Blogging with AI

I've been doing my blogging on HIVE as I am able to earn crypto for my effort.

I want to experiment with AI programs like Google.Bard and ChatGPT. Since HIVE was actually paying me, I do not want to republish AI generated content on HIVE.

Since blogger doesn't pay me. I thought it might be a better location to discuss this experiment.

My first experient was to ask ChatGPT to List the Top Ten Attractions in Utah Counties? This question was easy as I could judged the results objectively by seeing if the location was in the county or not.

Both AI models failed. The most humorous failure was that Google.Bard thought that the Utah Shakespeare Festival took place in Washington County. It takes place in Iron County. A program named "bard" should know about The Bard!

For this post I asked Google.Bard and ChatGPT to list the pros and cons of using AI queries in a blog post. I will discuss the response after this paragraph and reproduce the answers at the end of this post.

Since Blogger is owned by Google, I decided to start with Google Bard's response

The "pros" section of the response comes off like an advertisement. It says that AI can increase traffic and engagement.

I think this response is wrong. While people enjoy actively engaging in chats on the AI web site. I don't think that people enjoy reading republished chats.

I created the top half of this post. You can engage with me about this section. But the bottom section is just dead. It was generated by a computer. You can go to Google.Bard, but you can't engage with the republished conversation

The Google.Bard has two nonsense answers about brand awareness and lead generation. I seriously doubt that anyone is more likely to engage in a monetized activity because there is AI content on this page.

The "cons" listed by Google.Bard are somewhat bizarre. The first con makes some sense. It says that a person should read the chat before republishing it.

duh?

But I guess there are some people who will ask an AI to do their homework and not bother reading it.

The second and third response are weird. It says that it is costly to transcribe and and edit the chats.

Let's see. To republish a chat one must highlight and copy the chat and then paste the chat. That is three steps. NOTE: There is ofte a copy button on the page reducing the effort to one action. The second con is that it is expense to hire someone to copy and past text. Here is the Bard chat. I will look at the chatgpt response here

Google Bard

What are the pros and cons of republishing an chat with ai on a blog or web site?

There are both pros and cons to republishing a chat with AI on a blog or website.

Pros:

• Increased traffic and engagement: Chats with AI can be a great way to increase traffic and engagement on your blog or website. People are naturally curious about AI, and they may be interested in reading a chat transcript to learn more about how it works. Additionally, chats with AI can be a great way to start conversations and generate discussion on your blog or website.
• Brand awareness: Chats with AI can also help to raise brand awareness. When people see your blog or website hosting a chat with AI, they may be more likely to remember your brand and visit your site again in the future.
• Lead generation: Chats with AI can also be used to generate leads. If you have a call to action at the end of the chat, such as a link to sign up for your email list or download a free ebook, you can use the chat to generate leads for your business.

Cons:

• Not all chats are created equal: Not all chats with AI are created equal. Some chats may be poorly written or may not be very engaging. If you want to republish a chat with AI, it's important to make sure that it's high quality and that it will be interesting to your audience.
• Can be time-consuming: Republishing a chat with AI can be time-consuming. You'll need to transcribe the chat, edit it for grammar and clarity, and then format it for your blog or website. If you don't have a lot of time, you may want to consider hiring someone to do this for you.
• Can be expensive: Hiring someone to transcribe and edit a chat with AI can be expensive. If you're on a tight budget, you may want to consider doing it yourself.

Overall, there are both pros and cons to republishing a chat with AI on a blog or website. If you're considering doing this, it's important to weigh the pros and cons carefully to decide if it's the right decision for you.

ChatGPT Response

I asked the same question of ChatGPT: What are the pros and cons of republishing a chat with ChatGPT on a blog?

The chatGPT response made more sense. The "pros" are that the system is easy to use. Since ChatGPT has access to a huge web crawl it and write articles on a wide variety of topics and is fun to use.

The con section is well written as well. I mentions that AI is often inaccurate. This class of AI programs is a language model. The system knows how to summarize text from the web sites that it crawled. The system does not actually understand things. The program knows how words are used but does not have direct involvement in interacting with the world.

