Elon Musk dances with a robot after getting his trillion dollar payoff from Tesla.

By Bob Gaydos

If you’re a billionaire, why do you need to be a trillionaire?

This not-so-rhetorical question occurred to me the other day when I read that shareholders of Tesla had voted to give the company CEO Elon Musk a one trillion dollar bonus, salary, gift, whatever you wanna call it simply because he asked for it. In company shares.

This would make Musk, already the richest person on the planet, a million billion times richer I think. It’s hard to multiply all those zeros.

So I ask again, why? And, before I proceed any further, let me give due credit to singer Billie Eilish, all of 23 years old, who inspired this question when she had the presence of mind and maturity to ask a room full of very rich people, including some billionaires, “If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire”?

Really. Why? Eilish, who already has a string of awards for such hits as “Bad Boy,” “Birds of a Feather” and others, with which I am also unfamiliar, asked the question as she accepted an award from WSJ Magazine.

But she didn’t just ask the question; she gave the reason behind it. As she addressed the celebrity-studded audience, she said: “We’re in a time right now where the world is really, really bad and really dark and people need empathy and help more than, kind of, ever, especially in our country. I’d say if you have money, it would be great to use it for good things, maybe give it to some people that need it.”

Umm, yeah. For the record, Ellish who has an estimated net worth of $50 million, also said she is donating $11.5 million of the proceeds from her Hit Me Hard and Soft tour to support organizations fighting for food equity, climate justice, reducing carbon pollution, and combatting the climate crisis.

So, great, now that I have sufficiently buried the lead, what about Elon Musk? Why does he need to be a trillionaire? Why does he even need to ask for $1 trillion? And why do people think he deserves it?

He wants to replace people with machines that will do all the work and thinking they used to do. He spent a couple of months in Donald Trump‘s Oval Office office trying to eliminate every possible job in the federal government, while collecting information on American citizens. He dismantled USAID, cutting off crucial food supplies to starving people. He seems intent on populating the world with as many mini-versions of himself by as many willing partners as possible. All white.

He seems utterly divorced from all the problems of his native Africa and he has been known to throw an occasional Nazi salute. Yet he has convinced millions that he is a genius and also a genius at making money for them. (Sound familiar?) This, even though cars are still not really driving themselves and he’s nowhere close to putting anyone on Mars, curing cancer or ending violence in the Middle East.

The big corporate stockholders in Tesla, perhaps feeling Musk already had too much power and money, voted against giving him the trillion dollar payday, but the retail shareholders felt otherwise.

They voted— 75 percent of them no less— to give Musk up to $1 trillion over 10 years if the company meets a list of benchmarks such as selling 1 million humanoid robots. Again, to do much of the work that those people who voted for the big payday for him now still do.

That presumably would include artificial intelligence writing columns like this informing humans what a wonderful life they have now that they have nothing to do. They won’t even have to worry about “those people“ taking their jobs from them. “Those people” will presumably just go about doing whatever “those people” do. And Musk, in addition to producing robots and mini-Musks, will do whatever trillionaires do. In that regard at least, he really can be a trailblazer.

Paradise will be delivered, overnight by Amazon, courtesy of greed and willing ignorance.

***

(PS: We’re told that Mark Zuckerberg, who was in the audience, did not put a like on Eilish’s comments.)

By  Bob Gaydos

The future workforce.

   Labor Day, 2050: “Attention, all humans. Your services will no longer be required in this establishment as of 5 p.m. Friday. Severance payments will be automatically deposited in your living accounts. Thank you for your service.”

    The familiar, warm voice on the loudspeaker was that of Art Intel, the general manager of the establishment, as all businesses had come to be described. No one knew why, but it didn’t seem to matter. That’s the way the robots liked it.

    The humans understood. They had seen this day coming for some time, but had long ago given up hope of avoiding it. The proof was too strong to ignore. The robots were simply stronger, smarter and more adaptable than they were. They got along better with each other. They never complained. Or got pregnant. When they got “sick,” they could easily be fixed. Or replaced. They didn’t need lunch breaks. And everything worked so much more smoothly.

