A Look at "Made In China"

 A while back a  dear friend  was so adamant about not buying anything "Made in China".  He said he was always willing to pay top dollar for anything made in the U.S. or Germany and, alternatively, would rather have them made in Japan or Taiwan.  For him it was also his natural order of preference.  What we never did discuss was that his iPhone which was always the latest updated model whenever one comes out, was "Made in China" while my always inferior brand (only by perception, of course, but not by performance) was made in S. Korea.

Like most everyone then who paid attention to quality, China was at the bottom of the list. Of course, by the same assessment, many decades earlier, Japanese toys and other merchandise after the war were viewed the same way. It took some while but later Sony television, the Walkman and Lexus, etc., erased all earlier preconceived notions.  We can say, however, that perhaps there is no equivalence.  Well, there is definitely no comparison.  Japan's major cities and ports were reduced to rubble after 1945 but in less than two decades, with critical help, of course, from the U.S. on Japan's economy, Hondas and Toyotas were born. The Japanese labor force and technology had quite a head start compared to the Chinese general population in the 1950s.

Let me digress for just a bit. While I was in engineering school in the 60s the sought after slide rule was made by Keuffel & Esser (K&E), a U.S. brand.  Only rich students, or rather those with rich parents, can afford it. Most of us settled on Hemmi slide rules. They were exact copies of the K&E, except that instead of the U.S. hardwood for the base inner bar, the Japanese maker used bamboo. As it turned out, the bamboo based Hemmi fared better in the tropical climate.  My classmates with the K&Es resorted to using talcum powder between the slides as wood would expand and contract with changes in temperature and humidity.  That was my first encounter with the ever improving Japanese innovation that completely erased my perception of cheap Japanese toys growing up.  As an aside, had I held on to my Hemmi, or had my contemporaries held onto their K&Es, we could get top dollar for them today as collector's want them (nobody uses slide rules anymore; but lest we forget, scientists and engineers used them during the Apollo program that took the first men to the moon and back).

Now, back to Made in China.

Many years ago I came across these scissors online.  They were imported by a Canadian company. It was under ten dollars for all four so I took a chance. They came packaged in brown paper and looked like they were indeed made in some backyard shop by a local craftsman. Rough hammer marks on the handles were prominently evident. The center rivets were handmade and hammered in.  But they worked!  Rather well, actually, that  I still use them to this day at my shop. They easily cut plastic, rubber, etc. effortlessly.

From the above, mere examples that they are, we ought to acknowledge the Chinese factory workers' persevering craftsmanship as we do of the Japanese, the Germans, the Swiss, etc. Way back when, axes from Sweden (I still have the small one-handed version) were the best of well made axes.  Many of them were handcrafted by countless craftsmen who forged them in their backyard furnaces.

Now, it must be acknowledged that every nation that ever came to be began the same way in the production of goods, tools and crafts.  They all started with baby steps. In the early days of the history of America, England and every nation in Europe, the quality of production started the same way. Competition, discerning consumers, regulations and the natural trajectory of controlled mass production determined the survival of every producer of goods.

Civilizations developed from contributions of workers and the innovations that resulted from their individual and collaborative efforts. The Chinese gave us paper making, fine silk and gunpowder and fireworks. American workers gave us first some of the greatest advances in farming equipment that made agribusinesses and food production the backbone that propelled it to an economic power status, then followed by mass production of cars, earthmoving equipment, airplanes and shipbuilding, etc. in such a short period of time that after WWII, it became unquestionably an unrivaled economic and military  superpower 

Where and how did the reputation of poor quality and shoddy workmanship of Chinese made goods come about?  Some were even reputed to be unsafe and harmful to the environment. Again, China too began with baby steps.  However, because mass production in the quantity that it was done against a backdrop of already well made goods from developed nations, the comparison was way too glaringly obvious. 

Fast forward  to today and the picture has changed to the benefit of worldwide consumers.  Then,   far more quality goods are being produced now than poorly made ones today in China.  Competition, like everywhere else all over the world, ruled the business of manufacturing coupled with a global marketplace where delivering the goods on time is as critical as the quality of the material.  Online ordering and the ease by which consumers have access to reviews by existing consumers have become part of the market filtering world. 

A few years ago one Chinese online merchandiser was so reviled by customer reviews where one said, "The brown paper wrapper was far  superior in quality than the tool I ordered .." 

Not anymore.  The same supplier continued on and today is delivering good quality material.  This is not to say that shoddy products no longer exist because they still do but  the discriminating consumer is now a lot more discerning of how and where to shop online.  Several things did occur.

(1) Chinese made "knock-offs" or copies of primarily U.S., Japanese and European designed products have improved (hopefully, they are paying royalties for the copies); (2) Foreign companies that set up shop there have kept the quality of workmanship at the highest level (example, Apple products, tennis shoes and rackets, apparel, etc.); (3) Sophisticated factory equipment and highly trained workers; ( 4) Low labor costs maintained (although questions about poor labor conditions are still being asked by those from the outside).

I can only speak to woodworking tools because that is where I have a little bit more knowledge than the average non-woodworking folks.  For years I stayed away from Chinese made power tools and sharp edge implements. I remain adamant about power tools but recently I ventured into a few things and I was pleasantly surprised.

