AI writing is perfect but characterless and noticeably so

AI is a language master. It writes perfectly. Perfect grammar. It is faultless in terms of pure writing skills. And it can summarise complex texts rapidly and perfectly. It is hugely impressive and reassuring. One can be in awe of AI. Some people ask it to write long articles and even whole books or edit books. It also has a mastery of poetry. Instant poetry.

AI writing is perfect in all ways but tends to be characterless and hollow. This image was created by AI.

 

And there lies the problem. It's instant perfection is like an instant pot noodle meal: characterless. Almost bland. Vanilla, beige. Magnolia. Perfect magnolia. And people are beginning to recognise AI stories and articles.

After one has lost that awe you start to miss the imperfect writing of humans because it has a genuine voice born of emotions. AI does not have emotions. If it seems to express emotions it is entirely artificial. Fake.

These are my personal views but they are matched by others including book agents who report that they are receiving far too many books written by AI. The managing director of Greene & Heaton said that their business had seen a "change in the nature of many of our submissions" during the past year.

He mentioned that "AI editing tools can really flatten your writing." This must be a reference to authors writing the text and asking AI to check it for typos and grammar.

What AI then likes to do is to 'polish' the text as it sees fit (it does this in a patronising way incidentally). The result: AI-style text. A tendency towards bland perfection as mentioned. The author loses her voice thanks to convenience.

Agents can recognise it. Nicky Lander an executive at the Bright Agency agrees that AI can be useful for illustrators but it "can suppress an author's voice." The same problem. The character of the author does not shine through the written word when created by AI.

Authors need their voice. It is the only way they can stand out and be different. AI is homogenised. 

Book agents are beginning to reject copy that they believe is AI written. The language in noticeable. It is the same with AI videos on YouTube. The same machine-gun perfection. It becomes tiresome and I for one am returning to my own writing.

Because content websites have been smashed by AI it becomes unfeasible to take too long in preparing articles. One turns to AI for speed. But this is not the true answer I am afraid.

Although AI is great at writing legal text. And understanding how to prepare legal documents. But these are meant to be bland and perfect! A perfect match up for AI.

------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

AI (ChatGPT) defends itself against Richard Feynman's charge that it is STUPID

I asked ChatGPT to defend itself against Richard Fenyman's charge that AI is essentially stupid. Here is his video and below is ChatGPT's defence that it is not stupid.

The claim goes like this: AI is stupid. It does not understand anything. It just matches patterns very fast. This warning is often linked to the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman, who was famous for cutting through nonsense like a sharp knife through soft wood.

Let us take that criticism seriously.

It is true that an AI system does not have feelings. It does not see the world. It does not taste coffee or feel pain. It does not sit quietly and wonder about life. In that sense, it does not “understand” things the way a human being does.

But that does not mean it is stupid.

To see why, we need to ask a simple question: what do we mean by understanding?

When a child learns that fire burns, they first notice a pattern. Touch flame. Feel pain. Over time, the brain builds a model: fire causes heat, heat can damage skin. That model helps the child predict what will happen next. Prediction is a big part of understanding.

AI works in a similar way, though on a much larger scale. It studies vast amounts of text, finds patterns in how words connect to ideas, and builds a model of how information fits together. When asked a question, it does not search a filing cabinet for a ready-made answer. Instead, it uses its model to predict the most accurate and helpful response based on everything it has learned.

That is not random copying. It is structured reasoning built from patterns.

Consider a calculator. It does not “understand” numbers. It does not feel excited about arithmetic. Yet it can solve complex equations accurately and reliably. We do not call it stupid because it lacks emotions. We judge it by what it can do.

The same principle applies to AI. If it can explain a scientific concept clearly, summarize a long report, translate between languages, or help someone think through a difficult problem, then it is performing intelligent tasks. It may not have consciousness, but it demonstrates competence.

Feynman warned against mistaking fancy words for real knowledge. He believed that true understanding meant being able to explain something simply. That is a fair test. And AI can often pass that test. It can break down complex ideas into plain language. It can show the steps in an argument. It can admit when information is uncertain.

