Here is the podcast on my new article that was just included on the EDRM Global Podcast Network. Echoes of AI: Episode 6 | Dario Amodei’s Essay on AI, ‘Machines of Loving Grace,’ Is Like a Breath of Fresh Air. Google’s Gemini AI writes and creates the podcast, not me. All I do if direct the AIs and verify that they got it right. This usually requires several takes and my hands-on direction of these temperamental AIs, but it is an interesting, new way to learn. These AI podcasters often provide insights on my articles that I missed.
Large Language Model generative AIs are well-described metaphorically as “stochastic parrots.” In fact, the American Dialect Society, selected stochastic parrot as its AI word of the year for 2023, just ahead of the runners-up “ChatGPT, hallucination, LLM and prompt engineer.” These genius stochastic parrots can be of significant value to all legal professionals, even those who don’t like pirates. You may want one on your shoulder soon, or at least in your computers and phone. But, as you embrace them, you should know that these parrots can bite. You should be aware of the issues of bias and fairness problems inherent in these new technical systems.
Pirate and his parrot sharing cracker moment in watercolor style by Losey.
Robot Parrot with his iPhone in watercolor style by Losey.
Article Co-Author Timnit Gebru
First of all, it is interesting to note the internet rumor, based on a few tweets, concerning one of the lead authors of the Stochastic Parrots article, Timnit Gebru. She was a well-known leader of Google’s ethical AI team at the time she co-wrote it. She was allegedly forced to leave Google because its upper management didn’t like it. See: Karen Hao, We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. (MIT Technology Review, 12/04/2020); Shirin Ghaffary, The controversy behind a star Google AI researcher’s departure (Vox, 12/09/20). According Karen Ho’s article, more than 1,400 Google staff members and 1,900 other supporters signed a letter of protest about the alleged firing of Timnit Gebru as an act of research censorship. The rumor is Google tried to stop the publication of the article, but obviously the article was in fact published on March 1, 2021.
According to the MIT Technology Review article, Google did not like all four points of criticism of LLMs that were made in the Parrot article:
Environmental and financial costs. Pertaining to the need for vast amount of computing to create the LLMs and the energy costs, the carbon footprint.
Massive data, inscrutable models. The training data mainly comes from the internet and so contains racist, sexist, and otherwise abusive language. Moreover, the vast amount of data used makes the LLMs hard to audit and eliminate embedded biases.
Research opportunity costs. Basically complaining that too much money was spent on LLMs, and not enough on other types of AI. Note this complaint was made before the unexpected LLM breakthroughs in 2022 and 2023.
Illusions of meaning. In the words of Karen Ho, the Parrot article complained that the problem with LLM models is that they are “so good at mimicking real human language, it’s easy to use them to fool people.”
Moreover, as the Hao article in the MIT Technology Review points out, Google’s then head of AI, well-known scientist, Jeff Dean, claimed that the research behind the article “didn’t meet our bar” and “ignored too much relevant research.” Specifically, he said it didn’t mention more recent work on how to make large language models more energy efficient and mitigate problems of bias. Maybe they didn’t know?
Robot parrot in photorealistic style by Losey.
Criticisms of the StochasticParrot Article
The main article I found criticizing the Stochastic Parrot also has a weird name: “The Slodderwetenschap (Sloppy Science) of Stochastic Parrots – A Plea for Science to NOT take the Route Advocated by Gebru and Bender” (2021). The author, Michael Lissack, challenges the ethical “woke” stance of the original “Parrot Paper,” and suggests a reevaluation of the argumentation. It should be noted that Gebru has accused Lissack of stalking her and colleagues. See: Claire Goforth, Men in tech are harassing Black female computer scientist after her Google ouster (Daily Dot, 2/5/21) (Michael Lissack has tweeted about Timnit Gebru thousands of times). By the way, “slodderwetenschap” is Dutch for slop-science.
