Meeting the Challenge of the Rise of AI

 

Adrienne LaFrance, Executive Editor of "The Atlantic", has written an eloquent and important essay, titled,  “In Defense of Humanity – We Need a Cultural and Philosophical Movement to Meet the Rise of Artificial Intelligence”/

 

Her essay treats the importance of how we respond to the introduction of Artificial Intelligence.  She believes it is the most important technological innovation in our time and perhaps in history. 

 

Some of her most poignant comments: it “can seem as though ordinary people have no hope of influencing the machines that will soon be cognitively superior to us all, but there is tremendous power in defining ideals, even if they ultimately remain out of reach.  Considering all that is at stake, we have to at least try.”

 

These same words describe the importance of the ideals embedded in the Declaration of Independence and those, too, in Procter & Gamble’s Statement of Purpose.  They pertain also to the ideal of enabling every young person to grow up with the opportunity to fulfill their mission and destiny. 

 

LaFrance continues:  “Transparency should be a core tenet in the new human exchange of ideas—people ought to disclose whenever an Artificial Intelligence is present or has been used in communication.”

“Now is the time as well to recommit to making deeper connections with other people.  Live video chats can collapse time and distance, but such technologies are a poor substitute for face-to-face communication, especially in settings where creative collaboration or learning is paramount.  Relationships cannot and should not be sustained in the digital realm alone, especially as AI further erodes our understanding of what is real.  Tapping a ‘like’ button is not friendship.  It’s a data-point.”

 

She continues:  “We should trust human ingenuity and creative intuition, and resist over-reliance on tools that dull the wisdom of our own aesthetics and intellect.  We can and should layer on technological tools that will aid us in this endeavor, but never at the expense of seeing, feeling and ultimately knowing for ourselves.”

 

This, it seems to me, once again underscores the importance of deep archival research, of experiencing nature in the raw, and having access to personal, “in-the-moment” diaries and journals. 

 

Finally, I will quote these words from LaFrance:  “We should put more emphasis on contemplation as a way of being.  We should embrace an unfinished state of thinking, the constant work of challenging our preconceived notions, and seeking out those with whom we disagree and sometimes still not knowing.  We are mortal beings, driven to know more than we ever will or ever can.”

 

How true that is.

 

And this, finally:  “What remains is the fact that we are on this planet to seek knowledge, truth and beauty—and we only get so much time to do it.”  

So Much for the Assertion that Systemic Racism No Longer Exists and My Son, David's New Book: "Saving Democracy"

 How do these two strands link together? Let me try to explain.

The just released devastating report on the racially biased conduct of the Minneapolis police department--conduct neither new or unique to that city--undercuts claims we here from many people, including presidential aspirants Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, that systemic racism no longer exists. Yes,  there has been progress on the racial front over the past century, but we still have deeply embedded systemic racial inequities which require decisive action. 

Now, turning to my son, David. 

He has released two books over the last year. The first, "Laboratories of Autocracy", identifies in meticulous detail how gerrymandered state legislatures are passing and advancing bills that are counter to majority opinion. They include suppressing voting rights, controlling what children are taught in schools, limiting the right of women to choose, banning books, and weakening already overly permissive gun regulation. All actions that threaten our democracy to the core.

This book has secured a wide and enthusiastic group of readers. However, it has led to a provocative question from many readers. 

"I get it; we have major issues threatening our Democracy. You have convinced me of that. BUT, just knowing that leaves me frustrated; what can I do as an individual to counter this threat?"

That question led to David's second and just published book: "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American". As David writes: "Saving Democracy is meant to spur action. Your action. It is structured to challenge and guide each reader on how you can play a more active role in lifting democracy than you might have imagined". The book detail many, many examples of individuals doing exactly that and organizations who will help them do it. 

Here the point of this short essay

I believe we face the same challenge David is addressing to Save Democracy when it comes to racial justice. We need to do two things:

1. We need to document through easily understood and transparent facts that systemic racial bias and actions do continue to exist. We need to identify what they are through impartial, apolitical communication of reality.

