The Curmudgeon Speaks

This week the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) announced that it was ending the “endangerment finding”. The endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act found that greenhouse gases posed a danger to health. Based on this finding, the EPA had the authority to take reasonable steps to reduce the harmful gases produced by human activity. As a consequence of rejecting this finding, emission standards for cars and trucks and expectations of power plants and oil and gas facilities are deemed unnecessary.

This action is similar to other decisions that appear more related to degrading rather than enhancing the mission of other government agencies (e.g., appointment of Linda McMahon as head of the Department of Education and Robert Kennedy Jr. to Health and Human Services). What bothers me about the EPS decision is the assumption that you can simply declare scientific findings faulty. What happened to facts?

I have always found it useful to differentiate values and facts.

Examples of Values:

• Citizens have a responsibility to support those who have fewer advantages
• The ultra-wealthy pay more in taxes
• Immigrants are more of an oppportunity thabn a burden for this country
• The decision to carry a fetus to term should be made by the woman carrying that fetus 

Examples of Facts: 

• Cigarettes increase the probability of cancers
• Man’s activities have led to a deterioration in the quality of the atmosphere

Issues are never completely fact or value, but to a large degree, this distinction seems useful and legitimate. For me, it follows that you can argue values with some arguments being more effective than others, but you don’t argue facts. If you dispute facts, you need to marshal credible evidence based on accepted methodologies. Claiming you reject facts marks you as naive and ignorant. Disputing values seems more a function of character and personal priorities. I can certainly dispute your character and priorities based on your values, but the arbiter in such challenges would seem to be the opinions of others, not evidence or methodologies. 

Why do some reject facts?

This is the topic I find most puzzling. Working in a science, I have lots of experience with differences of opinion. However, such disputes tended to come down to differences in the methodologies producing data that appeared to point to different facts. Science is about replication and multiple methods leading to similar conclusions. Facts equal data and interpretations tend to coalesce. 

What about the acceptance of facts by the general public? At some level, this is what is most important. The potential to use facts in daily decision-making has become such an important issue. Do people make decisions that seem illogical and poorly informed because they are ignorant or just don’t care? Do people not make the distinction I make between values and facts?

Climate change – a case study

I began this post noting the Trump administration rejection of the reality of climate change. I happen to be reading a study in Nature that focused on public acceptance of climate change. The study analyzed public behavior on X (Twitter) to identify characteristics associated with climate change deniers and estimated that 14% of X users were deniers. This compares with estimates from other studies putting this characteristic at between 12 and 26%. 

This study found the following characteristics to be associated with the denial of human behavior’s responsibility for climate change.

Economic Dependence: Communities that rely on fossil fuel industries are more likely to exhibit denialism, likely due to economic interests that conflict with climate action. Areas of the country that have related industries stand out on a map showing refusal to accept climate change. 

Education Levels: There is a strong correlation between lower educational attainment and skepticism toward climate science. This suggests that access to quality education and critical thinking skills plays a significant role in shaping public attitudes toward climate issues.

Social Media Influence: The role of social media in propagating denialist beliefs cannot be overlooked. Key influencers use these platforms to spread misinformation, which can significantly skew public perception.

Mistrust in Science: A general skepticism of science is prevalent among climate change deniers, which is often reflected in broader attitudes toward other scientific issues, such as COVID-19 vaccination rates. This mistrust can lead to a general rejection of science-based public policies.

Cognitive Biases: Many deniers use logical fallacies, such as cherry-picking data or arguing from isolated weather events, to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

Some of these topics seem relevant to action. In general, making information on scientific findings and the process of science available seems important. Formal education is part of this, but also social media which more and more is treated as informative by so many must be an area of emphasis.