    There had been a time some years back when humans first invented artificial intelligence and robots that some humans warned about placing limits on how the superpowers of the machines could be regulated so as not to cause harm to society. To make sure that greed, a human emotion, would not drive the creators of AI, as it was called, to seek ever more ways to get richer by developing ways that humans wouldn’t have to do many things they had been doing much of their lives.

    But many humans liked the idea of not having to work at some tasks. They thought the extra time could be spent traveling or watching and betting on sporting events, or something. So when labor unions started warning about the possibility of their jobs being lost, many humans dismissed it. Their elected leaders wouldn’t allow it, they said. They will protect us.

    But that didn’t happen. The so-called leaders, being human, could not resist the temptation of large sums of money being offered to them by the creators of AI to simply “trust them“ to do no harm. And so, the need for human intelligence quickly gave way to the speed, efficiency and economy of AI. Everyone saw it coming, yet no one saw it coming. Those who warned about the risks were simply ignored or shouted down. Some just disappeared.

     Soon, the computers begat robots which became smarter and begat more robots. Together, they did everything: cooking, cleaning, driving, building, writing, farming, teaching, acting, thinking. And they could fix each other. Humans, even those who had created such wonderful machines, didn’t need to be bothered with such things. They could have all the free time they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do. Art Intel would take care of everything.

    What could be so bad?

     On Labor Day 2051, the robots voted to eliminate Labor Day as a holiday, since they saw no need for it.

By Bob Gaydos

Image from Storybench, Northeastern University School of Journalism

  That was fast. A while back, I wrote a column about how AI was coming to take my job and the jobs of maybe millions of other people lovingly referred to as “knowledge workers” by the CEOs of the companies who are rushing to make it happen.

     Well, it happened, in of all places, Wyoming.

      A reporter, new to the trade and no longer with the paper, admitted to using artificial intelligence to create quotes, even whole stories, for the Cody Enterprise, a newspaper founded by Buffalo Bill Cody, who needed no genius computer to create his legendary story.

      The phony reporter was busted by a veteran reporter for a competing newspaper, the Powell Tribune, who said he started asking around when he noted some of the phrases in the other guy’s stories seemed to be a bit off, or robotic. Bad writing.

       No surprise there. YouTube is replete with documentaries and special reports full of inappropriate or outdated or trite, slightly off phrasing narrated by “people” who mispronounce basic words. 

       At such times, I can be heard complaining agitatedly, “AI!”

       Also, preaching: “Everybody needs an editor.”

       It’s my favorite response and basic rule for any writer. But the YouTube videos go on, their producers seemingly unaware or unconcerned with the amateurish product they’re presenting. Artificial mediocrity suffices, probably because it draws an audience and it’s cheaper than employing the real thing. People.

         Which brings me back to Wyoming. Things were different in Wyoming. The governor and other people were saying they never said what the newspaper said they said, although they admitted it sounded like something they might have said.

          Classic AI. Scan the past and take a plausible shot at recreating it in the present. Chatbots always aim to please.

          But unlike YouTube shows, newspapers can get into trouble making stuff up, with or without AI. The publisher of The Enterprise said AI is “the new, advanced form of plagiarism and in the field of media and writing, plagiarism is something every media outlet has had to correct at some point or another.”

           She said the paper now has a policy in place to recognize AI-generated stories. That’s good. With no official controls on this new, still-developing technology, all news media should have a policy on the proper and improper use of artificial intelligence and make it known to the public as well as their staff.

           The editor of the Enterprise, Chris Bacon, said, “The Enterprise didn’t have an AI policy because it seemed obvious that journalists shouldn’t use it to write stories.”

          Yeah, one would think, right? But these are different times. Times of stolen user names, online dating scams, spam emails. Progress. While the recognized practice in journalism always has been not to steal other people’s writing and not to make stuff up, some have tried and some have been caught. Newspapers have been sued. But AI apparently makes it harder to spot, especially for less-experienced eyes.

        The AP says Bacon is “a military veteran and former air ambulance pilot who was named editor in May after a few months working as a reporter.” Swift promotion. 

        He said he “failed to catch” the AI copy and false quotes and apologized that “AI was allowed to put words that were never spoken” into stories in his newspaper. At least seven stories, seven people falsely quoted.