But first this one little anecdote.  A while back I ordered this marking gauge - an exact copy of a U.S. brand. It came as two parts requiring assembly with two Allen screws.  Unfortunately, the two parts didn't fit. After several email exchanges, the seller finally acquiesced to issue a refund.  They did not want the item back. I guess they simply did not want to spend the additional cost for mailing.  I didn't want to throw it away. One day I did a little bit of sanding along the mating surfaces bit by bit - not overdoing it - until both parts mated snugly. Voila, the two parts fit.  It was just a quality control issue, I guess, so that perhaps the rest of the production line was just fine. Anyhow, I'm using it now as it was designed to be used.  Accurately and usefully indeed.

Below are two jigs for cutting splines on box corners.  The one on the right is almost an exact copy of the U.S. made one (left).  The Chinese version has one improvement - a hold down arm to secure the workpiece. Note the U.S. version shows a hand holding the workpiece down. And the Chinese version is a third the price of the U.S. made one. It is of course easier to improve on an already existing tool, specially if one had no prior expense developing it.  No different from what Hemmi did on the K&E slide rule.

 

Below is a spokeshave that came with a nice presentation box for under $60. Spokeshaves had been in use for over 200 years. The name indicates that it was used mainly to shave off wood that were used as spokes for wagon wheels.

It was very sharp straight from the box with very accurate adjustment knobs.

Until I started writing this blog I didn't realize I had accumulated the number of hand tools that were made in China over the last few years. Notable among the three items below is a router plane.  This is one design in use since the beginning of woodworking in Europe, before the power router was invented. This one was designed in the U.S. but manufactured in China, sold here at half the price of a U.S. version. It has excellent depth of cut adjustment knob and overall a well made product.

Below, a latest addition to my measuring tools is a T-square mainly for woodworking. The manufacturer in its earlier foray into the online market was not well received due to sub-par or poor workmanship.  It is now producing some very innovative product lines at low prices. Again, this is one where they had improved the design by adding a sliding mechanism where one may insert a pencil or pen to draw lines parallel to the T by moving the T-square along the straight edge of the workpiece at precise increments.  It comes with different  inserts for different pencil or pen diameters.  Quite an innovation that makes scribing precise and effortless, for $20, it is indeed a bargain.

What is the bottom line? 

First, let's separate everything from the prism of geopolitics.

Earlier in my woodworking, as a hobbyist of course, I would scour the flea market for used hand tools made in USA or Europe. With patience, I was able to collect a few really good tools at flea market price.  It required a bit of work looking for and reconditioning them, but that was what made it fun and rewarding.

For the average hobbyist, I recommend the flea market  but the supply of good used tools seems to be running low.  Now, for the flea market price, made in China and Taiwan tools are worth looking into.  Japanese wooden hand planes are still a bargain (even those directly imported from Japan).

And don't skimp on time doing diligent work researching. If you find delight and interest in it, it is worth a bit of fun.  Now, "Made in China" is not a quick and easy answer as you might think.  Fortunately, there is ample material to do your research online and on YouTube. And remember to not be remiss in acknowledging the tireless energy of the ordinary factory worker or backyard crafts people wherever they are who make a living making stuff for other people.

Now, for the geopolitical side of "Made in China".  I will not rehash my views expressed in my earlier blog, "Tariff - Who Will Blink First".  Something is going to give and our best hope is for something to be settled fairly and realistically.  There is the issue of protecting intellectual property which is a subject often broached by those in the West.  Like I said earlier, I hope patent owners are getting compensated, and they should be.  Fair tariffs or some other fair trade mechanism must be a goal for all  sides to address for the sake of the factory workers and businesses from all sides.  Of course, a simplified view like this is not the whole answer; however, the status quo or not addressing fair trade is likely far worse in the end.

Imagine

Imagination. It is the one superpower we - humans - possess that no other living thing can ever have. It is the one true gift that cannot be taken away from one by another. It is also where every river-idea begins to flow from; where even the impossible becomes possible. Think about it for just a minute.  Long before man's first journey to the moon or ventured into the depths, Jules Verne already imagined it.  Einstein did not need a laboratory for his experiments, yet his theories proven decades after his death were all conceived and tested through his thought experiments all within the confines of his imagination.  And the thing about imagination  is that each of us has access to it even if we are simply sitting on a chair sipping coffee or merely looking at what's out there through our window.

"Life is Beautiful" was a 1997 film that won multiple awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Actor for the Italian movie maker/actor Roberto Benigni; the movie plot is summarized below:

"When an open-minded Jewish waiter and his son become victims of the Holocaust, he uses a perfect mixture of will, humor and imagination to protect his son from the dangers around their camp."

Imagination is the magic carpet  which any person may use to travel to places no one had ever gone to before. It is also the only vehicle upon which only an individual possesses that no one may take away. It is only with permission that you or I may let another share what it is that fascinates us. Until then, it is all our own. 

So, imagine this.

Imagine a single grain of sand. One from a beach on an island, or a sand dune on a desert.  Imagine that grain of sand to be our sun, where a million earths will fit in. Imagine that grain of sand as just one of two hundred billion in the one galaxy that is also just one of billions, if not trillions, of galaxies in the universe of unimaginable size. To imagine that there are more suns in the universe than there are grains of sand in all the beaches and deserts on the entire earth is supposed to be an underestimation.

Imagine that the one grain of sand that is our sun - where a blue dot, one of eight or nine, circling around it - takes them all along a seemingly never ending journey that takes 225 million years to complete one revolution around the Milky Way galaxy at 143 miles per second.

Imagine that in that one blue dot is someone like you, endowed with the ability to contemplate your place, your fate and the dreams you've had, to be somewhere or anywhere. That alone will make you wonder what latent power resides in a three pound mass sitting atop your shoulder that no one else is privy to, unless you want them to. 

