We must stop muting like this

Have you ever had a distressing interaction with a machine?

Happy New Month!

And what better way to start it off than with a brand new, hot off the press exclusive essay from Terry (

Eclecticism: Reflections on literature and life

), one of the driest, funniest, sharpest observers of the foibles, absurdities and silliness of our modern world?

It’s like they say- if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry.

Enjoy.

~TJB

---

Doesn’t look too impressed, does he?

Why worry about the singularity?

For a long time now people have worried about the so-called singularity. That’s the point at which computers become so intelligent that they decide to take over the world. These fears have been heightened since the appearance of intelligent-seeming artificial intelligence in the form of ChatGPT and similar programs.

Having had various conversations with machines, or with people ruled by machines, I am not concerned about super-intelligent technology. In fact, I would welcome it. At least if a machine is intelligent, you can reason with it. You can offer arguments that might persuade it to do this instead of that. You can make it see sense.

Indeed, a really intelligent machine would be able to detect when someone on a Zoom (or similar) call was speaking on their mobile, shouting at their spouse or saying “coo-ey” to their dog while the rest of us are trying to take part in a meeting. As things stand now, the host doesn’t always have the power to switch someone off, as it were, and even when they do they worry about whether doing so would be impolite.  ChatGPT and its cousins and descendants would have no such qualms. It would simply mute the person’s microphone, permanently if necessary, according to a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule. The power to mute would be taken out of the host’s hands, which would be a very welcome development.

But stupid machines are unable to think for themselves. You cannot reason with them. With a bit of luck and not a little lateral thinking you might be able to fool them into doing what you want. But reasoning with them? Forget it. Let me give a small example, and then a medium example and then a large example.

A small example

A few years ago I had the following conversation at a supermarket checkout.

Checkout lady: These tomatoes don’t exist.

Me: But I can see them.

CL: Yes, but they don’t exist.

Me: So are we having a group hallucination?

CL: No, I mean they don’t exist on our system.

Me: Excellent! I can have them for free then.

CL: No. I can’t let you have them at all. The system won’t let me.

A medium example

Last year I was the grateful recipient of credit from a college. But when I tried to book another course, the unfortunate person on the other end of the phone told me that the computer system would not allow her to apply the discount. It said, in effect, “You’re having a laugh, mate.”

She escalated the issue (I believe I am using the correct terminology) to her line manager. She couldn’t get the computer to see sense either. 

Who would the problem go to next, I wondered? The Prime Minister?

But then, in a stroke of genius, the line manager ‘told’ the computer that the cost of the course was the actual cost minus my discount. In other words, she lowered the price of the course, and fooled the computer into thinking that I was paying 100% of the price. 

A large example

That was frustrating, but not debilitating. What was wearing was the relentless machine that was put into motion when our landline and internet provider decided that we had cancelled our contract. Why? Because they had sent us two handsets and we said, well within the time allowed for requesting a refund, that we didn’t want them. 

I contacted the company to ask for a refund.

They said no problem.

I then received a text message telling me my complaint had been resolved.

What complaint? I hadn’t made a complaint. It transpired that this company refers to each and every customer query as a complaint.

I contacted the company and they said they would definitely cancel the purchase and refund our money.

I received an email confirming that I had prematurely cancelled our contract, and that our landline would be cut off, along with our broadband. In the meantime, phone calls would cost something like £1 a minute. Mobile calls would cost more. I estimated that we’d be bankrupt within a few months, assuming we didn’t die from stress in the meantime.

Each time I phoned the company, the person I spoke to reached a point where they could do no more. 

The system wouldn’t let them.

Eventually (and I’m cutting a very, very long story short here), we got through to someone who had some seniority over the computer system.

He managed to get us a landline back, though not our own number at first.

I received an email stating that I was going to be charged £600 for cancelling the contract I hadn’t cancelled.

He managed to get us our old number back.

I received an email stating that I had to return all the internet and phone equipment associated with our internet and landline.

I received a package containing replicas of the equipment I had been told to return.

He managed to cancel the demands for a fine. He managed to fool the system into thinking I had returned the equipment I didn’t need to return because it was the same as the equipment they had sent to replace it.

I told him that even after a nuclear Armageddon, this computer system would still be churning out threatening emails and text messages and cutting people off for no reason. Even he couldn’t override everything.

Concluding remarks

In an astonishing display of prescience, Gordon R. Dickson wrote a short story called Computers Don’t Argue — in 1965. What is significant about that date is that the story’s devastating and terrible ending is caused by an out-of-office reply — which, according to Microsoft, did not come into being until the late 1980s. (Spoiler alert: the story begins with the protagonist receiving an overdue notice from the library, and ends with him being executed for murder.)

When all is said and done, wouldn’t you rather deal with an intelligent machine than a highly sophisticated automated moron?

---