2. We then need to help people understand what they can do individually and as part of their organization and community to counter racial bias and system outages. We need to share "best-case" examples of individuals and organizations taking action and changing their behavior to make progress. There are many of them. 

Today, many people will acknowledge we continue to face racial and social justice inequities. But they don't know what they can do to make a difference. We need to guide people in how they can make a difference in combatting the racial inequities that still exist.

The Future of Ukraine and Russia--Amended Post of May 30th

 

The Die Is Cast--Russia Has Failed in Its Misbegotten Effort to Take Over Ukraine--History Speaks With Authority--Our Long Term Goal

MAY 30, 2023

I just finished reading Andrew Robert's magisterial biography of King George III who reigned during the US-British Revolutionary War. There is a lesson from this history which I believe bears on what we are witnessing today as Ukraine fights for its independence. 

Let me explain. 

The timing of America's seeking and achieving its independence could have varied to some degree. If the British had not pursued taxing the colonies as they did (and incidentally had every right to do--the colonies were more lightly taxed than England itself) the outbreak of the Revolution might have been delayed.  But there could have been no doubt that as the nation matured and its population grew (it was doubling every 25 years in the 1700s), its citizens would eventually gain the confidence and motivation to seek and gain their independence. 

It is not surprising that it took almost a decade for the King and most of the British contemporary leaders to recognize that reality.  (It takes a long time for people to accept what they  don't want to accept). 

British soldiers fighting far from their home, many of them mercenaries just like many of the soldiers fighting for Russia today, proved to be no match for the American soldiers fighting on their own ground for their homes and freedom. And , importantly, America was supported in its fight for independence ,by Francie and  Spain, just as Ukraine is supported today by the forces of NATO. In fact, for all practical purposes the outcome of the Revolutionary War was decided by 1778. But the war dragged on and soldiers died for three more years

Russia, led by Putin, is in some ways reliving what happened to Britain fighting the colonies. And also what happened 40+ years ago to Russia in Afghanistan, and what happened to the US in Vietnam, and what happened to the US in Afghanistan. He is pursuing an un-winnable war against patriots fighting on their home ground. 

I don't know how long this cruel and killing war will continue or what the precise terms will be. And I expect there may be a continuing "frozen conflict". But I see no doubt that Ukraine will become a vibrant independent nation akin to Poland and other countries in Central Europe. Ukrainians and their leaders led by President Zelensky  have demonstrated as clearly as possible that their commitment to independence cannot be denied. 

The biggest task of the West as we move forward is to now support Ukraine as fully as necessary to ensure this outcome and at the same time maintain a longterm vision to eventually bring Russia into a security arrangement with the West which respect its history, culture, power and rightful role at the table. 

Indeed, as I have thought about this further, I believe is will only be when Russia and Ukraine are both integrated into a viable security arrangement with the West, even if not identical in their form, that a "frozen conflict"between Russia and Ukraine will be eliminated and peaceful coexistence between these two neighboring countries assured.

To acknowledge this is not likely to happen in my lifetime nor during the rule of Vladimir Putin should not dissuade us from pursuing this as our longterm goal. 

We had the opportunity to do this in the early years of this century. We must not fail again. 

To those who believe that Russia is not destined as a nation to ever be part of a broader European coalition, remember that it was allied with Francie and England in WW I, that Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is leavened with French (as just one small example of the affinity of cultures). 

Also remember how unimaginable it was a century ago that Germany would be keystone in a United Europe. 

The Die Is Cast--Russia Has Failed in Its Misbegotten Effort to Take Over Ukraine--History Speaks With Authority--Our Long Term Goal

I just finished reading Andrew Robert's magisterial biography of King George III who reigned during the US-British Revolutionary War. There is a lesson from this history which I believe bears on what we are witnessing today as Ukraine fights for its independence. 

Let me explain. 

The timing of America's seeking and achieving its independence could have varied to some degree. If the British had not pursued taxing the colonies as they did (and incidentally had every right to do--the colonies were more lightly taxed than England itself) the outbreak of the Revolution might have been delayed.  But there could have been no doubt that as the nation matured and its population grew (it was doubling every 25 years in the 1700s), its citizens would eventually gain the confidence and motivation to seek and gain their independence. 