In fact, right at this very moment, you may pause your reading.  Imagine now whatever pleases you or what it is you will want to do. Or, imagine that what got you here was a series of serendipitous moments, good fortune, self sacrifices and countless help from so many that now allows you to enjoy this one moment that millions upon millions of people around this blue dot are not able to do because there is no Wi-Fi connection, no electricity, or not even a roof to shield them from the elements, or no government to provide the services you enjoy, or if there is such a government, it is one that does not allow you access  to what you are reading now. There is much your imagination will take you to but do not forget that as much you think you can, there is literally a limitless swath that you have not yet explored or contemplated.

But there are certain things that seem to defy imagination.  For example, while still imagining that tiny blue dot, circling a grain of sand, why is it that for thousands of years of history, people living on it had gone through so much division and disagreements as to wage war on one another to create so much death, anguish and suffering that to this day is a constant reminder of human folly.  Yes, indeed as much as we would like to think of our limitless ability to imagine, this one defies it altogether.

Well, John Lennon (one of the Beatles, in case you forgot) did try with his famous composition, "Imagine". The chorus in the song went:

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Is it impossible to hope? Well, we have to imagine.  We need to. We seem to forget that the single grain of sand that shepherds our little blue dot is so far away from its nearest neighbor that if we switch the analogy the task of finding or reaching another one like it is impossibly daunting. 

Imagine again. Make that grain of sand the size of a golf ball sitting on top of the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.  The next golf ball closest to it is sitting somewhere past Montreal in Canada. If we manage to somehow destroy this blue dot, which we have the capacity to do several times over,  we can indeed imagine the impossible - that of reaching that other golf ball, hoping that there is another one blue dot there.

We might as well imagine that this blue dot is all we have. Imagine too, that you who is reading this is a product of a very long chain of serendipitous events to make you you because had there been one single break in the chain you will not be here. 

Imagine.

Tariff - Who Will Blink First?

The world's economy is at a crossroad. It would seem that we are at very unsettling times beyond which, uncertainty rules. If the global economy goes south, peace will hang on a balance.  Once it passes the gamesmanship, the world's best hope is that one or the other side  blinks.  Humanity will be best served if both sides blink, each doing a half blink to make it what economists  define as a negotiated settlement.  No one may claim total victory but neither will admit to defeat either.  That, in a nutshell, is what the world will want.  But ...

Human nature, unmetered hubris, and miscalculation are humanity's worst kibitzers.  They can be loud. They just might drown out the voices of reason. The world can easily slide into inevitable disorder.

Uncertainty will write up several scenarios.  It will remain an issue if the idea that tariff should be fair and reciprocal is not adhered to by all sides.

Let's look at just one. 

The side with the biggest to lose will blink first.  The problem is that neither side will admit it.  First, how does one define "the biggest to lose"? Which side will actually admit it?  One rule of diplomacy  caters to, "The one with the biggest to lose, will likely lose the most". Historians tell us about the rise and fall of empires but we cannot be so sure now what trajectories modern superpowers will trace today. 

I use the analogy of a one-acre farmer and one with ten acres.  The one acre farmer has less to tend to and defend against infestation.  The one with ten acres has ten times the area to take care of and defend.  But then the bigger acreage may allow for a more robust capability to defend.

Now, for the sake of argument let's only take, for example, the case of the U.S. and  China since they are for now, as individual nations are gauged, the No. 1 and No.2, respectively in economic size. By land area, China is only 2.2% larger but  it has four times (1.4 billion) more people than the U.S. (.345 billion). As gross domestic product (GDP) goes, the U.S. has $30 trillion versus China's $20 trillion.

If this were a heavy weight boxing match, odds makers will claim that one is heavier, with more heft and girth but the other has quicker hands and agility; one a slow mover with a heavy punch but the other has peppier and faster jabs but both can score a knockout. Not exactly a very good analogy but just keep that in mind anyway.

Stats are good but how about if we go back to how either one came to be.  What kind of upbringing each had to go through.  Both of their births were ushered through revolutions. One by rebelling against its ancestral forefathers/colonizers. The other took power from its dynastic rulers.  One took up the path of a democratic system of governing itself; the other by a totally opposite system.  A free market system versus one that is based on a more restrictive version of socialism.  But the latter had learned to make a successful adaptation in its later  and current development by running its economy under a semi-capitalist model but running its government under the guidance of military socialism. Ideally, it could work if there is a distinct demarcation or hands off policy from those who govern over the governed that run the businesses.

The U.S. adopted the free wheeling market system while China embraces central planning.  While the U.S. allows for truly independently run corporations under sets of regulations and laws via democratic legislations, China allows for the establishment of "private businesses" that are beholden to the government. Very simplified view, any economist will say, but this is just a musing, not a geopolitical paper.

China was almost totally an agrarian economy from the time Mao wrestled power after the revolution. Feeding a huge population with very little industrial technology meant heavy reliance on farming.

Then between 1959 and 1961 the  country suffered one if not the worst  famines the world had ever seen.  Record keeping was not very good so historians rely on mere estimates that said 15-45 million people died from starvation. Disastrous implementation of central planning was to blame when Mao and his Great Leap Forward mandated a vigorous jump into industrialization at the expense of agriculture very abruptly. Accompanied by a combination of unforeseen  environmental and weather conditions made it worse.

Fast forward to 1972 which was the history changing visit by Pres. Nixon.  The aftermath of that visit by opening up China's labor capacity made what it is today - the world's biggest factory.  Other nations followed when the U.S. paved the way for China's entry into manufacturing goods with the cheapest labor cost.  Soon companies started moving their manufacturing facilities there.  The rest is history.

