AI is dangerous and

we need to be better educated about this.

I do not use AI in my work. It tries to wriggle in sometimes and I have to push it firmly out again. The reason for this is that if AI gets it wrong then the rest of us on the team could put someone's life in danger, someone could die, a building could crumble, a bridge could fall down, a road might not be where it is supposed to be, a fight make break out, someone could be insulted and start anything from a minor altercation to a war or they might commit suicide. No, I am not exaggerating. Communication needs to be accurate - or as accurate as we can make it. There is no room for the sort of errors that AI can make.

This last week someone had tried to rely on AI for information and ended up screaming desperately for help from one of my colleagues. The mess was eventually sorted out and calm has descended again but much was said about AI while all this was going on. People have been warned again. Do not rely on AI to give you the correct answer if your life and the lives of people around you are at risk. Please just do not do it.

Now there is a story in this morning's paper about a lawyer who has apparently relied on AI to support a case s/he was preparing. The court has, rightly, complained it has been misled. The cases "found" by AI do not exist. They do not support the arguments put to the court. Apparently there has been another such case in another state with a similar result. 

This is serious, more serious than the general public realise. Accuracy is very, very important in law. Getting a comma out of place can change the entire meaning of something. There can be no "but this is what they actually meant" in law. It is what is there on the page which matters and nothing else. Relying on AI to provide something accurate in an area which is so important is dangerous. It could mean someone being incarcerated for a crime they have not committed or a murderer going free. Yes, extreme examples but still possible.

The judge in this instance has said that Gen-AI cannot be trusted to provide accurate information. If that is all the judge had to say on the topic I would be surprised. 

We are being told that AI is the way of the future and that we will need it more and more. I am wondering how it will be used and by whom. Perhaps I am wrong but I am beginning to think we may need more and more people who are well educated and can think for themselves because the idea of AI taking over is not going to work well if we really need accuracy - and accuracy may save many situations and lives.   

The latest report on net zero

is showing net negative. Why can't the government and the media just give up on the idea and actually do something useful?

Apparently we could build eight hospitals and four hundred aged care facilities each year for what the net-zero policies are costing us. If that is really the case then I suggest it is time to start building.

I am in no way opposed to the idea of caring for the environment. I know that questioning the "net zero" idea leaves me open to the idea that I am a "climate denier" and much more. I am not. No, I am not.

I think we have a climate problem. I think we have a population problem. I think we have a people problem in all sorts of ways. I think we need to think about our life style and more.

Why do we still allow people to own 4WD vehicles in the city? Why in fact do we allow many people to have cars at all? Do they really need them? I am told yes they do. They are "necessary" for carting the kids to school and after school activities, going to the gym after work and doing the weekly shop. Even while people are saying that those whose jobs tie them to a desk are demanding the "right to work from home". 

The reality? The vast majority of children in this state live within walking distance of their schools. For those who do not there is public transport or government supplied school buses in rural areas. How often do you really go to the gym after work - and do you really need to go to the gym or do you do it because it is "the thing to do"? Walking to the bus stop to catch the bus to work everyday might be a better (and much cheaper) option. Oh, sorry! That takes time does it? You didn't get up early enough? You haven't got the kids out of bed early enough? 

It all did happen once but we now seem to believe that the world has changed so much that cars are essential...and too many people believe that the electric vehicle is the answer to all this. Really? Have you actually looked at the environmental damage caused by creating one and then maintaining it? Is it really any better than any other sort of vehicle? 

China's one child policy was a social disaster but surely we can encourage people to limit their families to a policy of "replace yourselves" to just two children? Isn't that responsible?  It is surely responsible from the "net zero" point of view? Maybe not you say? It is just a thought.

It just frightens me to think of the money being poured in to a fantasy, the idea that this country can achieve the unachievable and do it ahead of everyone else. The idea that we will be held up as an example of how to do the impossible in a morally and financially responsible way is laughable...if the politicians were not so serious about causing the destruction of it all.

The answers may not be simple but I do know that politicians and all those with their financial interest in "net zero" are failing to do the one thing that could be done and might have a small but real impact. Please, could we plant more trees? Could we plant a lot more trees? Could we plant the other plants to go with the trees? That may not be "the answer to everything" but it might help - just a little bit more than that electric car.  

Most of us rate privacy as

important. We want our own space or spaces. Yes, we might share them with "family" or "significant others" or whatever the term is these days but not with strangers.

Now there is apparently a move to build "apartments" with not only no kitchens (already apparently common) but with "shared bathrooms". There is even a claim that this is what people "want". These places will apparently have to have spaces like "roof top barbecue areas" and they will need to get "direct sunlight for at least two hours a day". 

I can really see these moves working - not. The news comes as we are about to have the Annual General Meeting for this group of units. This is something that must be held by law. It will be held next week in the middle of the afternoon. This is what suits the company which is supposed to oversee the management of the external areas of the block. That is understandable as they work office hours but it is awkward for owners.

