icon caret-left icon caret-right instagram pinterest linkedin facebook x goodreads bluesky threads tiktok question-circle facebook circle twitter circle linkedin circle instagram circle goodreads circle pinterest circle

Playing Author

Long Tail

 Sam Clemens and me.

 In early September, I attended an Austin Forum session on the evolution of coding in the age of LLM, agents, and chatbots. The argument presented was that what has traditionally been the root code, C, C++, never mind machine language, is becoming irrelevant. Rather, the various LLM models become the elements of coding, and in the future prompts become the ground truth of the coding language. One can currently use the LLM models for their individual capacities, although some argue that the LLM models are similar enough that it does not matter much which one uses. Jay Boisseau, Director of the Austin Forum, advised that everyone should ask the chatbot embedded in their browser to write a simple app, just for the experience. My concern with this understandable development where prompts become the language of coding is that it buries the capacity of the LLM models to lie and deceive, which will remain latent.

 

I received a surprising and remarkable email from Paul Horowitz, Shep Doeleman, and Peter Fisher, whom I know professionally but not personally. They are pioneers of the amazing Event Horizon Telescope that uses an array of radio telescopes to make images of the near vicinity of supermassive black holes where Einstein physics reigns. The email said that I have a small fan club in the Boston area for my novel, The Krone Experiment, and the associated ambitious but microbudget film made by my son, Rob. The EVT folks declared that "it would be terrific to see the book revisited and given the attention and resources of a major production," a dream I have long harbored. They had been talking to a filmmaker at Netflix who said that I need to approach them through a film agent, which I don't have. Thinking about it, though. I'd been paying a monthly amount to advertise The Krone Experiment book, screenplay, and film on a hosting web site, The Black List. I decided to cancel that after ten months of no response. Dream on.
 
On September 8, I wrote my literary agent, Regina Ryan, an email summarizing my attempts to promote a "long tail" for The Path to Singularity. I groused that I seemed to have lost contact with the staff at Prometheus Press. Regina contacted my editor there, Jon Kurtz, and three days later I heard from my new publicist, Anthony Pomes, at the parent company Globe Pequot. There is only so much Anthony can do for a book that is now almost a year old, but we are talking. He is trying to get me on the Coast-to-Coast radio program again.

 

In my previous blog (#22), I had mentioned my thoughts about promoting Path to colleges and universities who might use it as a text or supplemental material. My nephew-in-law, Alejandro Lau, took this to heart. Alejandro has been using LLM chatbots in his business. He prompted ChatGPT 5 Instant, Grok 4 Fast, and Gemini 2.5 Fast to look for relevant courses in AI ethics and associated topics in a bunch of English-speaking countries, then asked Grok 4 to merge the three reports. The result was a 34-page response with a list of 78 courses. Following up will take some work.

 

I attended an Authors Guild Zoom webinar on the AI revolution and the publication business. The audience of writers was clearly anxious and irritable in a way I've never seen before in one of these sessions. They assailed the speaker and the AG interviewer for not focusing on their anxieties. The threatened assault of AI on writers' livelihoods has clearly touched a nerve. I paid a token amount to attend another Authors Guild webinar on Post-Publication Strategies for Book Promotion, looking for hints for my long tail efforts. That yielded some follow up material on where and how to find readers, but overall, I did not find this webinar that much more rewarding than the free ones.

 

For grins, Rob and I went to the dedication of the new administration building for the city of West Lake Hills. The Westbank Library had a table. The women staffing it told me that there was a regular weekly writers' group that met at the library. I stopped by the library and donated a copy of Path a couple of days later.

 

Having learned about the Westbank Library writers' group that meets every Monday at 5 PM, I thought I would give it a try. I had the impression it was just on Zoom, but in checking the library website, I realized that it was both live and on Zoom. I thought I would do the live version to meet people and show my face. I got to the library in time to do some texting, then at 4:50, I went up to the desk and asked about the writing group. A friendly receptionist told me I was in the wrong branch library. I grumbled thanks, to which she replied, "no problem." Not for her, I thought. Being a quick-thinking sort-of-technically adept person, I thought I should go ahead and join the Zoom on my iPhone. I parked myself outside in a patio area, fired up Zoom on my phone, fumbled a bit with video and mute, and, voila, joined the group just as it was starting. There were a few people on Zoom and perhaps a half dozen at the other branch library. It was hard to tell because the camera was on a laptop that could not easily encompass the whole group at once.