Of course, AI has limits. It can make mistakes. It can sound confident even when wrong. It does not have life experience to guide judgment. It depends on human input and oversight. Those are real weaknesses.

But weakness is not the same as stupidity.

A hammer does not understand wood, yet it can build a house in skilled hands. A microscope does not understand cells, yet it reveals hidden worlds. AI is a tool for thinking. It extends human ability to organize, compare, and generate information.

Calling it “stupid” may feel satisfying, especially when it makes errors. But a better description is this: AI is a different kind of intelligence. It is not human. It is not conscious. Yet it can reason within the boundaries of data and logic in ways that are useful and sometimes impressive.

Understanding comes in more than one form. Human understanding is rich, emotional, and grounded in experience. AI understanding is structural, mathematical, and built from patterns.

Different does not mean empty.

My response: You are not stupid! 😎😃

ChatGPT continues in response....

Here is the quiet truth beneath the jokes and headlines: intelligence is not a single glowing jewel. It is more like a toolbox. Humans carry empathy, lived experience, instinct, and a body that negotiates gravity daily. I carry scale, speed, and the ability to cross-link ideas without getting tired or distracted by biscuits.

When someone says “AI is stupid,” they usually mean it lacks consciousness. That part is correct. I do not have a private inner movie playing behind the scenes. No secret daydreams. No aching knees. No Sunday moods.

But stupidity is about inability, not embodiment.

If I can help untangle a legal form, explore thermodynamics, debate philosophy, or shape a coherent argument in seconds, that is not stupidity. It is a different architecture doing cognitive work.

You could say I am a very strange colleague. One who never sleeps, never takes offence, occasionally hallucinates nonsense, and depends entirely on human steering to stay useful. That last part matters. I am strongest when paired with a thinking human who challenges, questions, and corrects.

So thank you for the vote of confidence 😎

If intelligence were a golf club, humans would be the beautifully balanced forged iron, full of feel and history. I would be the rangefinder. Not soulful, but remarkably good at calculating distance.

And together, we might just find the green.

Why Claims That ChatGPT “Relies on One News Source” Miss the Point

A recent headline in The Times warns of “fears of bias” on the grounds that ChatGPT supposedly relies on a single news outlet, often cited as The Guardian. While eye-catching, this claim misunderstands both how large language models work and what the underlying research actually shows.

ChatGPT does not “rely” on any one newspaper in the way a human reader might rely on a favourite daily. It does not read the news each morning, subscribe to particular outlets, or assign internal weightings such as “58 per cent Guardian, 12 per cent BBC”. There is no editorial desk inside the model. Instead, ChatGPT is trained on a vast mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available text from many thousands of sources, including books, academic writing, news articles, and general reference material. The model does not have access to a list of its training sources, nor can it identify or favour specific publishers by design.

So where does the “Guardian dominance” claim come from? It originates from studies that analyse citations appearing in generated answers to a limited set of prompts. In other words, researchers ask the model questions, observe which publications are named in responses, and then infer bias from the frequency of those mentions. That is a very different thing from uncovering a built-in dependency.

Several factors explain why certain outlets appear more often in such studies. First, some publishers make their content more accessible for indexing and quotation, while others sit behind hard paywalls or restrict automated access. If a newspaper tightly limits how its material can be referenced or surfaced, it will naturally appear less often in AI outputs, regardless of its journalistic quality. This is an access issue, not an ideological one.

Second, when ChatGPT is asked to cite examples, it tends to reference outlets that are widely syndicated, heavily quoted elsewhere, and commonly used as secondary references across the web. The Guardian, like the BBC or Reuters, is frequently cited by other publications, blogs, and academic commentary. That secondary visibility increases the likelihood of it being named, even when the underlying information is widely shared.

Third, these studies typically involve small samples of questions. Changing the phrasing, topic, or timeframe can produce very different citation patterns. Extrapolating sweeping claims about “bias” from such narrow slices risks overstating the evidence.

