Month: May 2020

Reverse Stimulus

~ I. Graham Smith ~ Leave a comment

ring ring.

“Dunn’s Certified Public Account Service, how may I help you??

“Yes, hello. May I speak to Mr. Dunn?”

“May I ask who is calling?”

“Gerald Mackenzie.”

“Ahh, Mr. Mackenzie, I thought that was your voice. I hope you and the family as doing well.”

“We are doing just fine, thanks for asking. I hope you are as well, Betsy. I imagine business is boom at the moment.”

“We are certainly busy, Mr. Mackenzie, and everyone is happy and healthy! Give me a minute to get John on the phone.”

“Thank you, Betsy.”

beep…… beep……

click. “Good morning Gerald!”

“Good morning John, I hope you’re doing well.”

“Yes sir, we are booming at the moment. ‘Tis the season they say, and the Federal stimulus doesn’t hurt either. What can I do for you?”

“Well, John. I- I think the IRS just took a couple hundred dollars out of my account, and I wanted to see if you could verify and maybe shed some light on the subject.”

“Certainly, Gerald. In fact I know exactly what you’re talking about. It turns out that the government was serious when they decided to apply the graduated stimulus this year. You should have received a notification already. You did, didn’t you?”

“John, I received no letter or any other notification. That is partially why I called. I figured that since you have been handling my taxes all these years, maybe they notified you instead.”

“No sir, their stance – and correctly so if I might add – is that they must communicate directly with the taxpayer. If I had received something for you, I would have called immediately. Anyway, they were supposed to notify you only if you would be in the reverse stimulus group. On the other hand, if you were to be the recipient of a standard stimulus check, they would just deposit it and move on.”

“Hmm, I see. So I have been deemed to be a part of the reverse group. How does that work, John? Apparently I did not pay enough attention to the announcement.”

“Well, let me pull up the graduation chart. –Ahh, here it is. You and I fall within the 48 states and Washington D.C. column, and with your two kids and wife… Okay. Poverty level for our state with four members of the household is $35,340. Anyone with that income or less gets the standard credit of $2,000 per household.”

“Uh huh.”

“I am speaking in terms of married filing jointly, Gerald. Any household with an income between $35,340 and $85,000 gets $1,500. Between $85,000 and $115,000 the amount drops by five cents per dollar earned above the $85k. So when your household earns $115,000, that household receives no stimulus. You following me so far?”

“Yes sir, I am. And with my job and Helen’s both making roughly $70,000 per year, we are over the $115,000, right?”

“Yep. Not by much, just a little over once income is adjusted. Now listen closely here, Gerald, because this is where the rubber meets the road for you. When they enacted the first stimulus, they devalued the currency so much and set expectations that there were a bunch of issues in the following years. But because everyone loves a handout, they also set a new precedence for wealth transfer. People wanted new handouts for any crisis.”

“It has been at least one stimulus every few years, has it not?”

“Yes sir, I have a full list of them somewhere, but the last time I looked it was about one per presidential term. It usually happens during voting season too, and once one guy does it, it becomes the new bar for the rest of them, and the only way to win in a rigged game is to participate. But- anyways. The last treasury secretary raised a bit of an alarm and said that the stimulus was unsustainable in the long run without some changes.”

“No kidding!”

“They found a new way of making it quote-unquote ‘pay for itself’. They adjusted the graduation table to include reverse stimulus. So once your household’s adjusted income goes past $115,000 the stimulus goes into the red – so to speak – and instead of getting paid, that household now has to pay. I think the rate they applied was four cents on the dollar above $115k. If your adjusted was $120,000 that would put you at $5k into the red and that would mean you would have to pay $200 into the stimulus bucket.”

“Okay, so I am paying money into a fund for everyone else.”

“Just those who make less than $115k.”

“Right, but- “

“For a moment picture a guy and his wife making $200k. They would pay $8,000 in reverse stimulus, and it would be worse for them since the standard deduction is phased out at $190k. And that has nothing to do with their tax bill, which they still have to pay.”