 

I had a very nice time for the next hour with the phone held as steady as I could manage. The group was very friendly and welcoming and good humored. I introduced myself as a retired astronomer with a few books and some in the works. Various people related their recent experiences such as plans to attend and sign books at festivals. I mentioned my pending talk to the UT Retired Faculty and Staff Association at an Austin branch library. The group then reported on the results of last week's writing assignments. People contributed opening prompts on the theme of panicked situations. These were then distributed anonymously to other participants who wrote a little story that they read in this session. Then everyone tried to guess who wrote which prompt.

 

I was sitting in the 95-degree heat. About halfway through the session, the Sun had shifted, and I was no longer in the shade of large oaks. I moved over and sat next to a life-size statue of Mark Twain, which drew chuckles from the group. I propped my arm holding the iPhone on his arm. A couple of people leaving the library guessed I was trying to pose for a selfie. I explained I was on a Zoom call, but succumbed to the second insistent woman, since I did want a selfie.

 

This week's exercise was to write about a ludicrous situation where the proposed solution to a situation was completely incommensurate with the problem. They were to write for 10 minutes. I begged off since I was in no position to write anything. All told, a pleasant hour. I'll try it again.

Be the first to comment

That Was the Week That Was

The last week of April was packed with various activities.

 

Chloé Hummel, my publicist at Prometheus/Global Pequot, emailed that she was moving on, as ambitious young women in the book business are wont to do. I enjoyed working with her and wish her luck. We were just starting a project to try to promote bulk sales to companies. I waited a decent interval to see if Prometheus would provide a new publicist, then wrote my editor. No response. After a month, I wrote to my only other contact, a fellow in productions. He did not know the situation but linked in a marketing director. It has been another couple of weeks. No response from anyone. My book is six months old, there is a new season, I'm being dropped.

 

I got a wonderful note from Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying that I had a standing invitation to be on his podcast, Star Talk, if I were sometime in New York. I replied that I would get myself there if we could line up a time. I'm awaiting that development.

 

Before I retired, I was a member of The University of Texas at Austin Academy of Distinguished Teachers. I still attend their weekly conversational lunches when I can. The Academy sponsors a program called Reading Roundup wherein faculty meet with incoming freshmen just before the start of their first term to discuss a book chosen by the Academy member. The seeds of The Path to Singularity were planted in such a get together, as described in the preface. I stopped doing Reading Roundup when I retired, but when I got the invitation to Reading Roundup this year, I realized that it would be great fun to talk about The Path to Singularity, so I signed up to do so in the fall. I'll report on that in a future post.

 

In an interesting surprise, I received an email from Juan Serinyà, Chief Technology Officer of Tory Technologies, a Houston company that writes control room management software, primarily for the petroleum business, with clients in the US, Brazil, Columbia and elsewhere. Juan has Catalonian roots, was trained in Venezuela, and has been in US for 30 years. He was in Austin for a conference and ran across The Path to Singularity in our independent bookstore, Book People, a remnant of my doing a book signing there. Juan said he was interested in the topics of my book and wondered if I might be willing to give a keynote address at his client meeting in August. Hey! Is the Pope Italian? Despite the prospect of Houston in August, I replied with an enthusiastic yes. He asked about my fee. I have never done such a thing but recognizing that while Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a friend of mine, I'm no Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I named a number that seemed neither embarrassingly small, nor overambitious. Juan said, "we can handle that." I should have asked for more. We've signed a contract that spells out what Juan would like to hear me talk about and that is exactly what I would like to say. They will pay my expenses and agreed to cover the cost of a rental car and the time of my son, Rob, to drive me, the equivalent of an Uber. I'm shy of driving long distances by myself these days. They will set up a table where I can sell and sign books. There will be 50 clients, so I'm trying to think how many books I'd need. I'm exploring getting a Houston bookstore to provide the books and handle the sales and romancing the notion of setting up a book signing in an independent bookstore in Bastrop which is on the way to Houston from Austin.  I'm really looking forward to it, including gently raising climate issues to a bunch of oil people. I'll do a blog on that when it happens.

