Academic fraud is now APPROVED at Harvard

Here's what we know so far: Harvard President Claudine Gay has been accused of plagiarism by copying the work of others, inserting it into her PHD thesis, and not acknowledging it.

This is called "academic fraud".

If anyone else had done this and had been discovered, they would have had their PHD revoked and their academic record would indicate that they cheated.  If they were in a position of leadership and responsibility in a large multi-billion dollar company, they would probably be transferred somewhere out of the limelight and then quietly "let go".

But not Ms. Gay.

I won't speculate on why she isn't being punished for stealing ideas at a university and calling them her own.  Nor will I speculate on why she's being given a chance to "correct the record" and "modify" her PHD accordingly (which is a tacit admission that her PHD should never have been granted in the first place).

It seems like Ms. Gay is being treated with "kid gloves".  I won't speculate on why (he wrote, feigning naivete).

But the sad part of this episode is that it now confirms the fact that Harvard both approves and encourages falsifying academic papers.

So now, the question is: "How many other Harvard graduates received PHDs for work that wasn't their own?"

As they say, if there's smoke there's fire.  Ms. Gay's actions were the fire, and the Harvard Corporation (the BOD) has decided to allow the fire to burn in an uncontrolled manner.

It may not happen now.  It may take years.  But Harvard's action in not disciplining Ms. Gay for obvious and provable academic fraud calls into question whether a Harvard degree - at any level - is worth the paper it's printed on.

It ain't AI if it don't learn.

You read that right: you can't call it Artificial Intelligence if it doesn't fully imitate Human Intelligence.

I used to teach this stuff at a local college in their 400-level computer science curriculum.  The book was Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig.  It's considered the book to teach first-level concepts in artificial intelligence.  It's well written and very understandable.

HI (Human Intelligence) begins developing even before a child is born.  The child can recognize sounds in the womb and can (and does) react when certain sounds are heard.  After the child is born, the same sounds heard in the womb are now heard clearly by the infant with many of the same reactions.

Ever notice how an infant will all of a sudden stop and listen to a sound?  The infant hears the sound and checks its memory - it's "knowledge base" - for the sound and reacts accordingly.  Pleasing sounds bring a smile, unpleasing sounds cause a different reaction.

As the child grows, it "learns" by adding additional sounds to it's "knowledge base".  It experiments with motor actuation by first moving limbs, then discovering how to roll over, then crawl, then stand.  All the while, the infant is also hearing and repeating sounds and noticing the reaction to those sounds.  Eventually, the infant "learns" that certain sounds always cause the same reaction - or reaction that is reasonably similar.  The infant adds both the sounds and their reactions to its "knowledge base", and eventually figures out how to manipulate those sounds in ways that are far different than the original sounds.  Adults think this is "so clever", but it's actually the child's learning process being demonstrated.

Companies developing AI in today's market are not generating true AI.  They are populating the AI system's knowledge base - its memory - with predetermined stimuli and response algorithms. Those algorithms are designed for specific purposes: modification of preexisting data to achieve new views of that data (pictures, videos, and sound), using artificial vision to cause specific motor control (driving, assembly line robotics), and the manipulation of other preexisting data to achieve a desired output.

But none of these systems demonstrates the primary purpose of intelligence: to learn.  These systems do not take previously unconsidered data and incorporate it into their knowledge bases.  They can't - and the designers are wise to not do this.  Because these AI systems are incapable of doing the one thing that humans do, the thing that separates the human mind from all other animal minds.

The ability to reason.

And, by reason, I don't mean political or moral.  I mean the ability to understand whether a new piece of knowledge should be incorporated into its knowledge base.  Whether a strangely-designed light pole moving in a strong wind is a human or an object.  Whether a series of words pasted together makes sense even if it is grammatically correct.  Whether those generated sounds claimed to be "music" are pleasing or atonal.  And whether the picture generated is ugly or beautiful.

The current demonstrations of AI are not meant to show AI capabilities but to confuse the observer into thinking that the generated picture, sound, or object are human-generated or not.  In almost every case, it's possible to determine the difference under close examination - but that raises the question why try to confuse reality by a computer-generated fantasy?

But one factor remains: these systems are not generating new ideas or new connections between ideas.  They are merely exercising algorithms developed for a specific purpose. And for now, that purpose seems to be to demonstrate the capabilities of computer systems.

Alan Turing created a test to determine whether a system could demonstrate "artificially intelligent" behavior that would be indistinguishable from human behavior.  His test has been criticized as being "not realistic", but the critics miss the entire point.  If a computer system cannot demonstrate "artificially intelligent" behavior, then it isn't intelligent: it is merely exercising highly advanced algorithms.

The proof remains the non-human system's ability to reason.  And, as yet, none of the so-called AI systems have demonstrated this ability best described as whether, or not, to do something beyond the information stored in their knowledge bases.  And if so... what, then, to do.