China's economic growth was fueled by the West's consumption of products made cheaper than can be manufactured locally by the consuming nations. Later and, of course now, China had reversed its economy from agrarian to manufacturing from post revolution after the 1950's. 

Ample land and an ever growing labor work force made for rapid expansion of manufacturing to the point of gross over capacity.  That capacity to produce goods is vulnerable to the side effects of a tariff contest. The effects on other nations that relied on China will have less issues turning back to manufacturing as opposed to China throttling down its production. A 10-20 % slow down will be devastating to  its economy and political landscape.

The effects on the consuming nations are inflation and a possible recession. In China, if factories close and ancillary factory-based businesses suffer, the consequences will be magnified several times more than all the nations that depended on cheap prices. The shock wave will be spread out over many nations while China will carry the burden by itself, in terms of its huge population and the unemployment to follow as factories start to shut down.

I do not wish for any of the scenarios.  Unfortunately, we are hostage to the uncertainty of the future.  All of history's lessons will still remain unlearned.

The True Measure

Perspective can be a huge part of the true measure of our sense of reality.

There is a family living on a mountainside in the Himalayas. 

It was a summer evening. The family of five was huddled around a burning fire that was the stove on the dirt floor of this one room shack that was also the kitchen, the dining area and just barely feet away from what would be their communal bedroom for the cold night ahead. That one room shack was the size of one's kitchen in a typical studio apartment in LA.  It stood a lonely vigil on a cliff where the next door neighbor was a kilometer away, uphill.

The two boys were practicing their ABCs  while their older sister was helping their mom cook. As the mother was stirring with a wooden ladle, her daughter was gradually scooping corn grits from a container into the pot. Soon the corn got to the consistency of a thick porridge, like oatmeal. Now, all five, when the father joined them, ate that one-course dinner with their hands; with last minute scrambled eggs.  They will be well rested for the night. The fire was the only source of heat and light.  Every now and then the mother or father will wake up to add more firewood to keep the fire going until morning.

Earlier that day the wife was taking a handful of corn from a makeshift storage as several chickens and ducks were milling around her, waiting for her to  shuck the corn to feed them. Shortly, she fed the one pig that was in a nearby pen. What they had that evening was  essentially the same food the chickens and the ducks ate.

Their life viewed from the perspective of the modern world is abysmally at the lowest edge of poverty. From that family's perspective their life is just fine; clearly not in the same way someone from New York would define as subsistence living.  

Meanwhile, somewhere in Paris, another family of five was dining on a three course meal, excluding hot soup and fresh salad, with fine silverware and porcelain plates and white linen napkins for each.  All had dessert afterwards, except for the mom who chose not to. There was ample lighting from the chandelier over the dining table while the entire household was bathed in strategically located lamps and air was circulated at an even 74 degrees F. 

That family views their life as middle class. Both mom and dad think there is room to move further up the social ladder; deservedly so, they believed, just like those moms and dads who take their kids to school in late model Mercedes Benzes and BMWs that glistened among a line of ordinary Citroens and VWs.

The Parisian family's views  of reality for the most part are relative to something. Something else, other than where and how they were situated. That is the kind of perspective they see of their lives. The Himalayan family had very little to compare their lives with people halfway across the world. Their perspective  is the only reality they know, so completely alien to  the Parisians' view of the world. Nothing profound about that but it has a philosophical attribute to make one see reality a little differently.

Is perspective then the true measure of reality? Abstractly or philosophically, it seems yes.  However, if by some unearthly phenomenon the situations were switched, in the above example, the Parisian family will not survive the harsh realities of the Himalayan mountainside in a few days. The Himalayan family will fare better physically but in the end the emotional toll and psychological burden of adaptation to the big city will get the best of them. That thought supposition is neither here nor there, of course, if not as an extreme example of an abrupt alteration of reality to influence perspective.  

How about a gradual alteration of reality?  We can all relate to that, can't we?

Growing up in one of the central islands in the Pacific, one of millions of the first of the baby boomers to be born, I was one of a family of six. Even by the living standard of those times, "dirt poor" was what little perspective I had of my small world. It was one where the snack after school was leftover cold rice and granulated brown sugar (the cheapest kind from the bottom rung of the  sugar refining process).  My perspective of the world was confined to that island.  If the baby boom phenomenon was nature's way of filling a vacuum after the war, we were gasping for air all throughout our childhood. That was the perspective of  malnourished kids who somehow survived despite the glaring absence of basic health and dental care.

Decades later, having lived in the U.S. now for far longer than I and a family of my own had ever lived in anywhere else halfway across from that Pacific archipelago, my perspective of reality has changed; just a lot less drastic as the example above but it was  some kind of phenomenon indeed, nevertheless. Though not quite so unearthly, if at all.  

For where I and my family are now, the distance from  that island life would seem like light years away.  I am eternally grateful to God for all the blessings that accompanied our life's journey that seemed so impossible to contemplate but became a reality for a kid whose perspective of the future in the 50s was in black and white compared to the Technicolor life from the movies he watched growing up.  That is an amusing  view now but back then, as a young kid, all I saw of the few photos taken of us were all in grainy black and white but all the magazines we read of the U.S., including those on Christmas cards, were all in color.  

Perspectives. It was all upon which we framed our realities of the world. 