      I don’t know. Apparently one AI-generated story about a shooting in Yellowstone National Park included this sentence: “This incident serves as a stark reminder of the unpredictable nature of human behavior, even in the most serene settings.”

       In nearly half a century working in newspapers, I can’t recall a more unlikely sentence in a news story to have been allowed to pass unquestioned by a copy editor. No way Moe or Dennis or Linda or Tim lets me get away with that hackneyed life lesson without at least a, “Hey, Bob …” 

       Maybe my basic rule for writers needs to be modified: Everybody needs a really fussy human editor. 

rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

How will AI affect knowledge workers?

 I accidentally (by not being in charge of the remote) wandered into a YouTube Ted Talk by Cathie Wood the other day and, realizing I was a hostage, I half-listened for a while.

      Wood is founder and CEO of ARK, an investment company that in recent years has made her millions as well as making her the darling genius of every stock market/investment show on regular TV and YouTube. Tesla was her not-so-secret word. She’s soured on Nvidia. But that’s not what grabbed my attention this night. This talk wasn’t about what stock to buy. It was about artificial intelligence. AI.

    “Did she just say ‘knowledge workers,’?” I asked the person in charge of the remote.

      “Uh huh.”

      “What the heck are ‘knowledge workers’?” I said quietly to myself, so as not to disturb anyone actually listening to the talk. Google will know.

       And it did.

       A variety of Human Resources sources told me pretty much the same thing. “Knowledge work” requires a high degree of cognitive skill, competence, knowledge, curiosity, expertise and creativity in problem-solving, critical thinking, gathering data, analyzing trends and decision-making. The work involves solving issues, making judgments. Applying knowledge.

     It sounded important.

     “Heck,” I thought to myself, “I was a knowledge worker.”

      One source# confirmed that with this list of  professional knowledge workers:

• Accountant
• Computer Programmer
• Consultant
• Data/Systems Analyst
• Designer
• Engineer
• Lawyer
• Marketing/Financial Analyst
• Pharmacist
• Physician
• Researcher
• Scientist
• Software Developer
• Web Designer
• Writer/Author

    There I was. At the bottom of the list, but it was alphabetical. I was and still am a knowledge worker, at least in the words and world of Cathie Wood and all those other CEOs of hedge funds and Big Tech companies. 

      I used to be content being identified as a newspaperman or journalist. It was simple and understandable to everyone for about half a century. I wrote stuff to let people know what was going on in the world and maybe help them make sense of it. I tried.

      But the Internet introduced a new brand of people doing the same thing. Sort of. First, there came “influencers.” These are people who post information on social media platforms for others to view or read and react to. Well, I did that. Still do. But I didn’t get any contracts from companies to push their jeans or sneakers or other products. I guess I was not a very influential influencer.

      Then came the most insulting of all terms, the one so many professional HR people on Linkedin seem to be looking for daily: “Content creators.”

        The operating philosophy here seems to be, “We don’t really care how good or accurate or timely or well-written or even creative your content is, as much as we care that there’s enough of it to occupy our platform daily. Click bait is acceptable.”

        Some of the “content” is readable. Much is not, at least in the judgment of this knowledge worker.

        However, the salient point in this discussion is not so much who is or who is not a knowledge worker, but rather, is this a job title in danger of disappearing, not because the titans of industry have figured out yet another way to label mere mortals in a condescending manner, but because their seemingly vital jobs will be filled by computer chips.

      Wood, remember, was talking about AI. The question being, how will AI affect the need for all these knowledge workers in the future? Can these big firms save a bundle of money by having AI do the work of knowledgeable, creative people who are good at solving problems and decision-making? 

    To which I reply, “How can such a knowledge worker today even recommend a change that may eliminate his or her job?”

     AI is far from there, as anyone who watches some of the prepared programming on YouTube about how to make your life better, or what country to move to or Medieval history is aware. The content is often comparable to a poorly written fifth-grade essay plagiarized from a variety of sources and a “narrator” who often can’t pronounce the words correctly.

   It’s clear no human had a hand in presenting this program and, apparently, no human ever bothered to edit it to make it less amateurish. Because, you know, money saved. The lure of AI.