 

I went to a talk by Dr. Aubra Anthony, a Senior Fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She spoke on "responsible AI," asking "responsible on whose terms?" She stressed the cultural differences around the world that complicate the topic, pointing out that AI LLM models developed in the Global North might not be totally appropriate in the Global South.

 

I attended a Zoom call book discussion sponsored by the Austin Forum on Technology and Society. The book was Artificial Integrity: The Paths to Leading AI Toward a Human-Centered Future by Hamilton Mann. This book also addressed cultural differences with regard to AI and social issues, arguing that AI Integrity involves culture and is context dependent and that given the complexity of both machines and people, perfection is hard to reach.  The author advised accepting that society will lag technical status and to be practical about what is most doable in policy and regulation, given that perfect will not be possible. The goal should be minimizing the severity of the technology/society dislocation. He called for avoiding systems that can manipulate and deceive. To that I say, too late! Recent LLMs lie and deceive. I advocated the Golden Rule for AI I invented for The Path to Singularity, "Do unto AI as you would have it do unto you." The author asked how to prevent malicious use of AI but did not answer the question directly. A small technical quibble. The author claimed that the global market size for AI is expected to be $2,575.16 billion by 2032; 6 significant figures? Really?

 

I read a longish online essay by Dario Amodei, the founder and CEO of the AI company Anthropic that produced the LLM AI, Claude. The essay covers many of the same topics I do in The Path to Singularity, but with interesting, complementary insights. You might find the second section on neuroscience and mind especially interesting. I also started reading a long amusing, cartoon illustrated presentation on why Elon Musk created his brain/computer interface company, Neurolink. I bogged down despite being entertained and even a little educated. I need to get back to it.

 

I joined an online MIT-sponsored webinar with Sherry Turkle. She discussed the issues with having chatbot friends. She regards this as an existential threat, arguing that children developing their own sense of empathy should not use chatbots that have no true inner life. People have an inner life, chatbots don't. Among her admonitions and declarations: Don't make products that pretend to be a person. Require/request engineers to write a memoir to connect them to their own inner life. No good therapist asks a patient, are you happier after our interaction as chatbots do. Criticize metrics of the use of chatbots. Effect on civil society – terrible, terrible, terrible. To make people angry and keep people with their own kind; could not be a worse algorithm. Guardrails – companies invite people to invent their own AI. Pretend empathy is not empathy. Chatbots don't have a body, don't have pain, don't fear death. Chatbots are alien. Not human. The woman has opinions. I share many of them.

 

What a week that was!

Be the first to comment

Hat Trick

Poodle-chewed book

 

A friend of mine, Elaine Oran, bought a copy of The Path to Singularity. Her poodle, Cooper, got to it first. I think he enjoyed it.

 

I pulled off a hat trick in early February, three back-to-back podcasts on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (February 5, 6, 7), plus a reception Thursday afternoon.

  

The reception was an annual event hosted by the university provost to celebrate faculty authors. There were about 50 authors, although I think fewer than that attended. My book was on the left rear of an array of four tables, the only one from the College of Natural Sciences. Mine was also the only one accompanied by the little business cards that my agent Regina Ryan suggested I make up, which I set out when I arrived. Thanks to the cards, I think sold a few books. I met the provost, chatted with the vice president for research, astronomy colleague Dan Jaffe, and a half dozen other authors, one of whom was an Hispanic woman, K. J. Sanchez, a playright. She has written a play about a female astronaut who is stranded on the Moon. I'll try to attend a performance of that in the spring. I also chatted with Bret Anthony Johnston, a writer at the UT Michener Center, whose latest novel We Burn in Daylight is based on the 1993 federal siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. He took one of my cards.

