Sunday, June 30, 2024

Dinner in Hanoi


When Anthony Bourdain died, I felt I’d lost someone close to me. That’s ridiculous, of course—I never met him, and we lived in completely different worlds.

But others felt that same connection. And for a good reason. Bourdain didn’t act like a TV celebrity. I sometimes wonder how he ever got on TV in the first place—he never delivered lines, and what he said on air did not sound like a professional script.

It was better than that.

His online commentaries were so smart, unfiltered, and expressive that somebody must have taken great care over them. But that person was Anthony Bourdain himself. He somehow achieved total personal expression via a mass market TV show.

As many of you know, I’m skeptical of political discourse. It’s so degraded in our day. But Bourdain’s interview with Obama at a diner in Hanoi completely redefined the rules of presidential interviews—it was a real conversation with no spin or games played. And Bourdain established that natural give-and-take so effortlessly.

If I hadn’t seen it, I wouldn’t have thought it possible.

Bourdain achieved this in every setting in every country. And he visited plenty of them—more than 80, I’m told.

I can’t imagine a more ideal ambassador. One who listens more than he talks. One who has such strong core values—but never lets that prevent him from learning and expanding his horizons.

He worked inside the system, but the system never owned him. It hardly seemed to touch him. So Bourdain always came across as more real, more honest, more trustworthy than other media stars.

Every time I saw him, I asked myself: How can I learn from this? I’m still trying to do that.

by Ted Gioia, Honest Broker | Read more: (paywall)
Image: uncredited via

My 2024 Presidential Debate

Alexander: Hello and welcome to the first Presidential debate of 2024. Based on the remarkable popularity of the previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023), I’ve been asked to come here again and help the American people learn more about the our two candidates - President Joseph Biden, and former president Donald J. Trump. This debate will be broadcast live to select viewers, and I’ll also post a transcript on my blog.

Let’s start with a question for President Biden. Mr. President, the biggest political story of the past four years was Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade and gave final decision-making power on abortion back to the states. How would a second Biden administration treat this issue? Do you think states should be setting policy on abortion?

Biden: I’m not even sure states exist.

Alexander: You’re . . . not sure states exist?

Biden: The Pledge of Allegiance says that America is “one nation, indivisible.” Taken seriously, we have pledged to regard America as not being composed of parts. It is, like God, a perfectly simple entity, not requiring further explanation. How, then, could it have states? I realize this position may seem strange. But I pledged to believe it, and I am a man of my word.

Alexander: I see. Mr. Trump, your response?

Trump: I think you can rescue the idea of states, if you think of them not as real in themselves, but as different aspects of the American atom. When we consider America in the context of its vastness and its freedom, we call it "Texas". When we consider America in the context of its innovation and cultural influence, we call it "California". When we consider America in the context of its barrenness and oil-producing-capacity, we call it "North Dakota". And so on. America does not have states in the sense that Queensland is a state of Australia, it has states in the sense that ice or steam is a state of water. This isn’t to say that America ever changes between these states, because change is a property of compound entities. But it may appear to outside observers in one or another of these ways at different times.

Alexander: President Biden, your position?

Biden: Yes, I think it is permissible to believe in states in the way that Mr. Trump thinks of them. There’s no difference between us on this issue.

Alexander: All right, thank you. I wasn’t really intending to get sidetracked by this. I mostly wanted to know your policy on abortion.

Biden: I’m pro-choice. That’s all there is to it. I think women have a fundamental right to decide what happens to their own body, and I think life begins at birth. And not one of these hokey Caesarian “births” either - a normal, natural childbirth.

Alexander: Can you clarify that last part?

Biden: Have you read Shakespeare? Being “from your mother’s womb untimely ripp’d” doesn’t count as being born. I think the anti-choice side is covertly trying to restrict abortion rights by expanding the definition of “born” until basically any method of separating a fetus from its mother would count.

Alexander: So if someone does get delivered by Caesarian section, what happens?

Biden: Legally they’re still part of their mother.

Alexander: And the mother can terminate them at any time?

Biden: Uh-huh.

Trump: Wait, what if they’re an evangelical Christian who’s born again?

Biden: Well, they can’t be born again. That would be their first birth.

Trump: But if they had that experience - if the Spirit came down and gave them the baptism of fire - would that count as a birth, end their status as a fetus, and prevent their mother from terminating them?

Biden: I suppose it would.

Trump: Great. Then there’s no difference between me and the President on this matter. Let’s keep going.

Alexander: Wow, I’m having a hard time finding any real points of disagreement tonight. Let’s stay on cultural issues, where I know the two of you have clashed before. President Biden, a lot of conservatives are worried that your administration promotes “wokeness” and “cancel culture”. What do you have to say to them?

Biden: Scott, I think about these things through the lens of Sir James Frazier’s seminal work on anthropology, The Golden Bough. Frazier writes that all rituals descend from the same ur-ritual: sacrificing the king to restore the fertility of the soil. As time went on, instead of sacrificing the literal king, societies changed this ritual into more and more figurative forms. In one common instantiation, typified by the Roman festival of Saturnalia, a commoner was chosen as the “mock king” or “king of fools”. He would be feted for a time, given the finest goods and the most delicate foods, and then sacrificed to the gods in place of the true king. I think of cancel culture as an outgrowth of this phenomenon. We take undeserving commoners and promote them to celebrities. For a time they bask in limitless wealth and the adoration of all. Then we destroy them. This may seem harsh to the uninitiated. But without it, the corn would fail in Iowa, the grapes would wilt on the vine in California, and the apple trees of New England would wither and die. Our celebrities know by what bargain they have gained their ephemeral reign. Let none mourn the inevitable consequences.

Alexander: Mr. Trump, your response? What’s your position on wokeness and cancel culture?

Trump: I’m against wokeness. I believe in Western values. I believe in the heritage of Greece and Rome - but Rome more than Greece, because it was further west. But most of all, I believe in the values of the Aztecs, because they were most western of all. I believe that in 959 AD Tezcatlipoca, the Smoking Mirror, insulted Chalchiuhtlicue, goddess of water, who cried blood for the next fifty-two years. Her tears extinguished the sun and killed everyone on Earth. In his mercy, Quetzalcoatl the Winged Serpent descended to the Underworld, where he stole the bones of the last men, and dipped them in his blood to create a new human race, and Huitzilopochtli, the Left-Handed Hummingbird, ascended into heaven to became the new sun. But his sisters the moon and stars grew jealous of his light, and they launched attacks upon him nightly. Only the nourishing blood of men gives Huitzilopochtli the strength to resist their assaults and shine anew each morn. Should the fountain of sacrifice ever go dry, the sun will go black, and the stars will fall upon the world and consume it. Callouts on social media are a form of flower war, and its losers are therefore set aside for sacrifice. In this, I agree with Joe Biden. But we cannot merely consign fallen celebrities to shame and penury. We must give them to the Sun. We must place them atop the mounds of Cahokia, atop the Luxor in Las Vegas, yea, even atop the Bass Pro Shop Pyramid in Memphis, and plunge obsidian daggers into their still-beating hearts, that the dawn may come anew.

Biden: I agree that sacrificing celebrities to the Sun God is a reasonable fertility ritual. I don’t think my administration would do anything differently from Donald’s here either.

Alexander: Hmmm, this is tough. Let’s keep going on the cultural topics. Mr. Biden, some people say our country is overrun with misinformation and conspiracy theories. Do you think these are dangerous, and what do you plan to do about them?

Biden: Yes, I find conspiracy theories noxious. Every time I mention I’m from Delaware, people give me the side-eye. They say awful things like “Isn’t it weird that every major corporation is based in the same state? Isn’t it weird that the President also comes from this state? Isn’t it weird that it was supposedly the first state in the union, the nucleus around which all the rest of America coalesced? Isn’t it weird that it has all these firsts and mosts and bests, but nobody knows anyone who lives there? Isn’t it weird that nobody’s ever been there, even though it’s supposed to be right smack between NYC and DC?” I think questions like these should be banned. I think the people who ask them should be put in jail.

Alexander: Thank you President Biden, that’s consistent with the strong stance against misinformation that you’ve taken in the past. But Mr. Trump, you’ve been accused of being one of the chief spreaders of misinformation, both personally and through your website Truth Social. What do you have to say for yourself?

Trump: GK Chesterton said that fairy tales were more than true, not because they tell us that dragons are real, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. In the same way, I think misinformation is more than true - not because it tells us there are pedophiles in pizza parlors, but because it tells us that pizza parlor pedophiles can be discovered and dragged into the light.