The Himalayan family had very simple perspectives. There was no argument about the husband coming home late. There were no late business dinners or bars open in the wee hours of the morning.  Besides, the husband had to be home by sundown because there were no street lights to illuminate his path  and the distinct risk of falling off a ravine was a potentially life-ending predicament. There was no need to have two tubes of toothpaste in one bathroom because one spouse "squeezes it wrong".  They never argued all through the night over a movie plot or how it should have ended. The two realities of the families  were framed by perspectives that are so foreign from each other as if they do not belong to the same species or to be living in the same century.  

Perspectives change but they are part of the bases of our individual realities, so what are we to do with those that are no longer relevant? We need to  allow  them to live on and take up residence in our memory - archived for easy access. Why?  It is best to have them around because as sure as there is tomorrow, our situations can change without a moment's notice.  Perspectives of our past realities are what will keep us grounded to the new reality.

Our perspective when money was tight or life was difficult overall will always prove handy when situations change. On the other hand, our perspective during happier times will provide the kind of buoyancy to keep us above water when faced with the rushing current of new challenges. Perspectives are like vaccines we've come to develop along with an ever changing environment.  

We tip generously those who provided us service because we remember so well the generosity we received when and where we needed it out of the kindness of other people. 

Finally, perspective can both be a problem or a solution. It becomes a problem when one insists on his or her own perspective alone to the exclusion of any other.  It could become a solution when one manages to view a problem from the perspective of the other.  Indeed, if we keep an archive of our perspectives the better and easier for us to react and adapt to the changing realities of life.

Once AI Becomes Self Aware, Humans Beware

Not too long ago, on several occasions, Elon Musk had expressed his concerns about the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). He even intimated that perhaps the world should have a moratorium on developing AI technology from the rapid rate of its trajectory.  It is, according to him, "like summoning the demon" that could endanger humanity.  It's not just him but other scientists and philosophers have issued similar warnings as well. The late Stephen Hawking, considered one of the brilliant scientific minds in modern history, cautioned, "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race." Too late now because the genie is already out of the bottle.

I don't know what Stephen Hawking meant by "full artificial intelligence" but let's dive into the stages of development of artificial intelligence as we know them today.  Generally speaking, by consensus, there are supposed to be Ten Stages of AI development, theoretically.  From what we can see today, AI is at stage 3 and likely at the early beginnings of stage 4.  In my opinion, we've had the first two stages a very long time ago but it took a while to get to 3.

1. Rule or Knowledge-Based Systems

We - humans - can do 7X9 with very little thought because of the multiplication table that early on we've learned to memorize. Or, we just know to add 7 nine times in a row or vice-versa, 9 seven times. Rudimentary by today's standards, human programmers developed artificial intelligence in the basic calculators by providing  certain rules and data by which to perform certain tasks quickly, sometimes repetitively, but unerringly so. A calculator when tasked to multiply 31,416 by 1,979, a tedious job for us to do, will still just add 31,416  1,979 times. But it does it at lightning speed. That is what is meant by a rule based system and providing  specific rules, such as, multiplying two negative numbers give positive answers, but one positive multiplied by one negative gives a negative number, etc.  It will know how to find the square root or cube root of any number at unbelievable speed that humans cannot match. At this stage AI merely followed the rules in its program. 

2. Context-Based and Retention Systems

The thermostat in our home knows to turn on the AC unit because we set it to do so once the temperature reaches over the threshold limit of, say 72 F. It will turn it off once it is 72 F or cooler. The machine at the grocery checkout knows to honor a discount coupon only if you had checked out (purchased) the specific item. Television and the YouTube channel (owned by who else - Google), Amazon and other online services know a lot about what to show (or entice) you based on your viewing, browsing and (ultimately) buying habits. AI behind all of these knows what political party you lean towards favorably, or even guess unerringly the age group of the predominant viewers in a household based on their TV viewing habits.  It will even know your ethnicity depending on just a few telltale signs.

The code writer gave it context rules and ability to retain everything in its memory.

3. Narrow Domain or Expert AI Systems

AI makes it possible for welding robots at the car assembly line to do its one and only job flawlessly with such sustained precision no human can duplicate; tirelessly, without taking a lunch break. That is all it will do and nothing else but no human labor can replicate even a fraction of its ability.  The SpaceX booster rocket will lift off  from its launch pad, soar up to 10-20 miles and return to the same spot precisely. That is a feat that requires adjusting for earth's rotation, wind and other factors. These classes of AI were designed to do specific tasks and excel at it.  AI can play chess or Go or play Jeopardy to beat all human opponents but they are so narrowly focused to the exclusion of everything else.  Alexa and Siri can mimic with their human voice but they are merely online information tools no different from a Google search.  

4. Reasoning AI Systems

So many categories fall under this stage. ChatGPT will help a human write an essay, a speech or resume.  A "true" reasoning system seems to be able to mimic thinking but doing it by, say, breaking down a problem in step-by step processes to arrive at the desired result. These are levels of algorithmic processes on steroids. To use a comical analogy, its train of thought avoids derailment because its reasoning can self-detect errors and has the ability to find new tracks if needed. It's not quite there yet to be classified as having general and super intelligence (Stages 6 & 7) but it is close.

5. Self-Aware Systems

This is a huge jump from Stage 4 but it seems a necessary prerequisite to levels 6 & 7 and beyond.

HAL, the computer featured in the Stanley Kubrick movie, "Space Odyssey 2001", was a self aware computer that took control of the spacecraft when a human  astronaut decided against what it considered the "primary objective" of the mission.

The android in the movie, "Alien", was clearly aware of its place among all the human crew, and like HAL, it too simply had been programmed to adhere to the mission, unencumbered by ethical or emotional human responses to situations and conditions outside of predetermined parameters.