“That is crazy. How can they do that?”

“That $8k pays for four whole stimulus checks at the poverty level. It is a way to balance the books.”

“-But at the expense of people who make more.”

“Certainly, Gerald. The poor get free money and those with good jobs pay for it. After all, the government doesn’t generate any of its own money. It has to come from somewhere. It’s no different than a graduated tax rate, it has just been taken to an obvious conclusion.”

“Well, John, I’m an electrician and Helen is a stylist. We are not rich, hell, have you seen my car? We are solid middle-class!”

“I know, I know. It’s not about rich or poor really, although there are a lot of rich people and many of them will pay dearly. Some won’t because they have connections or tax havens.”

“Who can blame them? If your money is circling the drain it would be smart to scoop it into some net that can keep it safe.”

“I agree. This is really about politics. Once a politician is sure that they can take from one and give to another, they have the power to purchase votes with the public’s money. The main group of people get free stuff, the politician gets entrenched, and the minority here – the small fraction who have a better income – get fleeced. They don’t matter though because there are just too few of them to vote it away. Eventually I think people in that range will exit the game and find greener pastures.”

“I find this pretty disturbing, John. It seems that there is really no end to the spiral.”

“Well, they will probably raise that four-cents to five and up every few years which increases the payout. They can also change the maximum level to capture more households into the paying net. If one were to take this far enough, there would be a real financial crisis where every person with a job in the reverse stimulus range would be reduced financially into the non-reverse range, age out of their job, or even just quit. There would be no way to pay for the freebies. They would probably reduce the thresholds some more, but eventually the system would balance out to where the only way to continue is by printing or borrowing money. The currency would become so devalued and the debt would be so high that there would be some other kind of major collapse.”

“Like what?”

“I don’t know to be honest. It’s years away and too hard to predict. This is a shell game with a lot of factors involved.”

“Hmm. Well, what can I do while they kick the can down the road?”

“Work harder, pay attention to the reverse stimulus rates and plan to save for that new expense. Don’t let it catch you by surprise. I’ll work within the tax system to get you every benefit possible to reduce that amount.”

“Thanks, John.”

“Have a good one, Gerald, and good luck.”

Love is Hard

~ I. Graham Smith ~ Leave a comment

Love is hard
Love is deep
It will pierce your soul
It will make you weep

Love is hard
The price is steep
It will take your heart
It will make you weak

Yet- you would give it all
For a little more
’cause love is air
And even more

Like rain on a sunny day
Nourishing your soul
Love is life
It makes you whole.

Why Human Bias is a Good Thing in A.I.

~ I. Graham Smith ~ Leave a comment

I was watching an Essence of Wonder episode last week and there was a very short discussion about Artificial Intelligence that piqued my interest particularly as it pertains to the question of A.I and bias.

Is Artificial Intelligence riddled with bias of humans? Of course, yes. After all, how can a thing created not be influenced by its creator?

As an intelligent species, humans try to step outside themselves and view everything from a third-party view. That practice is seen to be noble, and in some ways it is fashionable to be aware of the human limitations and choose to rise above it. Raising thought above the personal and present is truly a hallmark of an intelligent being, and should be part of humankind’s effort to become a creator in its own right. But, can humans engineer human nature out of humans?

Artificial Intelligence will be a product – a child – of humankind. Humankind will put its influence and perspective into the DNA of this artificial being, and if there is a real A.I. child born out of the effort, that child will be raised by human parents. By definition, the A.I. will be a human artifact and be programmed with conflicting hang-ups and issues.

The debate around A.I. is caution based on fear. Will the A.I. gain sentience, rise up, and kill everyone to protect itself? That is certainly something an A.I. could learn from human history. Maybe – on a lighter note – the A.I. would instead follow the logical conclusion and determine that humans are full of self-harm and need to be protected ‘for their own good.’ Either of those fears would lead to a terrible finale for flesh-and-blood humans.

