Posts Tagged ‘George Lakoff’

Stanford Helped Pioneer Artificial Intelligence

May 21, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the first half of a title by Elizabeth Dworkin in the 19 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The second half of the title is “Now it wants humans at the core.” A Stanford University scientist coined the term artificial intelligence (AI) and advancements have continued at the university including the first autonomous vehicle.

Silicon Valley is facing a reckoning over how technology is changing society. Stanford wants to be at the forefront of a different type of innovation, one that puts humans and ethics at the center of the booming field of AI. The university is launching the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). It is intended as a think tank that will be an interdisciplinary hub for policymakers, researchers and students who will go on to build the technologies of the future. The goal is to inculcate in the next generation a more worldly and humane set of values than those that have characterized it so far—and guide politicians to make more sophisticated decisions about the challenging social questions wrought by technology.

Fei-Fei-Li, an AI pioneer and former Google vice president who is one of the two directors of the new institute said, I could not have envisaged that the discipline I was so interested in would, a decade and a half later, become one of the driving forces of the changes that humanity will undergo. That realization became a tremendous sense of responsibility.”

The goal is to raise more than $1billion. It’s advisory panel is a who’s who of Silicon Valley titans, that includes former Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, former Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer and co-founder Jerry Yang, and the prominent investor Jim Breyer. Bill Gates will keynote its inaugural symposium.

The ills and dangers of AI have become apparent. New statistics emerge about the tide of job loss wrought by the technology, from long-haul truckers to farmer workers to dermatologists. Elon Musk called AI “humanity’s existential threat” and compared it to “summoning the demon.”

Serious problems were raised in the series of healthy memory posts based on the book, “Zuck.” The healthy memory posts based on the book “LikeWar” raised additional problems. Both these problems could be addressed with IA. Actually IA is being used to address the issues in “LIkeWar.” Regarding the problems raised in the book “Zuck”, rather than hoping that Facebook will self-police or trying to legislate against Facebook’s problematic practices, AI could police online all these social networks and flag problematic practices.

It is the position of this blog to advocate AI be used to enhance human intelligence. This is especially important in areas where human intelligence is woeful lacking, that is intelligent augmentation (IA). Unfortunately, humans, who are regarded as social animals, have difficulties reconciling conflicting political and religious beliefs. Artificial intelligence could be used here in an intelligence augmented (IA) role. Given polarized beliefs dead ends are reached. IA could suggest different ways of framing problematic issues. Lakoff’s ideas that were promoted in the series of healthy memory blog posts under the rubric “Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse” could provide the initial point of departure. Learning would take place and these ideas would be refined further to result in disagreeing parties being surprised about their ultimate agreement.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Invisible Hand

February 18, 2019

It is likely that this title appears strange to the reader. It is hoped that it will become clear later in the post. HM has become quite depressed due to not only Trump and his followers, but also the lack of caring that many conservatives show for their fellow humans. As has been mentioned in many previous posts, the United States is the only advanced country that does not have single payer government health insurance for all its people. In polls of general welfare and happiness the United States does not fare especially well. Michael Moore produced a valuable film titled “Where to Invade Next” that summarized the different ways that countries deal with their problems. They are definitely superior to the United States where a large tax cut is given the rich, increasing the national debt, and then used as an excuse to cut the few benefits American citizens have.

Actually this post is a follow up to the post titled “Would Adam Smith Be a Conservative Today?” in the series of posts on Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse. Another relevant post is “The Strict Father Model.” This model was developed by George Lakoff, assisted by two conservative Christian linguists in the formulation of a model to facilitate an understanding of how conservatives think. They are strongly influenced by the concept of an invisible hand developed by Adam Smith, the author of “The Wealth of Nations,” the full title being ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).” This is one of the most influential books every written as it formulated the ideas of capitalism and free trade. This book was a major contributor to economics and, indeed, the wealth of nations. If someone remembers anything from this book or anything about Adam Smith it is most likely “invisible hand.” The basic concept here is that there is something that works like an invisible hand that guides the flow of money to where it is most needed. And this definitely does seem to be the case. Unfortunately, some conservatives take this to mean that this invisible hand will address the needs of the people. Some even come to the conclusion that the poor and needy have not exerted enough effort or this invisible hand would have worked for them. So it is their problem, not a social problem.

Although “The Wealth of Nations” is Adam Smith’s most famous and influential work, he did not regard it as his best work. He had published “Theory of Moral Sentiments” in 1759, which he regarded as his most important work. “The Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776. Smith returned to working on “ The Theory of Moral Sentiments” until his death in 1790. It appears that he thought that he still needed to finish.The term “invisible hand” appears only once in each of these books. Clearly Smith did not overwork this term, although scholars and his followers have.