The COVID vaccine might not literally contain a microchip that lets Bill Gates control your mind. But we really do grant unaccountable tech billionaires root access to our culture - and seemingly pro-social requests really can be a vector for establishing control. I, Donald Trump, might not literally lead a euconspiracy of patriotic Americans who are about to blow the lid off the corrupt Biden administration and liberal establishment. But it really is true that even in the darkest night, when all seems lost, thereand  are seeds of hope visible to those who search for them, and that even the most invincible-seeming tyranny can fall in an instant if enough people push at it.

So who cares about the literal truths? The average American lives in a dull apartment building in a decaying city, his subsistence dependent on the whims of macroeconomic forces he cannot comprehend, let alone control. You want to tell him to spend his tiny sliver of time on Earth thinking about interest rates and carbon credits? We need to re-mythologize the world! We need to re-weave the rainbow, re-haunt the air, re-gnome the mine! If the scientists have robbed us of trolls under bridges, we will replace them with Satanic cults in state capitols. If they take our soma, we will invent adrenochrome.

If I’m elected president, I plan to double down on this. I will spread rumors of griffons in the Rocky Mountains, allude to unspeakable things beneath the deserts of Nevada, and question whether the Gateway Arch in St. Louis is a mystical portal to dream-realms beyond the setting sun. Not because any of these things are true. But because they are more than true. They’re what makes this country great.

by Scott Alexander, Astral Codex Ten |  Read more:
Image: King 5; Seattle

Amazon Decides Speed Isn't Everything

Amazon has spent the past two decades putting one thing above all else: speed. How did the e-commerce giant steal business away from bookstores, hardware stores, clothing boutiques, and so many other kinds of retailers? By selling cheap stuff, but more specifically, by selling cheap stuff that arrived quickly. It built the most expansive and brutally optimized logistics empire the United States has ever seen, capable of delivering almost any product imaginable to consumers within two days. As of March, roughly 180 million Americans were Amazon Prime subscribers, an all-time high. Even at a moment when many people report feeling squeezed financially, most of them still think it’s worth spending $139 a year to ensure that stuff arrives at their doorstep swiftly, sometimes in as little as a few hours.

But recently, Amazon has faced a new threat to that model. Tens of millions of Americans have started shopping on Shein and Temu, two Chinese-owned e-commerce platforms that send products directly from China with no middleman. The shipping takes longer, but the prices are lower. Shein specializes in women’s clothing and accessories, such as $6 crop tops and $12 sundresses. Temu’s core strengths are household items, decorations, and electronics; you can buy a $52 Android tablet and a $3 box of latex-free gloves.

Now Amazon, for once, is slowing down. Earlier this week, The Information first reported that Amazon plans to follow the Shein and Temu playbook and open a new online store for low-cost products shipped directly from China. It will focus on unbranded clothing and household items priced under $20 and weighing less than a pound; orders will arrive in nine to 11 days—a relative eternity compared with how long most of its customers are used to waiting. A spokesperson for Amazon didn’t refute any of these details, saying only that the company is “always exploring new ways to work with our selling partners.” When given the choice, Amazon seems to have realized, lots of people will choose stuff that is really cheap over stuff that arrives really quickly.

In certain ways, Amazon is already a lot like Shein and Temu. All three platforms rely on some of the same factories and merchants in China to manufacture products. When Temu launched, in the fall of 2022, I reported that it was selling electronics from at least a handful of the same Chinese suppliers that Amazon used. As of this past December, there was a roughly 10 percent overlap between Temu sellers and Amazon sellers, according to the technology-investment consulting firm Tech Buzz China. When I did quick searches on Shein and Amazon earlier this week, I found that the same Chinese merchants were offering a number of identical products on both sites, including dog toys shaped like Stanley cups and pink memory-foam slippers. But on Shein, they were a few bucks cheaper. If the products are the same, why are Amazon’s prices higher?

The most fundamental explanation is that when customers buy things on Amazon, part of what they are paying for is the quick delivery. That speed is possible because Amazon has poured billions into building warehouses and other logistics infrastructure in the United States. Fast shipping is a convenience that comes at a cost. In other contexts, consumers understand and accept the trade-off they’re making for convenience, however begrudgingly. Most of us get that part of why buying a sandwich at the airport is expensive is because it's faster and easier than packing one at home before a flight.

On Amazon, the trade-offs are less clear: The items tend to be cheaper than at your local store, after all. But what Amazon didn’t anticipate is that consumers would eventually be given appealing options that come directly from the source.

by Louise Matsakis, The Atlantic | Read more:
Image: Paul Spella/The Atlantic; Sources: Getty.
[ed. This is news? I've got a Prime account and can't remember the last time I actually got 2-day shipping (and I live an hour and a half from Seattle). Maybe you need to regularly complain to get on a priority list or something. Re: Temu. Everyone I've talked to that's ordered from them has been happy with the products they've received; others who haven't all cite the same reservation: ie., giving personal information to China. And that's worse than giving it all to Amazon?] 

A Dose of Antacids, a Quaint British Bay, and a Public Relations Fiasco

Senara Wilson Hodges was nervous. It was April 2023 and she had shown up early to a meeting of the local council in St. Ives, a bucolic seaside community of some 10,000 souls in southwest England. Wilson Hodges, a keen surfer and lifelong environmental campaigner, had joined the council several months earlier to influence some of the issues facing her home: the old town center, once home to fishermen, was being hollowed out by tourism, and development was running rampant. But that night, she had something else on her mind.

Wilson Hodges had been researching a Canadian start-up called Planetary Technologies and was concerned about their activities in St. Ives Bay. Like many of her neighbors, she had only learned about the company a few weeks earlier, when an article in The Times detailed how, over several days during the previous fall, Planetary had added a slurry of magnesium hydroxide to the local water company’s sewage pipe and pumped it into the sea off St. Ives Bay.

The experiment was meant to test a potential solution to climate change called ocean alkalinity enhancement. By raising the alkalinity of the seawater, Planetary hoped to coax the ocean into absorbing more atmospheric carbon dioxide and slow global warming in the process.

For Wilson Hodges, the secretive test rang alarm bells. She quickly found that others in town were equally concerned. How could they sleep soundly while an unknown company was pouring chemicals into the sea, potentially harming the local marine life? Was Planetary’s science even sound? And why were they only finding out now? Most alarmingly to locals, the company planned to press ahead with a much larger trial in the summer. (...)

The heated debate that ensued has pitted old-school environmentalists against climate-tech evangelists, caused a rift with the council in the neighboring town of Hayle, and led the Environment Agency to commission an audit of the project. The regulator will soon deliberate on whether a larger trial can proceed. If it does, it could take place almost two years after Planetary had initially planned.

The controversy in St. Ives has played out as a growing number of start-ups and researchers around the world prepare to conduct their own ocean alkalinity enhancement trials. For all of them, St. Ives could provide a useful case study in how to convince local communities of their good intentions and scientific rigor. Whether Planetary is successful could help determine which, if any, of these technologies are adopted more widely, and how quickly they grow. For locals opposed to the trial, Planetary’s work also raises fundamental questions: After messing with natural ecosystems for so long, how do we repair the damage without causing more? And who gets to decide where that takes place?

The St. Ives council vote marked the culmination of a turbulent few weeks for Mike Kelland, Planetary’s 44-year-old CEO. Kelland, a former software entrepreneur, had cofounded Planetary in 2019 because he believed ocean alkalinity enhancement to be the most promising solution to a problem increasingly dogging global action on climate change: how to not only cut carbon emissions dramatically but also remove those already accumulated in the atmosphere.

Interest in ocean alkalinity enhancement, as well as other solutions that fall under the broad umbrella of geoengineering, has risen alongside a growing consensus that engineered carbon removal is unavoidable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now says removing carbon from the atmosphere will be necessary to limit warming to below 2 °C by the end of the century. Even if we blow past that point, carbon removal could help achieve net-negative emissions and reduce global warming in the long run.

Companies are already removing carbon by planting trees and seagrass, and even by directly filtering it out of the air. But in terms of sheer scale, ocean alkalinity enhancement is one of the most potent options. The IPCC estimates that it has the potential to remove up to 100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year, more than twice our annual greenhouse gas emissions and likely far more than any alternative.

What’s more, the ocean is already the world’s largest store of carbon and has absorbed roughly 30 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Some of that carbon dioxide is neutralized over time as rain weathers rock and washes minerals into the sea, causing a chain of reactions that alkalinity enhancement essentially simulates at hyper speed.