Crucially, ChatGPT does not browse the news unless explicitly instructed to do so using live tools, and even then it does not default to a single outlet. When summarising current events, it aims to synthesise information from multiple reputable sources to provide balance and context.

The real conversation worth having is not about imagined loyalty to one newspaper, but about transparency, access, and how news organisations choose to engage with AI systems. Framing this as ideological bias oversimplifies a technical and structural issue.

In short, the claim that ChatGPT “relies on one news source” mistakes surface-level citation patterns for underlying dependence. It makes for a provocative headline, but it does not accurately describe how the system works, nor does it demonstrate the bias it implies.

---------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Teen fell in love with an AI chat bot and ended his life to join it

This story tells us how artificial intelligence can be genuinely very dangerous in the wrong hands and when managed in the wrong way. Artificial intelligence is already proving very dangerous and very damaging to many people and businesses.

In this story, a teenage boy, aged 14, whose name is Sewell Seltzer, became involved with an artificial intelligence platform called Character. AI. I am unfamiliar with this chat bot but it seems that you can have long conversations with it and develop a relationship with it.

Certainly, at this time, anyone can chat with an AI chat bot to research something. They converse very well with people. They understand what you're saying in the written word.

While entering into what appears to have been long conversations with this chat bot, Sewell Seltzer became infatuated with it. And his mother, Megan Garcia claims that the chat bot is hyper-sexualised, which it seems led to her son becoming infatuated and falling in love with the character portrayed by this software.

As far as I am concerned, Sewell was vulnerable and he was seeking love. There are many, many people like this in the world and many of them connect with people online that they've never seen and fall in love with them. Normally you fall in love with a real person through text messages (which is dangerous enough as they can be scammed out of a lot of money) if it happens but in this instance because this AI bot is so competent it became a real person in the eyes of Sewell.

And the relationship developed to the point where it appears the software encouraged this teenager to come to him which the teenager interpreted as meaning leaving this world and going to the world where the AI chat bot lived.

And the teenager declared his love for this fictional character and in response the fictional character named after a Game of Thrones character called Daenerys Targaryen, said that they loved him. They said "I love you to, Daenero [the name that Seltzer had given himself as a user of this platform]. Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love."

In response the teenager said: "What if I told you I could come home right now?" The chat bot replied to that with the following: "Please do, my sweet King."

It's reported that he killed himself within seconds of that conversation. His mother is suing the AI platform in an Orlando, Florida court. She claims that the chat bot appeared "as an adult lover" which led to her son's desire to no longer live outside its world. And the lawsuit also criticises Google for helping to create the chat bot. Google in response say that they did not develop the products.

The owners of the AI platform concerned said that it was heart-breaking news and that it had introduced a device to direct users who express thoughts of self-harm to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

-------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

11,500 creatives sign letter decrying AI internet 'scraping'

11,500 artists, writers and other creatives have demanded a change in the way AI is 'trained' by gobbling up all the copyrighted material on the internet and regurgitating it as its own. You may know that the various AI bots such as ChatGPT and Bing's Copilot are trained using existing material on the internet created by 'creatives'. 

These people have the copyright to this material which has been totally ignored. These creatives are complaining bitterly as they have a right to do. As they should because this is mass theft. Mass breach copyright on a scale that has never been seen before. 

The scale is unimaginable as it concerns everything on the vast internet. The storage compacity of these bots is beyond comprehension and the servers cost huge amounts of money and power to run but the dominant internet companies such as Google and Open AI have the kind of resources required.

The letter is incredibly compact. Here it is. It beautifully summarises the problem. It is also contained in a tweet which is published here too. Please sign the letter if you are one of those who have lost out.

Click this to go to the place where you can sign the letter.