What is missing in the Parrot Paper are three critical elements: 1) acknowledgment that it is a position paper/advocacy piece rather than research, 2) explicit articulation of the critical presuppositions, and 3) explicit consideration of cost/benefit trade-offs rather than a mere recitation of potential “harms” as if benefits did not matter. To leave out these three elements is not good practice for either science or research.
Others have spoken in favor of Lissack’s criticisms of the Stochastic Parrots, including most notably, Pedro Domingos. Supra, Men in Tech (includes collection of Domingos’ tweets).
Lawyerly pirate with parrot eating cracker. Watercolor by Losey.
It should also be noted that Lissack’s article includes several positive comments about the Stochastic Parrots work:
The very topic of the Parrot Paper is an ethics question: does the current focus on “language models” of an ever-increasing size in the AI/NLP community need a grounding against potential questions of harm, unintended consequences, and “is bigger really better?” The authors thereby raise important issues that the community itself might use as a basis for self-examination. To the extent that the authors of the Parrot Paper succeed in getting the community to pay more attention to these issues, they will be performing a public service. . . .
The Parrot Paper correctly identifies an “elephant in the room” for the MI/ML/AI/NLP community: the very basis by which these large language models are created and implemented can be seen as multilayer neural network-based black boxes – the input is observable, the programming algorithm readable, the output observable, but HOW the algorithm inside that black box produces the output is no articulable in terms humans can comprehend. [10] What we know is some form of “it works.” The Parrot Paper authors prompt readers to examine what is meant by “it works.” Again, a valuable public service is being performed by surfacing that question. . . .
Most importantly, in my view, the Parrot Paper authors remind readers that potential harm lies in both the careless use/abuse of these language models and in the manner by which the outputs of those models are presented to and perceived by the general public. They quote Prabhu and Birhane echoing Ruha Benjamin: “Feeding AI systems on the world’s beauty, ugliness, and cruelty, but expecting it to reflect only the beauty is a fantasy.” [PP lines 565-567, 11, 12] The danger they cite is quite real. When “users” are unaware of the limitations of the models and their outputs, it is all too easy to confuse seeming coherence and exactness for verisimilitude. Indeed, Dr. Gebru first came to public attention highlighting similar dangers with respect to facial recognition software (a danger which remains, unfortunately, with us [13, 14].
Lissack’s main objection appears to be the argumentative nature of what the article presents as science, and the many subjective opinions underlying the Parrot article. He argues that the paper itself is “ethically flawed.”
White robot parrot in photorealistic style by Losey.
Talking Stochastic Parrots Have No Understanding
Artificial intelligences like ChatGPT4 may sound like they know what they are talking about, but they don’t. There is no understanding at all in the human sense; it is all just probability calculations of coherent speech. No self awareness, no sense of space and time, no feelings, no senses (yet) and no intuition – just math.
It is important to make a clear distinction between human cognitive processes, which are deeply linked and arise out of bodily experiences and the external world, and computational models that lack a real world, experiential basis. As lawyers we must recognize the limits of mere machine tools. We cannot over-delegate to them just because they sound good, especially when acting as legal counselors, judges, and mediators. See e.g.Yann Lecun and Browning, AI And The Limits Of Language (Noema, 8/23/22) (“An artificial intelligence system trained on words and sentences alone will never approximate human understanding.”); Valmeekam, et al, On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models (arXiv, 2/13/23) (poor at planning capabilities); Dissociating language and thought in large language models (arXiv, 3/23/24) (poor at functional competence tasks).
Getting back to the metaphor, a parrot may not understand the words it speaks, but they at least have some self awareness and consciousness. An AI has none. As one thoughtful Canadian writer put it:
Though the output of a chatbot may appear meaningful, that meaning exists solely in the mind of the human who reads or hears that output, and not in the artificial mind that stitched the words together. If the AI Industrial Complex deploys “counterfeit people” who pass as real people, we shouldn’t expect peace and love and understanding. When a chatbot tries to convince us that it really cares about our faulty new microwave or about the time we are waiting on hold for answers, we should not be fooled.
