We saw this movie, the plot laid out clearly: Don't empower AI

My weekend movie was this afternoon. It was The Marching Band at the Detroit Film Theater at the Detroit Institute of Arts. There is one more showing tomorrow afternoon. In this French film Thibaut is an in-demand orchestral conductor. He is diagnosed with leukemia and needs a marrow transplant. Surprisingly, his sister is not a match – she’s not even his biological sister. That’s when he finds out he was adopted. His chances of a transplant are still good because he learns he has a brother, Jimmy, who didn’t know about Thibaut. Jimmy did know their mother, briefly, and was raised by friends in a poor village in the north of France. Jimmy agrees to be a donor and Thibaut goes into remission. A few months later Thibaut visits Jimmy again to say thank you. That’s when Thibaut learns Jimmy is in a community band. As the two get to know each other Thibaut realizes Jimmy, a cook at a school, has some real musical talent, which Thibaut tries to get him to develop. Along the way there is a clash between Thibaut’s well-to-do life and Jimmy’s working class life. Jimmy resents the meddling. And they ponder what would have happened, how would their talent have developed, if their adoption circumstances were different. Thibaut had started music lessons at age 3 and Jimmy didn’t. This movie is well done and I enjoyed it. Though it only now released in the US it came out in France two years ago and is a big hit. It was nominated for seven categories of the César Awards (the French Oscars). And having several sequences of music, some of them classical, is a big plus for me. On Sundays All Things Considered on NPR has been having a feature they call Cineplexity, how cinema highlights the complexity of life. Last Sunday the topic was AI. Host Elissa Nadworny talked to Scott Detrow and Geoff Brumfiel. At a time when the news is full of AI agents that go beyond what they’re taught to do they looked at movies that feature such a story. They discuss Ex Machina, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator, and The Matrix. Speaking of The Terminator movies Detrow said:

I love them. But I do not love that they feel relevant to real life right now 'cause this - you have this latest wave of stories about AI right now. You have what's been going on in the Ukraine-Russia war where more and more of these drones, in particular, are being taken over by AI operatives. And I'm thinking like, friends, we saw the movie. James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger laid this out very clearly to us. If you give too much power to AI, it will seize control of power and come to kill you. ... I cannot believe we live in a world where '80s and '90s James Cameron movies feel like really important real-life warnings.

And talking about The Matrix.

But, you know, when Agent Smith - we heard that clip there - he talks about how humans have acted throughout history and just kind of, like, seized power and pushed other species to the side and changed the environment for our whims. And you start to see the smatterings of these autonomous AI agents, as they gain more and more power, starting to think about doing things like that. It is a little scary.