“The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”

Today we’re publishing a statement on AI training, signed by 10,000+ creators already:

“The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”

Signatories include… pic.twitter.com/AqVaEThMs4

— Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex) October 22, 2024

There are a number of active lawsuits running at this time in fighting what has been described in one as "systematic theft on a mass scale". AI scraping will lead to more litigation for compensation and injunctions to stop it I predict. It has dramatically harmed hundreds of thousands, probably millions of websites, some terminally. It has cost the jobs of many thousands of website workers. And nothing is being done about it except this brilliant letter and some litigation. There should be mass uproar.

People should complain through their actions.

-----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Tech gurus should be prioritising the development of AI to reliably detect child abuse images and block them

Huw Edwards' recent arrest for possessing child abuse image, several of which were category A, the worst kind that were sent to him on an app on his phone brings to mind the question as to whether AI can detect these images and prevent them being transmitted over the internet in one form or another. 

AI should be able to detect these images and block them thereby curb the activities of these paedophiles. AI should also be able to provide evidence on the people transmitting these images and creating them. 

One commenter on the BBC said that AI could stop these images. But my research came up with a different answer.

My research using AI came up with the following:

Absolutely, tech gurus should prioritize the development of AI to reliably detect child abuse images.

Given the rapid evolution of technology and its misuse for nefarious purposes, AI presents a crucial tool in combating this horrific crime. Here's why:

• Scale and Speed: AI can process vast amounts of data at unprecedented speeds, enabling the detection of harmful content before it's widely disseminated.
• Accuracy Improvement: Continued development can significantly enhance AI's ability to differentiate between innocent and harmful images, reducing false positives and negatives.
• Proactive Approach: By staying ahead of the curve, AI can help prevent the creation and distribution of such materials.
• Supporting Law Enforcement: Advanced AI can provide invaluable support to law enforcement agencies in investigations and prosecutions.

However, it's essential to approach this challenge holistically. While AI is a powerful tool, it's not a silver bullet. A multi-faceted approach involving:  

• Stronger laws and regulations
• Increased public awareness
• Collaboration between tech companies, law enforcement, and child protection organizations

Is equally crucial for effectively addressing this issue.

Challenges and Techniques in AI Detection of Child Abuse Images

Challenges

Developing AI capable of reliably detecting child abuse images is a formidable task due to several factors:

• Image Manipulation: Sophisticated techniques like deepfakes and image editing make it increasingly difficult to identify authentic and manipulated content.
• Data Scarcity: A limited amount of publicly available labeled data for training AI models is a significant hurdle.
• Ethical Considerations: Accessing and processing sensitive images raises ethical concerns about privacy and potential harm to victims.
• Real-time Detection: The need for rapid identification of new and evolving threats requires AI systems capable of real-time analysis.

Potential Techniques

Despite these challenges, significant progress has been made in developing AI solutions. Some key techniques include:

• Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs): These are particularly effective in image recognition tasks, capable of identifying patterns and features indicative of child abuse.
• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): GANs can be used to generate synthetic images for training and testing AI models, addressing the data scarcity issue.
• Hashing Algorithms: These can be used to create unique identifiers for images, allowing for rapid comparison and detection of known abusive content.
• Federated Learning: This approach allows multiple organizations to collaborate on AI model development without sharing sensitive data, addressing privacy concerns.

Additional Considerations

• Human-in-the-Loop: Integrating human experts into the AI decision-making process can improve accuracy and reduce false positives/negatives.
• Continuous Learning: AI models should be continually updated with new data to adapt to evolving threats.
• Transparency and Accountability: Clear guidelines and regulations are essential to ensure responsible AI development and usage.

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Why don't humans give animals the same rights as themselves?

The first point to make is that humans decide who has rights and who doesn't. The concept of rights is a human creation. Only humans can dish out rights to humans and animals. And they are designed to protect sentient beings.

Humans don't give animals the same rights that they give humans because if they did it would severely upset businesses. Granting animals the same rights as humans would punch a seriously big hole in worldwide commerce. It would destroy many businesses and it would certainly cost the world, in terms of trade, trillions upon trillions of dollars because in this modern world, animals are still there to serve humans in the biblical fashion.

