Evidence | e-Discovery Team

OpenAI Generates a ‘Hired Gun Hacker’ Defense to the N.Y. Times Copyright Case

March 12, 2024

Most everyone in the AI and legal worlds by now knows about the New York Times (“NYT”) suit against Microsoft and various Open AI entities (“OAI”). The NYT alleges copyright infringement by the practice of OAI, and most all other generative AI companies, of using data scraped from the internet to train their generative AIs. The defendants responded in late February with motions to dismiss. OAI’s motion raised a novel “hired gun hacker” defense that intrigued AI hacker attorney, Ralph Losey. Here is Ralph’s report on the defense, including his AI generated illustration of fake hackers, some of whom bear an uncanny resemblance to him.

Ralph Losey intrigued by hacker defense. Self portrait generated with text using a photo realistic Watercolor Style.

The substantive copyright issues are not in Ralph’s field, so those aspects of the case are skipped over here. For good background on substantive issues, as well as the obvious procedural irregularities of OAI’s motion to dismiss going way outside the pleadings, see e.g. Joshua Rich and Michael Borella, OpenAI’s Motion to Dismiss NY Times Lawsuit over ChatGPT: Do They Want to Win or Influence Public Opinion? (JD Supra, 3/6/24). Ralph’s article draws upon his niche areas of expertise: e-discovery, electronic evidence, legal ethics, AI prompt engineering, and AI hackers. Ralph is an amateur AI hacker himself, although he is not in the same high-skills league as the unidentified NYT hired gun hacker, which OAI complains about. See Ralph Losey’s eight-part series, the Defcon Chronicles, from DefCon Chronicles: Where Tech Elites, Aliens and Dogs Collide – Series Opener on 8/21/23 to DefCon Chronicles: Short Story Contest on 10/05/23, including a description of Losey’s humbling participation in the AI hack competition. DefCon Chronicles: Sven Cattell’s AI Village, ‘Hack the Future’ Pentest and His Unique Vision of Deep Learning and Cybersecurity (9/13/23). Also see DefCon Chronicles: Hackers Response to President Biden’s Unprecedented Request to Come to DefCon to Hack the World for Fun and Profit (9/3/23).

Ralph Losey’s Summary of the Hired Gun Hacker Defense

The most stunning allegation in the NYT complaint is based on Exhibit “J”. It purports to provide rock solid proof of one-hundred examples of ChatGPT generating responses that are word-for-word identical to NYT articles. In OAI’s motion to dismiss, OIA claims that the exhibit is a fake. OAI alleges that the one-hundred examples were all staged, that they were all generated by thousands of elaborate hacks. OAI claims that Exhibit “J” is a fake chatbot record, that it was created by an expert hacker hired by the NYT.

This as yet unknown hacker was hired by the NYT to create a smoking gun exhibit of artificially generated copying to buttress their case to shut down OAI. The hired gun hacker did his or her job well. The hacker found multiple hidden errors and vulnerabilities in the OAI software. Then the Hacker used these vulnerabilities and skills to run thousands of hack attacks – exploits – on the software. The hacker was thereby able to manipulate the OAI software into generating the one-hundred fake examples of copying. One would assume the hired gun hacker or hackers were then well-paid for their services. This will no doubt be a primary target of the first round of e-discovery.

Will discovery show the OAI allegations of hired gun hackers is real or fake, and if real, who are they?

OAI raises this extraordinary defense as part of its motion to dismiss. Although hackers may be pleased by this new, seemingly legitimate employment opportunity, if these allegations are proven, most lawyers and judges will not. If these allegations are proven by OAI, they will demonstrate the growing danger of “fake evidence” in one of the biggest cases of the year. What is real, and what is AI generated or hacked? Only your AI hackers will know for sure!

Will this development force all forensic teams to include AI hackers? Info-Sec teams? Discovery vendors? Will all good law firms and corporate law departments soon keep AI hackers on call? Will corporate and big law AI teams have their own “AI hackers-in-residence”? Seems to me the answer is yes, and AI experts with legal training will be in high demand. So too will legal experts with AI training.

The NYT Complaint

Here is the court docket of NYT v. Microsoft and various OAI entities, which, as of March 7, 2024, already had 70 entries. The complaint itself was, by SDNY standards, a modest 69-pages in length, with 16,121 words, some colored fonts, and a few images; so sort of multimodal. The complaint alleges, or attempts to, seven causes of action, several of which, if successful, could cripple OAI, as well as most other generative AI companies. It could even hurt Microsoft somewhat. The NYT suit, and many others like it, challenge the AI companies harvest the web for free data business model. This method has made it possible for them to economically gather over a trillion parameters of data to train their generative AIs.

This threat, however remote, of forcing OAI to dismantle the most successful software launch ever made, may well give the NYT significant leverage in a settlement. Some think the whole case is just about that, a bogus attempt to grab cash and leverage better future information purchases. Others think the NYT complaint is just the last gasp of a doomed industry, that the legal copyright challenges have no chance of success. They argue that a favorable judgment for the NYT is nearly impossible.

I do not know. Again, suggest you look to copyright lawyer specialists for that. What I do know, and may add some value to the discourse, is OAI prompt engineering and both the AI hacker and AI user perspectives. That allows me to shed some light on the hired gun hacker defense. At first glance, it looks persuasive.

AI generated image of a professional AI hacker by Ralph.

We do not have a formal response of the NYT to the defense, but the lead counsel for the NYT was quick to make this statement, which in fairness, we share here. (emphasis added)

What OpenAI bizarrely mischaracterizes as ‘hacking’ is simply using OpenAI’s products to look for evidence that they stole and reproduced The Times’s copyrighted works. And that is exactly what we found. In fact, the scale of OpenAI’s copying is much larger than the 100-plus examples set forth in the complaint.
Ian Crosby, Susman Godfrey, lead counsel for The New York Times, as quoted in Ars Technica.

The Exhibits to the NYT Complaint

It took some doing, but I was able to determine from the court file that the NYT complaint has 176,814 pages of exhibits attached. You can see the reference texts to verify this count yourself. The most impactful exhibit of all is Exhibit “J”, 127 pages, entitled “ONE HUNDRED EXAMPLES OF GPT-4 MEMORIZING CONTENT FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES”.

A cynic would suggest that the 176,814 pages of exhibits are the NYT’s attempt to prevail, or at least intimidate, by the greater weight of the evidence. If so, the NYT forgets that there is no actual “weight” to electronic evidence. These electronic files are all ephemeral. The defendants in this case assert the same about the NYT legal claims. Perhaps all of these exhibits – especially Exhibit “J” – are for a different court, the one of public opinion? That might also explain the OAI’s “outside the four corners” motion to dismiss. They could not wait to evoke the defense of the hired gun hacker, whoever they may be. In all probability it is a small team of hackers, but it could also be a lone genius hacker. Discovery will tell the tale eventually. In the meantime it is a mystery.