AI is simply summarizing the work of others.

The second listed con is the "Lack of Authoritative Voice."

This second pitfall is the crux of the matter. The problem is that AI writes clean sentences and a small number of people are using this combined with the buzzword "artificial intelligence" to present text from AI as authorative.

One of the biggest dangers that we face is that AI has an authoritative voice but does not have actual experience. It is likely to lead people astray.

I am glad that ChatGPT introduced the ethical problem. Already forums of the world are being filled with mindless AI generated content.

Republishing a chat with ChatGPT on a blog can have both pros and cons. Here are some factors to consider:

Pros:

1. Content Generation: ChatGPT can provide unique and engaging content for your blog. Republishing a chat can serve as an interesting blog post that attracts readers and sparks discussions.
2. Easy Implementation: As ChatGPT generates the conversation, you don't have to invest time in writing an entire blog post yourself. It can save you effort and serve as a quick way to produce content.
3. Versatility: ChatGPT can converse on a wide range of topics, making it useful for different blog niches. You can have conversations on various subjects and cater to the diverse interests of your audience.
4. Novelty and Engagement: Republishing a chat with ChatGPT can be seen as unique and novel, especially if you mention or promote the fact that you're using an AI language model. This can increase engagement and attract readers who are curious about AI technology.

Cons:

1. Accuracy and Fact-Checking: While ChatGPT is trained on a vast amount of information, it can still produce inaccurate or outdated responses. It's crucial to fact-check the information provided in the chat before publishing it on your blog to ensure the accuracy of the content.

Lack of Authoritative Voice: ChatGPT's responses may not have the same level of expertise or authority as content created by a human expert. Depending on your blog's niche, readers may prefer content generated by real people who have specialized knowledge.

Incoherence and Ambiguity: AI-generated conversations can sometimes result in incoherent or ambiguous responses. ChatGPT might provide unexpected or nonsensical answers, which can negatively impact the quality of the blog post.

Ethical Considerations: It's important to be transparent about using an AI language model like ChatGPT and clearly indicate that the conversation is AI-generated. Some readers might have concerns about the use of AI technology, so addressing those concerns is essential.

Overall, republishing a chat with ChatGPT on a blog can be an interesting and time-saving option for content creation. However, it's crucial to carefully review the generated content for accuracy and coherence and to consider the preferences and expectations of your audience when deciding whether to republish AI-generated conversations.

My Conclusion

I will end the post with my conclusion.

AI is a language model. AI programs are able to analyze and generate human text.

Since the text is not the product of direct experience or of carefully thought through research, AI is likely to increase the amount of whitenoise on the internet.

I can see some value in using AI as part of a research project as AI is able to scan through reems of information and present persectives that an author had not consider before writing a post.

There are pros and cons to all technologies. AI is likely to improve the quality of writing. It might also do little more than create white noise and re-inforce bad information.

I am happy to see that ChatGPT brought up the ethical issues.

Rather than condemning the new technlogy. I think that web publishers are wise to experiment with it carefully. If you are using AI, then you should make a recording of the conversation as generated and include the AI in a citation so that readers know the source of the information.

Happy Schwanza to All

I wanted to chime in and note that the $1.7 trillion omnibuss bill passed by a lame duck session of Congress was one of the most corrupt bills in the history of the US Congress that I've seen.

As I recall, this was the third major spending bill of the year.

A lame duck session happens between the general election and the swearing in of a new Congress. There was a change in power during the election. So this bill was the last major piece of legislation passed during Nancy Pelosi's term as Speaker. The bill is corrupt to the core. Adding an omnibuss spending bill in a lame duck session allows people who lost the election to cash out as they leave office.

Have you ever noticed that Representatives often become millionaires while serving in office? The money doesn't come from their salary. How much of this $1.7 trillion will end up in the pockets of our Representatives?

It is strange. In the Youtube video below, Nancy Pelosi attempts to deflect from the legislation by bringing up to Trump's foolish decision to hold a rally during the ratification of the 2020 election.

Trump's Januany 6 rally was stupid. That said, many people felt that there was an unprecedented amount of corruption during the election.