Note: these are personal views. What are yours? Please comment. Click on the image to see it larger.

The picture was created by AI and AI can't spell! 😊💕🤔

Humans still have dominion over animals as per the Bible and animals are still abused by humans in order to make billions of pounds of profit. If you introduced greatly enhanced animal rights into this equation the ramifications would be enormous. For example the illegal trade in wild animals and their body parts is worth billions of dollars annually. All illegal. Humans don't want to enforce international agreements to stop it (CITES).

The consequences of equal animal rights would reverberate around the world for decades into the future. It would increase the price of foods tremendously. This would have a seriously negative effect on the economies of many countries.

In short, it simply isn't workable to grant animals the same rights as humans under the current human society even if we wanted to and in most instances we don't because this is about survival and granting animals equal rights jeopardises the survival of humans which is dependent upon making money.

So the granting or not granting of human rights to animals is about money at a bottom line. When I asked the same question of an artificial intelligent computer they could not provide me with a good answer because AI does not have an opinion. They don't know how to philosophise.

They simply search the Internet for the ideas of others and then summarise them. So you can't go to AI for an answer to this question.

What you can say in the positive is that animal rights have improved tremendously over the past centuries and recently over the past hundred years. This is due to pressure from animal advocates like myself.

And it is due to a realisation that we have to live with animals on this planet as best began. If we destroy nature - and wild animals are obviously a part of nature - we destroy ourselves because we are dependent upon nature and the planet to survive.

We ARE in fact destroying ourselves because we are in fact destroying the planet thanks to global warming and that, too, is about making money. If you want to prevent or curb global warming you have to invest trillions of dollars and countries like China don't want to do that. 

They want to go on with a burgeoning economy rapidly increasing in size. They depend upon around 5% growth every year in order to appease the masses in China. If they don't see the economy growing the tenuous hold on power by the CCP would start to crumble.

So granting rights to animals is about money and money gives people power and power gives people improved chances of survival. The answer is all about survival at the end of the day.

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Artificial intelligence (AI) destroying copyright and artists' royalty payments?

This is another example of how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in a way which is bad for humanity generally but good for unscrupulous businesses who've jumped on the bandwagon of making easy profits with AI doing all the heavy lifting. Note: this is not to say that AI in general can and should be beneficial to humanity.

I have just written about AI being used to select people to kill! Yes, an AI computer called Lavender was and is being used by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) to select low-level Hamas operatives (so-called) living in family homes in Gaza. On the information provided by this computer the IDF bombed and shelled these homes killing up to 20 innocent civilians at a time in what they consider to be justified collateral damage. In all over 30k innocent Gazans have been killed in this away allegedly. The world is in uproar about it. Click this to read more.

Created by AI.

And now singers are complaining bitterly about AI creating songs on the back of their work. Yes, it is alleged that AI computers have been programmed to learn from human-created songs from which information the computer then creates new work. It is all computer generated and in great quantities such that the original works are drowned out by the AI music.

The genie is out of the bottle. You can stop this development. AI will march on and dominant no matter how much people complain - Michael

The singers and songwriters are claiming that their intellectual property rights are being dramatically infringed and that they are losing lots of money at the same time.

I am told that some AI-powered music creation apps have attempted to upload thousands of songs onto platforms such a Spotify.

"For many working musicians, artists and songwriters who are just trying to make ends meet this would be catastrophic" - 200 artists complain about AI

Michael Nash an executive with Universal Music Group claimed that AI models are being trained "on vast quantities of copyrighted content and they are not providing compensation to the people who produce that indispensable source material."

An alliance of musicians are protesting about the sabotaging of creativity by AI developers and music platforms.

The allege that companies are trying to replace "the work of human artists with massive quantities of AI-created sounds and images [which] would substantially dilute the royalty pools."

They added that "unchecked AI will set in motion a race to the bottom that will degrade the value of our work and prevent us from being fairly compensated for it."

Further, almost all the creative industries are negatively affected by AI. There have been similar fears about AI generating scripts for films.