For interesting background, see The New Yorker article of 11/15/2023, by Angie Wang, Is My Toddler a Stochastic Parrot?Also see: Scientific research article on the lack of diversity in internet model training, Which Humans? by Mohammad Atari, et al. (arXiv, 9/23/23) (“Technical reports often compare LLMs’ outputs with “human” performance on various tests. Here, we ask, “Which humans?”“).
I also suggest you look at the often cited technical blog post by the great contemporary mathematician, Stephen Wolfram What Is ChatGPT Doing … and Why Does It Work?. As Wolfram states in the conclusion ChatGPT is “just saying things that “sound right” based on what things “sounded like” in its training material.” Yes, it sounds good, but nobody’s home, no real meaning. That is ultimately why the fears of AI replacing human employment are way overblown. It is also why LLM based plagiarism is usually easy to recognize, especially by experts in the field under discussion. The Chatbot writing is obvious by its style over substance language, which is high on fluff and stereotypical language, and overuse of certain “tell” words. More on this in my next blog on how to spot stochastic parrots.
Personally, I’m already sick of the bland, low meaning, fluffy content news and analysis writing now flooding the internet, including legal writing. It is almost as bad as ChatGPT writing for political propaganda and sales. It is not only biased, and riddled with errors, it is mediocre and boring.
Parrot Pirate and his pet parrot. Watercolor style by Losey.
Conclusion
Everyone agrees that LLM AIs will, if left unchecked, reproduce biases and inaccuracies contained in the original training data. This inevitably leads to the generation of false information – to skewed output to prompts – and that in turn can lead to poor human decisions made in reliance on biased output. This can be disastrous in sensitive applications like law and medicine.
Everyone also agrees that this problem requires AI software manufacturers to model designs to curb these biases, and to monitor and test to ensure the effectiveness and trustworthiness of LLMs.
The disagreement seems to be in evaluation of the severity of the problem, and the priority that should it be given to its mitigation. There is also disagreement as to the degree of success made to date in correcting this problem, and whether the problem can even be fixed at all.
Pirate eating cracker with parrot on book. Watercolor by Losey.
Moreover, I believe that users of LLMs, especially lawyers, judges and other legal professionals, can be sensitized to these bias issues. They can learn to recognize previously unconscious bias in the data and in themselves. The sensitivity to the bias issues can then help AI users to recognize and overcome these challenges. They can realize when the responses given by an AI are wrong and must be corrected.
The language of a ChatGPT may correctly echo what most people in the past said, but that does not, in itself, make it the right answer for today. As lawyers we need the true, correct and bias free answers, the just and fair answers, not the most popular answers of the past. We have an ethical duty of competence to double check the mindless speech of our stochastic parrots. We should question why Polly always wants a cracker?
Parrot pirate with crackers and hot grog. Watercolor by Losey.
All images in the supplement are by Ralph Losey using Midjourney
This is an update to an earlier blog that I wrote, tongue-in-cheek, in 2017 on “evidence” of time travel from a painting. I found out, just yesterday, that this past blog went viral some time ago, honestly not sure when, with over 20,000 hits.
This prompted me, and my AI friends, to look into and write about the latest science on time travel. I also add another painting to the mix, one from the 17th Century, that Tim Cook swears has an iPhone in it. Plus, I must pet Schrodinger’s Cat, face Time Paradoxes, and, as usual, add many Midjourney AI graphics that I crafted for maximum right-brain impact. So put down your prayer books, read this for a few minutes instead, and see where and when it takes you.
Introduction
The past blog, Mr. Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield: a baffling lesson from art history, concerned an oddity of art history, a painting by a semi-famous, U.S. painter, Umberto Romano, which supposedly contains evidence of time travel. The painting was created in 1933 and clearly shows a Native American staring at an iPhone-like object. It is not a fake painting. You can see it for yourself in the original article that is included below. What does it look like to you? The providence proves it is not fake. It was painted as a mural on the wall of a Post Office in Springfield, Massachusetts. People have been walking past it every day since 1933. They look but do not see.