For example, many state election officials made major changes to the voting process without approval of their state legislatures. These changes opened up the possiblity of vote harvesting.

Another example is taht the FBI, a federal law enforcement agency, surpressed discussion of a laptop which showed the Biden family was engaging in pay-to-play politics.

Both examples have been proven. They are numerous videos of activists giving gift cards to people for voting and questionable behavior at polling places.

I despise Trump and hate the riot.

But I've lived long enough to recognize that the stupid riot was an expression of the people.

Trump was foolish to hold a rally intended to influence the legislature.

But, Trump was not a member of the legislature. Pelosi was completely wrong to frame the riot as an act of Congress. It was an act by people frustrated with a Federal government which is wasting the nation's treasury.

If you listen to the video, I beg the listener to see how she is using the riot to deflect from claims made on the Congressional floor that the passage of an omnibus spending bill by a lame duck session of congress by an outgoig Speaker is corrupt.

Pelosi is using one bad thing to justify another. The gist of her argument is: "The omnibuss bill was corrupt, but the riot was worse."

Regardlsss, Pelosi ended her pathetic speech by gifting the world with prime meme material. Pelosi ended her regime as one of the corrupt speakers of the House by making by wishing the world a Happy Schwanza.

Holding a Conversation over Different Platforms

There is a growing number of publishing platforms on this planet. I've started using platform built on HIVE blockchain since these platforms reward posts with a crypto currency and, to be blunt, I could use a few rewards in mu life.

The blockchain hosts multiple web sites. These web sites publish articles based on the tags used in the post. Using the tag #POB puts the post on ProofOfBrain.io. The tag #LEO drops the post on the site LeoFinance.

Some users on the platform have taken to using multiple tags on their posts to get their posts published on multiple web sites.

Do you see the problem:

Dropping multiple tags on a post gets it published on multiple sites! A system that publishes posts on different sites creates a new problem called "Tag Spam."

I believe that the solution to tag spam is to simply limit the system so that the system only lists the post on one site.

My solution immediately begs the question: What should a blogger do if a post is truly relevant to two tags.

I think the answer is simple: If a topic is relevant to two tags, the blogger should write original posts for each platform that might be interested in the topic. The blogger should then create links between the different posts.

Writing original posts for each of the tags and linking the articles has a positive SEO benenfit as Googlebot and other web crowlers would see original content on different sites about the same issue.

Tag spam leads to a situation where different sites publish the exact same content. This has negative SEO implications. Writing original content on multiple platforms and linking the articles has postitive benefits.

HIVE is a single blockchain that produces multiple sites. The same issue applies

A similar problem occurs when people use different platforms. Businesses and individuals need to use mutliple platforms to connect with their audience. Some lazy bloggers will write one post then copy and paste the posts on all interested platforms.

Publishing the same text on different sites creates a problem for the Googlebot. Googlebot won't know which pust the true source of the inforamtion and is apt to dismiss the sites with duplicate content.

A better approach is to write articles fresh articles for each platform which target the people on the platform. My article on LeoFiance talks specifically about how tag spam affects the LEO token. I wrote an article on PhotoStreem about the picture and talked about how one can use images to connect topics across platforms. Note, all of my posts on this topic are using the same tag.

I have created a structure where I am discussing a single topic on multiple platforms. To emphasize the structure, I added an index page for the conversation on my homepage.

I did not copy and paste text from the different platforms. Instead I wrote original articles that discussed the topic from the perspective of each of the web sites in this particular group.

The process is a little bit spammy but, since each of the hand written articles are specific to the respective platforms, I believe that the structure provides an example of link development done correctly.

Because this particular exercise is about the proper way to publish posts across different platforms, I might add another article or two on different platforms.

Please, drop a comment if you believe that writing articles on different platforms is spam or if it is a good web practice.

Parley Articles

I am really happy to see Parler.com back up on line.

Parler.com was the victim of a cancellation campaign from the left. Notably, Leftists had Parler's app removed from Google and Apple services and Amazon cancelled Parler's web hosting.

I've been a subject of cancellation for my entire adult. I love when people stand against the forces of cancellation. So, I've wanted to write some posts for parler to show suppport for the platform.