It is not surprising that it took almost a decade for the King and most of the British contemporary leaders to recognize that reality.  (It takes a long time for people to accept what they  don't want to accept). 

British soldiers fighting far from their home, many of them mercenaries just like many of the soldiers fighting for Russia today, proved to be no match for the American soldiers fighting on their own ground for their homes and freedom. And , importantly, America was supported in its fight for independence ,by Francie and  Spain, just as Ukraine is supported today by the forces of NATO. In fact, for all practical purposes the outcome of the Revolutionary War was decided by 1778. But the war dragged on and soldiers died for three more years

Russia, led by Putin, is in some ways reliving what happened to Britain fighting the colonies. And also what happened 40+ years ago to Russia in Afghanistan, and what happened to the US in Vietnam, and what happened to the US in Afghanistan. He is pursuing an un-winnable war against patriots fighting on their home ground. 

I don't know how long this cruel and killing war will continue or what the precise terms will be. And I expect there may be a continuing "frozen conflict". But I see no doubt that Ukraine will become a vibrant independent nation akin to Poland and other countries in Central Europe. Ukrainians and their leaders led by President Zelensky  have demonstrated as clearly as possible that their commitment to independence cannot be denied. 

The biggest task of the West as we move forward is to now support Ukraine as fully as necessary to ensure this outcome and at the same time maintain a longterm vision to eventually bring Russia into a security arrangement with the West which respect its history, culture, power and rightful role at the table. 

Indeed, as I have thought about this further, I believe is will only be when Russia and Ukraine are both integrated into a viable security arrangement with the West, even if not identical in their form, that a "frozen conflict"between Russia and Ukraine will be eliminated and peaceful coexistence between these two neighboring countries assured.

To acknowledge this is not likely to happen in my lifetime nor during the rule of Vladimir Putin should not dissuade us from pursuing this as our longterm goal. 

We had the opportunity to do this in the early years of this century. We must not fail again. 

To those who believe that Russia is not destined as a nation to ever be part of a broader European coalition, remember that it was allied with Francie and England in WW I, that Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is leavened with French (as just one small example of the affinity of cultures). 

Also remember how unimaginable it was a century ago that Germany would be keystone in a United Europe. 

Freedom, Choices and Commitment--A Personal Reflection

 

I returned to one of my favorite authors and preachers over the weekend, Peter Gomes.  He was the long-term chaplain at Harvard.  He has written many books.  The one I was re-reading is Strength for the Journey:  Biblical Wisdom for Daily Living. 

 

I’m picking up on the title of one of his chapters:  Freedom, Choices, and Commitment. 

 

I found myself applying these elements to my life.  Briefly:

 

1.     I was afforded freedom first and foremost by my parents.  By the education they gave me, by the love they conveyed, and by the expectations they communicated to me that I could achieve just about anything.  And they conveyed freedom very importantly by sending me away to Portsmouth Priory in my junior year of high school.  This freed me from the parochial atmosphere of the small town in which I grew up (though I didn’t feel it at all as parochial at the time) and the sometimes challenges of our home environment.

 

2.     The world opened for me at Portsmouth Priory in the academic and religious environment I encountered. Going to Portsmouth was a choice which my parents made on my behalf.   I followed what they thought I should do without question.I will be  forever grateful to them. It involved a great financial sacrifice.

 

From my time at Portsmouth came some important choices.  Some may surprise you.

 

Going out for the football team was one of the most important.  I was challenged by sports in general and by contact sports in particular.  I knew I wouldn’t be good at football, but I was determined to try; and I did and I remember it to this day and it led me to a particular friendship with Scott O’Leary, the star half back which I’ll never forget. He taught me how to tackle (sort of!); I helped him in math. 

 

Then came more choices.  My commitment to morning matins and evening vespers.  My religious faith deepened. My choice to go on to Yale was pure serendipity. I had no greater rationale than that I didn’t think it was quite as book-y as Harvard and less of a “club-like” atmosphere than Princeton.