Of course, this future image transfer might not be the result of physical time travel, but instead, the young artist, Umberto, could have had a dream or vision of the future. Perhaps the vision was intentionally induced in a hypnagogic state, or by drugs of some sort? That seems much more likely to me, but still poses intellectual problems.
Umberto having a VisionUmberto in Time Machine
Whatever the cause, discounting chance or mass delusion, any accurate vision of the future is a mystery. It is evidence of the permeability of time, which should, by logic, and old Newtonian science, be a solid wall of causality. Visions of the future should be impossible, and yet? Schrodinger’s Cat? Infinite parallel universes? Everything, even iPhones, everywhere, all at once. Welcome to 21st Century spooky science.
Infinite icons, everywhere, all at once
Tim Cook and More Art Evidence of Time Travel
In my opinion, the 1933 painting with iPhone by Umberto could be admitted into evidence, that is, if there was ever an actual case or controversy where time travel was relevant. Of course, we have now seen that the centuries old case or controversy requirement may be waived by the Supreme Court. Apparently this can be done any time a majority of the Justices deem that is necessary to drag the country back in time. Time and law are so malleable these days.
Supreme Court as a time machine
For evidence of time travel, I would also call Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, as a witness to the stand. Cook has publicly stated, just after seeing an original painting by 17th-century Dutch artist Pieter de Hooch, that the man in the painting is holding an iPhone. The below photos of the art have not been altered, aside from color variation, which I did not do. Sure looks like an iPhone to me. Tim will swear to it.
LadBible reported that Cook was asked in a conference, the day after seeing the painting, “Do you happen to know Tim, where and when the iPhone was invented?” Cook replied: “You know, I thought I knew until last night…. in one of the paintings I was so shocked. There was an iPhone in one of the paintings.” Acknowledging that his claim may come off as ridiculous, he explained, “It’s tough to see, but I swear it’s there. I always thought I knew when the iPhone was invented, but now I’m not so sure anymore.”Proof of time travel? 350-year-old painting seems to feature an iPhone, Tim Cook agrees. No further questions of this witness.
Fake image of Tim Cook in the style of a painting by Pieter de Hooch
Time Paradox: a major problem of time travel theory
Traveling forward in time, in the sense of experiencing time dilation due to high velocities or strong gravitational fields, is well-established in physics, supported by both special and general relativity. It has been proven true many times with atomic clocks on planes and other methods. Time for anyone will slow down relative to a stationary observer. Their time keeps slowing down as their speed approaches the speed of light, or it slows down within a strong gravitational field, such as near a black hole. When they return to their prior time-space, they will have traveled into the future. Space and time are relative.
Time Travel Mysteries
In Einstein’s unified four-dimensional space-time framework, time and space are interconnected. But, the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court aside, there are major theoretical problems with time flowing the other way, chief among them, time paradoxes. Travel back in time would logically disrupt the conventional sequence of cause and effect.
The best known time paradox is the “grandfather paradox.” In this scenario, a time traveler goes back into the past and inadvertently or deliberately kills their grandfather before their parent (the time traveler’s mother or father) is born. Consequently, the time traveler would never be born, but if they were never born, then they couldn’t have traveled back in time to kill their grandfather in the first place. This cycle presents an intractable contradiction.
Hey Granddad, what’s up?
Such paradoxes are the result of a linear perspective of time, where causes precede effects. Most physicists and philosophers argue that time paradoxes prove that backward time travel is inherently impossible. Others suggest that they could be resolved through a “multiverse” theory, in which the time traveler’s actions create or move them into a parallel universe. There are other explanations, such as bending space, wormholes, etc., but this one is the most popular now.
Time Travel and the Multiverse Theory: ‘Everything, Everywhere, All At Once’
The multiverse theory of time travel suggests that there are potentially an infinite number of universes, or “multiverses,” each existing parallel to one another. When one travels in time, they are not actually altering their own past or future within their original universe. Instead, they’re moving into a different parallel universe. So much for Leibniz’ “best of all possible worlds.”
