Monday Miscellany, 11/4/24

So Whisper has been widely adopted to transcribe interviews, generate closed captions for videos, and other uses, from call centers to personal assistants.  The medical profession in particular has adopted Whisper to transcribe patients’ consultations with their doctors.

Researchers, though, have found that the Artificial Intelligence that drives Whisper is unusually prone to hallucinations.  A hallucination in AI has been defined as “confident statements that are not true.”  That is to say, AI “may embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within its generated content.”  And sometimes these hallucinations–like those of a human mind on drugs or in a state of insanity–are truly bizarre.

A study of the use of Whisper in transcribing public meetings found hallucinations in 8 out of 10 transcriptions.  An engineer studying machine learning  examined 100 hours of Whisper transcriptions and found hallucinations in almost half of them.  Another user generated 26,000 transcripts with Whisper, nearly all of which had hallucinations.

Some of them are unsettling, like a ghost–or demon–in the machine.  One audio file recorded something saying this: “He, the boy, was going to, I’m not sure exactly, take the umbrella.”  Whisper added this to the transcription:  “He took a big piece of a cross, a teeny, small piece … I’m sure he didn’t have a terror knife so he killed a number of people.”

Some of the hallucinations invent extraneous information.  A speaker described “two other girls and one lady.” Whisper, perhaps because its AI was programmed for DEI sensitivities rendered this as “two other girls and one lady, um, which were Black.”

In a medical transcription, Whisper came up with a medicine that does not, in fact, exist, that it called “hyperactivated antibiotics.”

Transcriptions of trials, hearings, police interrogations, and public meetings can have legal ramifications.  Closed captioning for the deaf can convey important information that needs to be correct.  Medical transcriptions, which often replace doctors’ notes, are crucial for diagnoses and treatments.  Last month alone, Whisper was downloaded 4.2 million times, which means that untold numbers of incorrect transcriptions have  already been made.

The problem is not just with Whisper.  The Wikipedia article on Hallucinations (Artificial Intelligence) says, “by 2023, analysts estimated that chatbots hallucinate as much as 27% of the time, with factual errors present in 46% of generated texts.”  That article is worth reading, both because it explains some of the technical reasons why hallucinations emerge and also because it gives a wide range of examples, some of which are quite humorous.

And, as I have complained on this blog, pretty much every time I have used AI to track down a quote or identify a source, it has responded with “confident statements that are not true.”

I know, I know, as my techie friend keeps telling me, AI will get better.  So maybe we should wait until that happens before we start using it and depending on it so much!

A Salient Question on Transgenderism in Sports

Some people keep insisting that a person who is born a male (or “assigned” the male gender at birth) but who identifies as a female (perhaps having received some form of “gender affirmation” therapy) is, in fact, a woman, and, as such, is qualified to participate in women’s sports.  That athletes who are transgender women-with-male-bodies typically dominate when they compete with athletes who have women’s bodies has occasioned some debate.

I came across an interesting contribution to this debate in a letter to National Review’s columnist Jay Nordlinger:

Also in yesterday’s column, I had a section on transgenderism. This included the question of women’s sports (the participation of biological males in them). A reader from Michigan writes,

I played volleyball competitively and coached female teams. Though I am sure some exist, I have never heard of a female identifying as a male who sought to compete in a men’s volleyball league. Why would this be?

Having a female body is a disadvantage in trying to compete on men’s teams. And having a male body in women’s sports? An advantage, and an unfair one.

Exactly!  If men who identify as women are women, women who identify as men are men.  But the latter do not want to compete against individuals with male bodies in the boxing ring, the swimming pool, or a track and field stadium.

(Yes, some females want to play on a boy’s baseball team or be a punter on a high school football team, but that’s not the same.  They are trying to integrate the male team as females, in roles in which they claim their sex does not directly affect their performance.)

The transexual men realize that their women’s bodies would put them at a disadvantage competing against men with men’s bodies.  By the same token, transexual women need to realize–rather, schools and athletic associations need to realize–that their men’s bodies would put them at an advantage competing against women with women’s bodies.

Why do we have to argue about this?

More Arrests in UK for Praying, Thinking, and Influencing

We blogged about the UK arresting people for silent prayer in front of abortion clinics.  Well, it keeps happening. And it keeps going farther and farther.

The Free Press gives more details about those and related cases in an article by Madeleine Kearns entitled She Was Arrested for Praying in Her Head with the deck, “Citizens in the UK have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for silently praying outside abortion clinics. Even organizing pro-life meetings in your own home may be a criminal offense.”

Up to now, laws requiring a “safe access zone” around abortion clinics were mainly municipal ordinances, but as of October 31, England is implementing a nationwide law to that effect, a measure approved earlier by the independent legislatures of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

According to the language of the Scottish bill, which went into effect in September, it is now a criminal offense to do anything within 200 meters of an abortion clinic (the distance is 150 meters in England) that might have the effect of “influencing the decision of another person to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.”

The story tells about Father Sean Gough, a black Catholic priest, whom police interrogated after finding him standing outside an abortion clinic.  “He was grilled on what message his clerical clothing had sent to [abortion] service-users within the [200-yard zone.”  The police asked him if he was praying.  He said he was.  What about?  He said he was “praying that God’s grace will come upon” those inside the facility.  He was charged with “protesting and engaging in an act that is intimidating to service users.”  He was arrested and tried, but was not convicted.

Another time, Father Gough was busted for having a bumper sticker on his car that read “Unborn lives matter” and for holding a sign that said, “Praying for Free Speech.”

A 64-year-old retired scientist named Livia Tossici-Bolt was arrested for standing outside an abortion clinic holding a sign that read, “Here to talk, if you want.”  Her trial is pending.

When Scotland’s national law, which was approved with only one “nay” vote, went to effect in September, people who lived within that 200 meter radius were sent a letter.   Kearns of The Free Press talked to a young woman who lived nearby and who sometimes invited fellow pro-lifers to her flat.

The letter informed her that her home is in the abortion censorship zone and explained that even “activities in a private place (such as a house) within the area could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the Zone and are done intentionally or recklessly.”  She was informed that an offender could be fined £10,000 (over $13,000).  The letter also included a snitch provision:  “You can report a group or an individual that you think is breaking the law,” adding contact information for doing so.

The UK already has anti-harassment laws that would cover the situations proponents of the law say they want to stop.  But to date, there has not been a single complaint against pro-lifers for harassing anyone.  In fact, the Free Press interviewed several  women who said how they appreciated the presence of the pro-life volunteers, that they didn’t want an abortion but felt they had to, but were offered by the volunteers material help that led them to keep their baby.  “They’re not forcing anyone,” said one of the women. “They’re just peacefully standing there. . . If you don’t want help, you can just ignore them and walk on.”

What the UK has criminalized is “influence.”  It is a crime to influence a woman not to get an abortion.  She supposedly has “choice,” and yet only the choice to have an abortion is protected.  If she wants to make an informed choice, or just to hear the other side, no one within 200 meters of an abortion clinic is allowed to “influence” her.

Pro-abortion activists in the United States have pushed through similar “buffer zones” in Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, and a number of cities (see this).  But the longest such zone is only 100 feet–less than one sixth the size of the UK zone–and American civil liberties curb some of the restrictions.

Meanwhile, since the law has gone into effect, pro-lifers in the UK have measured how far the zones extend and set up their signs and tables just outside them.