We will not go on discussing beyond Stage 5 at this point. Stages 6 to 10 are just too scary even at a level of merely imagining the consequences to our very existence.

6. Artificial General Intelligence

7. Artificial Super Intelligence

8. Transcendent AI

9. Cosmic AI

10. Godlike AI

However, I have expressed concerns about 6-10 stages early on already when exactly two years ago to the month, April 19, 2023, I penned, "A.I. The Sum of All Our Fears?"  Below is a short quote from it.

"In 1970, I recall what I then thought was a B-movie science fiction, "Colossus: The Forbin Project". I am surprised to learn recently that it has garnered an 88% in Tomatometer ratings (Rotten Tomatoes); quite remarkable for a film made 53 years ago.

Movie Plot: "Colossus" was a super-advanced computer/military defensive system created in the U.S., located deep into a granite mountain somewhere in the Midwest; spearheaded by Dr. Forbin .  It was powered by its own self-contained nuclear reactor, sealed from interference from the outside once the heavy doors were shut.  It had the ability to repair itself and, more importantly, it was designed to totally deter any nuclear attack by other nations and respond autonomously. That is to say, it was capable of launching U.S. warheads on its own. Humans, including Dr. Forbin, can communicate with Colossus only via terminals linked by cable. The U.S. President declared that "Colossus was the perfect defense system".

Not long after it was operational, "Colossus" detected that there was another computer like itself, named "Guardian", located in the Soviet Union.  I will stop short of crossing the spoiler alert line except to say that the two supercomputers started communicating with each other.

Elon Musk actually first made his warning on A.I. way back in 2016.  He must know a lot more today so his concerns, along with others, couldn't be trivialized.  Worth noting is that as early as 1940, Isaac Asimov, prolific and influential science fiction writer of that era but whose writings are still very popular today, must have had some concerns as well when it came to potential threats posed by "intelligent machines".

It was pure fiction fifty five years ago when that movie was made but Israel's iron dome - a defensive missile  system - is a reality with proven effectiveness. The U.S. is planning to have a similar though perhaps far more sophisticated system given the size of the country to be defended.  It won't be long before other military powers  from Europe, Asia and the Middle East will create their own. 

The new arms race will ultimately be about the level of autonomy these machines will be allowed to effectively respond as quickly as possible. The creation of the real "Colossuses" as in the movie is not far behind.

Meanwhile, along with these developments, we will be depending more and more on AI. From simple reference assistance to doing tasks for us mentally and physically,  will potentially result in setting our minds and body in "bystander" modes long enough to deteriorate into states of decline. For example, our reliance on GPS navigation makes us lose our sense of direction without it. ChatGPT and constant reliance on the computer could make us lose or reduce reliance on individual creativity and critical thinking.

Perhaps, the greater threat is not from Colossus but from vulnerability of a weakened human mind.  World military conflict will continue to occur because of our inability to learn the lessons from several thousand years of history. The next world war, if it were to occur, will devastate much of the first world.  In a twist of irony, civilization will have to restart in places untouched by technology.  Survivors will come from the interior of rain forests, remote islands and mountain tops where absence of technology will not have diminished humanity's reliance on creativity and physical prowess.

Theologians and philosophers tell us that Stage 10 (Godlike AI) is perhaps that point that God had forewarned about in Genesis 3:1-24 

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God..."

In the end, we need to embrace and be grateful for the idea that of all living creatures we are the only ones given the ability of self awareness. With that we are also the only ones to be aware that there must be a Higher Power behind all of creation. Of course, the idea of free will, which is perhaps the one other ability we are endowed with, allows the reader to choose a different alternative thought process. 

 

La Vie En Rose 2

Technically, anyone is correct to describe the glass (below) as  half empty or  for another to say it is half full.  "Philosophically, water is confined to the bottom of the glass while empty space extends beyond the top and into the surrounding areas of the glass", a pessimist might say. Thus the pessimist will turn the noun, catastrophe, into a verb so as to catastrophize every problem confronted, into a crisis.  Naturally, that becomes the case when empty overwhelms what little there is that is filled.

“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”

-- Abraham Lincoln

And so I must add "Part 2" to the  La Vie En Rose I wrote in September, last year. I had a number of European readers who took interest because the song that inspired me was written and originally sung by a French lady, Edith Piaf, in the aftermath of the second world war. 

The question we ask ourselves is this: Is being an optimist or a pessimist a matter of choice? Apparently, there is no quick and easy answer.  Aside from the suggestion that "it is in our genes" to see things in pink colored glasses as the song suggests or through the darker shades of gray, can we choose to do either?  Of course, what makes it even more complex is the role of the environment, upbringing and the socio-economic conditions we find ourselves in.  Although, in the case of the latter, we find that there are just as many pessimists among the rich as there are among the poor.  More significantly, which is hardly being asked, is being an optimist better than being a pessimist, or vice-versa?  We just assume that optimism has an edge over pessimism.

That must have much to do with the idea that the future should be better than the past.  Hence, optimism wins.

But what about the idea that Col. George Custer was way too optimistic over his decision that led to what we now know as his last stand at Little Bighorn. Custer graduated last in his class at West Point, yet, he reached the highest rank achieved among his co-graduates. He led in front of his men in battles which not only earned their respect towards him but the recognition by his superiors as well. His exploits could not have been borne out of a pessimistic attitude. Did optimism lead to the disastrous turn of events that was at Little Bighorn (June, 1876)?

