is reminded of the Republican-Democrat divide, they become even more overconfident in their uninformed positions. This finding suggests that in today’s unprecedently divided political climate, we are all more likely to have an inflated sense of confidence in our unsupported beliefs. What’s more, those who actually have the greatest ignorance will assume they have the least!
And in this American election year, that is very, very worrisome.
There is an article in today's Star about the threat to Canadian democracy posed by artificial intelligence. However, I can't help but wonder if the real threat is human stupidity.
Raisa Patel writes:
Whether it’s manipulated video, voices or text, Canada is at risk of seriously endangering its democratic institutions if it doesn’t get a grip on regulating artificial intelligence, one of the world’s foremost AI leaders warned Monday.
The use of such tactics — which are becoming increasingly common at a time when high-stakes elections are set to be held around the globe — “can fool a social media user and make them change their mind on political questions,” said Yoshua Bengio, scientific director of the Mila-Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute.
“There's real concern about the use of AI in kind of politically oriented ways that go against the principles of our democracy.”
Bengio, who is also the co-chair of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s AI advisory council, was speaking to the House of Commons industry committee as it studies a bill seeking to reign in and regulate the rapidly developing technology.
Given that fake videos and voices have now reached the point where they are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, it is sad that there is no inoculation available against human credulity.
On the other hand, however, is it really too much to expect people to inspect their sources? Surely it is one of the 21st century's greatest ironies that we live in a time when the world's information and knowledge is available literally at our fingertips, yet many people choose to use the internet simply to verify their own ignorance and prejudices. Instead of checking a reputable media source or even Snopes to see whether something is true, there are those that will rely only on their Telegram channels, Q-Anon, Facebook groups and other discredited sources, happy to label and dismiss mainstream media as lamestream media.
That is capitulation, not critical thinking, and it appears to be endemic. I found myself thinking more about this last night as I watched the news about the latest Trump outrage. Apparently, even though a private citizen, he is giving direction to Congress to block a southern border deal because he wants to make it an election issue. While not a perfect bill, it becomes painfully obvious that a problem near and dear to so many Americans, and a clear Achilles Heel for Joe Biden, takes a back seat to the political machinations of Trump and the gutless Republicans who pay him complete obeisance.
In a normal world where people thought deeply about such things, all of this would be so obvious. Yet the MAGA crowd and others will undoubtedly let weak and corrupt politicians do their thinking for them.
In Canada, things are not much different. Increasing numbers prefer PP's aphorisms ("Axe the tax", "Jail, not bail") to real policy discussion. Sadly, no legislation regulating artificial intelligence here can do a thing about a dearth of natural intelligence. As I have said many times before, we truly are a deeply flawed species.
Anyone who has ever watched the film Colossus - The Forbin Project or enjoyed the revamped Battlestar Galactica or read Robert Sawyer's The Terminal Experiment will know that artificial intelligence, whether embraced willingly or created accidentally, never ends well. Safeguards are overlooked or abandoned, or sometimes the A.I. develops unintended abilities that spell disaster for humanity. Hubris, as the Greeks taught us, can be deadly.
The speed at which A.I is developing in the real world suggests it is time for some sober second thought. The fact that that is not happening, as you will see in the following, is testament to the competitive nature of entitles like Google and Microsoft. We may currently be enthralled by developments like GPT Chat, but are do we truly understand it and its potential, both for good and ill?
If you only have time to watch one of the two following videos, watch the first one. The second one is a more in-depth examination of the topic.
No doubt those who oppose or urge caution in this rapid evolution of A.I. will be dismissed by many as Luddites. I have the feeling, however, that to label them thus is taking a real gamble with humanity's future.
Using some of the latest AI techniques, Peele ventriloquizes Barack Obama, having him voice his opinion on Black Panther (“Killmonger was right”) and call President Donald Trump “a total and complete dipshit.”
The video was made by Peele’s production company using a combination of old and new technology: Adobe After Effects and the AI face-swapping tool FakeApp. The latter is the most prominent example of how AI can facilitate the creation of photorealistic fake videos.
Researchers have developed tools that let you perform face swaps like the one above in real time; Adobe is creating a “Photoshop for audio” that lets you edit dialogue as easily as a photo; and a Canadian startup named Lyrebird offers a service that lets you fake someone else’s voice with just a few minutes of audio. Technologist Aviv Ovadya summed up the fears created by this tech, asking BuzzFeed News, “What happens when anyone can make it appear as if anything has happened, regardless of whether or not it did?”The implications of this technology are frightening. Consider, for example, that propagandists will now have a powerful new tool with which to virally undermine their targets with embarrassing or compromising 'videos'; moreover, those who are caught in all manner of malfeasance will, as the current president of the U.S. regularly does, be able to claim it is all "fake news."
Scientists are currently creating tools that can spot AI fakes, but at the moment, the best shield against this sort of misinformation is instilling everyone with a little more media savvy. If you see a provocative video, you should ask yourself: where does this come from? Have other outlets corroborated it? Does it even look real? In the case of AI-generated videos, you can usually see that they’re fake by telltale signs of distortion and blurring.As always, critical thinking will be paramount. However, how many, no matter how fair and balanced they consider themselves to be, will be able to resist the natural urge to believe the worst about those whose views and practices are so diametrically opposed to their own?
