Malicious Ai training data and the lack of judgement

 So I just had an AI spit out a code snippit that was so egregiously bad that it boggled me for a while. 

function updateBlockSpan(sectionID, blockname) {
// Use jQuery to find the block_span in the section
// Will dynamically add the span if it doesn't exist yet
const $section = $('#' + sectionID);

if ($section.length) {
// Look for existing block_span
let $blockSpan = $section.find('.block_span');

// If no block_span exists, create one
if ($blockSpan.length === 0) {
// Create and add a debug span to the section
$blockSpan = $('<span class="block_span debug_display">Block: </span>');
$section.prepend($blockSpan);
}

// Update the content
$blockSpan.html('Block: ' + blockname);
} else {
console.log('Section not found: ' + sectionID);
}
} Without knowing the structure of the software I was working on, its difficult to see how shit this is.  

The key points are that the code is checking to see if the block_span tag exists... and if not, it tries to create one... and then PREPENDS it to the section.  

So as my UI works by showing and hiding lots of sections... this code would get called each time a section was displayed.  So it would create and inject a tag, outside of my sections that would persist and not get cleaned up, each time a section was displayed... so the error would stack up outside my UI area.... and keep on stacking the longer it went on.  

This is so many levels of bad ideas that it took me a while to articulate just how much I hate it. 

1) Hiding an error from a foundational assumption (that the block_span existed in the first place) 

2) Injecting DOM elements into random places.... 

3) The stacking behaviour as a consequence of not understanding the context where the function was being used. 

The larger context that I think is the problem, is that the AI presented this as its first attempt to solve this problem.  This was not the result of some vibe coding ..evolving to a bad solution... this was a simple first pass at replacing a 2 line function that was not selecting a tag correctly. 

This raised the question in my mind about how bad the training data must be to allow this to be generated as a first best guess.  How much rotted bad horrible code must have gone into training the AI that it has zero compunction about presenting this type of bad idea. 

I think this is a result of scraping the worst of the worst of the free internet and treating it all equally.  The AI's have not been trained on the best of the best code bases written by the most experienced and seasoned programmers... but by the most amateur keyboard cowboys who had the time to shit-post on the web. 

I would even go so far as to say that this is beyond a dark pattern... its actively malevolent.  And that can only have come from sufficient training data to generate persistently bad patterns in generative results.  

What's the solution to this?  

Very obviously the AI was not dealing with any context.  They are still taking in the minimum amount of code for the prompt and not considering the larger context that the function will be used in.  The tiny context windows... and the questionable way the AI actually uses the context creates the problem that I call this "sword fighting through a keyhole".   

But on top of this context we would expect "Judgement".  The ability to differentiate good from bad coding practices.  I still question that this exists or can exist for AI's that have been trained on a broad diet of random shit code from the internet.  
They have no means to learn judgement.  I can only assume that the code was not checked by seasoned programmers, line by line, before it was fed into the training data pool.  I think the evidence is building that any attempt to give these AI judgment has failed woefully. 

The other thought that occurred to me is that the vast majority of "high quality" code in many languages is probably hidden behind "commercial confidence".  There is going to be a lot of good quality code floating around in repos on github... passion projects by seasoned dev's... but the code that has been build to generate money... and battle tested by teams of seasoned devs is mostly going to be protected and not appear in training data sets that have been scraped or stolen for first generation AI's.  

Perhaps we will need to evolve the training data sets quality and meta data before we can evolve better AI code generators.  

Making choices makes you... you?

 So if you make a choice, does it define you?  Are you implicitly rejecting the other choice?  Can you sit on the fence and keep everyone happy or pick no sides and be on no ones side?

If you change your mind and take the other path... does that choice alone then define you?  Does the time spent exploring the other choice count?  Does the time spent on the fence matter?  

If you keep your feet on both forks of the path... are you just indecisive or making no progress? 

On the other hand, there is the case of making a decision and going for it.... with the risk that it may turn out in an unexpected way.  Every choice has risk, there is no way to eliminate it completely. 