I see a distinction made here I want to emphasize. There are AIs that are able to synthesize information and explain things. And there are AI agents that do things for us. The first would tell us the shop that has the best price for a particular item. The second would actually buy it for us. An AI agent could automatically order components to keep an assembly line running smoothly. An AI could investigate and report on the security of a computer installation. An AI agent could try to crack the security of that installation. The agents appear to be what excites the tech bros, though what they are selling to the public (it will tell us how to cure cancer!) isn’t the agents. Yes, the agents can make a business run better. But the agents are what will harm us. Back on September 2 Terry Gross of Fresh Air on NPR talked to Natasha Singer, a New York Times reporter covering the intersection of technology, business and education and author of the new book Coding Kids: Big Tech's Battle To Remake Public Schools. She found tech giants are using their money and might to “influence nearly every step of the education supply chain.” Each big company had a division to sell to schools. Some districts already refer to themselves as a “Google” or “Apple” district. Students get computers or tablets of that particular brand plus education software of the brand. They teach the teachers and students to use their software and AI. That means a competitor can’t break in. It also means: The company and its education products and biases shape the worldview of the teachers and students. If a student learns on a particular product they will use products from that company for the rest of their lives. That worldview is machine-centered. Teachers are to prepare their students for an AI-driven future (all the companies uses similar phrases). What is not included is: Do you want an AI-driven future? The hard questions are skipped. About 15 years ago the tech companies made a big push to get students trained in coding. They called it a national emergency because they said they needed so many coders. There was an effort to teach every kid how to code. There was a promise of high paying jobs that would change the world. They were told you can steer the products or the products will steer you. There was a big increase in students in universities majoring in computer science. Just ten years later some of those same companies released AI which can now write code and do it reasonably well. What’s the responsibility of society and those pushy tech companies to those kids who were promised the world and are now in the lowest rungs of the workforce finding their training is now close to useless and the job market dried up? Schools are now trying to figure out how to use AI in the classroom. Teachers are now having AI give feedback on a student’s essay: Does the word choice match? Is there a thesis statement. Is that thesis supported well? That feedback can come quickly. The busy teacher needs to read only the final product (plus the AI feedback). When students figure out how to get AI to write the essay it is then fed into the AI for evaluation. And what does the student learn? Is this how parents what their children to be taught? Do they want their children to be guinea pigs for AI? This stuff hasn’t been well studied yet. And some studies don’t look favorable to AI. Last year Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, the teachers' union, pushed for teachers to use AI, or at least know how to use it. The AFT announced a deal with a couple of the companies. Teachers would get a seat at the table with these companies to shape their products. A year later Weingarten said she had been wrong. Chatbots hook kids and were being used as friends and shouldn’t be. One possible reason for the change is Weingarten saw the whole country turn against AI. On hearing a tech bro declare the glorious benefits of AI in schools Singer has two concerns. First, that glowing world is hyped to sell products. Second, the purpose of school isn’t to train kids on the latest skills, it’s to help them learn how to learn, to discover their passions, to be an active citizen in a democracy. The tech companies are not asking what is in the best interest of the students and of the society. Estonia asked for an AI specific for Estonian schools in which the AI use the Socratic method of asking questions and not answering them. It asks the student what do you think? They use it in high school, not younger, and are studying how well it is working. Big Tech tilted education in ways that benefit Big Tech and also obscure more important things. The companies went big on coding. But not on data science, how to analyze big datasets. That includes important questions. Has the data been manipulated by researchers? Are you using the right statistical methods? Are the results statistically significant? Data science is crucial yet tech bros aren’t pushing it as an amazing career. Maybe they don’t want those important questions answered.

Kill the filibuster or say the rulebook won

Eric Schmeltzer, a Daily Kos contributor, has suggestions for Democrats on how to keep their majority once they get it this fall. My view is they need to sever relationships with billionaires and cut the billionaires’ hold over the rest of us. But let’s listen to Schmeltzer:

Pop quiz: It’s 2028, and Democrats have held both chambers for almost two years. Which of these realities would you prefer? A) We tried to pass an anti-corruption bill, but it got filibustered. B) We passed an anti-corruption bill, but President Donald Trump stood in the way of it becoming law. Here’s one more: A) We passed a bill that put healthcare back where it was before Trump’s disastrous “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” B) We passed a package that redefines healthcare in America, but Trump vetoed it. You probably didn’t need long, and neither will other voters. B is bold, which is exactly what turns one win into a series of wins. But for Democratic leadership, the time to figure out how you get to B is now. The good news is that the planning is happening.