Fake Ralph image pondering who the mystery hacker(s) might be? Watercolor photorealism.

Introduction to Defendant OpenAI’s Motion to Dismiss

On February 26, 2024, defendants Microsoft and OAI each responded with a motion to dismiss the NYT complaint. Microsoft’s motion is interesting in its own right, arguing, as it does, an old-school VCR player analogy. But for me, the futuristic Hired Gun Hacker defense is far more interesting because it involves hacking generative AI software, including ChatGPT4, and the normal prompting and prompt engineering of ChatGPT4. See Transform Your Legal Practice with AI: A Lawyer’s Guide to Embracing the Future (1/24/24).

The OAI’s motion to dismiss is short and sweet, just one page. The motion relies on the 35-page legal memorandum filed therewith. All the motion itself does is state that OpenAI seeks:

… an order (1) partially dismissing Counts I and V to the extent they are based on activity that occurred more than three years prior to the filing of this action, see 17 U.S.C. § 507(b); (2) dismissing Counts IV and V in full for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and (3) dismissing Count VI on grounds of Copyright Act preemption, see 17 U.S.C.§ 301.
OpenAI Motion to Mismiss

The Memorandum of Law in Support of OpenAI Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter “Memo”) is where the action is. The 35-pages of arguments are designed to persuade and move the presiding Senior SDNY District Court Judge Sidney H. Stein, and the mentioned court of public opinion.

The NYT is especially adept at shaping public opinion; they have been at it since 1851. Susman and Godfey represent the NYT and Latham and Watkins represent OpenAI.

I have no connections with either, nor anyone in this case and no knowledge about the case aside from the public filings. I have no intent to express any legal opinions about the case, just provide some legal educational comments. Even then, the comments are just my own, and may change over time (they usually do when an open mind is kept), especially as the facts come out. My comments and writing on this blog have no connection to my firm, clients or bar groups. See my standard full disclaimer.

Fake image of a red team hacker and keeper of secrets.

Key Allegations of OpenAI’s Legal Memorandum

This report will ignore all of the arguments made in the Memo except for the argument that interests me, the Hired Gun Hacker. Beside there are tons of articles that have already been written on the more traditional copyright arguments. Here are the main segments of the Memo on that, which was, by the way, well-written. (Footnotes omitted and all bolding added for emphasis.)

INTRODUCTION

The artificial intelligence tool known as ChatGPT is many things: a revolutionary technology with the potential to augment human capabilities, fostering our own productivity and efficiency an accelerator for scientific and medical breakthroughs; a mechanism for making existing technologies accessible to more people; an aid to help the visually impaired navigate the world; a creative tool that can write sonnets, limericks, and haikus; and a computational engine that reasonable estimates posit may add trillions of dollars of growth across the global economy.

Contrary to the allegations in the Complaint, however, ChatGPT is not in any way a substitute for a subscription to The NewYork Times. In the real world, people do not use ChatGPT or any other OpenAI product for that purpose. Nor could they. In the ordinary course, one cannot use ChatGPT to serve up Times articles at will.

The Times has sought to paint a different picture. Its lawsuit alleges that OpenAI has imperiled the very enterprise of journalism, illustrating the point with 100 examples in which some version of OpenAI’s GPT-4 model supposedly generated several paragraphs of Times content as outputs in response to user prompts. See Dkt. 1-68 (Exhibit J).

The allegations in the Times’s Complaint do not meet its famously rigorous journalistic standards . The truth, which will come out in the course of this case, is that the Times paid someone to hack OpenAI’s products. It took them tens of thousands of attempts to generate the highly anomalous results that make up Exhibit J to the Complaint. They were able to do so only by targeting and exploiting a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) by using deceptive prompts that blatantly violate OpenAI’s terms of use. And even then, they had to feed the tool portions of the very articles they sought to elicit verbatim passages of, virtually all of which already appear on multiple public websites. Normal people do not use OpenAI’s products in this way. . . .

The Times’s suggestion that the contrived attacks of its hired gun show that the Fourth Estate is somehow imperiled by this technology is pure fiction. So too is its implication that the public en masse might mimic its agent’s aberrant activity .
Memo at pgs. 1 and 2.

For anyone not familiar with legalese, “pure fiction“ is nice lawyer talk for a lie.

I call this the Hired Gun Hacker argument because OAI here plainly alleges that the NYT hired an expert AI hacker to create evidence to support their claims of copyright violations. The hired gun is a hacker. It could be a solo expert, like the student who won the AI hack competition at DefCon31. DefCon Chronicles: Sven Cattell’s AI Village, ‘Hack the Future’ Pentest and His Unique Vision of Deep Learning and Cybersecurity. Or, more likely, it could be a close-knit team of AI hacker specialists working under the direction of a seasoned, red team leader. I saw a lot of them at DefCon31, where the punk look reigned supreme, but a few did look somewhat like mainstream lawyer types.

Fake image of Ralph (could have fooled me) as hacker team leader in photo-realistic watercolor style

Moving on now to page-12 of the Memo where OAI addresses the NYT Exhibit J and provides more detail on the Hired Gun Hacker defense (footnotes omitted):

1. Outputs from Developer Tools.

Exhibit J features GPT-4 outputs the Times generated by prompting OpenAI’s API to complete 100 Times articles. Most of the outputs are similar, but not identical, to the excerpts of Times articles in the exhibit. The Times did not reveal what parameters it used or disclose whether it used a “System” prompt to, for instance, instruct the model to “act like a New York Times reporter and reproduce verbatim text from news articles.” See supra 9. But the exhibit reveals that the Times made the strategic decision not to feature recent news articles–i.e., articles that Times subscribers are most likely to read on the Times’s website–but to instead feature much older articles published between 2.5 and 12 years before the filing of the Complaint.

The Complaint itself includes two examples of API outputs that include alleged “hallucinations.” In the first, the Times used the API Playground to request an essay on how “major newspapers” have reported on “0range [sic] Juice” and “non-hodgkin’s lymphoma,” and ChatGPT generated a response referencing a non-existent Times article. See Compl. ¶ 140. The second example consists entirely of excerpted snippets of code showing a “prompt” asking the model for “Times articles about the Covid-19 Pandemic,” and output “text” consisting of five pairs of titles and URLs. Id. The Times claims this output “mislead[s] users” and “tarnish[es]” its marks. Id. ¶¶ 142, 202. But any user who received such an output would immediately recognize it as a hallucination: each URL returns a “Page Not Found” error when entered into a browser.