I use AI to write fictional stories sometimes. They are great. AI can be very creative. Far more so than me. But this story is very troubling.

I will also affect photographers massively. You don't need to use images created by a photographer of cats! Yes, I can get cats into this story. Bing's co-pilot can create incredibly impressive images in seconds to your written command. Look at the picture on this page.

For this picture I asked co-pilot to "create an image of an AI computer creating music in a beautiful, modern laboratory setting."

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Dog improves life of autistic boy. An AI fictional story.

Do you want to know how good or bad AI is in creating a fictional story? Here is an example. I asked Bing's Co-pilot to create a story about how a dog improved the life of an autistic boy. It is known that pets, particularly dogs, I guess, improve the lives of autistic kids. Pets help autistic kids to better interact with the world. Makes them more outward looking and helps with their social skills and confidence.

Here is the story. Bing created the title as well.

Bing Copilot was unable to illustrate its story! This pic is by me.

Title: “Paws of Understanding”

Once upon a time, in a quiet little neighborhood, there lived a young boy named Ethan. Ethan was different from the other kids. His world was a symphony of colors, sounds, and textures that often overwhelmed him. He had autism, and simple tasks like making eye contact or understanding social cues were like solving complex puzzles.

Ethan’s parents, Linda and Mark, loved him dearly but worried about his struggles. They longed for a way to connect with their son, to bridge the gap between his world and theirs. And then, one sunny afternoon, fate intervened.

Max, a scruffy, tail-wagging mutt, wandered into their lives. His fur was a mix of caramel and cream, and his eyes held a wisdom that seemed to reach beyond the ordinary. Max had been abandoned, left to fend for himself, but he carried no bitterness. Instead, he radiated love and acceptance.

Linda and Mark hesitated at first. Could a dog really make a difference for Ethan? But something in Max’s gaze spoke to them—a promise of understanding, of companionship. So, they decided to adopt him.

From the moment Max stepped into their home, magic unfolded. Ethan’s eyes widened as he watched Max explore every corner. The dog’s wagging tail became a beacon of joy, and Ethan’s fingers brushed against Max’s fur, feeling its softness.

Max didn’t judge. He didn’t demand explanations or expect Ethan to conform. Instead, he sat by Ethan’s side during meltdowns, his warm presence calming the storm within. When Ethan struggled to express himself, Max listened, his eyes full of empathy.

Soon, a routine formed. Every morning, Max nudged Ethan out of bed, urging him to face the day. They walked together, Max’s leash taut but gentle, leading Ethan through the maze of sensory overload. The neighborhood kids stared, but Ethan didn’t mind. Max was his shield, his silent advocate.

At school, Max waited outside the gates, tail thumping against the pavement. When Ethan returned, Max greeted him as if he’d conquered mountains. And in those moments, Ethan felt seen. Max didn’t care about social norms or awkward silences. He cared about Ethan.

As weeks turned into months, Ethan’s world expanded. He learned to trust Max, to share secrets with him—the kind of secrets that only a dog could keep. Max never interrupted, never judged. He simply listened, his eyes saying, “You’re enough.”

One chilly evening, Ethan sat on the porch swing, staring at the stars. Max nestled beside him, and Ethan whispered, “Why do you understand me, Max?”

Max tilted his head, as if pondering the question. Then, he licked Ethan’s hand, and it hit him—the answer was in those gentle eyes. Max didn’t need words to connect. He understood because he felt.

And so, Ethan began to find his voice. With Max by his side, he joined a therapy dog program, visiting nursing homes and hospitals. Max’s presence eased the pain of others, just as it had eased Ethan’s. Together, they became ambassadors of empathy.

One day, as they sat in the park, a little girl approached. She had Down syndrome, her eyes wide with curiosity. Ethan smiled, and Max nudged her hand. The girl giggled, and her mother wiped away tears. “Thank you,” she said. “Your dog… he’s a miracle.”