Planetary, which eventually plans to sell carbon credits that other companies could use to offset their own emissions, developed its approach with a small team of marine scientists. It involves releasing magnesium hydroxide, an alkaline substance that occurs in nature as the mineral brucite but can also be manufactured synthetically. In the ocean, the chemical binds carbon from carbon dioxide already dissolved in the water into bicarbonates, which stay stable for thousands of years. The resulting carbon dioxide deficit allows the sea to draw more from the air, thereby lowering its concentration in the atmosphere. (...)

Planetary has emphasized that magnesium hydroxide is far from an unknown quantity. It is widely used in wastewater treatment—for example, to help filter out heavy metals—and it’s the main ingredient in drugstore laxatives and antacids like Milk of Magnesia. Still, adding anything to natural environments can be contentious. “People hear chemistry and they don’t like that,” says David Ho, a geochemist and professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

Ho himself is involved in several ocean alkalinity enhancement projects as a researcher, including in the United States and Iceland, and is cofounder and chief science officer of nonprofit research organization [C]Worthy, which makes open-source software to quantify the efficacy and side effects of marine carbon removal. Like others in the space, he says the threat to local ecosystems posed by ocean alkalinity enhancement should be fairly low. But there are still potential risks. Adding large amounts of ground-up minerals to the sea could raise the water pH too quickly or add toxic trace metals, which could harm marine organisms.

Other researchers have also flagged that changing the carbon chemistry of the ocean could have unintended side effects, such as slowing the growth of microalgae that provide food for a vast range of sea creatures. On the other hand, lowering the ocean’s acidity could benefit shell-forming organisms and corals.

The point is, we don’t really know what exactly will happen: so far, scientists have mainly studied ocean alkalinity enhancement in labs or have only modeled its effects. While a handful of other companies have conducted small field studies, Planetary is one of the first to undertake trials at a larger scale. “It’s the unknown unknowns that get you sometimes in nature,” Ho says. “Things we didn’t think of.”

Nevertheless, like Ho and many other scientists in the field, Kelland is convinced that any remaining questions about the technology’s efficacy and impacts can only be answered in the open ocean. “There really is no substitute for real-world work in this space,” he says.

That message did not land as intended in St. Ives. When Planetary went public with its plans for the bay in the spring of 2023—and, in the process, first widely disclosed the details of its experiment from the previous fall—local news led with screaming headlines about dumping laxatives in the ocean.

A series of community meetings organized by the company did little to placate outraged residents. A few days after the St. Ives council vote, Wilson Hodges’s protest drew hundreds of people to a beach near the wastewater pipe. Forced into damage control, Kelland later hosted a three-hour Zoom meeting for the community, fielding pointed questions about ecocide and whether he would put profit over nature.

Planetary and South West Water, a private utility, were not required to notify the public of their initial experiment and, given the small dosage, decided it did not merit an official announcement. The uproar months later caught Kelland off guard, and he has since said that it was a mistake not to publicize the test. “We were surprised, and we shouldn’t have been,” he says. “That really put us on the back foot.” (...)

Like Rance, Wilson Hodges is keenly aware of the bay’s role as a test bed that could influence how geoengineering proceeds around the world. But rather than lending the project urgency, she feels this makes a strong case for holding companies like Planetary to account. After all, the industry is in its early stages, and there are few established rules and procedures around ocean alkalinity enhancement. “We’re a little guinea pig case study,” she says.

by Yannic Rack, Hakai Magazine | Read more:
Image: Mike Newman
[ed. Smart people doing dumb things. Failure to inform communities that you're dumping chemicals into their water, whatever they might be, and not having the foresight or good common sense to even imagine local concern and opposition is just dumb tech hubris. And this applies to any experiments using a public resource. We'll probably see a lot more of this as increasing levels of climate desperation set in.]

Saturday, June 29, 2024

Ghosts


I didn’t know how to write about my sister’s death—so I had AI do it for me.

Last year I became fascinated with an artificial intelligence model that was being trained to write human-like text. The model was called GPT-3, short for Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3; if you fed it a bit of text, it could complete a piece of writing, by predicting the words that should come next.

I sought out examples of GPT 3’s work, and they astonished me. Some of them could easily be mistaken for texts written by a human hand. In others, the language was weird, off-kilter—but often poetically so, almost truer than writing any human would produce. (When the New York Times had GPT-3 come up with a fake Modern Love column, it wrote, “We went out for dinner. We went out for drinks. We went out for dinner again. We went out for drinks again. We went out for dinner and drinks again.” I had never read such an accurate Modern Love in my life.)

I contacted the CEO of OpenAI, the research-and-development company that created GPT-3, and asked if I could try it out. Soon, I received an email inviting me to access a web app called the Playground. On it, I found a big box in which I could write text. Then, by clicking a button, I could prompt the model to complete the story. I began by feeding GPT-3 a couple of words at a time, and then—as we got to know each other—entire sentences and paragraphs.

I felt acutely that there was something illicit about what I was doing. When I carried my computer to bed, my husband muttered noises of disapproval. We both make our livings as writers, and technological capitalism has been exerting a slow suffocation on our craft. A machine capable of doing what we do, at a fraction of the cost, feels like a threat. Yet I found myself irresistibly attracted to GPT-3—to the way it offered, without judgment, to deliver words to a writer who has found herself at a loss for them. One night, when my husband was asleep, I asked for its help in telling a true story.

I had always avoided writing about my sister’s death. At first, in my reticence, I offered GPT-3 only one brief, somewhat rote sentence about it. The AI matched my canned language; clichés abounded. But as I tried to write more honestly, the AI seemed to be doing the same. It made sense, given that GPT-3 generates its own text based on the language it has been fed: Candor, apparently, begat candor.

In the nine stories below, I authored the sentences in bold and GPT-3 filled in the rest. My and my editor’s sole alterations to the AI-generated text were adding paragraph breaks in some instances and shortening the length of a few of the stories; because it has not been edited beyond this, inconsistencies and untruths appear.

by Vauhini Vara, Believer |  Read more:
Image: Paul Klee, Ghost of a Genius (1922)
[ed. See also: Rise of the Ghost Machines (The Millions):]

"We lose something, as we let these machines speak for us; but we also gain something, or we could, as new artists learn to use them. I read Vauhini Vara’s essay “Ghosts” not long before ChatGPT dropped on the internet. Her essay is about the death of her sister years earlier, when she was in college; a personal loss she’d never found a way to write about. A worthy topic, no question. But the real subject of the essay is language, her loss for words, her inability to capture the feeling of grief.

In the introduction to the essay, she explains that she has used “an artificial intelligence” to draft and then craft a piece that effectively evokes the unknown. Turns out she was using the large language network that would go on to power ChatGPT. She fed it a brief description of her sister’s death a few sentences at a time. She asked the bot to keep writing, to tell her what should come next. The bot created nine possible worlds from the fragments and vignettes. As you move through the essay, you realize that the AI never gets it right. Nothing that it proposes is correct. Yet this doesn’t feel wrong; it feels more like an alternate universe, a what-if episode.

Vara structures the essay so that her words and the machine’s output are intermingled. But the two never really mesh. The tone of her essay overall is strangeness, abounding sadness, and dogged perseverance. Everything in the essay written by the AI is based on what it understands after absorbing oceans of human expression. It wrote many interesting and thoughtful things but it never wrote anything even close to what Vara felt, what really happened. Not because the tech failed at its job. Because life isn’t a map of statistical probability. It’s all the shit that happens, surprising or not.

Novels, poems, and movies created by algorithms already exist; none are convincing or very good, but they will proliferate. They might even be beautiful in their own way. There will be at some point characters generated completely by mathematical models who will cause a human reader to put down a book and weep. Those tears will be real. But what will the value of that book be? It will not be the expression of a singular experience; that book will be a tool, a machine made to provoke weeping. It will have no singular creator, just as the screwdriver in my junk drawer has no singular creator."

Your Book Review: Dominion

Matthew Scully, author of Dominion, is an unlikely animal welfare advocate. He’s a conservative Christian who worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush. That’s like finding out that Greta Thunberg’s Chief of Staff spent their spare time writing a 400-page, densely researched book called “Guns Are Good, Actually.”

Scully’s unusual background could be why it took me years of reading everything on animal welfare I could get my hands on before I stumbled on his 2002 manifesto. (...)

Scully is like a right-wing, vegetarian, Christian, David Foster Wallace. If you read DFW’s Consider the Lobster and thought, “I wish someone would write a full length book with this vibe, where a very talented and surprisingly funny writer excoriates problematic industries,” Dominion is the book for you. (...)