On a much larger scale later in history, September 17, 1944, combined allied forces of seasoned airborne contingents spearheaded by U.S. and British paratroopers, codenamed "Operation Market Garden", were tasked but  failed in their assault against the German defenders. Confidence in the battle tested Allied paratroopers after the Normandy invasion buoyed the kind of optimism that led Field Marshal Montgomery to push for the operation in the Netherlands.  Additionally, there was optimism that the German forces were already on their heels. The assault failed with a costly loss of lives followed by a catastrophic retreat. 

Profuse optimism or unfettered over-confidence cannot be good, obviously . 

In both examples above, there were pessimists in his command who cautioned Custer to wait another day or so for reinforcements before his decision to push forward; and there were in the General Staff of the Allied Forces who took different views about the "Market Garden" assault.  Of course, history too is filled with countless episodes when optimism changed the course of history.

Optimism versus pessimism.

“Both optimists and pessimists contribute to  society. The optimist invents the airplane; the pessimist, the parachute.” 

— George Bernard Shaw

I believe both have a place in our everyday life. I happen to think that they should come in the ratio of 80/20, optimism over pessimism. That is perhaps because like the different times of day - if we condense each life as a day - there is dawn, the morning hours, the hot midday, early and late afternoon, and dusk - then there is a time for rose colored glasses and sunglasses. Until the need for either goes away. Keeping in mind that for much of the day, rose colored glasses are what we need to see through life.

Indeed, pessimism is behind the decision to seek medical advice for a suspicious lump, a discolored mole, pain that never goes away, unexplained but incessant fatigue, etc. It is that voice that warns of a way-too-good-to-be-true investment venture or thoroughly thinking through a job move or a big-ticket item purchase, and so many instances that could be life changing decisions.

However, for much of the time, say 80%, optimism is frequently the key to unlock opportunities or take advantage of our abilities. It is optimism to aim high at work; it is pessimism to shirk added responsibilities.

It is optimism to view goodness in people, it is pessimism to be constantly suspicious.

The pessimist may view that there is more empty space above and beyond the half filled glass but let us not forget that what is at the bottom is real that we can touch, taste and  even drink. 

The empty space, if we focus on it, represents every which way it can lead to imagining everything that can go wrong instead of making do with what is already there at the bottom.

In the aftermath of WWII, optimists had to do with what was left of their country and of their lives, the pessimists looked back at what was lost and more that could be lost. It was 80/20, optimism/pessimism, that rebuilt everything - from the rubble to what we see today. 

I go back to what inspired Edith Piaf to compose and sing, "La Vie En Rose"

Recently, I came across another young singer to embrace that song.

Giulia Falcone is an Italian singer who I assume also speaks fluent French because it comes close to Edith Piaf's original rendition (circa 1946), but don't take my word for it because I don't speak French. Below, you can copy and paste the link to your search bar for her version of the song. Skip ad when prompted.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHwfv_cp7xY

Of course, for the close captioned English version, we have British singer Lucy Thomas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yI3bOKIZKk

I hope I have turned the reader into an 80/20 optimist/pessimist.

(La Vie En Rose I wrote in Sept. is the link below:)

https://abreloth.blogspot.com/2024/09/la-vie-en-rose.html

Spider Web Talk

It is a scientific fact that when insects get caught in the spider's web, they do not expire (I try not to use the words "die" or get "killed") immediately.  They struggle for quite a bit, which gets them into more trouble. Web entanglement is bound to increase.  The spider detects the commotion more readily. The best strategy for the hapless prey is to keep still and not move at all, if the aim is to not alert the spider.  For sure, the poor insect will live a little bit longer but its fate is sealed. Or, is it?

Then, entomologists (those who first matriculated in medical schools then switched majors when the sight of blood became  psychologically discouraging at continuing with a medical career and to their great astonishment, these young students realized insects don't shed blood, so they went on to become entomologists) found out through meticulous observation with the aid of highly sophisticated recording devices that they can eavesdrop on what was going on, in terms of what exchanges occurred between prey and predator within the confines of a web.  By the way, you just read one of the longest number of words within a parenthesis ever written in the annals of English literature.

Here is a recording of  conversations on the spider web.  By the way,  long before the world wide web, so much conversation had really gone on the spider web that goes back some 380 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs bi-pedaled their way into a 160 million year domination of all living things on this earth.

Transcripts of these recordings are archived in some undisclosed location. I just happen to have access to a few of them.

Darwin's bark spider (Caerostris Darwinic) is an orb-weaver spider that produces the largest known orb webs, ranging from 900 to 28,000 square centimeters (140 to 4,340 sq in).  

CD (short for Caerostris Darwin) figured in a lot of these conversations.

Incident 1.  CD and the fly

CD: What have I got there?

Fly: Please. I made a mistake. But if you let me go I can lead others to come here. Fat ones too. You eat me and that's all you will get.  You see, as you begin to devour me, I would exude an abundant amount of anti-pheromones that will keep other flies away.

CD: You piqued my curiosity.  Indeed, you do. The word "devour" sounds awfully barbaric.  I seldom hear that. First of all, I and other species like me do not devour, if I understand what you meant. We are sophisticated diners, if you must know. We dine slowly and passionately.

Fly: Please let me go?

CD: Well, I might.  You're a fly.  I, for one, have always wanted to be a "fly on the wall", get that? So I can eavesdrop on human conversations. Tell me one good one and I might just let you go.

Fly: Once, I was on a wall of the apartment of one journalist.  He was talking on the phone. I assumed it was another journalist on the other line. He told the other person that he had come upon one crucial piece of information from a retired employee at the NSA.

