Lazy, lazy, tests: They are fast, easy, and non-invasive but they should never be solely relied upon

     Once upon a time (about 30 years ago), I was going through various dating services trying to find a lifemate. (Found her at a mutual meeting on an outdoor walking excursion.) I decided to use a reasonably rated dating service in Seattle. I filled out, completely honestly and transparently, all about me and the most important things about the person I wanted to meet. It did not work out well.

      I am short (shorter as I age) and a bit pudgy. I am also very well muscled. I used to be able to do leg presses of heavier weights than most of the people on my high school football team (I didn’t make the team — another story).

The erroneous world of BMI

     My height and weight statistics were such that I had a BMI of 31.3 which is considered “obese”. My height and weight were almost exactly the same as the quarterback of the Denver Broncos. No, I won’t claim I was in as good of condition as the quarterback. As I said, I was pudgy. What I wasn’t was “obese”. But no woman in the dating records had any interest in dating an “obese” man. I offered to go into their office and show them. No go. They had their fast, easy tool that told them what they wanted to know and they didn’t care at all that it was totally inaccurate.

     I was self-employed at the time and had my own health insurance. I was penalized for my muscle. The insurance agent SAID that he understood and sympathized but could do nothing about it. (The BMI is known to only be accurate for about 85% of the time — due to “abnormal” body composition of too much muscle or thick bones or other non-average aspects.) The company used the BMI as their Bible. There are other tests for better accuracy such as a water displacement test and a caliper test. There is even a pretty easy measurement test that is a lot more accurate. It includes the circumference of your waist and wrist in addition to height and weight. No go. Fast, easy, and wrong.

The autocratic world of Reddit

     Once upon a time, when I was building my audience for my blog (https://technoglot.blogspot.com) I made use of some of the subreddits of Reddit. As you may know, each subreddit has its own owner, or owners. They control the topic as well as the rules for appropriate entries. They are the ruling folks. But, as the royalty, they have no obligation to follow their rules. The rules are there to meet the requirements of a subreddit. Following them is optional.

     I never succeeded in staying on a subreddit long because they didn’t like a blog to occupy a place there (I did get quite a few views). None of the rules said no blogs but … I had one person who had written their own tool for spam detection. The tool detected duplicate base URLs! (So blog.com/X was spam of blog.com/Y because they both were based on blog.com.) An article from newsweek.com would have registered as spam because other articles would also exist within newsweek.com. But, their tool was fast and easy and they didn’t care that it was wrong (I have a Master’s degree in Computer Science). Not important.

The world of AI detection following the easy, quick incorrect path.

     Now, we are entering the world of AI generating text and material. I am getting reports on the use of tools dictating what is AI and what is not. One of the rules is that of using the — (emdash). Apparently, AI detection tools have decided that only AI generated text makes use of the emdash. Balderdash. But, I am trying to wean myself away from using that indication of an extended pause because I would prefer to not be erroneously marked as AI. First BMI, now potentially AI. All out of laziness being more important than accuracy.

     So, what other items is an AI detector likely to flag? Formal, academic style writing, simple and clear sentences. If it is clear, direct, easy to understand then you are likely to be in trouble. We will all need to write like Lewis Carroll in “Jabberwocky”. We all need to make our prose as unpredictable and erratic as possible. Oh, there are some understandable authors that have a “unique” voice who should be safe. Coming from a non-fiction, technical, background, I am probably going to be in deep doodoo.

     Frankly (does anyone ever say “Georgely”?) I don’t think it can be done. So be prepared to be accused of being an AI if you love language and want to type it according to the rules of English. Oh, yes, ESL folks are also likely to be flagged because they are taught direct, straight-forward, sentence structure and “normal” writers don’t sound like that.

What’s going to happen?

     I would like to say that all of these folks that are using these tools will sit up and say “my goodness, are the tools that bad? We should immediately stop relying on them so much”. But, people are people and most want to follow the quick, easy, cheap route. Plus, here in the US, we love those numerical scores. If a tool can give us a number as output, we can’t help but fall in love with it.

     I’m “lucky”. I make almost no money from my books, blogs, and newsletters. So, it doesn’t matter if I am accused of being an AI. And I can find (and have found) other methods of distributing my blogs (and make use of SEO tools). And I am settled into a permanent “death do us part” relationship. So, as Bill Murray says so eloquently in “Meatballs” — “it just doesn’t matter”.

Sure, it doesn’t. Good luck to all of us.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Transparency vs opacity: layers of visibility

 

     A transparent situation allows full awareness of all that is going on and all interactions. An opaque situation means that only what is seen and heard, in response to some type of action, is all that is known. In the world of software testing, these are referred to as white box and black box situations which may be used for evaluation and testing. However, such a difference also exists within interpersonal relationships.

     In many instances, we know only what a person has done without knowing anything of the reasons and methods of doing the action. We may not even know what event, or events, occurred to cause the action. If all we know is from the "outside" then it is an opaque situation. It is hard to envision a person-to-person interaction where full transparency is possible. Full open communication and active listening can help but that only reaches conscious thoughts and reasonings.