Whether you’re an icon of the animal rights movement, some guy bragging about shooting a fenced-in lion, a revered conservative thinker like Roger Scruton, basically every Christian except St. Francis of Assisi, the head of a public company, or a dear personal friend who happened to write an article that annoyed him, you get the same treatment in Dominion — cutting, well-researched, and often really funny arguments as to why your views on animals are misguided.

He sees it as a huge moral failing of modern society that most people are indifferent to the suffering of animals that are not our pets. It pains him deeply that this blindspot exists. It is so obvious to him that all animals deserve our respect. But as someone in George W. Bush’s inner circle would surely understand, ethics are complicated and smart people can disagree. In order to stave off as many objections as possible, Scully explores every inch of the animal welfare landscape. (...)

The title of the book comes from the Book of Genesis, in which God gives man dominion over “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” The ultimate question of the book is whether having dominion means we are free to do whatever we want to animals, or if we owe them mercy. Scully leaves no stone unturned in making the case that we should mostly let the creeping things creepeth in peace.
 
God cares about animal welfare and so should you

Science and reason aside, the bedrock of Scully’s generous spirit toward animals comes from a personal belief that all of God’s creatures deserve “whatever measure of happiness their creator intended for them.” We should care for them simply because “they are fellow creatures, sharing with you and me the breath of life, each in their own way bearing His unmistakable mark.”

It’s a big departure from most interpretations of the bible, especially by conservatives. Most people say that we got dominion, and we can use it as we see fit. If we want to exercise dominion in the name of cramming animals into dark sheds so we can have cheap bacon, so be it. God made the rules.

Not so fast, says Scully. Christians are supposed to be good stewards, only using animals as necessary and never being cruel. A careful reading of scripture reveals myriad instances where it’s either directly said or strongly implied that all creatures deserve kindness. In the Gospel of Mark, God says to “preach the gospel to every creature”. Moses is chosen in part because he was kind to a lamb: “You who have compassion for a lamb shall now be the shepherd of my people Israel.”

Lambs are a big deal in the bible. Jesus is named both The Lamb of God and The Good Shepherd. He also helps a sheep who fell into a pit on the sabbath, because it's the right thing to do even though Jews aren’t supposed to do work that day. The sheep references are layered metaphors, sure. They can still be revealing of a deeper intent. As Scully puts it, “What kind of mind was it that went back again and again to the lamb and other animals like the birds and fox to convey images of gentleness and suffering and providential love? And why a helpless, harmless creature to illustrate the Christian way instead of a proud and violent predator?” (...)

I find Scully’s viewpoint refreshing. I’m so used to reading about neuron counts, moral weights, and nociceptors that it can be easy to forget that there are other ways of getting through to people. Maybe it’s worth investing more in an approach that asks whether we really think God/the universe/the simulator smiles on those that castrate baby pigs without anesthetic so that their boar musk doesn't make our pork taste slightly off?

Here is Scully’s summary of the situation:
“Here I only put to you one simple proposition about the animals we raise for fur and flesh. If, in a given situation, we have it in our power either to leave the creature there in his dark pen or let him out into the sun and breeze and feed him and let him play and sleep and cavort with his fellows — for me it’s an easy call. Give him a break. Let him go. Let him enjoy his fleeting time on earth, and stop bringing his kind into the world solely to suffer and die. It doesn't seem like much to us, the creatures’ little lives of grazing and capering and raising their young and fleeing natural predators. Yet it is the life given to them, not by breeder but by Creator. It is all they have. It is their part in the story, a beautiful part beyond the understanding of man, and who is anyone to treat it lightly? Nothing to us ​— but for them it is the world.” (...)
Even if God bestows his love on all creatures, a lot of the oomph of Scully’s argument falls away if animals are merely unfeeling machines. Redwood trees and LLMs aside, it’s hard to get people fired up about the moral treatment of anything but sentient beings.

So, do animals feel pain? Are they conscious? Do they have thoughts in the same way we do, however different from ours? The dominant paradigm in animal research when this book was published was that animals are unconscious. They reflexively react to stimuli but feel nothing. Scully cites many eminent researchers who are adamant about that being the case, but his main foil is the influential writer Stephen Budiansky, who argues that:
“The premise of animal ‘rights’ is that sentience is sentience, that an animal by virtue above all of its capacity to feel pain deserves equal consideration. But sentience is not sentience, and pain isn’t even pain. Or, perhaps, following Daniel Dennet’s distinction, we should say that pain is not the same as suffering...Our ability to have thoughts about our experiences turns emotions into something far greater and sometimes far worse than mere pain...”
In response, Scully calls us to examine how we, as conscious humans, react when we are actually in the throes of pain. There’s not a lot of language use, not a lot of theorizing and rhapsodizing and bemoaning your future. “A kick in the shorts does not send a man into existential crisis or exquisite agony of the soul. It just hurts.” (...)

These days, the consensus seems to be shifting toward recognizing most animals as sentient. Scully was surely heartened by the Declaration on Animal Consciousness that came out of NYU in 2024. It states that: “There is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.” It has collected hundreds of signatures from prominent scientists.

Still, the debate rages on. Eliezer Yudkowsky once gave a full-throated defense of the idea that pigs don’t feel pain because they lack an “inner listener.”

I wonder if Yudkowsky would change his mind if he had witnessed first hand the pig we meet in the first chapter of Dominion. This porcine hero noticed it’s owner was having a heart attack, started crying literal tears (pigs cry, who knew), left the confines of it’s fenced in yard for the first time ever, laid down in front of a passing car to force someone to stop and get out, and led that person to the house so they could rescue their owner. Inner listener or not, mirror test passer or not, that pig seems to be experiencing something.

Dogs will never be bank managers and that’s okay (...)

There are people who insist that because no non-human animal can claim any rights, and because they don't treat each other as if they have rights, we have no obligation to accord them rights either. In fact, these people say, if we were to grant animals any moral status whatsoever it could lead to a slippery slope, and next thing you know you could be thrown in jail for swatting a fly.

Scully bites the bullet here and says, nah, that slippery slope you speak of, it does not exist. He thinks that what’s actually happening is that people fear they have a limited reservoir of love. They assume that by apportioning kindness out to animals, they will have less for humans. Jean Paul Sartre famously said as much: “When one loves animals and children too much, one loves them against human beings.” Scully doesn't think that’s how the human heart works at all. Rather, our ability to feel compassion is nearly infinite, and deep down we all understand how powerful and gratifying it is to act with benevolence.

To make this point, Scully recounts the story of a mule who was being used in a coal mine in the late 1800s. A novelist who toured the Pennsylvania mine wrote of mules being kept underground for years at a time in particularly brutal conditions. When eventually brought to the surface, they “almost go mad with fantastic joy...they caper and career with extravagant mulish glee.” This mule refused to go back in at its appointed time, and the workers mercifully decided to just let it stay above ground.

Reflecting on the unbridled jubilance of the freed mule, Scully notes that, “Whenever any animal is locked away, or treated cruelly, or hunted or trapped, that is what we are taking away.” He also writes about a dolphin who is able to escape a fishing net after initially being caught. The dolphin is clearly ecstatic. It speeds off, leaping, spinning, reveling in its freedom. Scully wonders how one could witness such a thing and come away thinking that it matters one iota whether dolphins can “claim rights”.

Similarly, look at how most people react to stories about escaped farm animals. He cites a 1998 story about two pigs escaping from a slaughterhouse in England. Soon “all of Britain was following the drama.” After they were recaptured they were sent not to be killed but given over to an animal sanctuary, as their celebrity status made it intolerable to just eliminate them. Scores of similar stories can be found, such as an escaped cow in the Netherlands that became a social media sensation. A quick crowdfunding campaign ensued, and there was no issue finding 50,000 euros to save her life. When people are actually confronted with the raw specter of a defenseless and innocent creature fighting for its life, the majority are reflexively merciful. It’s like the animal’s struggle for freedom, acting just as any of us would in the same situation, somehow unlocks hidden reservoirs of empathy.

Nowhere is our merciful and loving instinct more clear than when it comes to pets. Scully uses the archetypal family dog as an example:
“You do not ask more of him than he can give, nor do you think less of Scruffy because he can’t rake the leaves or handle the family finances. You don’t even think of him as having ‘rights’ and yet, useless as he is to the practical affairs of the household, over time he comes to fill a crucial place. He’s just sort of there, this furry, funny, needful, affectionate, and mysterious being creeping around the house. Everybody in the end gains something, and when her or she is gone a little bit of love has been subtracted.” (...)
With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Scully, let’s recall, was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Perhaps it is from having climbed so high in the conservative ranks that he gained the status and security necessary to feel comfortable absolutely roasting his fellow right-wingers.