... to the shores of ...

Ya gotta wonder why there are so many Americans siding with Muslim extremists and why the Biden administration is deeply bowing both to them and massive numbers of Palestinian "supporters" here in the US.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd guess it goes much further than payoffs to Biden: I'd guess that there are some major pockets of Muslim terrorists - and maybe some nukes - that are being used to blackmail the US into anti-American policies and the weakening of anti-American interests around the world.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, that is...

But then, we've been allowing (and practically importing) anti-American immigrants into the US and allowing them to settle here, and then standing by while they use Constitutionally guaranteed American freedom and liberty to undermine American freedom and liberty.

MIT has recently backed down from expelling violent Muslim protesters on campus because... well - because they'd lose their education visas and would have to leave this country and return home, which the MIT administration wants to prevent. So, by only suspending them for a short time, those Muslim protesters can stay here and continue to disrupt classes and intimidate non-Muslim students for the foreseeable future.

When John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," he was referring to those who would want to destroy this country...

...such as the descendants of the Barbary pirates from Algiers, Tunis, and other Middle East nation-states who were attacking American ships and taking prisoners as slaves in the early 16th century. We even fought a war - the Tripolitan war (ever heard of "Tripoli"?) against these Muslim invaders. (Related: The 1.5 Million White Slaves in North Africa.)

And yet, today, we welcome them in and then wonder why there are so many anti-Americans of Muslim descent here in the US.

We have learned nothing in the past 300 years...

 

Finally, I'm resuming regular posting

 I've been posting to another blog, but it's been taking days for my posts to make it thru the review process and finally get online.  Sometimes, by the time the post shows up, the delay reduces the post's impact.

So, from this point on, I'm going to post here first, and then maybe post to that other blog.

Time for a clean slate

I was always worrisome in my feelings about a two-state solution in Israel.  It always seemed to be so far away as to be almost unreachable.

Israel made many moves toward peace only to be rebuffed and then attacked by Palestinians. "Land for peace!" was what the Palestinians shouted, even as they attacked Israelis in the middle of those very "land for peace" negotiations.

In an effort to trade land for peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, leaving the area under the control of the Palestinian Authority.  In the resulting power vacuum, Palestinians elected Hamas as their political leadership.  When Hamas refused to renounce violence against Israel, the US cut off aid (which has been restored and increased several times since).  Gaza became a launching point for tens of thousands of rocket attacks against Israel by Hamas.

As part of a UN agreement, Jerusalem was split in two. The Palestinians were given half - which included some of the holiest Jewish historical sites, such as the "wailing wall".  Palestinians restricted Israelis from visiting those sites while demanding Israelis obey a host of restrictive policies meant to embarrass and abase Israelis who only wanted to visit those sites in order to pray.

Israel agreed to give up lands inside Israel that the Palestinians declared were "settlements", sometimes no more than a few homes.  Those Israelis were forced to relocate to non-Palestinian lands - within the border of Israel.  "Land for peace", they said.

Things changed this morning.

As of yesterday morning, October 7, 2023, I no longer believe that peace between Israel and Hamas is possible.  This attack, on one of the holiest days of the Jewish year, leads me to finally admit that Hamas has no desire for peace with Israel.  Hundreds of Israelis have been killed, thousands wounded, and yet more taken prisoner or treated inhumanely. Hezbollah, another anti-Israel group, has shelled Israel from Lebanon.  And yet more Palestinian groups from outside Israel are begging to join the fight against peace.

I lay part of the blame for this attack on President Biden.  His latest move, to give Iran "back" 6 billion dollars was probably the catalyst for this attack.  Money is fungible. Iran can now spend its own food budget on development of conventional and nuclear weapons, and get its food budget from elsewhere.  To think otherwise is to be naive and self-delusional.

Much of the civilized world has already made it clear that they support Israel's right to defend itself.  Some nations have said they "stand with Israel".  Others have decried the actions by Hamas.

Hamas has killed, wounded, and captured Americans.  This was a foolhardy attempt to divide America in the misguided belief that a few members of Congress would be vocal in their support of this attack.  Instead, the members of "The Squad" have been either silent or have released tepid statements.

It is time for Israel to wipe the slate clean, take back all of the land it granted to Palestinians in the name of a peace that will never happen, and tell the remaining Palestinians that they are no longer welcome in the State of Israel.  If they wish to stay, then they may stay.  But no longer as citizens with the right to vote (which was always granted to Palestinians who lived in Israel - look it up for yourself).  And if they wish to leave, Israel should provide them safe conduct to its borders.

Finally, I will say that Hamas needs to be wiped off the face of the earth along with their most vocal supporters, whether they claim to be "civilians" or not.  Those who offer support to Hamas, whether it be by fighting with arms or hiding Hamas insurgents are as guilty as those members of Hamas who started this war.  None of them have clean hands, and those with unclean hands can not be permitted to exist within the borders of Israel.