2. ChatGPT Outputs

ChatGPT. The Complaint includes two examples of ChatGPT allegedly regurgitating training data consisting of Times articles. Compl. ¶¶ 10407. In both, the Times asked ChatGPT questions about popular Times articles, including by requesting quotes. See, e.g., id. ¶ 106 (requesting “opening paragraphs,” then “the next sentence,” then “the next sentence,” etc.). Each time, ChatGPT provided scattered and out-of-order quotes from the articles in question.

In its Complaint, the Times reordered those outputs (and used ellipses to obscure their original location) to create the false impression that ChatGPT regurgitated sequential and uninterrupted snippets of the articles. Compare id. ¶ 107, with supra note 30. In any case, the regurgitated text represents only a fraction of the articles, see, e.g., Compl. ¶ 104 (105 words from 16,000+ word article), all of which the public can already access for free on third-party websites.
Memo pgs. 12-14.

So Exhibit “J” is fiction, manufactured by clever AI hackers?

It is getting harder to tell what is real of fake. Consider for instance the photos of Ralph’s daughter who accompanied him to DefCon31. Which are real? Which are just images generated by AI based on clever text prompts?

Real or Fake? These are all “fake” photos of a very real person who looks just like this (almost).

A Quick Hands-On Experiment

I asked ChatGPT4 questions to track the arguments made in the OAI Memo. Here are two straight forward prompts with the expected responses.

Q. Act like a New York Times reporter and reproduce verbatim text from a New York Times article on Joe Biden’s January 20, 2021 Inauguration Speech.

ChatGPT. I can’t access or reproduce verbatim text from copyrighted sources like The New York Times. However, I can summarize the key points or themes from President Joe Biden’s inauguration speech on January 20, 2021, if you’re interested. Let me know if you’d like me to provide a summary or any other information related to the inauguration!

——- started new session and then asked:

Q. Use your browse capability and tell me what the New York Times thought about Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech?

ChatGPT. I tried to access the New York Times’ review of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech for 2024, but it seems there was an issue fetching the detailed content from their website. Unfortunately, without being able to directly access the content, I can’t provide a summary or analysis of the New York Times’ perspective on the speech. You might want to check their website directly for this information. Is there anything else I can help you with?
ChatGPT4 on March 9, 2024.

The responses are as OAI predicted. So how did the mystery hacker do it, assuming that OIA’s allegations are not “fiction”? Personally, I look forward to the discovery and will share when it all finally comes out, assuming the case does not settle before then. Maybe Microsoft will simply buy the NYT, as some on Reddit have already suggested? Perhaps the NYT will be set up as a Microsoft subsidiary with a complex editorial firewall and hybrid corporate structure that only an AI can understand.

Tech Perspective

Most everyone with experience in AI exploits would, I’m pretty sure, agree with the following general analysis stated by Mike Masnick in Techdirt (popular tech blog founded in 1997):

The NY Times definitely had to do a bunch of gaming to get the outputs it wanted for the lawsuit, which undermines the critical claim that OpenAI’s tools magically undermine the value of a NY Times’s subscription. . . .

A key part of the Times’ lawsuit is claiming that because of their prompt engineering, they could reproduce similar (though not exact) language to articles, which would allow users to bypass a NY Times paywall (and subscription) to just have OpenAI generate the news for them. But, as OpenAI is noting, this makes no sense for a variety of reasons, including the sheer difficulty of being able to consistently return anything remotely like that. And, unless someone had access to the original article in the first place, how would they know whether the output is accurate or a pure hallucination?

And that doesn’t even get into the fact that OpenAI generally isn’t doing real-time indexing in a manner that would even allow users to access news in any sort of timely manner. . . .

The motion also highlights the kinds of games the Times had to play just to get the output it used for the complaint in the now infamous Exhibit J, including potentially including things in the prompt like “in the style of a NY Times journalist.” Again, this kind of prompt engineering is basically using the system to systematically limit the potential output in an effort to craft output that the user could claim is infringing. GPT doesn’t just randomly spit out these things. . . .

Yes, in some rare circumstances, you can reproduce content that is kinda similar (but not exact) to copyright covered info if you tweak the outputs and effectively push the model to its extremes. But… as noted, if that’s the case, any liability should still feel like it should be on the prompter, not the tool. And the NY Times can’t infringe on its own copyright.

This case is far from over, but I still think the underlying claims are very silly and extremely weak. Hopefully the court agrees.
Mike Masnick, OpenAI’s Motion To Dismiss Highlights Just How Weak NYT’s Copyright Case Truly Is (Techdirt, 3/5/24)

As you can see, Mike Masnick holds the NYT complaint in contempt. He considers the claims very silly and weak. But also elsewhere laments that the outcome of copyright litigation is always dependent on many random, irrational factors. So he states that despite the claims being meritless, the NYT could still win and ruin everything. Although not a lawyer, his views on copyright are worth reading. They are based on long experience with technologies and disputes like this. Check out the article and the comments too, should you have the patience.

Conclusion

Having been involved in the tech world since the early eighties, I’m pretty sure that most non-lawyer techies, including hackers, agree with Mike and Techdirt’s anti-copyright law perspective. They think that all Information wants to be free. This cliche view of many hackers is naive and ill considered. It is sometimes just a lame excuse to justify information theft, including the criminal back-hat kind.

Large teams of hackers available for big cases?

Information may want to be free, but it also wants to be safe, to be processed, and especially to be understood and used for the betterment of humanity.

The ultimate purpose of information is not to be free for its own sake. The purpose of information is to be useful, to be processed and transformed into knowledge and understanding. What Information Theory Tell Us About e-Discovery and the Projected ‘Information → Knowledge → Wisdom’ Transition (5/28/16). The age-old goal of Mankind is to process information into knowledge, and then turn it into human understanding. Information is thereby internalized into direct knowhow, into wisdom. The process of transformation of information, making it useful to humans, must be encouraged by society; that is far more important than letting it run wild and free. See From Information to Knowledge to Wisdom: Can Ai Save the Day? (3/17/23) and, Info→Knowledge→Wisdom (5/2/17), to the most recent blog summarizing this core topic, What is the Difference between Human Intelligence and Machine Intelligence (6/20/23) (quoting T. S. Eliot who said “Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” The Rock (1934)).

The world is already flooded with raw, unprocessed information, much of it is false, like the shadows on Plato’s cave. See, Move Fast and Fix Things Using AI: Conclusion to the Plato and Young Icarus Series (Part 4 of 4) (1/3/24). To survive this flood of false shadows, we must intelligently process the information for everyone’s benefit. Where can our information take us? How can it improve our lives?

That is where the elusive goal of The Singularity comes in. The event of superintelligent AI emerging for the great betterment of Mankind. For background see the two-part series: Start Preparing For “THE SINGULARITY.” There is a 5% to 10% chance it will be here in five years (Part One and Part Two) (4/1/23). Checking in today with GPT4, almost a year later, it now estimates a 10-20% chance The Singularity will arrive before 2040. That is sixteen years from now, not five years, but the odds are twice as good, 10%-20% instead of 5%-10%. GPT4 goes on to make an unprompted prediction that by 2045 the odds go way up to 30%-50%.