I do wonder about science not only being lost in the firehose of online media, but also the politicization of science denial. The cluster of anti-science issues identified in this article is especially troubling. Those who reject the value of vaccinations are also the same folks denying the reality of climate change with the roots of this generalized reaction having strong political overtones, which partly seems a function of the rejection of expertise. Some politicians have found a way to characterize expertise as a  “these folks think they are better than you” attitude with the suggestion that your common sense knowledge is more practical. People can be easy to manipulate when you appeal to their sense of self-worth. I believe formal education provides a window into individual differences in expertise and the reality that some know more about some things than we do. This seems obvious, but beyond calling out the political manipulation tactic I have little to recommend. 

We talked with son Todd yesterday and he was describing how recent events in Minneapolis/St Paul have made him homesick. His family lived in South Minneapolis and he had what he called a one-step removed familiarity with both shooting victims (Good and Pretti). Todd is a big bike guy and frequented a bike-and-coffee shop called the Angry Catfish to talk bikes, enjoy coffee, and get some work done. Alex Pretti did the same thing. Bike clubs around the country are now engaged in rides to honor Alex Pretti.

 Yesterday had to be an extremely difficult day for many. A second protester was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis. After the initial explanations by President Trump and other government officials, multiple videos from bystanders began to surface, proving their careless, self-protecting explanations wrong. The victim was shot multiple times in the back while pinned to the ground by multiple federal agents. Those protesting ICE and the aggressive tactics resulting in physical violence, home invasions, and false arrests of citizens of color while searching for undocumented immigrants have enraged the Twin Cities residents, and the cycle of protests and government aggression will likely only accelerate.

We left for Kauai just as the protests had begun, but our kids are still there, dealing with school and business closures and the general chaos. They participate in the protests to the extent they can and share our feelings about what is going on. As working citizens and with kids they are more directly impacted than we are. You cannot escape this reality. 

We were driving through Kapaa yesterday and came across a sight that we found quite encouraging. A small group of maybe 8-9 people were holding their own protest opposing the government invasion in the Twin Cities. This small group of people were expressing their displeasure with the behavior of their government, thousands of miles away from where things were happening. They were standing in shorts and colored shirts in 70-degree heat, while those in Minneapolis were doing the same in gloves, parkas, and heavy boots. Cindy shouted that we were from Minneapolis as we drove past, and someone shouted “we love you” back. Mahalo for that.

Such is just showing up and doing what you can. 

I started to write this post, which I guess is a product endorsement, and realized that “ice” has taken on a very different meaning for those of us who live in Minnesota. For those who might happen on this post in a few years, now is the period when Minnesota has been invaded by government troops referred to as ICE, who are here to locate and capture “illegals”. The aggressive behavior of these agents in indiscriminately grabbing random people of color has enraged the neighbors of those so captured, resulting in an escalation of aggression and resistance.

Anyway, the more common ice has always been a feature of Minnesota winters. This winter has been particularly bad, with rain and snow falling near freezing. Maintainance crews have been unable to keep up and after the public driving on the streets you get glare ice that seems very difficult to get rid of. One more factor – we don’t have sidewalks in our suburb so walking becomes treacherous,

I do like to walk, so I get some exercise when the temps are moderate or the winds are calm, and so I purchased Ice Bugs mostly out of desperation. What a great product and I move feeling very steady with no fear of falling and breaking a hip or whatever tends to happen to people of my age.

The secret to these shoes are this tiny spikes. The traction that results is amazing and I sometimes walk across a local hockey rink just because I can. The one issue I wonder about is what happens when you enter a building and walk on the floors. I love walking to or from coffee shops, but can’t bring myself to enter, as I am unsure what my boots would do to the floors. The studs are seated in a soft material and are supposed to prevent floor damage, but I would think it would be difficult not to scratch wood if your steps do not move up and down perfectly.

I acknowledge that I temporarily violated the Huxe Terms of Service in a recent post. Yes, I failed to read the TOS when I set up my account, but this is hardly uncommon. My violation was posting a link to content I created, even though sharing is not allowed.

Huxe is a new tool that enables AI-generated podcasts. At least this would be one way to describe the product. You identify sources or offer a prompt that sets a goal and you then have access to podcasts based on these designations. In addition, Huxe allows a user to interrupt a podcast and ask a question about the content – a very cool feature. 