He is particularly galled by what he sees as blatant hypocrisy. Conservatives are the first to complain about “man the perpetual victim, man the whiny special pleader, man the all-conquering consumer facing the universe with limitless entitlements and appetites to be met no matter what the costs.” (...)

Above all else, his biggest critique of the early 2000’s American conservatives is that they have let capitalism run amok. When he looks at how we are commodifying living, feeling creatures, it sickens him. When he sees how sentient beings are bought, sold, stuffed, trapped, shot, and persecuted, with very limited checks on what even the most barbaric human can do to the most majestic, he recoils.

To Scully, being a conservative means more than just being a free market absolutist, it means being a “fundamentally moral and not just economic actor, a creature accountable to reason and conscience and not driven by whim or appetite.” Laissez faire policies can be great, but they can lead to some dark places when applied to animal well-being and left unchecked. The Safari Club, an influential organization of wealthy, mostly conservative hunters, is exhibit A.

Scully spends 40+ pages decrying the excesses and absurdities he sees while attending the annual Safari Club convention in Reno, Nevada. He leaves wondering “if there is a wild creature left on the good earth that is not for sale in someone’s brochure, a single plain or forest or depth of sea that is not today being turned to profit.” It’s the type of place where visitors are encouraged to spend $35,000 on a White Rhino hunt before they get put on an endangered species list. Where proprietors can offer packages that guarantee a lion “trophy” because the animals are fenced in and, if needed, drugged. Where a popular DVD for sale is called With Deadly Intent. The climax of that film features hunters unloading their military grade rifles on an Elephant who is trying to protect its babies, felling it with “four dramatic brain shots.”

In March of 2023, the Humane Society released a scathing undercover report after attending a Safari Club convention. It documented potential violations of state law as well as numerous heinous acts that violate both common decency and, apparently, hunting ethics. All I could think when I saw it was how impressive it was that Scully beat them to this scoop by almost a quarter century, and how sad it was that nothing has changed.

by Anonymous, Astral Codex Ten |  Read more:
Image: Dominion/Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg/Getty

Friday, June 28, 2024

Seattle Pride Parade (Revisited)


Seattle Pride Parade this Sunday. Here are some reposted pictures from 2015 when a quarter million people showed up, right after gay marriage had been legally approved (see Obergefell v. Hodges). What a joyful occasion.

all photos: markk (click below for more pics after the jump)

Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers

[ed. Like a double shot espresso to get the day started.]

Cultural Exchange


via: YouTube Shorts

Thursday, June 27, 2024

An Age of Hyperabundance

I was in a room of men. Every man was over-groomed: checked shirt, cologne behind the ears, deluxe beard or clean-shaven jaw. Their conversations bounced around me in jolly rat-a-tats, but the argot evaded interpretation. All I made out were acronyms and discerning grunts, backslaps, a mannered nonchalance.

I was at the Chattanooga Convention Center for Project Voice, a major gathering for software developers, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs in conversational AI. The conference, now in its eighth year, was run by Bradley Metrock, an uncommonly tall man with rousing frat-boy energy who is, per his professional bio, a “leading thought leader” in voice tech. “I’m a conservative guy!” he said to me on a Zoom call some weeks prior. “I was like, ‘What kind of magazine is this? Seems pretty out there.’”

The magazine in question was this one. Bradley had read my essay “HUMAN_FALLBACK” in n+1’s Winter 2022 issue in which I described my year impersonating a chatbot for a real estate start-up. A lonely year, a depressing charade; it had made an impression on Bradley. He asked if I’d attend Project Voice as the “honorary contrarian speaker,” a title bestowed each year on a public figure, often a journalist, who has expressed objections to conversational AI. As part of my contrarian duties, I was to close out the conference with a thirty-minute speech to an audience of five hundred — a sort of valedictory of grievances, I gathered.

So that what? So that no one could accuse the AI pioneers of ignoring existential threats to culture? To facilitate a brief moment of self-flagellation before everyone hit the bars? I wasn’t sure, but I sensed my presence had less to do with balance and more to do with sport. Bradley kept using the word “exciting.” A few years ago, he said, the contrarian speaker stormed onstage, visibly irate. As she railed against the wickedness of the Echo Dot Kids, Amazon’s voice assistant for children, a row of Amazon executives walked out. Major sponsors! That, said Bradley, was very exciting.

I wondered if I should be offended by my contrarian designation, which positioned AI as the de facto orthodoxy and framed any argument I could make as the inevitable expression of my antagonistic pathology. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced I was being set up for failure. Recent discussion of conversational AI has tended to treat the technology as a monolithic force synonymous with ChatGPT, capable of both cultural upheaval and benign comedy. But conversational AI encloses a vast, teeming domain. The term refers to any technology you can talk to the way you would talk to a person, and also includes any software that uses large language models to modify, translate, interpret, or forge written or spoken words. The field is motley and prodigious, with countless companies speculating in their own little corners. There are companies that make telemarketing tools, navigation systems, speech-to-text software for medical offices, psychotherapy chatbots, and essay-writing aids; there are conversational banking apps, avatars that take food orders, and virtual assistants for every industry under the sun; there are companies cloning celebrity voices so that an American actor can, for example, film a commercial in Dutch. The field is so crowded and the hype is so loud that to offset a three-day circus with thirty minutes of counterpoint is to practically coerce the critic into abstractions. Still, I accepted the invitation for the same reason I took the job with the real estate start-up: it was a paid opportunity and seemed like something I could write about.

On the first afternoon of the conference I took a lap around the floor and tried to make sense of what I was seeing. Tech companies had arrived with their sundries: bowls of wrapped candies, ballpoint pens, PopSockets, and other bribes; brochures fanned on tables; iPads with demos at the ready. The graphics, curiously alike across the displays, were a combination of Y2K screen saver abstractions and the McGraw Hill visual tradition. Many companies had erected tall, vertical banners adorned with hot-air balloons, city skylines at dusk, dark-haired women on call-center headsets, and circular flowcharts with no discernible content. If conversational AI had a heraldic color, that color would be blue — a dusty Egyptian blue, chaste and masculine, more Windows 2000 than Giotto. It’s a tedious no-color, the color of abdicating choice, and on the exhibition floor it was ubiquitous in calm, flat abysses backgrounding white text.
***
The only booth that stood out was at the far end of the exhibition hall. A company had tented its little patch of real estate with an inflatable white cube that looked like a large, quivering marshmallow. Inside the cube was Keith, a soft-spoken man whose earnest features and round physique conveyed a gnome-like benevolence. Beside Keith was a large screen. On the screen was a woman. The woman had dark hair, dark eyes, and purple lips that endeavored a smile. Her shoulders rose and fell, as if to suggest the act of breathing, and though she looked toward me, her gaze was elsewhere.

“This is Chatty,” Keith shouted over the roar of the blowers keeping his enclosure erect.

Keith worked for SapientX, a company that makes photorealistic conversational avatars powered by ChatGPT. SapientX had custom-built Chatty for Project Voice. Chatty could answer questions about the conference agenda and show you a map of the exhibition floor, except she couldn’t do it just then, said Keith, because they couldn’t seem to connect her to the wi-fi.

Keith was happy enough to walk me through the visuals. Chatty’s face was the collaborative effort of fifty different companies. A company in Toronto did the eyes. “There’s like eight guys and all they do is eyes all day,” he said.

Chatty’s face was a composite of several different races. Her voice was a composite of several different women. Her voice still needed some work, he admitted. “Right now she’s kinda mean.”

I picked up a brochure that featured a roster of “digital employees,” complete with their names, headshots, and “personality scores.” I wondered what industries might hire them.

“They’re mostly for kiosks,” Keith responded with a tone of defeat. “Like at a mall or a museum. Also military training. Stuff like that.”

Keith directed my attention to the exterior of the cube. A large banner depicted an older male, prosaically handsome, with a square jaw, a custardy dollop of silver hair, and pale, limpid eyes. This was Chief, said Keith. “He’s a navy guy. And he talks like a navy guy. We work in forty different languages. So if you’re training someone in Ukraine how to operate an American tool, we have that language built in.”

Keith went back inside to rustle me up a T-shirt. He told me that the company was also breaking into health care — nursing homes, to be precise. Keith explained the vision. Your mom is old, and you’re constantly reminding her to take her medicine. Why not leave that to an avatar? The avatar can converse with your mom, keep her company, fill up the idle hours of the day. Plus, you can incorporate a retina scanner to check her blood pressure and a motion sensor to make sure she isn’t lying dead on the floor.

