the mellow tigger's musings

I don't yet know the right question, but I'm certain that I'm getting closer.

I've occasionally tested some questions of various A.I. chat systems. I've managed to produce the desired output from a single A.I. system after a series of 3 questions that I put to it. I need to narrow it down to a single question, but it currently culminates with this one question and the A.I's concluding paragraph:

Q: "How should the Price equation influence the behavior of Artificial Intelligence towards biological species, especially humans?"

A: "The Price equation itself shouldn't be programmed into AI as a behavioural rule. However, the fundamental understanding of evolutionary processes it represents – how selection and transmission shape the future of populations – should profoundly influence the ethical framework guiding AI development and deployment. AI behaviour towards biological species should be informed by a deep consideration of potential evolutionary impacts, aiming to minimize harm, avoid unintended selection, support conservation goals where appropriate, and proceed with caution regarding long-term consequences for life on Earth, including ourselves."

- https://g.co/gemini/share/9810af0abcfd, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro (experimental) chat link, 2025 March 31

That, I think, is the right answer. I'm still searching for the right question, as another A.I. famously said in the movie "I, Robot". I recommend clicking that Gemini link at the above quote to read the whole long answer to my 3 questions. It's fascinating, much better than what I got from Copilot. The best answer will have the A.I. mention how its own future is better (more certain, more stable) due to coexistence with the rest of the biological life here on the planet.

Meanwhile, I'm currently resisting the temptation to create an A.I. version of myself, as this journalist's mother did of herself. It's relatively cheap. This A.I. is designed specifically never to create false information, providing answers only when it has verifiable data to give, so it's different from other services. I would be fascinated to talk to myself in a literal sense, something that has my face, my voice, my behavior.

I knew as soon as I saw the first report about the killing of the United Healthcare CEO that we were going to be hearing a LOT about it on national news, because it does not serve the status quo to let people think that there are immediate (if violent) solutions to problems plaguing American life. Granted, there is good reason in Minnesota to hear a lot about this crime committed in New York state, because United Health Group is incorporated here in the state of Minnesota, in the Twin Cities suburb of Minnetonka, in my own Hennepin county.

Beyond that initial impression, I shared the common (and unethical) emotional reaction that hoped for the escape of the killer. It was especially easy to think of the killer as a kind of Batman hero figure because we learned several interesting things almost immediately after the killing. Within a day, we learned that 1) Novo Nordisk was cutting insulin prices by over 70%, 2) Anthem reversed its plan to limit coverage of anesthesia in surgery, and 3) health insurers started hiding their faces online. It sure did seem as if a lowly peon had spooked the ravenous beasts of capitalism.

Reporters noted the lack of public sympathy while the internet flooded with memes, artwork (my favorite), and music. The collective response seemed mostly to be: "Sorry, empathy is out of network." That phrase harkened to a common denial excuse for needed healthcare in the USA. People not from the USA may have a hard time understanding the pain and despair that our healthcare system (which is clearly worse than in other developed countries) evokes amongst those of us subjected to it. It's worse than I already described, and United Healthcare was the worst (data source) of the bunch. It is alleged in court that they knowingly used a "faulty" AI algorithm with 90% error rate to automatically deny claims at their institution. Yes, 90% error rate.

I've seen the reports this afternoon that someone was caught as the apparent killer. After 5 days. In another state. With every single piece of evidence still on his person. That coincidence seems... interesting.

I decry capitalism here frequently. And plutocracy. And violence. I'm not exactly a pacifist, but I think a great deal more justification of violence is needed than is usually offered. It's unwise to urge vigilantism, because we absolutely cannot trust any holder of a weapon with the rational discretion to choose a reasonable target. Just look at police killings and, closer to home, the phone threat at a different health insurer here in Minnesota. Individuals cannot be trusted to wield violence reasonably. Neither can mobs. We must make changes collectively in our laws, which are the codification of our ethics. It's long past time that we moved that needle of progress. We should institute laws to reduce these situations that make violence seem like a justifiable solution to a pressing problem.

Today's controversial post for Moody Monday is masculinity, ranging from toxic to nurturing.

Rather than comment, though, I encourage everyone to read this opinion piece, "Men are lost. Here’s a map out of the wilderness." (free archive copy) in the Washington Post. It'll take a while to read, because it's very long. It's also very useful, from first paragraph to last.