In my case, I have been cancelled by both the right and left.

Specifically, I believe that health care reform is the single most important issue of our generation. If Americans do not develop an alternative system for funding health care, the American experiment in self rule is lost.

I spent almost three decades trying to find people to work on the issue of free market health care reforms.

Progressives dream of nationalized health care. My research was automatically cancelled by the left.

I decided to approach folks on the right. I discovered that the rank and file of the Republican Party were receptive to discussions of free market health care reform, there was a group within the GOP that systematically undermined all debates of free market reforms.

This group, of course, is called CONSERVATIVE.

Free Market Health Care Reform would liberalize the health care market. People who had direct control over their health care resources would have greater liberty.

CONSERVATIVES hate Liberalism. Expanding liberty is a liberal ideal. Therefore, conservatives automatically oppose ideas that would expand liberty.

I realize that some Republicans will be scratching their heads. Conservatives use liberty-rhetoric, why would they be opposed to ideas that expanded the liberty of the people?

This conundrum had me confused as well. So, I decided to research the history of Conservatism and as absolutely appalled by what I found.

I've been thinking about using my Parler.com account to discuss the history of Conservatism.

I will write many of the articles on the Proof of Brain Web Site.

FTC Disclosure

 The Biden Administration promises to bring back all of the onerous regulations passed during the Obama Administration. In 2009, the Obama Administration passed a regulation web sites include a big yellow box warning users if a blogger might receive financial gain from a link. The Obama Administration went after small web sites that failed to include FTC disclosures.

The Trump administration secretly removed that regulation and stopped going after small web sites. We can expect the FTC to revive the practice during the Obama administration.

FTC Disclosure: The FTC Rules of 2009 required that a blogger precede any link or post for which they might receive material benefit with a warning in a big yellow box. The font of the warning should be larger than the font of the offending link.

I've started blogging on HIVE. The HIVE platform gives bloggers rewards for upvotes. I might receive monetary consideration for the link in the following paragraph.

I wrote a post on HIVE about how much I despise the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has a long history of writing rules that punish small publishers while allowing large firms link Google and Facebook to run roughshod over the community.

The Trump administration stopped enforcing this FTC regulation. Biden promises to revive the regulatory regime of the Obama Administration. I expect to see the FTC selectively enforcing this rule against the sites that the Biden administration wants to cancel.

A Tale of Two Riots

 It is telling: The leaders of the Democratic Party were not willing to call out the troops when rioters were looting and burning small businesses in 2020. 

In contrast, they rushed to call out 25,000 troops when they personally felt threatened.

The amazing thing is that, after the photo ops with the troops were over, our brave leaders in Washington DC stuffed 5,000 of the troops in a parking garage that lacked sanitation facilities and had only one outlet.

The Two Sides of the Coin

Partisan division is ripping the United States apart; So, I decided to write a short book on the history of partisan division.

The thesis of the work is that the left/right split was created by advocates of the monarchy and that both sides of the divide lead our nation on a path to feudalism.

The title of the work is The Two Sides of the Coin.  The metaphor is that the two sides of the coin are made of the same metal.

I plan to type out each chapter of the book on PeakD (PeakD rewards posts with the HIVE cryptocurrency).  Please leave comments below:

Automated Calls

I got a phone call.
It was an automated voice saying that electric bill was past-due and that power would be cut off in 30 minutes. To be on the safe side I decided to call the power company.
An automated voice told me to ignore automated voices.
Hearing an automated voice telling me to ignore automated voices has thrown me into an existential crisis.
Well, at least I know the computers are as confused as the humans.

Fast, Furious and Contemptible

Democrats seek to impeach Attorney General William Barr because he redaction portions of the Mueller Report related to Grand Jury Testimonies. The press is framing this as a conflict between the Legislative and Executive Branch. This is a foolish tactic because the conflict is actually between the Legislature and Judicial System. While there is a strong argument that the executive should bend to the legislature. The case that Grand Juries should bend to the legislature isn't as strong.