 

Approaching Yale, I made some vital choices.  First came my decision to try to secure the Naval ROTC scholarship needed for my family's being able to afford my going to Yale.  In seeking the Navy scholarship, I faced one of the most important choices in my life.  Would I cheat on an eye exam?  

You had to have 20/20 uncorrected vision to qualify for a Navy scholarship.  My vision had tested 20/30 weeks before the test was scheduled.  Should I bother to go up to Boston from Providence to take the test?  I decided I would.  I went to bed at 5:00 p.m. to get as good a sleep as possible.  I wanted my eyes fully rested. Going in to take the test the next day, I walked across the front of the room and there, immediately on my left, was the eye test chart, showing the letters I’d need to read to score 20/20.  Would I look at this chart?  The question went through my mind.  I said “no.”  Well, you can tell where the story ends.  I went to the back of the room, said a deep prayer, squinted my eyes and, sure enough, I was able to read the 20/20 line. 

 

Having entered Yale, I made what in hindsight were three important choices:  to pursue History as my major; to seek a prominent leadership position in the NROTC brigade; and to join the newspaper, where I ultimately became advertising manager.

 

It is remarkable how in hindsight choices made on the run turn out to have lifelong consequences. Perhaps nothing united them for me as much as the continued quest to learn and to grow.

 

The choices continued; some of them were givens. Some not. Three years of active duty in the Navy was a given.  Taking classes at the University of Penn while I was at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard--in international business and public speaking--was a choice. At the time I had no idea they would prove so beneficial to my ultimate career. 

 

The most importance choice I ended up making was to defer going to law school and take a job for what I thought would only be a year at Procter & Gamble. I knew P&G was a good company. Little could I have imagined that I had found a home and place where I would spend a 40-year career.

 

The most important choice in my life came after I had been with P&G for about a year.  A friend asked me to go to the Kentucky Derby.  It would have been much more likely for me to say “no,” to stay back in Cincinnati, working.  Work was my life.  But I went on a blind date and I met the woman of my dreams, Francie, who was on a date with another P&Ger. It was May 1964.

 

I looked at her cautiously.  I didn’t want her to know my attention was riveted on her.  I knew right then and there this was the woman I wanted to marry.   It took me over three years, to September 9th,1967, to make my dream come true. 

 

3.     My commitments over the years have flowed directly from the freedom afforded by my parents, the choices I made, many of them serendipity, not knowing how they would connect, and my good fortune in having found three things to which it has been natural and easy to give my all.  They are my wife, Francie.  The family that we have been blessed to have:  four children, their spouses, and ten grandchildren.  And Procter & Gamble, a company like no other, embodying the values I hold most dear:  the pursuit of truth, the commitment to excellence and growth the respect for others and a commitment always to do the right thing.

There have been other commitments I’ve been fortunate to find my way to, all anchored in the same quest to  try to make a contribution to other people and to the world around us.  Chief among them have been Every Child Succeeds, the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, Yale University, and the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.

 

In all of this I have drawn strength and direction from my Faith in God. 

 

I hope this essay reveals my good fortune, how my prayers to God have been answered again and again, how I have found myself knowing and supported by individuals who have made my life better than I could have ever imagined it to be--first and foremost, my wife Francie who, as I have often said without a hint of pretense or exaggeration, made it all possible. 

Timeless Wisdom

 “Life is short and there is precious little time to gladden the hearts of those who travel with us, so make haste to be kind and be quick to love, because in every act of love and kindness, the God who first formed us reforms us again and again.” 

Henrik Frederik Amiel

Countdown to Pearl Harbor--History That Speaks to the Present

 

Thu, May 11 at 12:04 PM

Our Man in Tokyo:  An American Ambassador and the Countdown to Pearl Harbor, by Steve Kemper

 

Kemper's history tells the story of Joseph Grew’s 10-year stint as the American Ambassador to Japan, from 1932-1942.

 

Grew was a man who sought peace through diplomacy.  He tried to make the best out of every situation and turn challenges into opportunities.  To no avail.