So is choice just about risk?  Trying to pick the least risky choice?  What are the other factors?  Outcomes?  Time investment? Resources?  Ability to execute?  Side effects?  Intangibles? 

Do you pick the choice that will make you who you desire to be?  Will you still desire it when you get there or will the journey reform your desire along the way? 

How to live without discrimination....

 I am seeing more and more end games of anti-discrimination cropping up.  Poor folk who have not had any barriers or boundaries placed on their lives and are ending up in situations to which they are not suited. 

Its interesting to ask the question, is the situation not suitable for the candidate or is the candidate not suitable for the situation?  

I have always ascribed to the idea that people have to change to suite the environment.  But its always good to challenge an idea to see if its a rule or a heuristic.  Are there sufficient edge cases to re-evaluate the rule? 

So the instance I ran across today was about a woman who wanted to sue the US Navy because she could not get what she wanted.  The details are sad and not worth repeating... but the essence is that the environment (the Navy) would not give the woman what she wanted... for reasons. 

The issue I identified was that the Navy was not able to exercise judgment (for right or wrong) and reject her application... and the woman had been strung along and waffled around for so long that she had now passed an age cuttoff.  Imagine a system as large as the US Navy and the only boundary they have left is age.  All their other discrimination mechanisms have been systematically removed.  

This means that the organisation cannot effectively make a decision and enforce it directly.  The system has now adopted what always happens and has evolved indirect ways of trying to get an efficient result. 

There is plenty of scope to argue about need to change and was the previous discrimination system fit for purpose... but that's not the point.  The point is that without a discrimination system, the system has become frustrating, abusive, manipulative, untrustworthy and inefficient.

Its interesting that even as poor a candidate as she is for the role she wants (elite forces officer) the system has spent a lot of effort to prevent her getting in.  It would have been very simple to play the strategy of "just her have a go and fail by herself".  So was this because they did not have faith that she could be failed by any of the internal systems?   Were they just protecting her? (Seem unlikely) Were they protecting the system/institution?  (More likely... as all organisations have some self protection) or were there other considerations?  

The problem is that this woman may not have failed most of the physical challenges and the remaining ones she might have received a "wave through" as has happened for various reasons in military fitness standards.  This would have resulted in her getting the role she wanted. 

So the question still is... where they right to discriminate against her for organisational reasons... even while they did it indirectly? Did the recruiting personnel have good insight into the role and used their instinct to keep her out?  

Having just re-watched moneyball... it makes some interesting points about "selection personnel" that are probably exactly as valid for the military. However, in moneyball, they were not selecting from a general population, they were selecting from already elite players who had "issues".  Very very carefully selecting around the issues.  

In this instance they had a civilian who had "self-selected" as being an elite candidate and was trying to force their selection.  Is this the same or different?  Is there enough wiggle room between the two positions?  

An alternate hypothesis is that the system rejected her (by indirect methods) because of other factors that are not being reported clearly.  My personal take is that the candidate is demonstrating what is called in America a "Type A" personality.... an egomaniac bully.  Perhaps they don't actually want candidates with these personality disorders in positions of extreme responsibility?  Just a thought. 

   

  

Burn it all ... up?

 Watching the current tariff shenanigans and listening to superficially rational people panic is both startling and a bit sad.  I realise that there is going to be a lot of people take injury from the convulsions and I am sympathetic to their distress.

This is human nature at play and there is plenty of learning to be learned. 

Firstly, all the media and talking heads who are busy crying (or expressing glee) about the stock market movements... are treating it like its the centre of the world.  When on any other day, they want to pretend that its just not that interesting.  
Are they just trend following (some) are they disingenuous (many) are they just pointing slackjawed as something exciting happenes that they don't really have any idea about (lots of them too).  Mostly they are just fools spectating on something that they think is a trainwreck... and yelling everything they know about trains.  

Watching the politicians wriggle on the hook is more interesting.  So many of them want to say alot of nothing domestically... while keeping their heads down internationally.  