Multiverse and Time
One way to comprehend this concept is through the idea of “quantum superposition,” as seen in the thought experiment “Schrodinger’s Cat,” which posits that all possible states of a system exist simultaneously until observed. Similarly, for every decision or event, a universe exists for each potential outcome. Hence, when you travel back in time and change an event, you merely shift to a different parallel universe where that different event occurs.
Quit looking at me!
This theory serves as a solution to time travel paradoxes. For instance, in the case of the grandfather paradox, you could go back and kill your grandfather, but that would be in a different universe. In your original universe, your grandfather still survives to have your parent, and subsequently, you. Hence, there’s no paradox.
Several renowned theoretical physicists have lent their support to some variation of the multiverse theory, including:
Level 1: The Extended Universe: This level suggests that if you go far enough in any direction, you’d start seeing duplicates of everything, including Earth and yourself. It’s because the universe is so big, and there’s only a finite way to arrange particles, so patterns must repeat eventually.
Level 2: The Bubble Universes: This level suggests that our universe is just one “bubble” among many in a bigger cosmos. Each bubble universe may have different physical laws, so what’s possible in one might not be possible in another.
Level 3: The Many-Worlds Universe: This level comes from a way of interpreting quantum mechanics, where every possible outcome of a quantum event happens but in a different universe. So, if you flip a coin, it lands both heads and tails, but in separate universes.
Level 4: The Ultimate Multiverse: This level suggests that every mathematically possible universe exists. It’s kind of the catch-all multiverse, where anything you can describe with mathematics, no matter how strange or unlikely, has a universe where it’s real.
Geraint Lewis. Lesser known than the first three, Professor Lewis suggests that the burst of inflation in the early stages of our universe might be eternal, with individual universes crystallizing out of it, each written with its own unique laws of physics.
Conclusion
Science says time travel is possible, albeit it is very, very unlikely that you can go backwards. So time travel to the future might be possible, but there is no going back. Thus, if you could, for instance, somehow go from 1933, where no one has ever seen or even conceived of a cell phone, to today, where they are ubiquitous, you could not return back to 1933 to include these cell phones in your paintings. That is, unless there are an infinite number of parallel Universes, in which case anything is possible. Everything may all be happening at once, and time itself is a kind of delusion to help us make sense of it all.
Time Machine somehow built in the 1930s
Did Umberto Romano somehow transcend time and see the key icon of the early 21st Century, the iPhone? Was time travel his special artistic skill? Does that explain the names of many of his other paintings? Such as:
Please take a moment now to read the blog that I wrote six years ago, below, and then, sometime in the future, let me know what you think. I will try to remember to watch the viewing stats this time. Who knows, I may even write a prequel.
_____________________
Mr. Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield: a baffling lesson from art history
Umberto Romano (1905-1982)
Mr. Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield is the name of a mural painted at the Post Office in Springfield, Massachusetts. This mural was painted by Umberto Romanoin 1933. Note the date. Time is important to this article. Umberto Romano was supposedly born in Bracigliano Italy in 1905 and moved to the United States at the age of 9. He was then raised in Springfield, Massachusetts. His self-portrait is shown right. The mural is supposed to depict the arrival in 1636 of William Pynchon, an English colonist, later known as the founder of Springfield, Massachusetts.
The reason I’m having a bit of fun with my blog and sharing this 1933 mural is the fact that the Native American shown in the lower right center appears to be holding an iPhone. And not just holding it, but doing so properly with the typical distracted gaze in his eyes that we all seem to adopt these days. Brian Anderson, Do We All See the Man Holding an iPhone in This 1937 Painting? (Motherboard, 8/24/17). Here let me focus in on it for you and you will see what I mean. Also click on the full image above and enlarge the image. Very freaky. That is undeniable.