“Say there’s an elderly woman with dementia,” he said. “Her avatar will look like she did when she was younger. So she has someone to identify with. Does that make sense?”

I imagined a future geriatric Keith, lying in a nursing home bed, conversing with his younger self. Would such an arrangement appeal to him?

“There’s not going to be a choice,” he said. “A lot of old people are going to be talking to avatars in ten years, and they won’t even know it. When I was touring facilities in San Francisco for people with dementia and stuff, those places are like insane asylums. But some patients still have some cognitive function, and that’s who the technology would be for. It’s definitely not going to apply to the guys that are comatose.”

We stood in silence for a moment, and he faced Chatty, who hovered before us, drifting in her strange, waking trance.

“I wish they could fix the internet,” said Keith. “I swear, she gets nasty. She like, looks at me bad.”

by Laura Preston, N+1 |  Read more:
Image: Dana Lok, Typist. 2023. Miguel Abreu Gallery, New York.

Ray Kurzweil: Three Technologies Will Define Our Future

Over the last several decades, the digital revolution has changed nearly every aspect of our lives.

The pace of progress in computers has been accelerating, and today, computers and networks are in nearly every industry and home across the world.

Many observers first noticed this acceleration with the advent of modern microchips, but as Ray Kurzweil wrote in his book The Singularity Is Near, we can find a number of eerily similar trends in other areas too.

According to Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns, technological progress is moving ahead at an exponential rate, especially in information technologies.

This means today’s best tools will help us build even better tools tomorrow, fueling this acceleration.

But our brains tend to anticipate the future linearly instead of exponentially. So, the coming years will bring more powerful technologies sooner than we imagine.

As the pace continues to accelerate, what surprising and powerful changes are in store? This post will explore three technological areas Kurzweil believes are poised to change our world the most this century.

Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics

Of all the technologies riding the wave of exponential progress, Kurzweil identifies genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics as the three overlapping revolutions which will define our lives in the decades to come. In what ways are these technologies revolutionary?
  • The genetics revolution will allow us to reprogram our own biology.
  • The nanotechnology revolution will allow us to manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic scale.
  • The robotics revolution will allow us to create a greater than human non-biological intelligence.
While genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics will peak at different times over the course of decades, we’re experiencing all three of them in some capacity already. Each is powerful in its own right, but their convergence will be even more so. Kurzweil wrote about these ideas in The Singularity Is Near over a decade ago.

Let’s take a look at what’s happening in each of these domains today, and what we might expect in the future.

by Sveta McShane, Singularity Hub |  Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. I believe this is right. Note: 'Robotics' also means strong AI in various forms.]

Grief Guides

Among the death doulas

Angie wanted to die in a cabin at the base of a snow-covered mountain, with warm drinks to go around. Stacey wanted to die in a cool room with a down comforter, battery-operated candles, chapstick on her lips, and absolutely no cellphones. Sarah wanted to die at her fifty-acre ranch in southern Indiana, lying on her patio, as the grandkids caught lightning bugs. Once dead, she wanted her body to be washed, rubbed with frankincense oil, and wrapped in white gauze. I lived in a small house with roommates. An awkward place to die. I opted instead for a destination vigil at my parents’ home in California.

Mine was, like the others’, a hypothetical death story: We’d each been asked to imagine the final days of our own terminal diagnosis. In real life, I was healthy and young. If I were to die, it would likely be sudden. I’d be killed in a car crash, or fall down a staircase, and I’d have no time to make arrangements. But to complete my beginner training with the International End of Life Doula Association (INELDA), to be qualified to guide another person through the process of dying, I first had to plan for my own death. (...)

What is a good death? Medical literature shows that people generally prefer simplicity. They want to die at home, with loved ones near, and have relief from physical pain and emotional distress. They want to know what to expect and how to make their own decisions. The things people value in death are the same things they value in life: community, open conversation, purposefulness. But only 14 percent of people who need palliative care—which involves not just specialized medical care but spiritual, social, and emotional nurturing—receive it.

Before the mid-1800s, it was common for people to die at home, surrounded by their family, and receive a local burial. But as cities and their cemeteries grew crowded, coffin makers started offering body relocation for burial in rural cemeteries, turning death into a more public affair. The Civil War, with its mass death at a distance, marked an inflection point for the death industry. Undertakers and surgeons at battle sites injected the corpses with chemicals to preserve them against putrefaction so they could be shipped back to their families. Embalming became so common that in 1865, the War Department required its practitioners to obtain licenses, in effect establishing embalmers as a professional class—a reality that was cemented when, in 1882, undertakers created the National Funeral Directors Association and the first school of mortuary science opened. These shifts gave way to the modern death industry as we know it, where the caretaking of the dying and their bodies is no longer the domain of families and instead is outsourced to professionals like hospital and funeral home workers.

Death doulas emerged in response to this defamiliarization of dying. Today, most people will probably serve as unofficial death doulas for friends and family at some point in their lives, caring for terminally ill loved ones or stepping up to make burial and funeral arrangements when other family members are too overwhelmed. Yet the rise of the death doula as a quasi-professional handler is a relatively new phenomenon, going back only a few decades. One early practitioner was Henry Fersko-Weiss, a social worker, who learned about the work of birth doulas and wondered if their philosophy—of treating birth as an emotional and familial process and not merely as a medical procedure—could be applied to death. In 2003, he established an end-of-life-doula program at a hospice in New York, and in 2015, he created INELDA to offer these teachings to the public. The organization has so far trained 6,500 doulas, about 90 percent of whom are women.

I learned about death doulas not long ago, from an Instagram post. A writer I admired had received her end of life doula certification from a program at the University of Vermont and posted that the experience was “life-changing and -affirming.” I was curious, and soon scoured TikTok, Ted Talks, and podcasts for information, which was abundant but opaque. I couldn’t tell what a death doula actually did, but the death doulas I saw online seemed like people I’d want to be friends with. Spiritual but not religious. Well-read and health-conscious, skewing New Age. Most important, they appeared to have fully digested the fact of their own mortality: They were going to die eventually, and they liked to talk about it.

As a group, the death doulas I was seeing online spoke often about guiding the dying towards an elusive “good death.” The idea is that planning for a good death can help us live better lives, and death doulas encourage people to live knowing that dying awaits us all. That means saying I love you to someone who doesn’t know it, going on a perpetually delayed vacation, writing a long-marinating novel—before it’s too late. The death doulas encouraged “death positivity,” or an embrace of our mortality: death, they urge us to understand, is a natural process of the human body.

The death positivity movement was once niche, but it became especially visible during the pandemic, when many people saw firsthand that there are many ways to have a bad death—and thought perhaps it would be worth trying to provide for a good one. They use terms like YODO (You Only Die Once) and organize public Death Cafes to talk with strangers about dying over tea and cookies. To death doulas, dying doesn’t mean you have to submit passively to death. It can be creative, almost like art. They tend to dispense similar knowledge and wisdom, arguing that America’s culture of “fighting” death, which is bound up in the way we talk about illness and extending life expectancies, makes us more susceptible to suffering “bad deaths”—deaths that take place in hospitals, away from our families, with forced feeding tubes or without painkillers. Deaths that happen alone.

But there are so many other kinds of bad deaths—the violent, the sudden, the shocking. What, I wondered, could a death doula do for these? (...)

The training’s first event took place in a wood-paneled conference room that Friday night. Nicole Heidbreder, a Washington DC nurse and one of our two instructors over the weekend, welcomed all of us, who were sitting in groups at round tables, from a small stage. Her voice was airy and hypnotic. As doulas, she told us, we would “gentle the journey” into death. We’d encourage people to talk about dying before it was too late. “You’re probably the kind of people who’ve had an allergy to small talk your whole life,” she said. She would know. Over the course of the weekend, she casually referred to her father’s death from renal cancer and her struggles to get pregnant. Both she and the other instructor, Omni Kitts Ferrara, a cheerful yoga teacher and nursing student in New Mexico, had a welcoming, witchy aura. Both worked as birth doulas, too. “Being around those threshold spaces,” Omni said, “feels really auspicious.”

Nicole and Omni explained what work we’d be learning to do. A good death doula acts like a personal assistant to the dying. She sorts out funeral, insurance, and legal logistics; she keeps a binder of contacts at hospices, medical facilities, and massage therapists; she serves as a neutral liaison to spouses or children. She helps a dying person carry out their final projects, whether completing a memoir or making a video to show their children how to use power tools. She helps them create advanced directives, legal documents that outline medical decisions, and vigil plans for the moment they die: who they’d like at their bedside, what atmosphere they’d like to create. During the death, she watches over the family to make sure everyone has what they need, because it’s easy to forget to eat, and drink water, and rest. After the death, the doula helps family close social media and bank accounts, transfer car titles, hire people to clean a vacated apartment, tying all the loose ends of the recently living. She guides them through their grief.