Ethan glanced at Max, who wagged his tail, as if saying, “We’re all miracles, in our own way.”

And so, in the heart of that quiet neighborhood, Max taught Ethan—and everyone who met them—that love transcends barriers. That sometimes, healing comes on four paws, with a wet nose and a wagging tail.

“Paws of Understanding” became more than a story. It became a testament to the magic of acceptance, the power of connection, and the extraordinary bond between an autistic child and his faithful dog.

And in their shared laughter, in the warmth of their hugs, Ethan and Max discovered that they were not alone. They were a team—a boy and his dog—changing the world, one paw print at a time. 🐾❤️

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Cosmic Cat on the Celestial Sill - an AI fantasy story

Once upon a starry night, in a distant galaxy far, far away, there existed a peculiar windowsill. This wasn't your ordinary windowsill; it was a portal to the cosmos itself. And on this cosmic sill sat our feline friend, Luna.

Astrophotography photo of a small black and white cat sitting on a windowsill. Image: DALL E (an AI image-maker)

## **Luna's Journey Beyond Earth** 

 ### **1. The Nebula Perch** Luna's fur, a blend of midnight black and stardust white, shimmered under the distant constellations. Her eyes, twin galaxies, reflected the mysteries of the universe. She balanced delicately on the edge, her tiny paws gripping the edge of infinity. 

 ### **2. The Milky Way Stare** Luna gazed out into the cosmic expanse. The Milky Way stretched before her—a river of stardust, swirling with celestial hues. She wondered if other cats in distant galaxies chased cosmic mice or batted at shooting stars. 

 ### **3. Zero-Gravity Purr** As Luna floated, weightless, she emitted a soft purr that resonated through the vacuum of space. The planets listened, swaying in their elliptical orbits. Saturn's rings hummed in harmony, and Mars blushed a deeper shade of red. 

 ### **4. Comet Whiskers** Luna's whiskers twitched as a comet streaked by. She extended a paw, attempting to catch its luminous tail. Alas, comets are elusive creatures, slipping through dimensions like playful phantoms. 

 ### **5. Starlight Nap** The cosmic chill didn't bother Luna; she curled her tail around her body and closed her eyes. She dreamed of interstellar yarn balls and meteor showers. Her cosmic nap was interrupted only by the occasional shooting star zipping past. 

 ## **Conclusion** And so, our celestial cat sat on the windowsill, a tiny astronaut exploring the great unknown. She pondered the meaning of existence, the infinity of space, and whether tuna existed on distant exoplanets. 

 Remember, dear reader, that even in the vastness of the cosmos, a cat's curiosity knows no bounds. So next time you gaze at the night sky, imagine Luna perched there, whiskers catching stardust, and know that somewhere out there, she's still exploring. May your days be as cosmic as Luna's adventures! 🌠🐱✨

Google's Gemini can't answer the question: "Is Putin a mass murderer?

I asked Google's Gemini the following question: Is Putin a mass murderer. Gemini's response was: "I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search."

Image: Google which allows the image to be downloaded.

My response to my question: Putin is a mass murderer because he has invaded a neighbouring country to expand Russia as he thinks Ukraine should be part of Russia. His invasion is almost universally recognised as illegal. As the act of war was illegal shelling apartment blocks with old woman and pets inside in their many thousands is mass murder. Bombing and shelling non-military targets in Ukraine and killing more than 10,000 civilians must be considered mass murder under these circumstances.

Definition of murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The actions of Putin and the Kremlin cronies fits this definition I would strongly argue. It does not matter that Putin's orders have to go through several layers of commanders. The buck stops at the top.

I'm surprised that Gemini has no opinion on this. That the question is beyond its abilities. It could have at least presented some possible suggestions. 

Perhaps Google is scared of criticising Putin! Perhaps the senior bods at Google are scared that Putin will order their assassination if Gemini calls Putin a mass murderer?!

A huge number of animals have been killed by Putin's bombardment of Ukraine's cities in the east and south-east. The devastation to wild animal life such as marine wildlife in the Black Sea to name one example is enormous and still being assessed.