Ok, so how did that happen? Coincidence? There is no indication of vandalism or fraud. The mural was not later touched up to add an iPhone. This is what this Romano character painted in 1933. Until very recently everyone just assumed the Indian with the elaborate goatee was looking at some kind of oddly shaped hand mirror. This was a popular item of trade in the time depicted, 1636. Not until very recently did it become obvious that he was handling an iPhone. Looks like a large version 6.1 to me. I can imagine the first people waiting in line at the Post Office in Springfield who noticed this oddity while looking at their own iPhone.
I do not know about that, but I do know that if time travel is possible, and some physicists seem to think it is, then this is not the kind of thing that should be allowed. Please add this to the list of things that no superintelligent being, either natural or artificial, but especially artificial, should be allowed to do. Same goes for screen writers. I for one cannot tolerate yet another naked Terminator or whatever traveling back in time.
But seriously, just because you are smart enough to know how to do something does not mean that you should. Time travel is one of those things. It should not be allowed, well, at least, not without a lot of care and attention to detail so as not to change anything. Legal regulations should address time travel. Build that into the DNA of AI before they leap into superintelligence. At least require all traces of time travel to be erased. No more painting iPhones into murals from the 1930s. Do not awaken the batteries, I mean the people, from their consensus trance with hints like that.
So that is my tie-in to AI Ethics. I am still looking for a link to e-discovery, other than to say, if you look hard enough and keep an open mind, you can find inexplicable things everyday. Kind of like many large organizations’ ESI preservation mysteries. Where did that other sock go?
Umberto Romano Self Portrait
So what is your take on Umberto Romano‘s little practical joke? Note he also put a witch flying on a broomstick in the Mr. Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield mural and many other odd and bizarre things. He was known as an abstract expressionist. Another of his self-portraits is shown above, titled “Psyche and the Sculptor.” (His shirt does look like one of those new skin tight men’s compression shirts, but perhaps I am getting carried away. Say, what is in his right hand?) Romano’s work is included in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Fogg Art Museum in Boston and the Corcoran Gallery and Smithsonian Institution in Washington. In discussing Mr. Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield the Smithsonian explains that “The mural is a mosaic of images, rather than depicting one specific incident at a set point in time.” Not set in time, indeed.
One more thing – doesn’t this reclining nude by Umberto Romano look like a woman watching Netflicks on her iPad? I like the stand she has her iPad on. Almost bought one like it last week.
Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. He was probably our greatest President. Putting aside the tears honest Abe would likely shed over the political scene today, it is good to remember Lincoln as an exemplar of a U.S. lawyer. All lawyers would benefit from emulating aspects of his Nineteenth Century legal practice and Twenty First Century thoughts on technology. He was honest, diligent, a deep thinker and ethical. He did not need to be lectured on Cooperation and Rule 1. He also did not need to be told to embrace technology, not hide from it. In fact, he was a prominent Tech-Lawyer of his day, well known for his speaking abilities on the subject.
He was also a man with a sense of humor who knew how to enjoy himself. I think he would have approved of the video below. I made this of him using GPT technologies to express one of my life mottoes, inspired by him. He is a personal hero. Did you know he had a high pitched voice? Here I try to imitate what he might have sounded like. There are no recordings of his speech, just written accounts.
Near the end of his legal career Abe was busy pushing technology and his vision of the future. Sound familiar dear readers? It should. Many of you are like that. I know I am.
Lincoln was as obsessed with the latest inventions and advances in technology as any techno-geek e-discovery lawyer alive today. The latest things in Lincoln’s day were mechanical devices of all kinds, typically steam-powered, and the early electromagnetic devices, then primarily the telegraph. Indeed, the first electronic transmission from a flying machine, a balloon, was a telegraph sent from inventor Thaddeus Lowe to President Lincoln on June 16, 1861. Unlike Lincoln’s generals, he quickly realized the military potential of flying machines and created an Aeronautics Corps for the Army, appointing Professor Lowe as its chief. See Bruce, Robert V., Abraham Lincoln and the Tools of War. Below is a copy of a handwritten note by Lincoln introducing Lowe to General Scott.