The irony is that very little of this will directly effect anyone... except the doomsayser.  They are having a field day. 

I have come across a couple of "Analysts" who are trying to "rules-lawyer" their ways out of this and argue about the minutia and "prove" that its wrong and how it should be wound back immediately.  

So far, the more predictable things have happened... there has been a panic on the stockmarkets as all the usual chickens run around looking for the next "sure thing". The biggest correction has been about 10% which is just a normal fuckup day for most stocks.  This is the sort of thing you see when market news comes out that a CEO has been caught with their hand in the cookies again.... I think its reflective of the retail share holders panic and dumping the stock.  Usually this would be the time to pick up a bargain. 

But the fundamentals have not really changed except for the US domestic market.  People are still going to buy stuff tomorrow shops are going to pass costs on... etc etc.  The normal rules of economics will still happen.   These corrections are going to ripple for a while as different supply chains figure out what's happening and contracts get renewed... and then they will all get back to business.  There will be winners and losers... as there always is. Retail investors will pick new "winners" and try to inflate their value by talking them up... the great cycle continues. 

I was amused to see the don come out and try to reassure the US domestic markets this morning.  I don't think he was really ready for the amount of crying and hand wringing from all the voices in the US.  But he did a good job and said nothing to make it worse. 

The truly fascinating part of this is that having a second run at the presidency has given his team a lot of time to learn from their mistakes the first time.  They had four years to see the consequences of their actions and all the holes and this time they have done a blanket system.  So it will be interesting to see if this actually gets a result without all the holes to wriggle through. 

Fundamentally, this is an attempt to force all the US companies that have off-shored their manufacturing to bring it back on-shore.  However, four years is not going to be long enough to up-skill and re-build all the capacity that the US once had.  So its a start... but will it start a trend?  Only time will tell.  I think this is probably the last roll of the dice for the US middle class to recapture dominance of manufacturing.  The problem will be with all their domestic policies on wages and standard of living etc that force up the cost... the only way out will be robotics.  Which ends up at the same place... not enough labour involved in the market. 

The other interesting possibility is that all the seeding of capacity that has gone on in other countries blooms into new production of products that are not US owned.  That will be the truly wonderful outcome of this change.  

Hopefully there will be a bunch of other countries that play the trade barrier game and shatter the "free market" because while its been an interesting experiment... really has completed all the outcomes that the policy could achieve.  The winners and losers in that game have been decided and now its just static.  There needs to be a new game, with new opportunities... and lots of new players.  And this could be it.  All the incumbents are going to cry and try to maintain their monopolies, but this is the best chance to shake up the order and create new opportunities.  

Zero sum Woke

 There is a common pattern in the hobby takeover, pop culture IP takeovers and political takeovers by the woke/SJW/genderist/minority rights  movements. 

The pattern that I keep noticing is this idea that the existing audience/demographic has to "leave" so the preferred mob can "occupy" the conceptual space. 

Superficially, this seems to be about power.  But that does not hold up to much scrutiny.  Because by pushing out the existing audience, the replacements will only have power over themselves.  Which they already had in their own echo chambers. 

The next is that its about forcing "The Message" down the throats of the existing audience.  Again, same problem.  If the audience is forced out, then they will not consume the message embedded in the media.  And the message morphs and changes constantly.  So its hard to know what the observer should take from it apart from the fact that its "different" and "inserted".

Finally, we get back to spite/revenge/punishment.  They want to take something away from you that you love.  This is the same pattern as the mean, petty sibling stealing a toy just to wound.   This is immature and stunted mindset that is all about the "now" and redressing some score board that they have in their head.  There is no concept of the future, of having to live with the consequences.  Perhaps there is no concept of consequences?  The righteous seeker of "justice" for their imagined slights.   Its all about righting the wrongs of their "past", evening up the scoreboard. 

Anyway, this is the pattern.  The spiteful child who seeks to wound for redress of imagined slights. 