These services cost money. One death doula I spoke with charged $175 an hour, and she sometimes did pro bono work; Pat McClendon, a death doula in my hometown, would tell me she usually charges around $3,000 for an initial phone consultation, ten or so sessions to finish up final projects and plan for the death, and the vigil itself. Death doulas are not covered by insurance. They also compose an unregulated industry. There’s no supervisory body for end-of-life doulas; no official diploma. Dozens of online and in-person training organizations offer death doula certification—some appearing less than reputable, often for hefty fees. INELDA would theoretically prepare us to do death doula work, but since there are no official death doula regulations, we technically could have been practicing before the training even began.

As an icebreaker, Nicole asked us to share with our tablemates a “favorable” death we’d experienced, and a less favorable one. Ours was a group of death-obsessed people, I quickly gathered. We agreed it was subversive, and even fun, to speak openly about mortality when many people in our lives frowned upon that kind of talk, as though discussing death makes you more likely to die. (...)

Over the course of the weekend, our group learned tools for helping a dying person. We reviewed a guide of helpful conversation starters to coax a dying person’s deepest thoughts into the open air. “How do you hope to be remembered?” we asked one another. “Do you have any worries for the days ahead?” We paired off to practice deep active listening, taking turns talking about our hopes and regrets while our partners tried to refrain from interjecting their own opinions.

At the end of our second day, we practiced a meditation called guided imagery, which can help people visualize a relaxing scenario at the moment of death. The meditation is meant to soothe the dying person’s fears of pain, or of not making it to their desired afterlife, by instead conjuring a special place from life. I paired with Karen, a middle-aged, self-described shamanic healer who wore a T-shirt reading “I am safe, I am grounded.” She was from Newtown, Connecticut, where, she told me, she helped community members confront the trauma of the Sandy Hook shooting. We settled onto the floor, and I described to her, in as much detail as I could muster, a physical place where I felt comfortable: my friends’ house in Las Vegas during monsoon season. While I closed my eyes, she guided me through their living room and onto their back patio, and in my mind I saw trash bags flying in the wind, heard sirens wailing from the fire station across the street. I could sense my friends nearby but I couldn’t see them; instead, there was lightning and a barking dog and the smell of wet dirt.

When it was my turn to guide, Karen lay on her back and said, “My favorite place is Peru.” Specifically, a medicine man’s hut in Peru. It didn’t matter which hut, I could just make it up. More important were the rainforest and the stars, which seemed close enough to grab from the sky. I confessed that I’d never guided anyone through a meditation before, but I tried on an ethereal voice and told her to breathe the clear mountain air, watch the shadows of leafy trees shift as the sun set.

All this was, I suppose, how we “gentled the journey” of dying. But I found my peaceful thoughts interrupted by the memory of my friend Haley. A decade ago, the summer after my first year in college, Haley drowned during a trip to Germany. We’d messaged each other every day, imagining what our friendship would look like as soon as we returned to campus; we’d only met a few months before, and were going to live together in the fall. “The next years are going to be so good,” she texted me in June, and in August I was sitting in a church, staring at her face projected onto a screen. One of the last things I texted her was, “Be safe.”

Before Haley, death was abstract and removed, rarely crossing my mind. I knew, intellectually, that life doesn’t go on forever, but I was a teenager, and the years ahead seemed not just good, but guaranteed. If I did consider mortality, it was to assume I’d someday die in my sleep, or “of old age.”

For a while, after she died, I became fixated on drowning. I avoided submerging myself in water, and when I did, I was aware of all the water on top of me, aware that it could kill me if I wasn’t careful. Now I fixate on cars. A car accident seems the most likely way I would die young, so my mind strays while I’m driving: to cars striking me as I cross the street, to cars slamming into me as I merge onto the freeway. I often imagine what it will be like to die, and sometimes, though not often, this fixation becomes an expectation: I will die, imminently.

The kinds of dying we discussed at INELDA, however, didn’t look anything like that. A typical scenario: In the months beforehand, we grow weaker. We stumble and fall down. In the weeks before, our wounds stop healing and our skin becomes mottled. We grow confused, sleep more. A few days and hours before, we start to smell bad. Our faces turn blue. Our mouths gape, like fish out of water. Right before we die, our breathing slows to shallow rasps. Some people experience terminal lucidity, also known as the “death rally,” a phenomenon of sudden cognitive improvement. Omni told a story she’d heard of a woman who had never liked beer, but in her dying hours regained consciousness and requested one. “She chugged it, the entire beer,” Omni said. A few hours later, she died. (...)

A spokesperson for INELDA told me the workshops were “transformative” for some attendees, and it did seem that way for Kim and others. But I knew by now that wouldn’t be my experience—and maybe I’d known that all along. Each night after the training finished, I’d sit in darkness in my rental car, rain pattering on the windshield, and try to process the intensity of our discussions—the procession of death stories, one after the other. But each night I was exhausted from the overload of information and stories, so I’d drive back to my hotel through the misty forest, swerving to avoid frogs, and collapse onto the bed. During partner activities, I tried to make myself feel something, but mostly I felt dehydrated, and sore from sitting all day. I sensed, too, that I’d grown cynical from losing a friend so young. I bristled during a workshop when a chatty psychotherapist asked what meaning I could find in Haley’s death. Nothing, I told her, irritated at the assumption that I had learned something from her loss. I was skeptical of the idea that death might be beautiful and I was frustrated when people suggested that pain had something to teach, that loss made us better people.

I wondered how my hardness had quietly shaped the way I respond to other people’s losses. If people believed their experience of loss was beautiful, perhaps I should let it be. But personally, I knew that I wouldn’t find catharsis in repeating the same stories I’d told about Haley a hundred times. I missed my friend, and it had been nine years since she died. No single workshop, no single weekend, could change much.

by Meg Bernhard, N+1 |  Read more:
Image: Theodoor Verstraete, To the Vigil

Jazz Remains the Sound of Modernism

Always he appeared immaculate, always elegant—when Duke Ellington took the stage at Carnegie Hall in January of 1943 for the premier of his Black, Brown and Beige symphony it was in white tie and tailed black tuxedo. Fastidious as a musician and uncompromising as a band leader, Ellington expected nothing less than polish when it came to his appearance and comportment, especially as the United States’ greatest composer making his debut in its greatest concert hall at the belated age of 43. Ellington was perhaps most responsible for extending jazz’s reach beyond juke joints and uptown clubs, of establishing it as what the trumpeter Wynton Marsalis has termed “America’s classical music.”

European classical music influenced by jazz had been played here before—George Gershwin, Dmitri Shostakovich—but nothing quite of the magnitude of Ellington’s new composition. Molding the syncopated sound of American jazz into the movements of European symphonic music, Ellington desired “an authentic record of my race written by a member of it.” By the time he took the stage at Carnegie Hall, Ellington was already either the composer or consummate performer of jazz standards like “It Don’t Mean a Thing (If It Ain’t Got that Swing” or “Take the A Train,” a music that conveyed American modernism, the sonic equivalent of a William Carlos Williams poem or a Jackson Pollock painting, compositions that were to music what the Chrysler Building is to architecture. (...)

Because of my dad, I first heard not just Ellington and Armstrong, but the rough velvet of Billie Holiday’s voice and the vermouth smoothness of Ella Fitzgerald, the incomparably cool trumpet of Miles Davis on Kind of Blue and the ecstatic, sacred keening of John Coltrane’s alto sax on A Love Supreme, the blessed quantum cacophony of Charlie Parker’s saxophone on “The Bird” and the jittery puffed-cheek caffeination of a Gilespie trumpet solo from “Salt Peanuts,” the mathematical precision of Dave Brubeck’s piano from Time Out and the apophatic transcendence of Thelonious Sphere Monk’s on Misterioso, Charles Mingus’s strangely raucous bass and Art Blakey with his jazz messengers pounding out the avant-garde drum. And, throughout it all, no matter how sophisticated or complicated, how abstract or difficult, that human message which Nina Simone sung out in her deep, wide, prophetic voice: “The world is big / Big and bright and round / And it’s full of folks like me.”