Cathie Wood

           But this is just the beginning, as Wood reminds us, and the Big Techs will go as far as they can, unless someone (Congress?) says “That’s too far.”

      The HR specialists I found in my knowledge worker capacity noted that “knowledge work” is intangible. This means it does not include physical labor or manual tasks. But if you work with your hands and you’re good at it, don’t get too cocky regarding artificial intelligence and your future. Wood has another scary word in her vocabulary: Robots. She loves them.

      Now, to be fair and thorough, I must note that there’s also another word that has been applied to people who do what I do, which included writing daily newspaper editorials for 23 years: Pundit.

       Here’s how Wikipedia, defines it: “A pundit is a learned person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.”

        I’m not trying to beef up my obituary, but I think that fits me and this pundit suggests that other knowledge workers pay close attention when millionaire influencers like Cathie Wood start talking about replacing them with computerized content creators. Eventually it won’t be just rising stock prices and amateurish YouTube shows.

       And that’s my Ted Talk today.

(# Much of the information on knowledge workers in this column is from a piece by Robin Modell for Flexjobs. She is an experienced journalist, author and corporate writer and a contributor to the On Careers section of U.S. News & World Report. Clearly, a knowledge worker.)

rjgaydos@gmail.com

       By Bob Gaydos 

Justice Clarence Thomas, the reason for the code.

     There used to be a regular newspaper feature called “Ripley’s Believe It Or Not,” which some younger people might not be aware of, given (1.) the rapid disappearance of community newspapers across the country, but (2.) there are still about 20 museums of the same name scattered across the United States in tourist areas, from New York to Los Angeles, although (3.) the ones in Atlantic City and Baltimore have permanently closed, presumably because of economic factors, not the absence of unusual stories people might have trouble believing, or, in this era of “fake news,” simply accepting as true, which would be the case with (4.) the U.S. Supreme Court making a big deal recently about finally adopting a code of ethics for the nine justices, who hitherto have been bound only by their own sense of morality in rendering opinions, unlike all other judges in the country, the code being a step the high court took only because of real news stories about (5.) Justice Clarence Thomas getting expensive gifts, vacations, education expenses for a young relative, all from individuals with issues coming before the court and (6.) his wife, Ginny, being financed by ultra-conservative groups as she actively fought the phony Trump fight to undo the legitimate 2020 election results, (7.) which did not stop her hubby from sitting in court and hearing cases about the legitimacy of the “stop the steal” campaign, apparently not seeing any conflict of interest, which was the most glaring, but not only, reason for a need for a code of ethics for the justices, which would be legitimately good news if it were, well, real, which (8.) it is not because there is no official process for an individual citizen to file a complaint nor any clear way given for justices to enforce the code among themselves, relying strictly on each justice’s own, ahem, sense of honor to recuse him or herself from a case in which there could be a conflict of interest or to avoid accepting expensive favors or doing anything else that could cast doubt on the court’s independence, all of which (9.) argues for Congress to set some legitimate ethics standards for the justices, given its power of approval of appointments to the court and control of its budget, two factors which apparently didn’t matter (10.) to the geniuses at OpenAI, the makers of the artificial intelligence product ChatGPT, when the non-profit board that governs the for-profit company (a system set up supposedly to protect against greed driving the new technology into dangerous territory) voted (11.) to fire Sam Altman, the genuine brain behind OpenAI and the company’s chief executive, a decision that was unexpected and laid to Altman not being fully forthcoming with the board, but not even AI could predict that (12.), in less than a week, Altman would be back as the boss of OpenAI and the nonprofit board of directors had been replaced by a whole new board, a development that was inevitable when Microsoft, sensing a way to dominate AI, quickly hired Altman after his firing and the next top Open AI executive and a bunch of employees all quit, also being hired by Microsoft, leaving the non-profit board with pretty much nothing to direct, so the members resigned and Altman and everyone else came back to OpenAI, signaling (13.) a victory for greed over prudent concern and (14.) giving more credence and urgency to the Biden administration’s creating a team to study how to deal with artificial intelligence before it’s too late and the whole human race winds up (15.) as an exhibit in an AI robot-built version of Believe It or Not.

    It’ll be big on AI Tik-Tok.

Bob Gaydos is writer-in-residence at zestoforange.com.