There is a slightly more malicious spin on this mindset that develops once the child sees that their initial action has not had the desired effect, which is to double down.  Take even more.  Or to destroy the toy infront of the powerless other sibling.  This is the pattern being played out where pop culture IP's are being systematically corrupted and "changed" into something that is the antithesis of what they once were.  The systematic despoiling of a loved story or universe just to see someone cry.  And once they get addicted to the thrill of the crying... its going to be hard to stop.  This is the "uglification" movement... taking away nice things... even when that nice thing is their own physical body.  

This is what a bitter angry adult does when they cannot get their way and just want to burn it all down and see the pain in someone else's eyes.  They start looking for more eyes to get the same rush.  

The problem was never the partriarchy...

 Al Bundy said it best... "Women understand women and they hate them.". 

The matriarchy is the thing that scares women the most.  Judgement, criticism, accountability all come from older women. Simply be existing, a matriarch of a successful family holds a mirror up to an unsuccessful woman and shows her what she is not.  And the older matriarchs of the family are the ones who see through the bullshit of young women so easily.  And they know the words that will hurt the deepest. 

If you are a young irresponsible woman who wants a life without accountability, how do you get these things? You need to destroy the power of the matriarchy.  But what is the power of the matriarchy?  Family and family bonds.  

But what happens if you raise your hand against the matriarchy?  The matriarch will summon all her words and talk to you.  They will say things that you cannot bare to hear.  They will point out your flaws and show you the consequences of your actions. They will predict your future... accurately. And it will not be pleasant. 

But what happens if you can ignore the matriarchs words?  Do you win?  No you do not.  Because the matriarch will escalate the problem and remove you from of the safety of the family. Because the matriarch controls the power of excommunication.  She defines the family.  Who is in and who is out. 

If you are still a problem outside the family, then you are a problem for the ultimate matriarch power.  The patriarchy.  The family problem solver.  The matriarch looks inward at the family troubles. The patriarch looks outward at the troubles that come from outside.

The patriarchy is someone who spends their life specialising in all the issues and topics that can threaten the family.  Solving them, avoiding them, fixing them, protecting against them, planning ahead to avoid them or killing them.  

So, the only way to "disarm" the matriarch is first to remove the patriarch. Only then can you destroy the thing that scares women the most... being accountable to the matriarch.

Feminism is not done yet

 It occurs to me that these claims that Feminism has run out of ideas might be a little bit early.  There is some major work yet to do that I don't think has occurred to the grifter set yet. 

Let me set a little background for you first and you will get there. 

Consider if you will the movie "Year 1" with Jack Black.  Absolutely wonderful movie.  Ok,  now go back even further.  Back to some mythological time... the garden of eden!  Ok, not that far... bump forward to some mythical time when everyone was just wandering around and eating and ... procreating... and doing it all pretty solo.  Think of it like some nature documentary but with opposable thumbs.  

So,  at some point emergent behavior or social stuff started happening.  Familial groups formed. Competition for mates started to be selected for.  (If you are an evolutionary type) or one or more gods told people to get their shit together and society started.  But really rudimentary!  Think pre-alpha version. The sort of really basic stuff you see when a bunch of 4 year olds a just hanging out.  None of them has an agenda or wants any responsibility.  They just want snacks and entertainment.  Ok, got that picture in your heads? 

Now how did this simple idyll turn into the patriarchy?  Well they figured out that there were some downsides to life.  There were lots of unsuccessful life choices and if they wanted their playmates to be around for a while... there were some monsters under the bed that needed to get handled.  Or some other narrative that involves a lot of people trying to figure out successful life stuff and pass it on to their kids so they stop annoying them. 

Anyway... society evolved through trial and error.  Sooo much error.  The point is that we arrived at something that we would recognize today... in different countries and different cultures we still have similar collective knowledge that we collectively call "Society".  Some people call it the patriarchy.  I honestly don't care as its actually fairly descriptive... lots of dudes organizing stuff and trying to keep their kids alive.  At the same time there are lots of women organizing stuff and trying to keep their kids alive... so yep, patriarchy for want of a better word to argue over. 