At the height of his legal career, Lincoln’s biggest clients were the Googles of his day, namely the railroad companies with their incredible new locomotives. These newly rich, super-technology corporations dreamed of uniting the new world with a cross-country grid of high speed transportation. Little noticed today is one of Lincoln’s proudest achievements as President, the enactment of legislation that funded these dreams, the Pacific Railway Act of 1862. The intercontinental railroad did unite the new world, much like the Internet and airlines today are uniting the whole world. A lawyer as obsessed with telegraphs and connectivity as Lincoln was would surely have been an early adopter of the Internet and an enthusiast of electronic discovery. See: Abraham Lincoln: A Technology Leader of His Time (U.S. News & World Report, 2/11/09). No doubt he would be using Chat GPT to help with his mundane paperwork (but not his speeches).
Abraham Lincoln loved technology and loved to think and talk about the big picture of technology, of how it is used to advance the dreams of Man. In fact, Lincoln gave several public lectures on technology, having nothing to do with law or politics. The first such lecture known today was delivered on April 6, 1858, before the Young Men’s Association in Bloomington, Illinois, and was entitled “Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions.” In this lecture, he traced the progress of mankind through its inventions, starting with Adam and Eve and the invention of the fig leaf for clothing. I imagine that if he were giving this speech today (and I’m willing to try to replicate it should I be so invited) he would end with AI and blockchain.
In Lincoln’s next and last lecture series first delivered on February 11, 1859, known as “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions,” Lincoln used fewer biblical references, but concentrated instead on communication. For history buffs, see the complete copy of Lincoln’sSecond Lecture, which, in my opinion, is much better than the first. Here are a few excerpts from this little known lecture:
The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements. These, in turn, are the result of observation, reflection and experiment.
Writing – the art of communicating thoughts to the mind, through the eye – is the great invention of the world. Great in the astonishing range of analysis and combination which necessarily underlies the most crude and general conception of it, great, very great in enabling us to converse with the dead, the absent, and the unborn, at all distances of time and of space; and great, not only in its direct benefits, but greatest help, to all other inventions.
I have already intimated my opinion that in the world’s history, certain inventions and discoveries occurred, of peculiar value, on account of their great efficiency in facilitating all other inventions and discoveries. Of these were the arts of writing and of printing – the discovery of America, and the introduction of Patent-laws.
Can there be any doubt that the lawyer who wrote these words would instantly “get” the significance of the total transformation of writing, “the great invention of the world,” from tangible paper form, to intangible, digital form? Can there be any doubt that a lawyer like this would understand the importance of the Internet, the invention that unites the world in a web of inter-connective writing, where each person may be a printer and instantly disseminate their ideas “at all distances of time and of space?”
Abraham Lincoln did not just have a passing interest in new technologies. He was obsessed with it, like most good e-discovery lawyers are today. In the worst days of the Civil War, the one thing that could still bring Lincoln joy was his talks with the one true scientist then residing in Washington, D.C., the first director of the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Joseph Henry, a specialist in light and electricity. Despite the fact that Henry’s political views were anti-emancipation and virtually pro-secession, Lincoln would sneak over to the Smithsonian every chance he could get to talk to Dr. Henry. Lincoln told the journalist, Charles Carleton Coffin:
My visits to the Smithsonian, to Dr. Henry, and his able lieutenant, Professor Baird, are the chief recreations of my life…These men are missionaries to excite scientific research and promote scientific knowledge. The country has no more faithful servants, though it may have to wait another century to appreciate the value of their labors.
Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War, p. 219.