"Land for peace" was tried, and it failed.

The world will loudly condemn Israel for these actions, just as it has loudly condemned Israel for all actions it has ever taken in the search for peace - and just as it has loudly supported anti-Israel forces for actions they have ever taken to destroy Israel.

Enough is enough.

As a nation, we're growing apart

 

Something's coming. I don't think it will be violent and/or bloody, but something's coming.

The US Constitution is a compact agreed to by the individual States. Each State has its own 3 branches of government, passes and enforces its own laws, and can provide for its own "common defense". Each State holds elections for its own political structure. Hence, each State is an independent authority.

Prior to the forming of the United States, John Adams supposedly called Massachusetts "My Country". Each of the 13 original States were "countries" which came together in a common cause.

The Constitution capitalizes the word State to acknowledge the independence of those "countries" that came together to form the United States.

For the second time in this nation's history, that common cause is quickly vanishing, caused, in large part, and both times, by the overreach of the federal government.

We are heading toward another exercise in dissolution. However, this time, the federal government will be unable to call up troops to try to force individual States to remain together.

This time, the dissolution will be the refusal to comply with federal laws that compel behavior or directly conflict with Constitutionally-guaranteed rights as enumerated in its text.

It will be a slow drift apart - and there will be nothing the federal government can do about it.

Like-minded states will form their own compacts and cooperate based on their own best interests.

The dissolution will reduce tensions accordingly. The result may be 4-5 of those independent compacts, each finally able to implement the political controls that they wish. Some will continue to remain representative republics, while others will adopt "democratic socialist" forms of government.

And those in the "democratic socialist" areas will finally have what they want: full control over a compliant population.

I wouldn't be surprised if they built a "retaining wall"...

When excuses ring hollow

Then:

After decades of being treated as less than a man, and after watching friends and supporters have the crap beat out of them merely because they looked different, this man decided to do something about it.  He calmly walked down the street with his supporters, making the point that he and they were no different than others.  By walking peacefully, he demonstrated that he and his supporters were not the problem, and that those who were full of unreasonable hatred were wrong.

He also asked us to judge people by their character - their behavior, their speech, and their actions - and not by simple pigmentation.

Now:

The murder in Minneapolis was the result of a failure of a city government to obey the "3 strike rule": two legitimate complaints about a police officer's violence - whether on or off duty - should result in removal from any duties that require direct interaction with the public, and the third complaint should result in termination without pension or benefits.

The events in Minneapolis are less about the murder of one man by a police officer than it is about a city government's failure to remember that they are public servants and their jobs are to ensure peace and the safety of the public who elected them.

The Minneapolis city government continues in its failure to ensure peace and the safety of the public by putting aside any attempt to maintain even the illusion of law and order.

There is no excuse for looting and arson.  Those who intentionally destroy the property of others while using the excuse "I was angry about an unrelated event" are not deserving of pity or mercy.  They are willingly putting their morals and character aside.  Nobody forces anyone to loot or commit arson.  These are voluntary actions, motivated by greed and hatred, resulting in the damage and destruction of the property and livelihoods of people they do not know.  They put the lie to "we're all in this together" by showing that they stand apart.

That is why I feel that looters and arsonists should be shot on sight.  This is not a racist statement.  I don't care what race, gender, creed, or what that person is wearing.  I'd shoot a bishop in full garb if I saw him stealing a large screen tv from a Best Buy in the middle of a riot.  It needs to be said again: looting and arson are voluntary actions.  A person either decides to commit these crimes or to walk away.  Those who decide to commit the crimes have taken the action to deprive others of their livelihood: does anyone think that the looted Best Buy will reopen anytime soon?  Where will those employees find jobs?  At the other businesses that have been looted and firebombed?

And this is why I condemn mayors and other elected or appointed officials who permit the destruction of property with the excuse "people need to let off steam".  People get angry.  But it is the city's responsibility to ensure that one person's anger does not result in the destruction of another person's property.  Or, as we are already seeing, the full-on attacks or murders of others - whether in uniform or not.

When a mayor abdicates the responsibilities of office, that mayor has violated the trust of the voters and should immediately resign.  To stay in office after ignoring the duties of office is no different than the politicians in "banana republic" countries who, after election, enrich themselves while ignoring any promises they made to "make things better".

The events in Minneapolis should inspire all police departments around the country to re-examine the discipline records of their officers and to immediately implement all stages of the "three strikes rule".

The excuse "this is not the time" is completely wrong: this is the time, and it can be the first step in both healing the rifts between police departments and restoring the trust that they will not permit law enforcement officers to commit infractions of department rules or the law itself.

The time has come for the cleanup - and local police departments can lead the way by example.  And as far as bad cops go: no more excuses.