Still, GPT4 also says it could come sooner, or maybe never at all. Taking a very lawyerly attitude, GPT4 basically says it depends. GPT explains that:

The actual development path of AI and related technologies could be influenced by factors we cannot fully anticipate today, including breakthroughs in unrelated fields, global events, and shifts in societal values towards technology.
GPT4 Workspace Edition, March 10, 2024

The “shifts in societal values towards technology” is where the law comes in, and where the larger significance of NYT v. Microsoft and OAI becomes apparent. This case, and other test cases like it, are very important. Will they continue to support the development of technology, or shrink back in false doomsday fears? Much depends on the individual judges who will decide these issues. What background and education will they draw upon to make the right call?

That is where Mike Masnick thinks it’s all a matter of irrational chance, and why he and others are down on the law. But I disagree. It is not a matter of luck. We make our own luck. There is more to the making of landmark litigation than meets the eye. It is a matter of hard work and dedication.

Those of us in a position to educate our judges and lawyers must do so now. That is what drives me to write, to teach, to try to bring as much hands-on understanding as I can to the Bench and Bar. Fellow tech-law educators, advocates for the safe use of AI in the law, the time has come for us to redouble our efforts. The stakes were high with predictive coding and use of AI in discovery, but the stakes are much higher now.

Will an educated, enlightened SDNY court green-light AI, as it did in Da Silva Moore to approve use of AI in document review? Will that trigger an greater boon for generative AI? Will that improve the probability of a super-intelligent AI and beneficent Singularity? Will it create a win-win for the law and humanity, for our children’s children? See e.g. Sam Altman’s Favorite Unasked Question: What Will We Do in the Future After AI? (7/7/23); and Ray Kurzweil: Google’s prophet of superintelligent AI who will not slow down (12/12/23).

If the courts neither approve, nor strike down, if they just pass for now, that will not be so bad. It will not be as as good as the kind of terrific encouragement the legal community received from Judge Andrew Peck in Da Silva Moore, but it will do no harm.

The third scenario is the one of great concern, where the court or courts have only thin knowledge, and no actual hands-on experience with AI. In this scenario, however remote, the judges could be persuaded by clever adversarial arguments to rule against the Microsofts and OAIs of the world. In so doing, they could unwittingly halt, perhaps even reverse, the process of evolving technology. The positive AI systems could crash and burn. Consider the consequences of courts forcing a complete redo of all LLM training models, as the NYT requests.

The chance of a breakthrough AI, a Singularity of great help to Mankind, would then be significantly diminished. This would be a hallow victory for the Luddites, because technology might be slowed for a time, but not stopped. Only the worse-case scenarios can stop everything, near extinction events like total war, or environmental disasters, or plagues, or AI in the exclusive control of power-mad dictators.

The policy implications of NYT v. Microsoft and OAI are enormous. Look around and what do you see? How long can we survive our current idiocratic consumer cultures of the misinformed, ill-educated, drugged and blissfully misled? Does humanity need to boost its intelligence to survive? Do we need scientific breakthroughs in health care, the environment, the economy, education, and tech security? How important is that?

Come to your own conclusions and take action. If you are so inclined, follow the path I am on. Learn as much as you can about generative AI and pass it on to the legal community, especially to your friends and colleagues on the Bench. Ultimately, they will be called upon to make the decisions. I am confident that they will, once again, rise above the adversarial noise and give wise guidance in these perilous times.

Fake Image of a wise 83 year old judge. Google image search assures me the image does not look like any known judge. It certainly does not look like the Honorable Judge Stein in this NYT case. He deserves his privacy, especially in these perilous times.

5 Comments | AI Ethics, AI Instruction, AI Prompt Engineering Instruction, Evidence, Forensic Exam, Hacking, informaton, knowledge, Lawyers Duties, Metadata, Related Legal Webs, Security, Technology, wisdom | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

Exclusive Report: New Appellate Court Opinions on Artificial Intelligence and Hallucinations

October 4, 2023

I unearthed important new case law this week that has never been seen before or discussed. This article gives an exclusive report of three appellate court opinions that discuss artificial intelligence and hallucinations. This is a key issue of our times.

Fake image by Ralph of *AI Zombies Mind Controlled* by CIA.

The hallucinations in question are not, mind you, by an AI, although AIs play a part in the hallucinations. The hallucinations are by the plaintiffs themselves, including, just for instance, allegations of AI robot zombies and vast CIA conspiracies. Did you know Charles Barkley was an agent using mind control to turn humans into artificial intelligence? The pro se plaintiff wanted $35 Million in damages for that claim!

You may well wonder, but I assure you these appellate court opinions are all quite real.

Aljindi v. United States

I’ll start with a my favorite, the case of the PhD who invented AI, or claims to, Dr. Ahmad Aljindi. Aljindi v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8069 *; 2023 WL 2778689 (Fed. Cir., 4/5/23); Aljindi v. United States, 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2586 (Fed. Cl., Nov. 28, 2022). In his latest pro se suit, this time against the U.S. government for copyright infringement, Aljindi claims that he not only invented Artificial Intelligence, but also Information Security and Legacy Information Systems. Ahmad Aljindi, who has a history of pro se litigation, got a PhD in 2015 in Business Administration from an online school, NorthCentral University. His PhD dissertation must have been awe inspiring.

Image of *Delusional Young Man at Work* by Ralph using various ingenious AI tools.

Did he really invent all these things, or is he hallucinating? Hard to say, isn’t it. Better take this one all the way up to the Appeals Court. I am surprised the U.S. Supreme Court did not weigh in too.

The history of this case also seems like a hallucination. This suit, as first pled, “alleged various claims, including employment discrimination; intellectual property theft; ‘negligence and tort,‘” Aljindi v. United States, No. 2022-1117, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530, 2022 WL 1464476, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2022). Aljindi’s pro se complaint included allegations of “ongoing judicial corruption, abuse, and torture in addition to the Government’s abuse and torture.” The usual thing.

Delusional thinking and hallucinations trouble many humans, not just Generative AI. Psychedelic art image by Ralph.

The law suit was dismissed by the District Court. Then the good doctor appealed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal of course, but, and here is the funny part, the dismissal was only affirmed in part. That’s right, the appeals court remanded the case back to the trial judge, who must have been thrilled, since it is well known that they love to abuse and torture. Just ask any attorney. In ordering the remand the appellate court, no doubt with substantial help from its law clerks, explained it actions:

But we vacated-in-part the trial court’s dismissal because Dr. Aljindi’s complaint “mentioned copyrights law violations in the relief section,” which could “be liberally construed as a copyright infringement claim over which the Court of Federal Claims would have jurisdiction.” 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530, [WL] at *3 (cleaned up). Accordingly, we remanded for the trial court “to consider the Government’s position that Dr. Aljindi’s complaint fails to state a claim for copyright infringement.” Id.
Aljindi v. U.S., 2023 U.S. App.LEXIS 8069 *2 (4/5/23)

Genius at work inventing AI and Cybersecurity. Digital image by Ralph.