I have not been here a year yet. I have not even met everyone who owns a unit (renters are not eligible to attend) and I am not aware of all the issues which might come up. It was therefore good to talk with the man opposite when he actually stopped and asked if I was aware of the meeting. I told him I was and that I intended to attend it - via the phone option. He has offered to take me instead as it will give me the opportunity to meet some of the other owners. I have,. reluctantly, accepted. I do not want to get involved in what are obviously ongoing arguments about exterior painting, gutters and fences. His own remarks suggest he has more than a modicum of commonsense about these things but will he be outvoted on who gets the job to replace the fence or whose exterior gets painted first. (His argument is that the latter gets done in strict rotation and according to a schedule - not because someone wants theirs done now.) 

I will also go because the contract to mow the "lawns" has failed. On my return from "holiday" I found the areas we are paying to have mowed had not been touched. They are now almost knee high in weeds and it is no longer safe. Even with the rain we have had the ground is not soft enough for me to remove the weeds and the rest of it looks dreadful. My view on this is that the management company we pay a hefty fee to should have dealt with this weeks ago. They apparently knew what was happening and did nothing. One of the owners is making demands of any contractor which simply cannot be met. The contractor is not her personal gardener but she treats them as such and complains if her demands are not met. She is the one who needs to be pulled into line. Will it happen?

I hope something is done soon. I may need to get my long suffering BIL to do my bit - and too bad if the owner who demands so much does not like my bit looking a little tidier than hers. The whole area really needs to have a proper grassed area put in but the expense is something not likely to be acceptable to owners who just want to put out their hands for rent money.

Yes, we have this and other problems here. I thought of this when I read the proposal for "shared" bathrooms and kitchens and other spaces. This is not co-housing Danish style. It is much more likely to be a slum style disaster in waiting.  

Should Rudd "retire"?

For those of you in Upover and Elsewhere I will probably have to explain who Kevin Rudd is. He is Downunder's Ambassador to the United States of America. 

When it comes to diplomatic posts there are none considered more important in Canberra. It is a post which should only be given to someone with outstanding diplomatic skills, personal relationships and understanding of both national and international affairs. 

Although his supporters may try and suggest otherwise Rudd has none of those things. He was perhaps the worst Prime Minister we have had in recent years. The complaints I heard from colleagues when he was Prime Minister, people who actually had to work with him and his parliament on a day to day basis, have never been equalled. They may not have cared greatly for other Prime Ministers from both sides but they actively disliked Rudd. 

Rudd became Prime Minister, lost the position to Julia Gillard, and then won it again. He used tactics that still cause concern in Canberra today. They will likely go on causing concern. When he lost the election, as it should have been lost, he gave a lengthy self-serving speech. It was not the "gracious" gesture many claimed it to be. He knew exactly what he was doing. 

He refused to believe his political career was over. He knew his attempt to become Secretary-General of the United Nations was doomed to failure.  He was trying to pave the way to eventually becoming President of the Labor Party in Downunder.  It would have been a very powerful position in his hands and the current Prime Minister was having none of it. How to get rid of the threat? Offer him an Ambassadorship he could not refuse, the top post in diplomacy.

He had already been highly and very vocally critical of the now President of the country he was being sent to. That alone should have been enough to question his suitability for the position. Apparently it was more important to see him sent abroad than risk his interference here.

The exchange between PresidentTrump, Prime Minister Albanese and now Ambassador Rudd might be amusing to many but it also shows there is a problem.  Our Prime Minister is still supporting his old foe. He does not want him back here causing problems. He is still telling the world that this man is doing a great job.

In reality he is doing a very poor job. He has not been able to make the connections he should be making in Washington. One of his predecessors played golf with the President. It is most unlikely such an invitation will ever be willingly extended to him. That they loathe each other is all too obvious.

He could be removed from the position. It would be a very political move, an acknowledgment he cannot do the job. This is unlikely to happen but it is there as a possibility. He should be aware of that but he would probably laugh it off if someone suggested it to him.

If he had any self-awareness and he really did care for his country though then he would announce his retirement. It is time for him to go and that would solve the problem he presents for the rest of us.   

 

  

Could we have some plain English please?

I have been struggling through a document intended for people with disabilities. It is something I should have been able to read quickly and easily. 

The document relates to the problems at a sheltered employment centre for people who, for the most part, have intellectual disabilities. Some of them will be able to read the words. Others are not able to read at all. It is doubtful any of them will understand what the document means or how it relates to them.

I have more than one university level qualification and I struggled to understand what the document was saying. The person who gave it to me, the mother of a person who works there, does not understand it. Her husband, well used to dealing with bureaucracy in his own work, is also struggling.

I have gone further afield in an effort to find out just what is going on. Nobody seems to know. Those responsible for the document are not answering questions apart from saying, "We have sent the necessary information out."

In the middle of it all there is a statement suggesting the person who has received the document should ask someone else for clarification. I very much doubt they got as far as that. The document runs to three and a half pages of bureaucratic rubbish. They are simply trying to say, "Your employment here is at risk because we owe money. We are doing the best we can to sort it out. We will keep telling you what is happening." 