 

Here are the most illuminating and surprising learnings I carried away from the book:

 

1.          Japan’s expansionist drive in the 1930s on into the early 1940s was driven by the belief that it had every right to claim and rule China and Southeast Asia.  It viewed itself as “the empire under the sun.”  For much of its history, Japan had been a closed, isolated society.  It developed its own unique culture and values under the influence of Confucianism and the Samurai culture. (There is a lot of similarity in China's view of the world today).

 

2.          In the late 19^th and early 20^th century, Japan began to undergo rapid modernization and industrialization, which led to a growing demand for resources and economic expansion.  It was led perpetually by an Emperor who was seen as Divine.  Its growth led to a growing demand for resources and economic expansion and this, with a growing sense of national pride, led to a desire to become a world power, with the belief that it had the right to claim and rule over other countries, including China and Southeast Asia.  (Similar to so many other countries, e.g., Germany in the late 1800s; U.S. in the period 1865-1930s; China today.)

 

The first step in this process was the takeover of Manchuria, which became Manchuko. 

 

During the 1930s, Japan took increasing expansionary steps in China, far greater than I realized.  It bombed cities and pretty much took hold of the whole east coast.

 

This driving ideology of the right to claim a broader expanse of land has its parallel with Putin in Ukraine, a feeling that it (Ukraine) was part of Russia’s natural heritage.

 

3.          If Japanese expansionist instincts were to have been thwarted, it would have to have been done early, I believe, likely with the takeover of Manchuria.

 

The colonialist attitude of the United States and Britain made these countries unwilling to draw a line in China against Japan.  To the extent we objected to what Japan was doing, it was mainly to seek relief from any incursion by Japan into our own rights under the “Open Door” policy.  Our own colonialist instincts played right into the hands of what Japan wanted to do.

 

4.          I had not realized the depth of the internal conflict within Japan.  There were individuals, more than just one or two, who saw Japan’s aligning itself with Germany, and joining the pact with Germany and Italy, to be a fatal mistake.  They saw good relationships with the U.S. and Britain as fundamental.  Yet, the group’s focus on expansion, including by military means, proved far stronger. 

 

The Emperor, Hirohito, was opposed to the pact with Germany, but was finally worn down.

 

5.          The only way that the drive for expansion and war, on the part of the Japanese, could have been stopped as the 1930s came to an end, was by the Emperor.  His authority appears to have been complete.  While not certain, if he had ruled that the leadership should pursue a strong relationship with the United States and insisted it abandon their expansionist drive, that probably would have happened.  But he was not strong enough to do it, perhaps mentally or physically.  This reminds me of how von Hindenburg was the only person who could have stopped the German decision to go to World War I.  He could have thwarted Hitler, but he wasn’t strong enough or, for whatever reason, not inclined to do that.

 

6.          There is no doubt that the increasing sanctions against Japan played a big role in their feeling they were being attacked by the “white man,” and had no choice in their view but to expand into countries where they could seize their own raw materials.  Looking back, we applied these sanctions in a step-by-step, non-decisive way, and they led to an outcome that was the worst possible. 

 

Similarly, the sanctions we are making against Russia are not having a decisive affect in their actions any more than they did with Japan.  The history of sanctions as weapons to stop totalitarian expansion is not good.

 

7.          I was reminded, in reading this book, how senior leaders, who had a right to know, foresaw precisely how, in an extended war, Japan was a sure loser—that it could not match the resources of the United States.  Among these leaders was Yamamato, the admiral who led the attack on Pearl Harbor.  He knew perfectly well that the likelihood of Japan prevailing in a war was close to zero.  A true tragedy.

 

I think of the leadership in Germany pre-World War I and too some degree World War II.  There, too, were people who foresaw the eventual result that Germany was on a suicidal mission.  Yet, they were not united, and they could not prevail against the disciplined, passionate militaristic wing of German leadership. The same thing was true with our decision to pursue the war in Vietnam and invade Iraq in 2003. It has been this way all too often. (History may disclose there were strong leaders in the Kremlin who opposed Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. Yet, they did not prevail, just as those few in the US who foresaw Vietnam being a horrific mistake did not prevail).