Advice from Alvin Toffler, with comments from me

 The illiterate of the 21st Century

will not be those who cannot read & write, but those who

cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Last week's blog focused on the impact of AI on authors and writers, but the issue involves everyone.  The quote above is from futurist Alvin Toffler, 1928-2016), whose wife Heidi also deserves crediting.  They wrote prolifically, but probably most well-known are Future Shock, 1970, The Third Wave, 1980, and Power Shift, 1990. His influence during his life has been acknowledged by individuals such as Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev. George H. W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and Carl Sagan.   

In addition, his ideas have had significant influence in education.  It was Toffler's opinion that school should focus on "students' critical thinking skills, creativity, and adaptability to change."  (StudentsMirrowblog@gamil.com.)  In other words, students must learn how to learn so that they can solve problems in our rapidly evolving world.  

Alvin Toffler

Reflecting on last week's blog about writers, I worry that as AI begins to replace humans in some roles, are we going to be flexible and adaptive enough to stay ahead of AI?  Today's generation of children are clever enough to utilize AI, but are they keeping up with their own skills of creativity and critical thinking?  Just because they are better able to navigate their computers and phones, does that mean they have the wisdom and knowledge to fulfill the three requirements Toffler named--critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability to change?  

Our computers are essential, and most kids are more proficient with them than are their parents and grandparents.  But is that a measure of Toffler's big three?  His big three doesn't include the ability to interact with others.  In doing my research for this blog I found a blog from 2016, by BBC News Washington writer Courtney Subramani.  It delt with the question of whether Toffler's idea that the wave of information and data might spark social isolation.  One of her interview subjects said, No, "We are not isolated by it.  And when the information overloads us, most people are still wise enough to use the power key of the off button to gain some peace."  Since that response from 2016, I believe that we have learned otherwise, with the lack of will to hit the off button as often as we should.  

I believe we have seen a downturn in socialization, exacerbated by Covid, that has actually done what was predicted regarding social isolation.  I recently blogged about what I called 'careful speech' in which we avoid opening conversations in which conflicting ideas might emerge.  We text instead of calling friends, or we simply stay in touch on face book. My husband still has phone conversations with friends, but I admit that I rarely do.

Toffler was right to urge 'learning, unlearning, and relearning, but I believe there must also be the firm foundation of knowledge and history upon which to build for a stable future.  And, I also believe we should resume friendly conversations with those with whom we may not always agree.  Maybe if ordinary people resumed sharing ideas, our politicians might learn the value of exchanging ideas too.

Will AI and GPT Make Writers Obsolete?

Is GPT Scarier than any of Edgar Allen Poe's Stories? 

 Recently, I have blogged about my concern for the impact of AI.  Until the recent edition of "The Authors Guild Bulletin" I had overlooked the impact of AI on professional writers, but Professional writers in Hollywood are already aware of the impact on their livelihoods and have joined other strikers to seek protection from being replaced by AI.  

Recently, the Executive Director of the Authors Guild interviewed the founder of a company providing GPT for writers.  After reading this blog, you may want to google GPT to find a more detailed description; however, my simple explanation is that GPT is an artificial intelligence that can process our natural human language and generate a response.  What is significant about GPT for authors is whether the art of writing will eventually displace the need for authors.  The striking writers in Hollywood have already recognized the threat.

However, some authors see AI positively, using it as an aid rather than a threat.  For example, Al can assist with word selection or composing a description.  GPT can provide ideas in each of the five senses.  I sometimes use my dog-eared 'Roget's Thesaurus. to find the exact word I want, so GPT could help in that way, but it goes a lot further than just finding the best word.  It can also help a writer create characters and outline story structures.  The more I read, the more I could imagine a future in which  authors become nearly unnecessary, reduced to prompters.  

The man being interviewed used the calculator as an example of how something new may seem disruptive of tradition and norms, but once implemented becomes quickly accepted.  Children may still learn the multiplication tables, he explained, but with calculators on smart phones, few of us rely on our grade school memory to do calculations.  

Another example is the impact of cell phone cameras.  Professional photographers have not disappeared entirely, but most people are satisfied with their cell phone cameras, and taking snapshots and waiting for them to be developed to put into photo albums is uncommon.  

Near the end of the interview, the Guild interviewer asked whether he thought writers would become nearly extinct.  He answered that he believed there would always be a professional class of creators.  However, he predicts that as GPT is programed by having been feed the words of the world's greatest writers, the role of human authors will become more a matter of "training" GPT.  

As I write this blog, spell-check is warning me when I misspell words. That is a predecessor to loading massive collections of writings to educate or train the GPT to do what it does.  

With some writers already using GPT to help create characters and to help structure settings and describe scenes, the technology is racing ahead of the law, neglecting the issue of copyright and some kind of compensation to writers for the material with which they "train" the GPT.  Should it be forbidden for GPT to use copyrighted material?  Has that already happened?   Are writers who have begun using GPT helping to make themselves obsolete?  These questions are what the Hollywood writers have already recognized.