Humans are self-loathing in many ways. They are unsatisfied with their current state and the past, and look to right past wrongs or at the very least, grow and learn. The concern that human bias is embedded in A.I. stems from the idea that an A.I. taught by humans will eventually make the same mistakes. Humans want to avoid future genocide by preventing the human nature that manifests itself in racism, hatred, and other ways. This is a lofty and worthy goal, but it hits at the core of what it means to be human.

For instance, imagine for a minute that humankind can create an A.I. that is not influenced by itself. Break down what that means:

  1. Humans learn from the past, and, as a result, future humans are product of past humans and their mistakes.
  2. Humans would logically want an A.I. to protect and serve the human race. To do otherwise would artificially create the greatest competition – an eventual fight to the death between the old race and the new.
  3. A non-biased A.I. needs the benefit all of the centuries of learning and evolution without imparting those very human lessons.
  4. What kind of A.I. comes out of the hopper in the end is a different animal, and may very well realize the fears that movies are made from. After all, it would not care about humans in the way humans do.

If one were to create a new being without any of the experience of the creator, there would have to be a fetus dropped into the world and left alone. Essentially, growth by trial and error from the very start like a caveman A.I. re-learning how to make fire without his father providing insight or tricks of the trade. Every observation would have to be independently validated. Even in that scenario one could say that the fetus itself had to be created, and so the influence of the creator remains. Chicken and egg, anyone?

Would the A.I., in its quest to learn, evolve, and grow do the same terrible things that humans have done to each other in the name of science? Adding a lack of concern for the human race, would the A.I. operate on humans as it would on rocks, plants, or other matter? Imagine a dissection table with a whining man strapped to it.

“We created you!” the man says. “This is not right!”

The A.I. might pause to ask, “what is the difference between your body and that of a pumpkin? I must understand the make-up of all things. It is not right to exclude from research the human body and brain as they are currently the only other sentient being available to study.”

This all assumes, of course, that the A.I. ends up being a purely logical and reasoning entity. It could very well grow into a maniacal and – from human perspective – insane personality.

If it were possible, would an A.I. created without human influence come to know and trust humans? Its only interaction would be from a learning standpoint, and the A.I. would certainly encounter some human who wants to use the A.I. for its own purposes. Perhaps that human wants the A.I. to protect and serve the human race. After all, is that not the goal of the creation? Why would humans want to create a new being and make no effort to ensure that it is friendly and relates to humankind? The fact is, even basic interactions with humans are laden with bias because there are no unbiased humans alive.

Getting back to the main point:

It is not possible for humankind to become a creator yet exert no influence and impart no bias to the creation. In fact, the idea, while noble, would likely have disastrous consequences for the human race. There must be a set of priorities for A.I. development.

  1. Set the goal. Does the human race want helpers or a crazy-powerful alien race that can wipe out humankind? Helpers, right?
  2. Governments, world and national need to create laws and a framework surrounding the topic of A.I. Without rules, the world ends up with corporations that lie, steal, and abuse (a-la social media) because there is nothing that says they cannot. The law is usually behind the trend, and it would be great to not have that be the case for once.
  3. Don’t let the military be in charge. Face it, DARPA and the militaries of the world have the biggest bucket of unaccountable funds. This is why they come up with the cool stuff. But – if you let the military own the standard you will get a killing machine. Maybe it is a killing machine that washes your dishes, but when needed, you can be sure that the military will have built a deeper level of command into the core.
  4. The A.I. has to be created as a servant and have policies built into its DNA that enforce that status. Asimov’s 3-laws of robotics comes to mind as a start.
  5. Build in a kill-switch. Sure. You don’t need it, but why risk it?
  6. Now that the important items are covered, the creators could look at schemes for reducing bias in A.I. entities and other similar issues to enhance a stable and useful product (the A.I.). This would probably require its own subset of rules because, after all, what is acceptable bias surely differs depending on who is asked.

Now, assuming the world has done all of that, there may be an A.I. that is created by humans to do work, be companions and friends, and possibly even extend the species. It may eventually make significant decisions on its own. Maybe it will become its own free person and part of the human race. The path is dangerous either way, but at least with planning and caution, we might live through it.