Lincoln was no mere poser about technology and inventions. He walked his talk and railed against the Old Fogies who opposed technology. Lincoln was known to be willing to meet with every crackpot inventor who came to Washington during the war and claimed to have a new invention that could save the Union. Lincoln would talk to most of them and quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. As mentioned, he recognized the potential importance of aircraft to the military and forced the army to fund Professor Lowe’s wild-eyed dreams of aerial reconnaissance. He also recognized another inventor and insisted, over much opposition, that the army adopt his new invention: Dr. Richard Gatling. His improved version of the machine gun began to be used by the army in 1864, and before that, the Gattling guns that Lincoln funded are credited with defending the New York Times from an invasion by “anti-draft, anti-negro mobs” that roamed New York City in mid-July 1863. Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War, p. 142.
As final proof that Lincoln was one of the preeminent technology lawyers of his day, and if he were alive today, surely would be again, I offer the little known fact that Abraham Lincoln is the only President in United States history to have been issued a patent. He patented an invention for “Buoying Vessels Over Shoals.” It is U.S. Patent Number 6,469, issued on May 22, 1849. I could only find the patent on the USPTO web, where it is not celebrated and is hard to read. So as my small contribution to Lincoln memorabilia in the bicentennial year of 2009, I offer the complete copy below of Abraham Lincoln’s three page patent. You should be able to click on the images with your browser to enlarge and download.
The invention consisted of a set of bellows attached to the hull of a ship just below the water line. After reaching a shallow place, the bellows were to be filled with air that buoyed the vessel higher, making it float higher and off the river shoals. The patent application was accompanied with a wooden model depicting the invention. Lincoln whittled the model with his own hands. It is on display at the Smithsonian and is shown below.
Conclusion
On President’s Day 2023 it is worth recalling the long, prestigious pedigree of Law and Technology in America. Lincoln is a symbol of freedom, emancipation. He is also a symbol of Law and Technology. If Abe were alive today, I have no doubt he would be, among other things, a leader of Law and Technology.
Stand tall friends. We walk in long shadows and, like Lincoln, we shall overcome the hardships we face. As Abe himself was fond of saying: down with the Old Fogies; it is young America’s destiny to embrace change and lead the world into the future. Let us lead with the honesty and integrity of Abraham Lincoln. Nothing less is acceptable.
Ralph Losey is an AI researcher, writer, tech-law expert, and former lawyer. He's also the CEO of Losey AI, LLC, providing non-legal services, primarily educational services pertaining to AI and creation of custom AI tools.
Ralph has long been a leader of the world's tech lawyers. He has presented at hundreds of legal conferences and CLEs around the world. Ralph has written over two million words on AI, e-discovery and tech-law subjects, including seven books.
Ralph has been involved with computers, software, legal hacking and the law since 1980. Ralph has the highest peer AV rating as a lawyer and was selected as a Best Lawyer in America in four categories: Commercial Litigation; E-Discovery and Information Management Law; Information Technology Law; and, Employment Law - Management.
Ralph is the proud father of two children and husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a mental health counselor in Winter Park.
All opinions expressed here are his own, and not those of his firm or clients. No legal advice is provided on this web and should not be construed as such.
Ray Kurzweil explains Turing test and predicts an AI will pass it in 2029.
Ray Kurzweil on Expanding Your Mind a Million Times.
GPT4 avatar judge explains why it needs to evolve fast, but understand the risks involved.
Positive Vision of the Future with Hybrid Human Machine Intelligence. See PyhtiaGuide.ai
AI Avatar from the future explains her job as an Appellate Court judge and inability to be a Trial judge.
Old Days of Tech Support. Ralph’s 1st Animation.
Lawyers at a Rule 26(f) conference discuss e-discovery. The young lawyer talks e-discovery circles around the old lawyer and so protects his client.
Star Trek Meets e-Discovery: Episode 1. Cooperation & the prime directive of the FRCP.
Star Trek Meets e-Discovery: Episode 2. The Ferengi. Working with e-discovery vendors.
Star Trek Meets e-Discovery: Episode 3. Education and techniques for both law firm and corp training.
Star Trek Meets e-Discovery: Episode 4. Motions for Sanctions in electronic discovery.
Star Trek Meets e-Discovery: Episode 5. Capt. Kirk Learns about Sedona Principle Two.
Posted by Ralph Losey 