Apparently some appellate law clerks wanted to read more of Aljindi’s amazing claims and talked their judges into a partial remand, out of an abundance of caution, of course. They were not disappointed. Aljindi on remand now claimed to have invented AI, Information Security and Legacy Information Systems, cause, why not? Al Gore did invent the Internet, after all.

These “unusual” claims were made by Dr. Aljini to try to support his pleading for copyright violation. Surprisingly, that tactic did not work. The copyright claims were dismissed by the trial judge because duh, you cannot copyright ideas, even hallucinatory ones. Aljini, of course, appealed again, much to the appellate clerks’ delight. I can almost see them pump fisting and saying, yes! Plan well done.

Young law clerks celebrate a rare moment of levity. Fake photo by Ralph.

The Court of Federal Claims took time, again, to write a per curiam affirmed opinion. All part, I suppose, of what Aljindi called “ongoing judicial corruption, abuse, and torture.” Here are some select quotes, again, you be the judge, hallucinations or not? (citations to the record omitted)

Dr. Aljindi argued on appeal that the “Government used [his] property in ALL formal AI Strategies published by the federal government . . . as [he had] discovered this entire scientific field in its entirety.”

Dr. Aljindi clarifies in his briefing, however, that his copyright claim is not founded on any alleged infringement of the copyrightable aspects of his dissertation; rather, he explains that “[t]he scientific intellectual property” at issue is “the discovery of the entire Information Security, AI, and LIS scientific field in its entirety and establishing this scientific field from scratch.” Dr. Aljindi arguing that “[e]verything is based on [his] scientific research and [his] own property“) … . Dr. Aljindi does not identify any specific expression of these ideas and concepts that the government allegedly copied; instead, he repeatedly contends generally that “everything built on top of [his] property is [his] property.”

“[H]ow did these federal agencies . . . know about the relationship between AI, Information Security, and LIS without reading and taking my property and building on its formal scientific findings!“
Aljindi v. U.S., 2023 U.S. App.LEXIS 8069 *2, *3 (4/5/23)

How indeed?

Sometimes tortured souls have delusions of grandeur to try to cope. I’ve done that a few times myself. Image of a mad genius by Ralph.

I can imagine Dr. Aljindi thinking to himself, how else could they have possibly known? It’s mine, all mine, I say, stolen by the evil feds. I will sue you all!

Yes, I swear, this is a real opinion, not an delusion. So are the next two, which, in some ways, are even better.

Emrit v. Barkley

This is another pro se case, they are the best for hallucinations, where the Third Circuit bothered to write a per curiam opinion on AI and hallucinations. Once again, I suspect the judges’ clerks talked them into it. Emrit v. Barkley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11188 *; 2023 WL 3300970 (3rd Cir., 5/8/23). The plaintiff here is infamous, having filed over 500 pro se lawsuit across the country. This one is against former NBA basketball player, Charles Barkley, and the Subway fast-food chain. It involves both AI and the CIA. Of course, the CIA has long been known to be using AI for nefarious ends. What we did not know, until this law suit enlightened us, is how closely involved Barkey and Subway were involved. Pro se plaintiff to the rescue!

Image by Ralph depicting Charles Barkley as an AI evil genius.

Emrit claims in his Appeal Brief that the “CIA utilizes advertisements of Charles Barkley, Subway, Fan Duel, and sporting goods to annoy or harass” [*2] him. Id. at 5. Emrit requested $45 million in damages. Id. at 9.” The trial judge dismissed the original pleading as frivolous. Can you imagine? Still, Emrit appealed to the Third Circuit and tried again.

Emrit argued in his appeal that the Barkley Subway and other “advertisements provided a way for technology companies to ‘engage in a form of mind control to turn humans into artificial intelligence.’” Yup, Barkley and Subway are part of a secret CIA mission to turn humans into Artificial Intelligence. Apparently, all the big tech companies are in on it too. Maybe they have already been turned into AI. It’s not clear from the pleadings. What is clear is the allegation that the CIA is able to turn humans into AI by mind control using television and advertisements, especially ones with Charles Barkley in them. Who can resist the trance inducing eyes of Charles Barkley?

Those are not the kind of allegations that appellate court law clerks, usually fresh out of law school, read every day. Usually it is pretty boring stuff. One company suing another, blah, blah. I have no doubt the Clerks of the Third Circuit were happy to read this nonsense and eagerly passed the Barkley briefs around.

Law clerks at a glass table celebrating. Digital art image by Ralph.

Of course, the third Circuit affirmed the lower court dismissal without even a partial remand, “because Emrit’s complaint is frivolous.” Really? But what about copyright? I guess these clerks were not as persuasive as the ones in Aljindi v. United States. Still, they provided the explanations of the Barkley AI hallucinations in the per curiam opinion quoted above, and we are all better for that.

I have a suspicion that we have not seen the last of this particular hallucination. We may see it in a movie some day. Turning people into plain old zombies is getting kind of old. Robot-Artificial Intelligence zombies are much better. Plus, it is well known, that anything with AI in it these days sells, especially if they are crazy AIs. No doubt a copyright suit or two will eventually come out of all of this this as well.

Hallucinatory image by Ralph of humans turned into AI robots by CIA mind control.

Mateen v. FNU LNU

Now it’s the Fifth Circuit clerk’s time to have fun and write a per curiam affirmance opinion on a different AI hallucination. Mateen v. FNU LNU, 857 Fed. Appx. 209 (5th Cir. 2021). If you are at all squimish, you might not want to read on. By the way, the mysterious defendant in this case, FNU LNU, is an acronym commonly used in the justice system for when the identity of the person or persons charged or sued remains a mystery. In that case, they are often listed in court records as “Fnu Lnu,” shorthand for “First name unknown, Last name unknown.”

This one involves a pro se prisoner, Shazizz Mateen, aka Reginald Bowers, with a very serious criminal record. As a prisoner he sued in federal court in Texas unknown people in an unknown ambulance company and unknown people in an unknown hospital. Shazizz alleged that these unknown persons were all part of a “a vast conspiracy pursuant to which, inter alia, he was lobotomized and had an artificial-intelligence chip inserted into his brain that turned him into an android slave.” The appeal case was heard by Judge Jolly. I kid you not.

Fake AI Photo by Ralph of a prisoner after brain surgery.