It is also quite obvious that Smith did not think that “invisible hand” would meet many needs of the people. Smith thought that empathy, understanding, and the well-being of our fellow humans is paramount. Although the term likely did not exist in Smith’s day, HM thinks that he was advocating mindfulness, meaning that humans needed to relate to their fellow humans in terms of their emotions and needs. There is a need to be mindful of our fellow humans. It is also clear that were Smith alive today, he would most certainly be a progressive and not a conservative.

Much more information can be found on both Adam Smith and his books on the Wikipedia. Kindle versions of each book for less than $1 are available from amazon.com.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Different Ways of Framing

December 2, 2018

This is the second post in the series “Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse”

Here are two different ways of framing taxes:

tax relief. For there to be relief, there must be an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. If anyone tries to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief.

Republicans are much better at framing than Democrats. Democrats responded by offering “tax relief for the middle class,” thus strengthening the Republican frame.

So how should the Democrats have responded? One way would be to frame taxation as an investment. Consider:
“Our parents invested in the future, ours as well as theirs, through taxes. They invested their tax money in the interstate highway system, the Internet, the scientific and medical establishments, our communications system, our airline system, the space program. They invested in the future and we are reaping the tax benefits, the benefits from the taxes they paid. Today we have assets—highways, schools and colleges, the Internet, airlines—that come from the wise investments they made.”

or

“Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membership fee in America. If you join a country club or community center, you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the squash court, but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won’t be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their dues to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traitorous to desert our country and not pay your dues.”

Lakoff writes, “Perhaps Bill Gates Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the Internet. They just used it—to make billions. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure, He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back.”

Another example is the abortion issue. Republicans framed it as “The Right to Life.”
Democrats framed it in terms of women’s rights, failing to consider that their response implied that they did not feel strongly about something as fundamental as the right to life.

The Democrats should have responded that they were “Pro Quality Life.’ This implies that the Republicans did not care about quality. Moreover, the “Pro Quality Life” term allows one to review all the adverse effects of unloved or unwanted children. This impacts not only the children but the costs to the medical and legal systems resulting from maladjusted children. Moreover, would a loving God favor bringing unloved children into the world?

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse

December 1, 2018

In the arena of politics civil debates are becoming exceedingly rare if not extinct. The reason for this is if someone makes a political statement to which one disagrees, one responds as if attacked and launches an offensive. In Kahneman’s Two Process view of cognition, this is a System One process called intuition. It is largely an emotional response, void of deep thinking. Both parties continue in this System One mode with the only result being ill feeling.

George Lakoff has written two books addressing this problem: “Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate”, and “The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.” Lakoff was strongly influenced by the great linguist Charles J. Fillmore, the father of frame semantics.

Lakoff begins, “We think with our brains. We have no choice. It may seem that certain politicians think with other parts of their anatomy. But they too think with their brains.”

Why does this matter for politics? Because all thought is physical. Thought is carried out by neural circuits in the brain. We can only understand what our brains allow us to understand.

The deepest of those neural structures are relatively fixed. They don’t change readily or easily. And we are mostly unconscious of their activity and impact.

In fact, about 98% of what our brains are doing is below the level of consciousness. As a result, we many not know all, or even most, of what in our brains determines our deepest moral, social, and political beliefs. And yet we act on the basis of those largely unconscious beliefs.”

Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. We can’t see or hear frames. They are part of our cognitive unconscious, structures in our brains that we cannot consciously access. What we call “common sense” is made up of unconsciousness, automatic, effortless inferences that follow from our unconscious frames.

All the words we have are defined relative to conceptual frames. Even when you negate a frame, you activate the frame. So if we’re told, “Don’t think of an elephant!,” we can’t avoid thinking of an elephant. Lakoff continues “Not only does negating a frame activate that frame, but the more it is activated, the stronger it gets. The moral for political discourse is clear: When you argue against someone on the other side using their language and their frames, you are activating their frames, strengthening their frames in those who hear us, and undermining our own views.”

Lakoff warns that reframing is not easy or simple. Frames are ideas, not slogans. Reframing is more a matter accessing what we and like-minded others already believe unconsciously, making it conscious and repeating it till it enters normal public discourse. It is an ongoing process. It requires repetition and focus and dedication. Reframing is about learning to express what we really believe in a way that will allow those who share our beliefs to understand what they most deeply believe and to act on those beliefs.

What HM has found most valuable is that framing is also about understanding those we disagree with most. Lakoff writes, “ Tens of millions of Americans vote conservative, For the most part they are not bad people or stupid people. They are people who understand the world differently and have a different view of what is right.”

For most readers, this is novel material that will take some time to digest. And it will take many posts to do justice to this topic. These posts will follow directly.