Part of that good news is it seems possible next Speaker Hakeem Jeffries is on board with these ideas. Even so, this will require bold work. That healthcare package can be described as “Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It,” something you get through your taxes, not a monthly bill, is priced without a profit margin, and stays with you no matter where you live or work. So pass it, get it to the Oval Office. The nasty guy vetoes it. And in 2028 the message is easily: Remember how close we got with that bill. We must keep Democrats in the majority and keep Republicans out of the White House. A Brennan Center poll found 92% of voters say corruption is a big problem. An effort to end Citizens United shows 46% of voters don’t trust either party to fix it. That’s an opening for Democrats. Other needs to end corruption: Ban members of Congress from trading stocks. Ban the president from profiting off the office (we didn’t use to need a law for that). Ban anonymous money in elections (I’d like to go much further, but this Supreme Court...). Create an ethics office that doesn’t answer to the president (yeah, there is that effort by the nasty guy to allow him to meddle in everything not under Congress or the Federal Reserve). I would add: Ban all gifts to Supreme Court justices and create a Supreme Court ethics office they don’t control. Commenters added: Ban gerrymandering and pass voting rights. These ideas will cost Democrats something – and that is important. Yeah, he’ll veto all that. And Democrats run on that in 2028. These bills can be readied now so that within 100 hours of the new Congress being sworn in they hit the Oval Office desk. Democrats may control the Senate, but not a filibuster proof Senate. The common wisdom about the filibuster is if it is killed Republicans can pass horrible stuff and Democrats can’t stop them. But (1) people need to see the true impact of their vote – now they can vote for vile candidates knowing the worst won’t get through. And (2):

Let’s go back to the quiz and say the filibuster line to that guy in Saginaw, Michigan. Democrats have 51 votes and a rulebook they control, and they’re telling him that the rulebook won. Now say the veto line. He already knows whose fault it is, because only one guy in this country can veto a bill and everybody knows his name. People forgive a wall you can’t move. But a rule you could have changed and didn’t, well, that’s on you.

Restoring what the nasty guy broke is good. But passing something that gets vetoed and people are still talking about in 2028 requires boldness. And if they’re still talking about the bills in 2028 they can be signed in 2029. And a majority might hold for decades. So get moving. Emily Singer of Kos reported that Republicans are into the stages of grief over losing Congress. So far they’re into bargaining. I mention that because of an exchange that Singer relates, between former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Robbie Smither, a Florida Republican voter who plans to vote Democratic for the first time in his life because of the nasty guy: Gaetz: “Bro we need your vote. ... I hate the war too. But the Democrats want to trans your kids.” Singer had Smither’s response:

“With all due respect, stop pissing on people and telling them it’s raining,” he shot back. There is absolutely no logical evidence that [Democrats] want to ‘trans’ my two sons. None.” Smither went on to say, “What we worry about is feeding him and his brother. Paying the mortgage and homeowners insurance on the house we’re raising them in.”

Which is why culture war issues are not working this year. Singer also reported that Republicans and their billionaire funders are (finally) dumping piles of cash into the campaign. But it won’t matter. Singer lists reasons: Campaign finance law says candidates get better ad rates that PACs. Democratic candidates in swing states are far out-raising their opponents. So the differences are smaller than they appear. Most importantly, no amount of money will change an election if the ads aren’t addressing the issues most important to voters. People want candidates to address high cost of living and high gas prices. What they are getting fearmongering on transgender issues. Republicans think transgender issues got them in power in 2024. Actually, voters were reacting to the economic mess recovering too slowly from the pandemic and thought Republicans would handle the economy better. Instead, Republicans screwed it up. Also, in states where those vile anti-trans ads ran and are running, the states already passed laws restricting transgender rights. Fearmongering now is less effective. An email from March For Our Lives reported that libraries across the country, including in Baltimore, six branches of the Los Angeles County Libraries, and all 20 branches at St. Louis County Libraries are giving out gun safe storage devices and gun locks, often for free. No paperwork, no ID, no questions. The Central Library of Baltimore gave out 100 locks in 24 hours.

One administrator put it plainly: "One homicide costs taxpayers a million dollars. One non-fatal shooting costs taxpayers $1.5 million. A safe costs $20. Gun locks are $15." That math is undeniable. And the fact that communities are finding ways to make it happen — through libraries, hospitals, health departments, and local officials working together — is proof that the movement for gun safety doesn't wait for Congress.

In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Justin Wolfers of Platypus Economics looking at the importance of a free press. This is at a time when the nasty guy banned three networks from the White House. The ban was blocked this morning.