It is not the only such document I have been reading. The other relates to the AGM for the residents in this group of units. The agenda for this runs to many pages. As I only moved here earlier in the year I am unfamiliar with what might be ongoing issues. Perhaps they will be cleared up at the AGM. I will attend that out of necessity but, as a new resident, I have very little idea. I do not even know the people who have nominated for positions. It is not for want of trying. I have simply not even seen them to introduce myself.  The language the document is written in is not encouraging. There are details lacking but it is still far too long for anyone to take in quickly. 

I suppose I have always tended to write things too concisely. Perhaps it has come about from not having the physical capacity to write rapidly and legibly. I would like to think it has also come about because I want to be understood. Yes, I know I write "run on" sentences and I witter away here but if I need to write something for everyone to understand I can do it concisely and in plain language. 

Is it too hard for the very people who should understand the need for plain English to write it for those with learning difficulties? 

"Exterbadant" is not a word

you will find in a dictionary. Some will argue it is not a word at all.It was a word in our house when I was growing up - and it still surfaces occasionally. 

Where or how it came about I am not sure. It had multiple meanings. If the prospect of something pleased one of us kittens there was likely to be an enthusiastic "exterbadant!"  It was certainly seen as a substitute for words like "far out" and "blast".  We were told that the former was "inappropriate" and the latter was considered to be a swear word by our mother. That the Senior Cat had been known to mutter "blast" on occasion was not mentioned. 

Oddly our mother joined in the use of the word occasionally. It was not often but if she said, "No it is not exterbadant" or "I want it done exterbadantly" then we knew that something was unacceptable or had to be done immediately. I doubt she ever used the word in a positive context. It was almost certainly a source of irritation to her. 

Yes, it was a word with many potential meanings. It depended on context. Perhaps that is why it faded away to no more than the faintest ghost of a use?

As a family we played with words. We still do. Punning is definitely a family thing. There was also "verse and worse" and the discovery of new words. The Senior Cat would sometimes tell us about words he had come across as he finished his third year of English at the university. We thought it was "unreal" that this sort of thing happened in our house.

I find it difficult to keep up with the abbreviations and slang used by teenagers. Some of them take pity on me and explain but most of them indicate that their language is none of my business.  

I wondered about all this again yesterday because I pulled out something I wrote some time ago. On the first page, set in the sixties, I talk about the young hero's mother going "ballistic". It is appropriate to the time but now I wonder what a modern child, who is not a lover of words like the Whirlwind was, will make of it.  Will they "dig it" or just think it is "far out"?

Childhood vaccination rates

are apparently falling. They have been falling since Covid. The level needed to ensure that as many people as possible are safe is apparently around 95%. This apparently ensures that the very small minority of people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons are protected by the vaccination of the rest of us.

If my mother had been solely responsible for the vaccination of me and my siblings then we would not have been vaccinated. Our mother's "Christian Science" beliefs did not allow for vaccination. It was the Senior Cat and my godmother, a nurse, who saw to it. I sometimes wonder whether my mother's choice of her very close friend as my godmother was subconsciously influenced by another subconscious desire to ensure the safety of her children.  Whatever it was we got the jabs available at the time. Now we get other jabs when our GP deems them necessary and because we do believe that immunisation is a valuable weapon against some forms of illness.

The article in this morning's paper was therefore something I viewed with curiosity and alarm. There is apparently a growing "anti-vaccination" movement on social media. It is going beyond the disproven and dangerous belief that vaccinations cause autism and brain damage and even SIDS - sudden infant death syndrome. 

There is a "no jab, no play" law in this state. In a nutshell what it says is that a child under six must be vaccinated in order to attend day care, pre-school and so on.  There are now sites on social media advising parents how to provide false medical certificates to suggest their child has been vaccinated. Some parents are agreeing to vaccination schedules they have no intention of carrying out. They are suggesting alternative "natural" cures for potentially fatal diseases like whooping cough.  They are using AI and Chat bots to deliver false information. Ask the "right" questions and you can obtain a "yes" to the idea you can be arrested for feeding your child the ingredients in a vaccine.

My mother had a cousin who was rarely mentioned. I have written about him elsewhere. He was intellectually retarded and lived in an institution for such people. He was financially provided for, indeed we were the beneficiaries of his estate when he died but we were not even aware he was still alive. It is something I still feel angry about because the only thing I remember about him is from my early teens. We went to visit his parents for some reason and he happened to be there. We only glimpsed him briefly as he was sent to his room. Later we were told that he "does not learn very well because he had a high fever as a result of a measles vaccination. It's why I did not want you children vaccinated."  This was actually incorrect. He had not been vaccinated at all.

There will always be people who will put their children at risk. When they start to spread misinformation and put others at risk then we have an even bigger problem. I hope we can get back to that 95% which will protect the most vulnerable, those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.