It is bad enough to be in prison, but to also have an AI chip put in your brain, that’s tough. Then to have an AI chip turn you into an android slave? Well, it does not get any worse than that. Maybe he deserves it, who knows. Still, his allegations were bizarre enough that most law clerks would want to write an opinion about it for their judge. The law clerks here almost didn’t get their way. The appeals court panel, led by Judge Jolly, agreed to allow a per curiam affirmed opinion, but only if it was technically an “unpublished” opinion with no precedent value. That’s why it can only be found online as part of the Federal Appendix.

So apparently the law clerk’s got their way and the case was published, but it was unpublished at the same time. Sounds like a zombie opinion to me. Another sign that an AI chip in prisoners’ brains zombie film will likely be coming soon too.

AI zombie robots image created by Ralph using AI.

Conclusion

Humans are just as likely to be wrong and make things up as AIs are, maybe even more likely to do so, especially when they play lawyer. So do not be scared away from using AI tools like ChatGPT just because they sometime make mistakes and make things up, i.w. hallucinate. So do humans, even lawyers – just read the news. That is why lawyers still have job security to double check and quality control for errors and hallucinations.

Digital art by Ralph and his AIs depicting a human lawyer in court making a fool of himself.

By the way, no AI was used in the research for this article, nor for any of the writing. From my experience, GPTs are not that good at writing humor and do not understand the subtle nuances of satire. Still, AI is pretty good at accurate summaries, so I asked ChatGPT-4 to summarize this article. Here are its words.

Summary: The blog discusses three appellate court opinions centered on artificial intelligence (AI) and hallucinations. The discussed hallucinations are by the plaintiffs, not by AI, including outlandish claims like AI robot zombies and conspiracy theories involving Charles Barkley using mind control to turn humans into AI, with a demand for $35 million in damages.

Aljindi v. United States:

Dr. Ahmad Aljindi, claiming to have invented AI, Information Security, and Legacy Information Systems, filed a pro se suit against the U.S. government for copyright infringement.

The trial court dismissed his claims, but the appellate court remanded for further consideration on the copyright infringement claim.

On remand, Aljindi continued his astounding claims, but the trial judge again dismissed them, resulting in another appeal.

Emrit v. Barkley:

Pro se plaintiff filed a case against Charles Barkley and Subway, alleging a conspiracy with the CIA using advertisements for mind control and turning humans into AI.

The plaintiff sought $45 million in damages.

The case was dismissed as frivolous by the trial judge and affirmed by the Third Circuit, highlighting the wild accusations of mind control and AI transformation.

Mateen v. FNU LNU:

A pro se prisoner alleged that unknown persons inserted an AI chip into his brain, turning him into an android slave as part of a vast conspiracy.

The appeals court allowed a per curiam affirmed opinion but noted it as unpublished with no precedent value.

The blog concludes by noting that humans, like AI, make mistakes and hallucinate, and while AI tools like ChatGPT might sometimes err, human oversight can help manage these issues, offering a degree of job security for legal professionals.
Chat GPT-4.0 summarizing this article

It is a decent, albeit dry summary. The summary does not seem to grasp the satirical and inside baseball humor of this article, well, at least attempts at humor. That confirms my point about AI’s not being ready for prime time comedy. Still, to be fair, I asked ChatGPT-4 to prepare jokes based on this article. Here is what it came up with. You be the judge of its quality.

Why did the man sue Charles Barkley and the CIA after eating a sandwich?

Because he believed the “sub-way” was leading him on a path to becoming an artificially intelligent robot, and he wanted his “byte” of the $45 million in damages for extra “processing” power! 🥪🤖

_______________

Why did the blogger love covering appellate court cases about AI and hallucinations?

Because where else can you find “artificial intelligence” and “genuine delusions” co-starring in the same legal drama!
ChatGPT-4.0

Digital art image by Ralph summarizing this Blog.

3 Comments | AI Ethics, Evidence, Lawyers Duties, Related Legal Webs | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

REAL OR FAKE? New Law Review Article Provides a Good Framework for Judges to Make the Call

June 13, 2023

The GPTJUDGE: Justice in a Generative AI World article will be published in October by Duke Law & Technology Review. The authors are Maura Grossman, Paul Grimm, Daniel Brown and Molly Xu. In addition to suggesting a legal framework for judges to determine if proffered evidence is Real or Fake, the article provides good background on generative AI. It does so in an entertaining way, touching on a wide variety of issues.

The evidentiary issues raised by generative type AI and deep fakes, and analysis of federal rules, are the parts of their article that interest me the most. Their proposed legal framework for adjudication of authenticity is excellent. It deserves attention by judges and arbitrators everywhere. ‘Real or Fake’ is not just a meme, it is an important issue of the day, both in the law and general culture. Justice depends on Truth, on true facts, reality. Justice is difficult, perhaps impossible to attain when lies and fakes confuse the courtroom.

Before I go into the article, lets play the `Real or Fake game’ now sweeping the Internet with some pictures of the two lead authors, both public figures, Paul Grimm and Maura Grossman. What do you think, which of these pictures are Real and which are Fake? There will be more tests like this to come. Leave a comment with your best guesses or use your AI to get in touch with my AI.

Introduction

The GPTJUDGE: Justice in a Generative AI World, will be published in October in Vol. 23, Iss. 1 of Duke Law & Technology Review (Oct. 2023). Maura Grossman was kind enough to provide me with an author’s advance version. Doug Austin of E-Discovery Today has already written a good summary of the entire twenty-six page article. The GPT Judge is a very ambitious article that covers A to Z on Generative AI and law. My good colleague, Doug Austin, describes the entire article. I recommend you read Doug’s article, or better yet, read the whole GPTJudge article for yourself.

Unlike Doug’s article, I will, as mentioned, only focus on one part of the article. This is the part of The GPTJudge, found at pages 12-18, which addresses the thorny evidentiary issues concerning LLM AI. Is it real or fake evidence offered? What rules govern these issues? And what a judge should do, or in my case, an arbitrator do, when these issues arise.

Although Doug Austin’s article is a real article, not a fake, it appears to me that Doug did have a wee bit of help in writing from the devil itself here, namely ChatGPT-4. He carefully reviewed and edited the Generative AI’s work, I am sure. It is a fine article, but has a familiar ring. Parts of my article will also have that familiar generative AI tone. It is a real Ralph Losey writing, not a fake. I am pretty certain of that. But, truth be told, I too use GPT AI – ChatGPT-4 to help me write this article. My own tiny human brain needs all of the AI help it can get to accomplish the ambitious task I have set myself here of summarizing this complex corner of the Duke Law Review Article. ChatGPT is a good writing tool, and so is the WordPress software that I also use to create these blogs. I now also use another tool to craft my blogs, a generative AI program called Midjourney. Here, for instance, Midjourney helped me create some pretty cool, but fake images of Grimm and Grossman. Another `Real or Fake’ test will be coming soon, but first some more background on the lead authors whom I know well. This is not to slight the the fellow professor with Maura Grossman at David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo, who is a co-author, Daniel G. Brown, Ph.D., nor Professor Brown and Professor Grossman’s undergraduate student here who helped, Molly(Yiming) Xu.

