First Blog

  Will we witness the end of the legal profession in our days? With the advent of AI (Artificial Intelligence), there comes a serious challenge to this profession that celebrates its precision and logical arguments, almost always based on precedent. Let’s consider a few cases.   It seems certain that future lawyers will bring an AI assistant into the courtroom. It will listen to all testimony, look for irregularities, signal objection events, point out exceptions (with references), and help deliver closing arguments. Do you agree? The law office of the future will need no paralegals. AI will develop all the background knowledge the attorney of record needs. It will supply appropriate quotes with references. It will cite tangential issues, how they were decided, and accompanying arguments. The future law office will have no space for a law library – it being online in every office. Attorneys will dictate and AI will compose their letters in the correct legal language. The trusty leg

  What made Einstein so great? The best answer is nobody knows. However, there are conditions under which he learned. First, he had a home tutor who was mathematically and physics trained. This person probably insisted the young Albert think deeply about what he was learning and how to explain it thoroughly. This put Albert into a mode of internalizing everything he learned, and learning how to explain it. This is simply not taught in schools these days, but if you look at notables such as Richard Feynman, his father taught him to think similarly. Even Isaac Newton once said, “I think about a problem constantly until I can see clean through it.” The lesson learned here is that one key to understanding is to contain the entirety of your subject all within the mind. You’ll note, all his life he was concerned with the very foundations of physics by way of understanding and explanation. Next, we come to the man himself. He was obviously highly intelligent, and having learned to think

 What happens when the humidity is high has two edges with respect to temperature. A. When the temperature is high , high humidity clings to your skin and makes you feel warmer. Visit Miami in the summer and you'll know this first-hand. Body odor soars.  B. When the temperature is low , high humidity remains in your clothing making you feel colder. Everybody seems to know that sweaty clothing in the winter make you feel extra cold. 

The Silicon Valley Bank crisis has given us some lessons. It’s the regional banks that support the people through loans for commercial and residential real estate and for small businesses and homeowners. Big banks are purely profit machines, dependent on very low interest rates, supporting highly risky adventures like start-ups. They are the lottery players in the banking world, and now the public, through larger banking fees, will pay for their misguidance, incompetence, and greed. Summary, now we, as in you and me, bail out incompetence and greed.  Our return will be higher interest and more difficulty making loans. Wonderful.

  A Conversation between a Human and ChatGPT by Don Allen It’s time to compare humans with ChatGPT and/or any of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) learning codes now coming on the market. They look promising for AI, but for humans, the nature of intellectual contributions seems limited to those only of geniuses. Only for the more emotional topics do humans have an edge. Much talk these days have been given to the so-called Kurzweil’s Singularity [1] , the time when the computer’s ability exceeds that of humans. Kurzweil suggests the year 2045; it could come sooner. However, few ever discuss that computers with AI are a brand new species having little need for human functionality.   For example, humans talk plenty about love. AI does not need or even comprehend love. In our conversation below, we combine all known AI programs, but that is a mere detail overcome by simple links. We show differences and biases. Note that biases are perhaps the only component of human thinking, throug

  Why should I learn math when I won't use it in "real life?" Half of all parents are asked this question. You should learn math. Here are a few points to consider. These are all points I’ve made to students over the years who don’t see math class as relevant to their future life. ·         Learning math problems is good training for problem-solving, tasks on which you will spend your entire life. It helps with critical thinking in a simple environment. It forces you to think within a set of rules, and to be realistic rather than emotional ·         Most of the problems in real life are far more complex than the easy ones in math class. You have to learn the easy stuff before the complicated stuff. (That is, you have to learn to walk before you can run.) ·         Math is becoming more and more important in almost every area from science to business. Even bricklayers need to know quite a bit of math in planning a job. Try and schedule airlines to optimize profit

  How much data does an autonomous vehicle create?    Well, a study by Intel suggests that just one autonomous vehicle will generate about  4,000 GB (= 4 terabytes or 4TB) of data every day  if only AV-specific sensors are taken into account. For comparison, ·         A DVD movie is about 5GB* of data. So, that’s about a 800 movies. ·         A home back up hard drive averages about 1-4TB. ·         Your computer memory storage is about 500 GB – at the high end. About ½ TB ·         My iPad has 64 GB of memory. ·         An old-style floppy disk had about 0.001 GB of memory.   * Note, 1TB = 1000GB

  Understanding the Murdaugh verdict. This is not half-baked psychology, but rather a rather new form of philosophy.  Guilty as charged came down the verdict – and in record time for a six-week trial. How did they do it?   You would think with such a lengthy trial it might take at minimum several days simply to review testimony, if only to confirm some agreement on the testimony presented. You might say they made an emotional response to their feelings. You could say having listened to all that testimony for weeks, their opinion about guilt or innocence evolved over time. You could even think the evidence was overwhelmingly complex. Thus, they really didn’t understand what they heard. In fact, all are probably correct. Yet, there seemed to be no analytical examination or even review of the facts of the case, being the verdict came so quickly. So what did they do? What they did is what philosophers have been studying for several decades. They used epistemic logic. That is, the jur