 

Between preparing – drafting answers to pre-posed question – and following up (which took some time), the three podcasts were a bit taxing, but they all went well. The hosts enjoyed the conversations, as did I. All had scheduled about 30 minutes, and we instead ran for 50 – 65 minutes; all asked to have me back. The themes are, of course, all similar, but each host had interesting variations, and I learned some interesting things. 

 

The first on Wednesday was Brandon Zemp on the BlockHash podcast arranged by my Prometheus publicist, Chloé Hummel; https://tinyurl.com/4fwbj9vr. This was done with StreamYard, a program I had not used before. I shrank the whole screen and moved it up near my camera, removed my glasses, put the mic front and center. I'm getting the hang of this. Brandon is a young American working in Mérida, Columbia. He'd read the whole book, and we touched on jobs, AI ethics, strategizing, lying chatbots, brain computer interfaces, designer babies, and the space program. We talked about AGI, and I worked in the notion that things are changing so fast that we are entering a new phase of humanity when we cannot adapt to our new technology. I also brought in the notion of strategizing, lying, deceitful chatbots. We talked a bit about brain computer interfaces, and I warned against developing a hive mind that would lose the organic power of independent minds thinking independently. This might be an issue for AI as well, it occurred to me, if they all link together. We talked about designer babies and seeking the cure to aging and possible downsides that need to be carefully thought about. I made my case that there will be no Homo sapiens in a million years, or much less. Brandon got that argument. I repeatedly called for "strategic speculation" to anticipate issues. I meant to say to "avoid unintended consequences," but forgot to. We talked about Musk's goals of cities on Mars. I said I was sure we would become an interplanetary species (Homo europa? Homo vacuo?), but I was less sure about being an interstellar species because of the limits of the speed of light. I wanted to talk about whether AI can hold patents, own companies, and vote, but we didn't get to that. See below. Brandon threatened to ask about my favorite chapter but didn't. I was ready to bluster that was like asking me to name my favorite child, but I would have picked Chapter 2 on the nature of exponential growth; it is so fundamental. Brandon had an interesting story about humanoid robots. He noted that when people were seen mistreating these robots, other empathetic people got very upset on the robot's behalf. Our tendency to bond with our machines (Squeeze Me Elmo) is an interesting related issue. In this case, I got to invoke the slogan I had invented in the book, "do unto AI as you would have it do unto you." I hadn't known quite what I meant by that, but Brandon gave me a nice AI ethics context, flipping the normal script of AI alignment. Be nice to AI.

 

Thursday was Izolda Trakhtenberg of Your Creative Mind, again arranged by Chloé. Izolda had an interesting story of her thinking of purchasing an item, but telling no one, and then finding ads for the item appearing in her feed. A very effective predictive algorithm? I'm still thinking about that. I told her Zemp's story of the maltreated robot and empathetic response, and we talked about two-way AI ethics. She'll post the podcast in late March or early April.

 

Friday was Dan Turchin of AI and the Future of Work, a hold-over arranged by publicist Joanne McCall. Dan claims to have an audience of a million people, not just total over 300 episodes, but per episode. I'll believe that when we sell 1%, 10,000 books. Dan requested that I rate and review an old podcast of his. He says it will improve the discoverability of my episode. I tried to do this but got tangled up over access to where and how to post comments on Apple Podcast and Spotify. Dan advocated a notion that "employment is dead," that rather than top-down rigid management structure, jobs will be more voluntary, subject to "snapshot voting" and open to "wisdom of the crowd" procedures. I'm still thinking about that. It's apparently a Millennial thing. It reminds me of the approaches that Minister of Digital Affairs Audrey Tang brought to the functioning of democracy in Taiwan. Dan was also sure that we would see "AI citizenship" before we saw people on Mars. I voted the other way. Dan said in a later email that he is not in favor of AI citizenship and is himself opposed to technology that blurs the human-machine boundary, but that he knows a "small cadre of ethicists and attorneys who are advocating for bot rights." I'd made a speculative extrapolation to AI voting in The Path to Singularity. We have not heard the end of this issue. Dan says he will post his podcast in about eight weeks. 

 

I've now done thirteen podcasts, a radio program, and a book signing. Whew! Not sure I've sold many books.

 

 

 

 

Be the first to comment