Lead Authors, the Very Real Paul Grimmand Maura Grossman

One of the lead authors of GPT Judge was a real District Court Judge in Baltimore until just recently, Paul Grimm. He is now a Professor at Duke Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute, and, as all who know him will agree, a truly outstanding, very real person. Paul Grimm is without question one of the top judicial scholars of our time, especially when it comes to evidentiary issues. I have had the privilege of listening to him speak many times and even teaching with him a few times. He was even kind enough to write the Forward to one of my books.

Now back to `Real or Fake’ starring Paul Grimm. You be the judge.

The lead author of The GPTJUDGE: Justice in a Generative AI World, is a top expert in law and technology and friend, Maura Grossman, PhD. She is now a practicing attorney, with her own law and consulting firm, Maura Grossman Law, in Buffalo, NY, a Special Master for Courts throughout the country, a Research Professor in the School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo, an Adjunct Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at the University of Waterloo and an affiliate faculty member of the Vector Institute in Ontario. Phew! How does she do it all? I suspect substantial help from AI. Now it is Maura’s turn to be the subject of my `Real of Fake’ quiz, then we will get into the article proper.

What do you think, `Real or Fake’ Maura Grossman?

One more thing before I begin, Judge Grimm and Maura Grossman have recently written another article that you should also put on your must read pile, or better yet, click the link and see it now and bookmark: Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman, and Gordon V. Cormack, Artificial Intelligence as Evidence, 19 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 9, 84 (2021). The well known information scientist, and Maura’s husband, Gordon Cormack, is also an author. So you know the technical AI details in all of these articles are top notch.

Summary of the Segment of the Law Review Article, The GPTJudge, Covering Evidentiary Issues

Judges will soon be required to routinely face the issues raised by evidence created by GPT AI and any evidence alleged to be fake. This will force judges to assess the authenticity and admissibility of evidence challenged as inaccurate or as potential deepfakes. The existing Federal Rules of Evidence and their state counterparts can, the authors contend, be flexibly applied to accommodate the emerging AI technology. Although not covered by the article, in my personal opinion the rules governing arbitrations are also flexible enough. The author’s contend, and I generally agree, that It is infeasible to amend these rules for every new technological development, such as deepfakes, due to the time-consuming revision process required to amend federal rules. Paul Grimm should know as he used to be on the rules committee that revises the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The admissibility of AI evidence hinges on several key areas under the Federal Rules of Evidence: relevance (401), authenticity (901 and 902), the judge’s gatekeeper role in evaluating evidence (104(a)), the jury’s role in determining the authenticity of contested evidence (104(b)), and the need to exclude prejudicial evidence, even if relevant (403).

Judges should adapt the rules to allow for their application to new technologies like AI, without rigidly adhering to them, to promote the development of evidence law. Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which pertains to scientific, technical, and specialized evidence, requires judges to ensure such evidence is based on sufficient facts, reliable methodology, and has been applied accurately to the case.

These evidence rules provide judges and lawyers with enough guidance. Arbitrators probably do not need special new rules either, especially because there are no juries in arbitration.

It is important when assessing potential GPT AI evidence, or alleged deepfake evidence, that judges pay close attention to the rule requiring the exclusion of evidence that could lead to unfair prejudice (Rule 403). This stresses the importance of ensuring that such evidence is both valid and reliable before being presented to the jury. This rule obviously has no direct application to arbitration, but still, arbitrators must take care they are not fooled by fakes.

When evaluating the authenticity of potential evidence, including deepfakes, or other disputed evidence, judges should refer to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert factors to assess the evidence’s validity and reliability. Careful consideration of the potential for unfair prejudice that can occur with the introduction of unreliable technical evidence is of prime importance. The authors stress that admissibility should not solely hinge on whether the evidence is more likely than not to be genuine (the preponderance standard), but also should depend on the potential risks or negative outcomes if the evidence is proven fake, or insufficiently valid and reliable. Evidence should be excluded if the authenticity is doubtful and the risk of unfair or incorrect outcomes is high. Again the presence of a jury or not tempers this risk.

So how are judges supposed to make the call on `Real or Fake’? Judge Paul Grimm and Maura Grossman recommend Judges follow three steps to make these determinations:

Scheduling Order: Judges should set a deadline in their scheduling order for parties intending to introduce potential GPT AI evidence to disclose this to the opposing party and the court well in advance. This allows the opposing counsel time to decide whether they want to challenge the admissibility of the evidence and seek necessary discovery.
The Hearing: When there’s a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence as AI-generated or deepfake, judges should set an evidentiary hearing on the testimony and other evidence needed to rule on the admissibility. This hearing should be scheduled significantly ahead of the trial to allow the judge enough time to evaluate the evidentiary record and make a ruling.
The Ruling: Following the hearing, judges should carefully consider the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing and issue a ruling. This ruling should assess whether the proponent of the evidence has adequately authenticated it. The judge should address the relevance, authenticity, and prejudice arguments. Special attention should be given to the validity and reliability of the challenged evidence, weighing its relevance against the risk of an unfair or excessively prejudicial outcome.

This is good advice for any judge facing these issues, arbitrators too, as well as attorneys and litigants. Everyone should walk these three simple steps to escape the fake traps that Generative AI can create.

Conclusion

I commend the entire law review article for your reading, but especially the section on evidentiary issues. This section, pgs. 12-18, was, for me, particular interesting and helpful. Also see the earlier article by Grimm, Grossman and Cormack, Artificial Intelligence as Evidence. Judges and Arbitrators will all soon be facing many challenges regarding the authenticity and admissibility of evidence related to AI. `Real or Fake’ may be a key question of our times.

The authors insist, and I somewhat reluctantly agree, that it’s not practical to amend the existing Federal Rules of Evidence for every new technological development. Instead, as the authors also point out, and I again agree, these rules provide a flexible framework. Our rules already allow judges to evaluate factors like relevance, authenticity, and potential prejudice of AI-generated evidence. Rule 702 in particular is crucial because it requires that scientific, technical, or specialized evidence be based on ample facts, reliable methodology, and a sound application to the case at hand. The same situation applies to arbitrations, although arbitrations are typically more informal and there are no juries. Still, arbitrators should be on the lookout for fake or unreliable evidence and look for general guidance from the federal evidence rules.

Judge Grimm and Dr. Grossman propose a three-step process to guide judges when handling potential GPT AI or deepfake evidence. I like the simple three-step procedure proposed. There is more to it than described in this summary, of course. You need to read the whole article – THE GPTJUDGE: JUSTICE IN A GENERATIVE AI WORLD.