Starting in 2003, Brazil’s federal government randomly picked municipalities for audits of federal money. Some audit results came out before an election, and some came out after. That’s the foundation for a great natural experiment. Claudio Ferraz and Frederico Finan compared the two groups. Corrupt mayors who were exposed before the election were far less likely to be reelected, and the effect was much bigger where there was local radio, because radio was how the story reached voters. Mexico shows something similar. When local radio and TV reported that politicians had misused public money, voters punished those politicians’ parties much more heavily.

In the comments Rambler797 reported diesel truck buyers (and I’m sure he is referring to pickups) are 90% men and 84% white. And 87% of their party affiliation is Republican. That’s why they are raging at the nasty guy on social media. Rambler797 then included a tweet by Curtis Namba:

Hey Truckers! Remember when diesel was so cheap under Biden you would caravan to DC waving your stupid Trump banners?

Nerd heaven? Mandalit del Barco of NPR reported on the opening of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles. Yeah, that’s George Lucas, creator of Star Wars. Of course, there is a great deal about Star Wars inside, but there is also a great deal that isn’t. There are reproductions of the Sistine Chapel ceiling and other world heritage sites. One gallery has a large collection of Normal Rockwell paintings.

But most of the collection is original work that Lucas says is often overlooked in the art world, including comics, Japanese manga, children's book illustrations, and pulp magazine covers.

Actually open up the New Testament and read it

My Sunday movie was Vermiglio. It is the name of a village high in the Italian Alps. The time is WWII. Cesare runs a farm and is also the area’s school teacher. He has (I think I counted) eight children. Also with the family is Pietro from Sicily who is a friend of son Attilio and a deserter from the army. The movie is mostly about the family, though Pietro does have an influence, mostly by falling in love with oldest daughter Lucia. There’s also little boy Pietrin who is enamored with Pietro and has a lot of questions about life. When the war ends Pietro is encouraged to visit his family back in Sicily. As one character says, “Men who come back from the war have secrets.” With that setting the views, of course, are gorgeous. The acting is well done. The story is quiet and heartbreaking. It deserves the awards it has won and has been nominated for. There might be an LGBTQ angle to the story. Daughter Ada is secretive, has a good friend in Virginia, finds and enjoys her father’s pornography, and has a great deal of guilt over it. The nasty guy made a big deal about signing an agreement with Greenland and Denmark about putting more US forces on the island and doing so while at the United Nations General Assembly. This seems to have quieted his quest to take over Greenland, though my fear is the increased US military will make an attack possible. A tweet by Nero plays golf includes a tweet by Capt. Karjalainen:

Denmark just pulled of the diplomatic heist of the decade. They basically got Trump to re-sign the 1951 Greenland agreement, but added a genius “poison pill”: the deal is only valid as long as the US stays in NATO. Trump gets the domestic headline, but Denmark quietly locked them into the European security architecture. Masterful.

Lisa Needham of Daily Kos reported the nasty guy is doing for his plans for his triumphal arch the same thing he did to his ballroom – declare it is a military site and thus vital to national security. I hate to quote the nasty guy’s tweets, but this is the quickest way to say it. The arch:

will house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.

Of course, he also says there was a “strong request” from the military to turn the arch into a military complex. Needham wrote:

How will Americans make a pilgrimage to the Temu Trump Arch to venerate Dear Leader if the thing is also a military installation bristling with weapons? Do civilians normally just get to stroll through those sorts of things?

All this, well the arch all by itself, would be a violation of the Commemorative Works Act. A suit is being brought by a group of veterans. A big question is whether they have standing. The people who do have standing: Congress. The people not doing anything to stop this monstrosity: Congress. When this story broke Michel Martin of NPR spoke to retired Major General Randy Manner about arming the arch. The important points Manner made: Saying the military begged for it is an insult to the military, though it could have come from Secretary Hegseth. Actual admirals and generals are absolutely opposed to this absurd idea. Storing ammunition there is absurd, it offers insufficient protection. One does not advertise where the ammunition is being stored. One puts snipers nests where one intends to do the shooting and the only ones who will be around it are Americans – so the nasty guy is implying the target for the snipers is us. This is close to the flight path to the Reagan Airport, a terrible place to put drones. This is a site that does not need a military presence because there would be no enemy threat there, it would not be a combat zone. All that should scare every American. Needham also reported that Hegseth has announced all male service members 30 and older will be tested for their testosterone levels. Anyone with a deficiency will be given “treatment pathways.” Needham wrote:

That testing is mandatory. You can’t waive it by saying “Pete, unlike you, I am not so insecure in my masculinity as I age that I need to start juicing and shooting T.”