My attempt to include a link to my creation, and my intent to record the audio as an example for those who had not created an account, was quite innocent. I made assumptions based on what I saw on my screen. There was a way to change my creation from private to public and the button to share the link to the creation. How would you interpret these signals? 

I discovered my transgression when I could not remember the process I had used to share my example and asked some AI sources to describe the sharing process. The second effort brought a response that sharing of this material was not allowed.

The first effort, which was a Google search that returned its AI summary before the links, not only indicated that sharing was legal but also provided a source for this claim. I checked the link, and ironically, the source was my original post, which included the offending link.

A couple of thoughts, I had always assumed that AI-generated content, being a summarization, was not protected by copyright. Perhaps the Huxe expectation is based on the “use of” rather than on the content itself. You cannot access the content without using the service, which seems to be the justification. I do think it somewhat ironic that, in comparison, the use of my content in a response created by AI without my consent would be acceptable. Something seems off in this combination.

I removed the shared example to resolve the issue, but the claim in Google’s response to my query did not change. This adjustment may take some time.

Actions taken in response to the recent tragedy involving the murder of National Guardsman (actually a woman) by an immigrant from Afghanistan fits the classic problem of anecdotal thinking. This limitation in human cognition is common, but the manipulation of humans because of this limitation can be quite sinister.

Trump’s reaction to this tragedy reminds me of an example of flawed thinking commonly taught in Introduction to Psychology. I call it “anecdotal reasoning”. It is something we all do in daily life when we use an example to illustrate a claim we want to make. The problem with anecdotal reasoning is that it presents a limitation of generalization. Many of the claims about immigrants fit this problem and the present case represents a perfect example. The anecdote is atypical. Immigrant crime is lower in general than crime committed by citizens. However this is explained – immigrants have more to lose, immigrants are better people, etc. – is not relevant here. The fact is this is a fact. To make a case for a general strategy using a limited number of cases or a single case is not logical and if done purposefully because people easily fall for this weak type of thinking, manipulative and in some cases immoral. Muslims, those practicing or simply those from Muslim countries, do come from a different culture, but differences are also true of Americans in general. Rather than see this tragedy as a sign of some weird sleeper cell espionage conspiracy, start from the most likely scenario until proven otherwise. This seems to me to be a suicide by cop attack based on mental health issues or perceptions of betrayal and powerlessness. If you and yours are lucky enough to avoid these life challenges, you are not special, you are privileged.

Concerns about AI often seem abstract and distant. This seems the case with AI and job loss. We understand the reality, but we lack the personal connections that are often required to motivate people to consider and pursue related actions.

I have realized I am a participant in the problem if only as a consumer. I have been a blogger for years and at some point I was told that you should include some type of image in your posts to make them more interesting. I have limited artistic ability beyond photography so to include some type of imagery in some of my posts I resorted to purchasing clipart. I used a service called the Noun Project. At the time, I think I paid $20 a year to select images from the giant Noun Project database and use them in my posts. The company name indicated how the process worked. You would enter a simple request and this request would bring up options you might select. For example, I might enter “classroom computers” to find examples the creators had tagged with that phrase. An example from one of my old posts follows. For years, I used such images in my posts and classroom lecture slides. Those contributing images received a small amount each time one of their images was selected.

Now with AI tools (e.g., Nano Banana) you don’t see many graphics of this type anymore. You can access such tools for no cost if you are not a heavy user or as part of a paid account if you are a constant AI user. The sophistication and flexibility is so much greater and the images are far superior (see following image from a recent post). 

Somewhere, there are graphic artists who no longer have the income the Noun Project provided. 

I saw these swans while driving yesterday. They were confined to feed in a small area of open water surrounded by ice. I thought swans migrated and my Internet search says they do when necessary. It looks like necessary is closing in.