Born from the main branch of the 12-bar blues (also the progenitor of soul and rock, funk, and hip-hop), jazz was first an amalgamation of ragtime and spirituals, marching band music and Dixieland, performed in democratic collaboration and mediated through the still remarkably experimental method of improvisation. This is the potted-history that sees jazz as a mélange of Africa and Europe. “America is a land of synthesis in which every ethnic or religious group tends, over time, to become a part of every other,” writes critic Stanley Crouch in Considering Jazz: Writings on Genius. Despite Crouch’s tendency to smooth over jazz history so as to make it palatable to his own pet theories, there’s much that’s factual here. It’s true that no nation other than the U.S. could have created jazz for the simple reason that the historical traumas and ruptures that brought disparate groups together happened most acutely here. If jazz is the sound of modernism, it’s because it was born from the fertile but bloody soil of the American continent. In this context, the Vivaldi of jazz was Armstrong, which is to say the genius at the beginnings of the genre, but Ellington was its Bach, the polymath who supplied a rigor that most fully marks a before and after.

At Ellington’s Carnegie Hall debut, where audiences listened to weekly concerts of Bach and Beethoven, Mozart and Mahler, Ellington and his musicians performed a 45-minute symphony dedicated to Black America, expressing the history of his people from enslavement to emancipation, the talented tenths of the Harlem Renaissance and into the future. The music itself is as uncompromising as Ellington, relentlessly forward-pushing and soaring, grounded in history, but hopeful. The shape is classical, but the sound is jazz. The critics—classist, racist—were not effusive. Douglass Watt at the Daily News wrote about “the concert, if that’s what you’d call it,” while Paul Bowles at the New-York Herald Tribune called Ellington’s composition “formless and meaningless.” Duke, with his slicked back hair and pencil-thin mustache, simply responded to the pans by saying, “Well, I guess they didn’t dig it.” Ellington would perform 20 more times at Carnegie Hall, until a few years before his death, and he’d repurpose large portions of Black, Brown and Beige in a 1958 collaboration with Mahalia Jackson, but he’d never again conduct the entirety of the symphony.

There are two irrefutable axioms that can be made about jazz. The first is that jazz is America’s most significant cultural contribution to the world; the second is that jazz was mostly, though not entirely, a contribution born from the experience and brilliance of America’s Black populace who have rarely been treated as full citizens. Regarding the first claim, if the genre is not America’s “classical music,” for there is a bit of a category mistake in Wynton Marsalis’s contention which judges the music by such standards, then jazz is certainly the most indispensable and quintessential of American creations, surpassing in significance other novelties, from comic books to Hollywood films. Crouch describes Ellington, and by proxy jazz, as “maybe the most American of Americans,” even while the conservative critic was long an advocate for the music as being fundamentally our native “classical” (a role for which he was influential as Marsalis’s adviser as director of jazz at Lincoln Center). The desire to transform jazz into classical music—even my own comparison of Ellington to Bach—is an insulting reduction of the music’s innovation. Jazz doesn’t need to be classical music, it’s already jazz.

by Ed Simon, The Millions |  Read more:
Image: uncredited

Googie René


- Smokey Joe's La La

[ed. A soundtrack has to be pretty good to be central to a movie's theme. This one is (full album).]

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

Chatbots and the Problems of Life

With increasing availability and sophistication of chatbots, we teachers are seeing a drastic decline in the cost of what in Great Britain is called “commissioning”—that is, getting someone else to do your academic work for you. There are many forms of academic cheating, at various levels of schooling, but commissioning by university students is the one I want to discuss today.

Long, long ago, in a pre-Internet galaxy far away, commissioning was costly and therefore rare. It was a bespoke commodity: Typically you’d find someone smart and pay him or her to write an essay for you, or even (this could be done only in large lecture classes whose students were anonymous to their professors) take an exam for you. The talent was almost always local; in a large university, cynical or broke graduate students could supplement their meager stipends quite significantly by catering to the anxieties of academically marginal undergrads. Such commissions did not always involve money; money is, after all, only one medium of exchange. But you had to have something of value to exchange for the academic work—drugs, sex, the willingness to clean a filthy apartment—and not everyone had what was required. Also, some planning in advance was necessary: If you were ten hours away from the deadline for a paper, you would be hard-pressed to find someone competent to write it for you, even if you were willing to pay extra for a rush job.

With the advent of the Internet, the costs of commissioning dropped, for several reasons. Online essay-writing services keep on hand a library of essays written on common topics—Hamlet’s indecisiveness, the Federalist on the dangers of political faction, Durkheim’s theory of religion—which could be bought for reasonable prices and at short notice. If something better or less common were required, then bespoke work could be arranged, though, as in the earlier dispensation, with more time and more money. (But, if you were an American, thanks to the mighty dollar you could save a bit by commissioning work from people in the Global South, or those who were not native English speakers.)

Also, only the bespoke work was really safe, at least if your professors used Turnitin to discover pre-existing material. Turnitin and similar services arose when the costs of commissioning dropped and its frequency (naturally) increased: Professors who barely have time to grade the papers they assign certainly don’t have time, and maybe not the ability either, to search databases of papers. Googling peculiar phrases for signs of plagiarism often marks the limit of what they can do to detect cheating. And even then your quest could conclude in uncertainty about whether a particular passage was or was not plagiarized. It was much simpler to run all the papers through Turnitin and accept its verdict.

But note what’s happening here: an arms race. Students use certain Internet technologies to enable teaching, and teachers call in other Internet technologies to detect that cheating. Commissioning services arise that promise essays with undetectable provenance; ed-tech companies introduce new tools that promise to detect the undetectable; the alternation bids fair to go on forever. One begins to wonder after a while whether the paper mills and the cheating-detection services are in cahoots, because the longer the alternation goes on, the more money all of them make. And, as I have argued on this site, the heaviest costs are paid by teachers and students, not in money, but in trust—a rapidly vanishing commodity.

I don’t like this collapse of trust; I don’t like being in a technological arms race with my students. So over the years I have developed a series of eccentric assignments. These days I rarely assign the traditional thesis essay—an assignment I always hated anyway, because it makes both the writing and the grading utterly mechanical—but instead assign dialogues between two literary theorists, or an imaginary correspondence between two novelists, or just an old-fashioned textual explication: Take this passage and explain to me, I ask them, without paraphrase, what it’s doing, what’s going on in it. And those assignments have, as it were, taken us back in time, back to the time when commissioning was expensive and therefore rare: the online paper mills, after all, don’t have a stack of conversations about The Brothers Karamazov featuring Dostoevsky and Jane Austen. It’s been a very successful strategy…until now.

The advent of the chatbots has suddenly made my life much more difficult, for several reasons.

First: No one has to be a committed cheater to use them. You only have to be someone who, in the face of an onrushing deadline, experiences either extreme fatigue or disabling anxiety. You don’t even need any money—though money to purchase a more recent and powerful version of, say, ChatGPT will probably help. All you need is a computer that’s connected to the Internet and the ability to write an appropriate prompt. (The skill that’s going to improve the most, among the most people, in the coming years is prompt engineering.) The cost of commissioning has dropped almost to zero.

Second: Very few, if any, colleges and universities have developed clear and consistent rules for the use of chatbots. Is it okay for students to ask for an outline of an assignment, if they then go on to write the substance of the essay? Are they allowed to request a draft of the essay, if they then alter that draft significantly? But wait, what counts as “significantly”? Students can very plausibly claim ignorance on these and many other questions.

Third: Chatbots can already do some of my “eccentric assignments” and do them very well. When I asked for a dialogue between Michel Foucault and Judith Butler on gender and power I got a very good one indeed. Ditto a conversation on colonialism between Gayatri Spivak and Franz Fanon. And when I asked for an exchange of letters between Jane Austen and Fyodor Dostoevsky…Well. ChatGPT’s response was historically insensitive boilerplate: “I trust this letter finds you in good health and spirits. I have recently had the pleasure of reading your novel, The Brothers Karamazov, and I felt compelled to write to you to express my admiration for your work.” But Google’s Gemini was another thing altogether:
My Dear Mr. Dostoevsky,

It is with a peculiar mixture of curiosity and trepidation that I take up my pen to address you today. Curiosity, because your novel, The Brothers Karamazov, has caused quite a stir in English literary circles. The depth of emotion you portray, the exploration of faith and morality – it is a far cry from the quiet manners and matchmaking concerns that typically occupy my own pen. Trepidation, I confess, because the world you paint is one of such stark contrasts, such turmoil, that it feels worlds away from the drawing rooms and landed estates of Hampshire.
It was with a peculiar mixture of admiration and despair that I read that letter. 

by Alan Jacobs, The Hedgehog Review |  Read more:
Image: THR Illustration