The thing that needs to be destroyed and all that.... 

We can tussle over who did what and how much housework and where babies come from and who hurt who.  At the end of the day the patriarchy is as good a name as "Society" for the thing that "progressives" are trying to deconstruct.  And that deconstruction has clearly happened in areas of the west that are more "progressive".

But here's where it gets interesting.  Now what?  

Lets take a little step back for a bit.  What is "the patriarchy"?  Once you strip away all the anger and shitty life experiences that get tangled up in the conversation... and lets be honest... people having shitty life experiences has been a thing since day 1.  The point is that society/patriarchy was a set of rule and enforcement mechanisms.  Right or wrong, no matter which side of the fence you ended up on, there were rules.  Plenty of which have been modified over time to suit different environments and technologies... but the point is that it was rules + enforcement mechanism, generally agreed on by the people playing the "Society" game. 

So once you try to strip away the "male" bit.  You still have rules + enforcement mechanism... but run by women.  

Now we could go down a huge rabbit hole here about why historically there was a patriarchy of men running the show... but that's not actually relevant except as a contextual fact.  I think that it is plausible that it could have gone the other way and been a matriarchy historically, as has happened in some cultures.  I think its just a factor of the environment and probably the inequity in the deathrate of adults that forced a patriarchy to form.  The horrific death rate of women in childbirth simply left more men alive and running households at some point and so the patriarchy was established. 

The point is not that the patriarchy happened... the point is that something was going to happen.  It could have been a matriarchy, it could have been balanced, it could have been based on the people who had green fucking eyes got to be the rule makers.  Someone was going to get selected, in some fashion and it was going to be them who decided good and bad in society.  It was going to be something. 

The point is, what do you do when society trys to change who makes the rules. Is this easy? Are there vested interests?  Does it look easy or hard?   Who cares! We are past the hypothetical and we can see that change is upon us.  The question is:

"What is the replacement rules system?"

Cause at the moment, there is a whole lot of folk still trying to pull down the patriarchy or whatever authority figures they personally hate because of their shitty childhood's.

The key point I want to raise is that it took a lot of thousands of years of trial and error to get where we are.  Its going to take a lot to evolve a matriarchy as a viable replacement for the patriarchy and there is no sign of it happening at the moment.  But if any of us don't want society to fall back to the stoneage, it needs to start happening ASAP because we have a very very very complex society at the moment.  No matter if you like it or loathe it, a complete change of management in any large group of people causes a lot of chaos.  Now extend that chaos over many generations.... 

So my question is: 

Where the fuck in the Matriarchy ready to take over setting the rules? 

Just parachuting women into leadership roles in the existing structure is not going to enact any fundamental change. Because authority is still authority and that's what most of these "progressives" are trying to demolish.  Society without authority is just chaos with screaming in the same language.  It will be interesting when the social expectations, rules of polite society, legal frameworks and tax systems have all been completely overhauled by the new "Matriarchy". The American experiment with the progressive Democratic party is a tiny nod in that direction, but I still think its based on 99% existing patriarchy. 

 We have not even touched on the second half of the equation yet.  The "Enforcement" mechanism for the rules. 

Historically, "might is right" was the mechanism.  The patriarchy's authority was backed up by its ability physically impose their authority. I assume any matriarchy will try something different because... deconstruction and rejection and all that.  So it should be really interesting to see what happens in a society where the mechanisms of control are not based on physical power. 

Here's hoping it will be less dystopian than all the writers imagine. 

The interesting aspects of this is that there is no "matriarchy" stepping forward to set the rules for women's behavior online.  At the moment its just a screaming mob that is encouraged by the software and the social media networks to engender attention and eyeballs to sell advertising.  There is so little attempt to "correct" because this is the first generation to really grow up with this technology, so they are going to be the ones best placed to figure out how to live with it in a sustainable way without going even more insane.  I suspect its going to take a couple of generations to really sort out because of how slowly humans actually evolve their social behaviour.  It will need social media that includes multiple generations occupying the same network, which we have not managed to achieve yet.