Doctors say screening for low T is weird when there are no symptoms. And high levels of T increase the risk of infertility. Needham noticed that this appears to be gender-affirming care, the same thing this administration is eager to deny to trans people. Hegseth claims it is different. But hypocrisy is frequently the point of this administration. And eventually this requirement is supposed to be rolled out for female service members. How is that going to work out? Definitely not great. Especially since they’re trying to ban actual trans soldiers. Clay Bennett posted a cartoon on Kos. He titled it, “Pete’s gender-affirming care.” It shows Hegseth’s desk with bottles and syringes. The label on one is facing out and says:

Testosterone Warning: High levels of testosterone can cause irritability, aggression, and impaired judgment.

Yup, Hegseth definitely wants the aggression and won’t notice the irritability and impaired judgment. In the comments of Tuesday’s pundit roundup for Kos I saw a cartoon that has been deleted, so I can’t credit the creator. It said essentially, “How can there be a triumphal arch when there have been no triumphs?” David Rothschild tweeted:

Republicans' largest donor (by far) is hosting a robust debate on his platform about whether Jews are white. Corporate Media will ask precisely 0 Republicans about their largest donor's all-consuming misogyny, xenophobia, antisemitism, he will instead by referred to as a visionary industrialist.

A comment by Dartagnan quotes an article in Salon:

If Talarico wins, the white evangelical leadership is very worried about an earthquake among their "faithful." Their biggest nightmare, apparently, is that their congregations actually open up the New Testament and read it. "This is why there’s a growing panic in the Republican ranks over the campaign of James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Texas, and it’s not just fear that he could beat Ken Paxton, the state’s Republican attorney general. Win or lose, Talarico — a seminary student-turned-politician — embodies an existential threat to the right’s long-standing myth that to be Christian must necessarily mean voting Republican. “As a young evangelical we were taught repeatedly and clearly: It is not possible to be a Christian and a Democrat,” Brad Onishi, a research associate at the University of California, Berkeley and co-host of the “Straight White American Jesus” podcast, told me. “But candidates like Talarico are changing that. His theological acumen and keen ability to use the language of the New Testament to disarm bad-faith religious attacks is showing a new way forward.”

In response to a tweet and article about Sen. John Cornyn and Bush II holding a fundraiser in Dallas to benefit tight senate races but definitely not Texas candidate Ken Paxton, Evan Sutton tweeted:

lol at all the people who've been going "Why isn't Dubya speaking out about Trump??" folks, he's committed to the same f---ing project.

Back in May nasty junior was married. The big news at the time was that daddy didn’t bother to attend. But it was a lavish, three-day party, befitting someone who is rich and wants to impress people in how important he is. The party was held on private islands in the Bahamas and ended with fireworks launched from a barge. The bride wrote on Instagram, “It was everything we dreamed of and more.” Last week Justin Elliott, Brett Murphy, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski of ProPublica investigated one important detail of the party – nasty junior paid for very little of it, even though his financial worth is estimated at $300 million. Umar Kremlev, a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin paid for a great deal – hundreds of thousands of dollars. There were about 50 guests and most of them wondered why a few tended to stand off by themselves and speak Russian. The obvious questions are: Why? And is this a national security issue? Because also obvious: If Kremlev spent so much money on nasty junior he is expecting something in return from the son of the Oval Office occupant. The article goes into detail on who Kremlev is – he has a record of extortion and battery and Ukraine imposed personal sanctions. It also mentions the everlasting efforts of Kremlin operatives trying to build relationships with US government officials and their families.