A frequent complaint on social media is critical of higher education and urges people to support spending more of the money the government sends to higher ed on tech schools. These messages are misguided because the grant money that catches the public’s attention is typically focused on research, rather than tuition. Aside from this misunderstanding, I react to the claim that higher ed is not about practical or productive things.

This time of year we often visit apple orchards. When in the Twin Cities, our home, we try to make at least one trip to the University of Minnesota Apple Store. The U of M is a land-grant institution and has agriculture as a core mission. As an urban campus, this might surprise some citizens and even students because the main campus and the ag campus are in different locations (different twin cities).

My own education was completed at a land grant university (Iowa State), and I grew up on a farm, so I have some affection for this mission. I admit I had not really appreciated this role at the U of M until we moved here. Agriculture can involve many different things, and agricultural colleges often have unexpected areas of specialization. Among the specializations at the U of M is horticulture and, more specifically, apples. The Honeycrisp apple, possibly the most popular apple in production now, was developed here.

No, these apples are not sold here at bargain prices, but we were able to purchase slightly imperfect ones at a lower price.

I always wonder what it would be like to take classes in that department.

I admit that I find AI search summaries useful and read them first when they are available. However, perhaps because I have several blogs of my own, I can’t help wondering what are the long term consequences for the original content creators who author the content feeding AI search summaries? What are the incentives when the AI summary frequently serves as the alternative to reading what they have written and recognizing their contribution in some way?

Like so many uses of AI, search summaries aren’t inherently harmful. A summary is just that and is different than the unique information you would get from a single source. I don’t know that this is the case, but it seems a summary would be less biased than a single source. However, we risk a web where knowledge is consumed without context, creators aren’t rewarded, and the public sphere narrows. 

Yes, I know at least the Google summaries provide links to at least some of the original sources used within the summary. I had a feeling based on my own approach that many of these links would be ignored. When I write, I do like to acknowledge my sources. This seems the fair thing to do, but is also a way of increasing the credibility of what you have to say as readers can review the original material. This is a practice I retain from my academic training. However, I also admit, I often visit a single source and if it is appropriate to back the data or fact I want to report, I retain only that citation.

I assumed that there would be quantitative data on the use of summary citations even if the companies offering the summaries do not offer this information. The data points I include in the following material come from the PEW Research Center. These researchers found that users who encountered an AI summary clicked a traditional result only 8% of the time, compared with 15% when no summary appeared. This means users were less likely to use both the summary and the other search results. They were also more likely to end their session entirely – 26% vs. 16% without the summary. If a summary was available, further searches were less likely to follow. This was argued to suggest the overview often functions as a stopping point rather than a starting point for exploration. Even links inside the AI module get little traction and are not explored in detail. Those who did clicks occurred in just 1% of visits to pages with a summary. This is the counter argument to the argument users will use a summary with citations as a starting point. 

The same analysis indicated that some sources appear commonly in summaries. Several examples were provided with Wikipedia and YouTube among the most common. This makes sense as both are what people might have searched before search summaries were a thing, but also begs the question of why not go directly to Wikipedia. I suppose is the answer is you would still have to read the Wikipedia article. 

We seem to be moving toward a situation in which what used to be search and what we first encountered and continue to encounter with AI tools are little different. You enter a prompt and review the response.

I have been thinking about what sources might be most harmed by this emerging reality. I think news sources will fare the best because many of us use a news source for immediate information and far less as a valuable archive. With the decline in the use of opportunities such as RSS, I find that most of the hits I get on my own content comes from search and the more popular posts accumulate reads gradually over time and not abruptly when first completed. 

Is this just sour grapes on my part? Maybe, but I do wonder about the long term consequences of this pattern. When I think about the motivation of writers, especially those of us in the long tail, this is seldom about money. It is most about the attention and the satisfaction of knowing someone has read YOUR ideas. 

I wonder if content aggregators won’t become more popular if they protect content from AI access. This would seem attractive even if content creators paid a bit for this protection. The attitude that there is no difference between an individual and an AI bot summarizing your content appeals to some and an approach like this might require legal protection, but this is the only approach I can imagine that seems productive.