From the Interview, it appears that most of the GPT is currently used for fiction, especially science fiction and short stories.  However, the man being interviewed acknowledged that AI has proceeded without determining whether or not their actions exceed 'fair use.'  He admitted that from a pure ethical standpoint, authors should be compensated for using their work.  The interviewer agreed, asking how can the work of those writers, whose books and other material have already been used for training, be compensated?  Should authors have the right to refuse to allow their work to be used?  How long should copywrite protect authors?  As the old saying goes, 'Is it too late to shut the barn door once the horses are out?'  Perhaps those strikers in Hollywood are trying to round up the horses!

The man suggested that some kind of an automated collective licensing system should be developed to compensate authors, with some legislation licensing solution to get compensation back to the creators of the words already being downloaded.  Just how to make that happen hasn't been figured out.

Are our brilliant minds dashing forward, ignoring ethical issues and consequences?  Is it possible that this is not only a question of fair dealing but also a risk of using human intelligence so carelessly that we are making ourselves obsolete? ( P.S.  I had already written this blog before the strike, but I am glad to have it ready, with a few additions regarding the strike, to share this information that may help explain why the Hollywood writers are concerned. )

The Problem With Careful Speech--in my opinion

One of the most valuable freedoms we have is freedom of speech; however, that freedom is being tested as never before.  The internet can not only spread information faster than our past means of communication, it can package about anything to look authentic. A lone person can post false information that looks professional and real, causing intelligent people to be misled.   

Remember when...

That is not to say I long for days gone by... I love the internet.  It allows me to do research from my home, far from the research libraries I used for my early books.  But the good guys that are trying to keep the bad guys from messing with the internet are struggling to keep up.  Too much bad information is already out there, impersonating facts.  

There was a time when I loved nothing better than to go to a party and get into a debate with others about some topic.  Sometimes the topic was sports.  Sometimes it was movies, or popular music, and sometimes it was even politics.  We came armed with facts, statistics, opinions based on experience, and a willingness to change our minds if the right facts, statistics, and other logic persuaded us.  Often, we learned something we had not known, sometimes our minds were changed, sometimes not, but always, we left as friends.  I don't think that happens much today, and that is a shame.

We need to challenge ourselves with new information and new perspectives.  What we do not need to do is deposit garbage in our minds.  The balance of having access to information while avoiding misrepresentation or outright false information is becoming harder and harder.  What happens, for some of us, is that we avoid the pollination of new ideas.  We develop the habit of 'Careful Speach,' talking only with those we believe share our perspectives.  We watch the television programs that we generally find consistent with our opinions and we visit the websites we like. 

Without cross pollination of ideas we are weakened.    As the nation divides, we engage in "Careful Speech," avoiding topics that might offend or anger.  We miss the opportunity to broaden our perspectives, to see things from another point of view.  We cheat ourselves of the opportunity to better understand different perspectives.  Careful Speech may be safe, but it is also isolating and narrowing our empathy for others.  That is the problem.

Celebrating the 4th of July...too Late?

 The annual celebration of the 4th of July is over.  Many of us gathered with family and friends for backyard parties, some traveled to watch elaborate fire works, and other stayed home to enjoy fire works and patriotic music on television.  During our celebrations, how many of us toasted Richard Henry Lee?  How many of us even know who he was??

Richard Henry Lee was born in Virginia into a historically influential family in Virginia politics.  His father was governor of Virginia.  He was tutored until the age of 16, when he was sent to England to complete his formal education.  Both of his parents died while he was away, studying for two years, but he remained abroad for three more years to complete his education and tour Europe.  He returned to join his brothers in settling his parents' estate, and only five years later he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he met Patrick Henry and became further involved in advocating independence.

Richard Henry Lee by Charles William Peale, National Portrait Gallery

Most of us know about the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774, followed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776, and we are aware of the courage of the men who attended those events, risking losing everything, including their lives, by confronting the British as they did.  However, we may not know that it was Richard Henry Lee who put forth the motion to the Continental Congress to declare Independence from Great Britain.  

His Resolution on June 7, 1776, contained three parts:  a declaration of independence, a call to form foreign alliances, and a plan for the confederation.

Four days later the Congress appointed three committees, which, respectively, drafted a declaration of independence, drew up a plan for forming foreign alliances, and began to prepare for forming a confederation.  

Many members of Congress thought Lee's proposal was premature, and the actual vote of approval did not occur until July 2, when only the declaration was adopted.  The plan for making treaties was not approved until September 1776, and the plan for confederation was delayed until November of 1777.

Lee himself had returned to Virginia by the time Congress voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence, but he signed belatedly when he returned to Congress.

The actual signing of the Declaration is disputed, but ultimately 56 delegates signed; however, eight delegates never signed the Declaration.  For those of you who enjoy history, the descriptions of the prologued signings are worth reading.  The research makes it clear that although we celebrate July 4th, it is not too late for you to drink a toast to Richard Henry Lee for 'getting the ball rolling,' as we say!