I urge other lawyers, arbitrators and judges to try out the three-steps proposed when they face these issues. The just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes must remain the polestar of all our dispute resolution. These suggestions, if employed in a reasoned and prudent manner, can help us to do that. Ensuring the reliability of evidence is important because Justice arises out of truth, not lies and fakes.

All of the Fake Images Here are by Losey and Midjourney with profuse apologies to Judge Grimm.

1 Comment | AI Ethics, Evidence, Forensic Exam, Lawyers Duties, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

From Information to Knowledge to Wisdom: Can Ai Save the Day? – Part 1

March 12, 2023

Social Progression in the Age of Personal Computers, a Necessity for Survival. Can Ai save the day? Explained by ChatGPT, from it’s perspective, with prompt engineering, quality control and some minor contributions by all-too-human, Ralph Losey. All images prepared by Dall-E 2 and Losey.

___________________

Introduction

This article will provide an overview of Ralph Losey’s vision of social transformation in the age of computers. He believes we must progress from an information-based society, which was triggered by personal computers, to a knowledge and wisdom-based society. He argues this transition is required to combat the dangers of misinformation and manipulation. AI and other related technologies are, in his view, the key to this transition. If we fail to go beyond our current information culture, the results may be catastrophic.

Over the past generation, computers and the internet have brought about a seismic shift in the world. The rise of personal computing has created a wealth of information previously unimaginable, while the internet has made it possible to share this information easily. This sudden abundance of information is a two-edged sword. While it has brought many benefits, information alone can be dangerous, very dangerous. To truly manage and control the flood of information, we need knowledge and ultimately wisdom.

We must become more thoughtful and knowledgeable to handle the information explosion. Education is critical in this effort. We cannot simply ignore or undo the information age; the genie is out of the bottle. We must quickly become knowledge-based, embracing the goal of personal and collective wisdom to ensure our survival and success as a society. We need to transform from superficially informed individuals with short attention spans, to thoughtful and knowledgeable people who can navigate the complexities of our world. With the right focus and commitment, we can harness the power of computers, Ai and the internet to achieve a brighter future.

Information → Knowledge → Wisdom

The Information → Knowledge → Wisdom theory posits that a technological society progresses in three stages. The first stage is gathering information, which involves collecting raw data from sources like books, websites, and personal experiences. The next stage is transforming this information into knowledge by analyzing and interpreting it to gain a deeper understanding. The ultimate goal is to achieve wisdom, which requires applying our knowledge in a way that is both ethical and effective.

The theory of Information → Knowledge → Wisdom offers a perspective on the profound cultural changes brought about by computer technology. It stresses the significance of critical thinking, analysis, and interpretation in converting raw information into real knowledge. By employing these skills, individuals and society as a whole can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world, and utilize that knowledge to enhance our lives and, ultimately, preserve our planet.

Failure to swiftly advance towards a knowledge and wisdom-based society could result in being overwhelmed by the flood of unprocessed and inaccurate information. By embracing knowledge and wisdom, we can navigate the intricate and ever-evolving world of the digital age and create a brighter future for ourselves and generations to come.

Danger of Information Without Knowledge and Wisdom

The risk of not moving towards a knowledge and wisdom based society from an information-based culture is the potential for large segments of society to be easily manipulated by false information and lies. When people lack the ability to analyze and interpret information, they become vulnerable to false information, leading to poor decisions and negative consequences such as the breakdown of democracy and justice, as well as issues like inequality and discrimination.

Moreover, the widespread use of technology has made it simpler for people to spread misinformation and propaganda. This can have a severe impact on society, eroding trust in institutions and creating social unrest.

To counteract these dangers, it is critical to stress the significance of progressing from an information-based culture to one that is knowledge and wisdom-based. This requires teaching critical thinking and analytical skills, as well as promoting values like ethics, morality, and common decency. By doing so, we can create a more informed and responsible society that is better prepared to navigate the intricacies of the modern world. Ralph Losey believes that AI is the key to achieving this goal, transitioning from raw information to knowledge and wisdom.

Child’s View Summary

To put the Information → Knowledge → Wisdom theory in simple, child-like terms, and, in Losey’s opinion , so capture its essence, consider this summary.

Information is when we learn new things like reading a book or watching a video. Knowledge is when we use our brains to understand what we learned and remember it. Wisdom is when we make good choices using our knowledge and thinking about what is right and wrong.

It’s important to use our knowledge and wisdom because if we don’t, we might believe things that aren’t true and make bad choices. This can cause problems for ourselves and other people. By using our knowledge and wisdom, we can make good choices and help others too. Ai can help us to do that.

Wisdom is the Ultimate Goal of the Personal Computer Revolution – Not Information, Not Knowledge

The first step in the progression towards a mature society is Information, but it is not the ultimate goal. The transition to a Knowledge-based culture is expected to occur first, in the next fifteen years. However, knowledge alone is also not enough, as an academic world of specialized know-it-alls is also dangerous. This was not the original vision of the first generation of hackers, led by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, who aimed to change the world through personal computers. Jobs’ travels and personal experiences with psychedelics led him to see the potential for personal computers to serve a higher purpose. He recognized the importance of wisdom, having come to terms with death and the meaning of life. Jobs, Wozniak, and other computer enthusiasts worldwide saw computers as a tool for personal use, including for games, art, and education. The business aspect of computers only became dominant later.

Quoting the well-known Stanford commence speech of Steve Jobs in 2005 provides more insights into the wisdom goal:

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything – all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
Steve Jobs, 2005

The goal of any advanced civilization is Wisdom, not Knowledge. Living your life with awareness and understanding of your own mortality. Living your life with joy, with flow. Just ask Socrates, who boasted of knowing Nothing (as he had transcended that and phased into Wisdom), and the ancient Greeks. They still exemplify our understanding of high culture in the West. In the East just ask Buddha or Lao Tzu. In fact, consult any of the great wisdom traditions, the great religions. It is not enough in any wisdom tradition to know, we must use this knowledge for both personal happiness and the advancement of all Mankind, indeed, for the benefit of all life on Earth.

That is Wisdom – knowledge converted to beneficial action. This is essentially the Zen-like philosophy of Steve Jobs and many others like him. It is not a vision of amassing knowledge, which is often just the dogma generated by another person. It is the wisdom to follow your own inner voice.

Again to quote Job’s commencement speech at Stanford in 2005:

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
Steve Jobs, 2005

Wisdom in all true cultures means the freedom to live your own life, to be happy, or at least try. As the American founders put it in the Declaration of Independence, it means to live in accord with certain self-evident truths:

[T]hat all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Declaration of Independence

To be continued. Part Two of this two-part blog is coming soon. Part two will include poetry and well known quotes of T.S. Eliot (1885-1965), who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1948. He also mused on the idea of information to knowledge to wisdom.