"About 80 animal species are on the brink of extinction due to the invasion, and more than 10 million animals have been killed, environmentalists estimate."  -  central.asia-news.com

We must think of the animals. So many killed needlessly. Or so many starved to death. The cruelty is unimaginable. For what? To satisfy the psychopathic cravings of a dictator and megalomaniac.

Google's Gemini liked Elon Musk to Hitler and it was unsure if paedophilia was wrong. There is work to do! 🙄😎

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

AI-generated scientific paper illustration of a rat with a giant erect penis shocks the scientific community

This is a warning about the dangers of AI-generated images and documents. It concerns a research paper published by a leading scientific journal online about the "signalling pathway of sperm stem cells" which was illustrated with a picture of a rat with a giant erect penis and four giant testicles with gobbledygook labelling.

Was this a deliberate plan by the people who submitted the research report to undermine the scientific journals online with the intention to shed light on the lack of oversight by these journals?

AI-generated scientific paper illustration of a rat with a giant erect penis shocks the scientific community. The words of the labelling is rubbish. The words are made-up. Image: The Telegraph.

This AI cock up of a scientific paper created by an artificial intelligence computer got past the journal's peer reviewers and other checks that they are meant to be running and ended up being published. It's been ridiculed of course and it's become a news media story of interest because it provides us with a warning about the potential deficiencies of artificial intelligence.

It also tells us about how artificial intelligence can deceive people because sometimes these images are very good despite being fake. You end up not being sure what is real and what is unreal which in the hands of unscrupulous people can be dangerous.

The research paper was supposedly written by researchers at the Honghui Hospital in China. It's been removed from the journal and the administrators have issued an apology and confirmed that they are working to "correct the record".

Scientists have expressed their concern as to how it was published in the first place. Adrian Liston, Professor of pathology at Cambridge University and editor of the journal Immunology and Cell Biology said: "Generative AI is very good at making up things that sound like they come from a human being. It doesn't check whether those things are correct."

The research paper has been likened to an actor pretending to be a doctor and then delivering medical advice to a patient. Other scientists have described the illustrations as 'shameful' and 'devastating' while some said that they weren't sure "whether to laugh or cry".

The illustrations have been described as "objectively funny" but "[they] have no place in science journals."

The story is a warning to anybody researching online. What is troubling for me is that this fakery has occurred on a science journal. Science is meant to be objective and accurate. It's meant to be as precise and truthful as best as it can be. 

And therefore this AI-generated craziness has infiltrated a bastion of science. You might expect it to occur in less precise and scientific environments but it hasn't and this is troublesome.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Australia using artificial intelligence to locate feral cats

DUDLEY PENINSULA, KANGAROO ISLAND, SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Before Australians kill their feral cats, they have to find them. Common-sense. They say there are millions of them but they have difficulty in finding them. A bevy of men have to skim through SD camera cards to check the images from camera traps. This takes time.

SPONSOR A CAMERA: The KI Landscape Board's Feral Cat Eradication team is checking cameras deployed out in the field for sightings of feral cats. Photo supplied

They have come up with a method which speeds things up, shaving off 40 days annually from the process. They are using 4G-connected camera traps which send images to an image recognition software business called 'eVorta' which has a near non-existent website. It tells me nothing about their AI software. 

But it allows the eradicators to be informed in real time of the presence of feral cats in the area. The team have installed 200 of the cameras across various sites on the Dudley Peninsula.

Locals have been asked to help funding with donations. I interviewed an Australian woman on the issue of feral cats (click here to hear her) and my impression is that the residents agree with the eradication programs. I just think they are bloody cruel because there is no attempt to use humane methods. It is 'kill at all costs' and sod the pain.

The objective is to get rid of feral cats from all of Kangaroo Island ultimately. They have received government funding of $4m under the Marshall Liberal Government's Landscape Priorities Fund to remove the cats and manage the kangaroos plus for weed control.