     Groups of people may allow processes that are closer to transparent. What is happening within each person is still unknown but it is possible to keep track of interactions between the people and associate that with actions taken by the group. To put together a "rule book", transparency is not needed. What is needed are the events and the reactions -- though there may be so many variants of combinations of events that a complete rule book is impossible. These sets of "rule books" may be considered to be sets of laws -- both natural laws as well as human-created laws. However, in order to potentially change reactions to given inputs, transparency is needed.

     Let's go back to the world of software testing as it is much easier to examine internal behaviors and test reactions to given input than it is to do such with people. If you are doing transparent/white box testing, then you have access to all of the software code for the project. You certainly can connect to the places where the software is SUPPOSED to connect to other pieces of software but you can also examine just how it reaches this point. With experience, you can notice certain vulnerabilities -- places where the software can be persuaded to do things that it wasn't supposed to do. This is a blessing/curse for "open source software" because people can help your software become safer and more robust -- but others, who do not have the general public's best welfare in mind, can locate and take advantage of weaknesses.

     Within this transparent mode of testing, each comparison and each test can, and should, be tested for all legal values as well as a representation of illegal values. Proper error responses should happen with all illegal values and correct output should happen for all legal values. Once the individual tests have been checked, it can be checked at the function level and then at the system component level. Finally, we are at the stage of testing the full system. At this point, transparent testing may be similar, or identical to, opaque/black box testing.

     Like an onion, layers can be removed and something hidden can be made visible. Once visible, it can be examined and tested. This is true of software, of societies, of individuals, and of other objects which are the focus of examination by scientists and other interested people.

Book Reports & Business plans: Decomposition, fewer words, Creation, more words

 

     I am in the process of writing a book. Not my first book but each book is different and the requirements and orientations are different.

     Once upon a time, back in the dark ages when I was in public school, one of the regular assignments by English teachers (probably true for teachers all over the world in whatever language they write in) was to read a book and do a "book report". (I believe they still make this assignment.) This book report was to be two parts -- one part a summary of the book and the second part a reaction and interpretation of the book.  Book reports were not usually assigned until a person had progressed to "books without pictures" (sometimes teachers would get very stringent about this and not allow a book that just had occasional illustrations). As the reports were often expected to be 1000 words (longer as one got older), this would mean reducing a book which might be (once again, usually longer as one got older) 40,000 words for a middle-grade book to 70,000 to 200,000 words down to 1,000 words.

     How do you summarize a 200,000 (or more) word novel into 1,000 words? First, you have to recognize the climax. What was that end result that all the early parts were leading you towards? (Non-fiction books are not easily summarized because the details are, hopefully, the parts that you want to remember -- getting rid of them defeats the purpose.) Next, note the most important characters -- just the characters that are important in moving to that climax. Finally, what are the important events that lead toward the climax. There will be subplots and side events and environment and all kinds of things that don't directly lead to the climax. It takes a lot of discernment and work to cut it down to 1,000 words. And learning that ability to discern and reduce is why the lesson is assigned.

     A "condensed book" (or severely abridged book) must contain the summary but also keeps scenes (perhaps modified) associated with the relevant important events that convey character development and environment. Some new authors (longer published authors have more control -- sometimes not to their benefit) end up with condensed books after their editors have finished with them. The advantages of a condensed book is that it conveys the general ideas of the book but can be read in a much shorter period of time.

     The third category of reduction is an analysis -- such as provided by Cliffs Notes® -- which provides a summary enhanced by analysis of what is going on within sections of the book and why. The existence of these is sometimes a bane for English teachers who are trying to get students to learn the skills of discernment, reduction, and analysis (the analysis portion is that other part of the "book report" beyond the summary). But they are available to teachers also and direct plagiarism is relatively easy to spot (so don't do it for assignments).

     But what about the "other direction"? The author-to-be has latched onto an idea from the magic idea cabinet and wants to create a 200,000 word work of art that will be cherished for the ages. Different authors approach this in different ways. I treat it as a reversal of a reduction. I determine the climax and then decide on what events could reasonably lead to that climax and the characters involved. Then (difficult for me -- some authors have other difficult areas) I need to take that summary and put all of the personality development, environmental interactions, humor, personal interactions and details needed to make it an interesting, page turning, newly written classic.

     Of course, it isn't that simple (although, with some authors' output, it appears to the reader that it must just flow out of their fingers without any conscious effort). I'm far from that point (I hope to be there someday) but the art of writing is somewhat analogous to other arts -- music, painting, sculpture. As you practice the skills, the brain establishes them as additional extensions of the mind and body. What used to be a conscious process becomes a subconscious flow. An immersion of the mind into the world being described allows a conduit from that world to the transcription of print, music, sculpture, video and so forth.

     A business plan has many parallel tasks to that of creating a book. The plan has a climax (a marketable product). In order to reach that climax (product), a series of events must take place (design, creation, marketing, sales,...). And it will require a set of characters (or personnel) with different attributes (skills/functional departments). Alas, unlike a book, you cannot write in all of the surrounding details -- those surrounding details are the obstacles to your achieving that climax. Murphy has a lot of input into those surrounding details but, within that business plan, the more details and possibilities that are considered will make the plan better. And how to deal with potential problems may be more important than the unhindered steps to the product.