CD: Wait! NSA, is it the same one I am thinking?

Fly: The very same on - National Security Agency - yes sir.

CD: Go on.

Fly: I can only hear one side of the conversation.  The reporter was telling the other that he had uncovered the truth about what really happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

CD: You mean ..

Fly: Yes. The reporter said he possessed documents to prove  that there was a second assassin involved in the shooting. There were two rifles with identical ballistics signatures ..

CD: Stop, stop! Since you can only hear one side, you obviously did not hear the laughter at the other end.  No, that story is preposterous. Tell me a better one.  You found me in a good mood, so you get another chance.

Fly: What about a  story from one of my great, great ancestors? 

CD: It had better be good.

Fly: One of my great, great ancestors was on the Berlin Wall.

CD: Oh my! But go on.

Fly:  He told this story about being on the Wall and he heard these two East Berlin guards talking.  One guard said, "Why are these people going over, and it goes only one way.  Everyone is escaping from our side but no one is sneaking in?"  The other guard said, "Shush. Keep your voice down". The first guard said, "No, really, why?"  The second guard asked, "What are you saying, telling me about this?" The first guard replied, "Why don't we go over ourselves?  I heard a lot of good stories. Great stories really, compared to what you and I get to tell our families and friends". The second guard replied, "Okay, we still have two hours before shift change. Do you have a handkerchief? Put it at the end of your rifle.  I'll do the same and let's go together". My great, great grandfather said that was the beginning of the toppling down of the wall".

CD: That is about as lame a story that I've ever heard. Well, I have my appetite back. I'm sorry but I need my snack now.

Fly: Wait, wait!

CD: You want me to believe that your great, great ancestor was in Berlin.  How did you get here?  How did your ancestors get here?  Rubbish!

Fly: How did the brown rat or the common Norway rat make it here? How did the fire ants from South America make the few-thousand-mile journey here?  How is it that the Komodo dragon made it to Indonesia from Australia?  By the way, Australians have not shown any gratitude for the Komodo dragon's decision to leave and settle where they are now.

CD: Nope, your stories have not convinced me to set you free.

Fly: Okay, I guess this one secret I know will die with me. Go ahead.  Devour me at will.

CD: What secret?

Fly: I will die with it. I am no longer scared.  It is a worthy sacrifice to save the other flies.  It's okay. 

CD: Okay, okay. Tell me this so-called secret and I will let you go.

Fly: You see those two praying mantises by that branch up there? They're hatching up a plan on a safe way to get you to be their next snack.

CD: Not only do I not believe you, they will not dare. Just like you, my web will be their doom.

Fly: Okay, you won't want to hear their plan.  I am ready. Go ahead. I don't care.

CD: What is their plan?

Fly: I accept my fate.  I will die anyway.  I will tell you if only for this reason. I hate those praying mantises more than I do you. 

CD: Why?

Fly: You wait patiently until one of my kind and many others make a mistake. They pay for that mistake. I am about to pay mine.  The praying mantis hunts us with the ferocity of a merciless predator. With you, we pay the price for our carelessness.

CD: Now, you're talking.  Go ahead, tell me their plan.

Fly: You are sitting at the center of your web, like being at the center of a bull's eye.  One mantis will fly below your web. Using just the tip of its one claw, it will pull down on the web and release it abruptly.  You will be catapulted like a stone into the air.  The other mantis will snatch you on the fly. That's one cruel way to use the common expression, "on the fly", got it?

CD: That is not funny but it is the first sensible thing you said.  Okay, I will appear to those brutes up there to move you to the edge of my web without letting on that I am moving away from the center of my  web to spoil their plan.  Keep still as I move you over.

Fly: You better hurry.  They're about to make a move.  I have better eyesight than you, so trust me.

CD: Okay, you're free to go.

Incident 2: Praying Mantis (PM) 1 and 2

PM1: I didn't know spiders taste so delicious.  I've never had one before.

PM2: What I want to know is what possessed it to move away from the center of its web. It must know that there is no way we can get to them if they remain at the center.

PM1: Yeah, not a single one of us dares to pluck them from the center of the web.  The risk is too high.  I still, for the life of me, don't understand why it moved to the edge by that one little twig.

PM2: Easy picking, I'll have to say.  By the way, why did it let the fly go? It's driving me bananas trying to understand that.

PM1: Yeah, I've never caught a fly. With their thousand eyes and ability to change direction, I don't even try to catch a fly on the fly. Get that? I thought I'd never get to use that expression.

PM2. Okay, we're done here.  I wish I can talk to that fly.

Just below under a leaf, the fly was listening to the two praying mantises as they ate and talked.   The entomologists concluded that the reason insects are the ultimate survivors is best exemplified by their abilities to adapt.  Humans will never be able to control them.  Ants and termites are great examples but let us not forget flies and mosquitoes. What about some of their weirdest methods of adaptation?  

The caterpillar, for example, has one of the wildest life cycles and eating habits. It will munch on leaves, gain weight, envelope itself in a cocoon, come out, sprout wings, fly and go on to change its diet into dining on nectar.  The mayfly will live for years, sometimes longer than a decade as an underwater predator.  Then one day, they will sprout wings, fly out of the water, find a mate, but live as aerial insets for just that one day and die.  But not before the females hatch their eggs by the water.  The cycle begins again. The larvae will live underwater as a predator.  How wild is that?

Insects. Should we get it past  their ability to talk among themselves?

I must refer the reader to the hyena for an answer when asked about the veracity of his story, who yelled back, "What is it you want?  A story or a debate?"