I suspect that the impeachment of Barr is a response the the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder. The impeachment of Eric Holder was related to the Fast and Furious gun running scandal. The guns involved in the scandal were involved in numerous murders in Mexico and the US.

I always thought there was something more to the ATF Gunwalking Scandal than was reported in the press.

Just before the scandal broke, the left was running a narrative that unscrupulous gun shops were selling large quantities of guns to the Mexican cartels which the cartels and that guns sold by evil conservatives were being used to kill innocent people.

The Fast and Furious scandal showed that the gun running was being done under the direction of the ATF. It seems strange that Obama was pushing an anti-gun narrative while the ATF was letting a large number of guns walk.

Sadly, there have been numerous episodes indicating that the Federal Government has been complicit in both gun trade and drug trade. The impeachment of Eric Holder was related to a much more serious scandal than the impeachment of William Barr. The center of the Barr Impeachment is the redaction of Grand Jury evidence in the Mueller Report. This impeachment is not on the scale of the Holder Impeachment which involved arming dangerous drug cartels.

The Fast and Furious Scandal appears to be a case of the Deep State run amok. The obstruction that took place in the Obama Administration prevented us from having a full picture of what really happened. This should be a major topic of debate.

Deuteronomy on the Death of Joseph Smith

I wrote this post because I want to record a reference to a chapter of the Bible in case I need it later.

I live in Utah. A common narrative in this state is that "a mob" of unruly gentiles killed Joseph Smith with the implication that everyone who is not Mormon is somehow guilty of this great crime.

I finally got sick and tired of the narrative and studied the death of Joseph Smith. Crimes that Smith had committed in his life include the burning of press, adultery (he "sealed himself to other men's wives"), child molestation (he "sealed himself" to 14-year-old girls). He committed banking fraud and there were numerous murders associated with his group including an attempt to assassinate Lilburn Boggs who had been the territorial Governor of Missouri.

These were all real crimes with documented evidence.

According the account of John Taylor (who was LDS). Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Hyrum Smith had guns. They fired on the crowd gathered outside the jail and killed two of the people in the crowd before someone in the crowd fired back.

Joseph Smith himself was shot while trying to squirm through a window and and escape.

This was not the case of a perfect man being falsely accused and lynched by a mob. The people who shot Smith were acting in self defense. Smith was escaping from a jail.

The idea that people who aren't Mormon are supposed to share some sort of collective guilt for this action is absurd.

NOTE: From 1844 to 1919, the LDS Church included a thing called the Oath of Vengeance against the United States. This oath was a sacred oath sworn by Mormons in Temple ceremonies. The wording of the oath are: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."

Generations of Mormons actually swore a curse on the United States of America for the death of Joseph Smith: Wikipedia.

The fact that Mormons swore an oath on this nation shows that the LDS Church charges non-Mormons with collective guilt for the event.

I have had Mormons swear guilt on me for this and other events.

Anyway, I decided to read the Bible from cover to cover and this passage in Deuteronomy (KJV Version) jumped out at me:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

The prescription in Deuteronomy 13 is that "Dreamer of Dreams" who presents "signs of wonder" (like the Book of Mormon or The Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Abraham) should be put to death.

The use of the passive voice implies, of course, that it is the will of God that the Dreamer of Dreams is put to death.

I strongly oppose people who kill others and claim that the murder was the will of God. The fact that Smith's death is precisely the death one would expect for a false prophet jumps out at me.

The reason for this post: I have been in multiple conversations with Mormons who hold that all non-Mormons are complicit in the death of Joseph Smith. If this happens again I will direct the person who is making this collective accusation against the United States for Smith's death and point out that Smith's death is precisely what the Bible prescribes for false prophets.

This quote does create a troubling paradox: It says that one should kill people who falsely claim to be prophets of God. The person who is doing the killing in the name of God is setting himself up as a prophet of God and is setting himself up for the exact same judgment that he inflicted on others.

Killing people in the name of God is just plain wrong-headed and stupid. In Smith's case, his group fired into a crowd and someone in the crowd fired back (aka self-defence). The very way that Smith died provides further evidence that the guy was a false prophets. Most of the people who claim to be prophets are false.