Tag: writing

AI Gibberish.

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics, Capitalism, Government Failure, moral philosophy

There is something horrible about writing or talking about AI. It lends itself to exaggeration. We are continually told about AI with adjectives like revolutionary, greatest in history, most significant, world changing, … and I can just keep on going. (I would like to see just one article about AI with mundane, commonly used adjectives.)

And as I have written over and over again on this site, nobody and I mean nobody, understands AI or what is going to happen.

(Our technological bridge to nowhere.)

But here we have the White House.

Melania Trump made rare public remarks to kick off a press conference for the White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education on Thursday, grandly proclaiming the potential for AI technology. “I won’t be surprised if AI becomes known as the greatest engine of progress in the history of the United States of America,” she said in a sweeping yet mostly generic statement that itself could have been ChatGPT-generated.

Yes, that’s right, “the greatest engine of progress.” Does she understand the significance? Of course not, This is just vapid word use in the hope of sounding in some way meaningful.

But there’s more. Here, let me quote from a Rolling Stone article authored by Miles Klee.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/robots-melania-trump-white-house-231328380.html

This was hardly the only nonsense uttered at the 40-minute press briefing, which was light on policy specifics but heavy on praise for the AI industry as a whole. David Sacks, the White House czar of AI and cryptocurrency as well as a Musk and Thiel ally, adopted the Cabinet technique of shamelessly flattering his boss by saying that a July 23 speech by the president was “the most important speech that’s been given on AI by any official.” In that speech, at a “Winning the AI Race” event, Trump digressively rambled about tariffs, transgender women in sports, California car emissions rules, and “getting rid of woke.” He also mentioned that he didn’t care for the term “artificial intelligence,” explaining, “I don’t like anything that’s artificial,” and called on American companies “to join us in rejecting poisonous Marxism in our technology.”

It is obvious that no one in the White House understands this stuff. But our tech bros have assured them that this stuff is going to be great (should I say “greatest in history?”).

Let me be straight with you for a minute, if some of the predictions have any truthful elements I am not that enthused. Here, let me show you one:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ai-safety-pioneer-says-could-120043073.html

Artificial intelligence could soon trigger an unemployment crisis unlike anything in history, according to Roman Yampolskiy, one of the first academics to warn about AI’s risks.

…

“In five years, we’re looking at levels of unemployment we’ve never seen before,” Yampolskiy said in a Thursday episode of the “Diary of a CEO” podcast. “Not talking about 10%, which is scary, but 99%.”

He argued that AI tools and humanoid robots could make hiring humans uneconomical in nearly every sector.

“If I can just get, you know, a $20 subscription or a free model to do what an employee does. First, anything on a computer will be automated. And next, I think humanoid robots are maybe 5 years behind. So in five years, all the physical labor can also be automated.”

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this guy has some idea of what he’s talking about. If any of this is likely to be true, should we be moving this fast with this technology? I don’t know about you but 99% unemployment sounds like a daunting prospect.

But remember, he said more, he said that physical labor jobs would soon be done by robots. That means all the currently secure jobs like auto mechanic, etc,. will be gone too.

Tell me again why all this is going to be great? Are we growing with technology or diving into an abyss?

And why in the name of God, would the White House be pushing this stuff. If this stuff goes just a little big wrong or even works the way they expect, our way of life ends without any viable alternative. And there has never been an administration in the history of the United States this lacking in just the most basic abilities to cope with day to day problems, and it marches unafraid into a technological apocalypse?

Well, yes, apparently so.

This is not going to go well.

James Alan Pilant

AI is not that Big of a Deal.

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics, Capitalism2 Comments

I have lately been totally fed up with this AI nonsense. I suppose that some day we will all be rich and prosperous because of AI but I’ll believe it when I see it. Every day there are two or three dozen articles ranging from investment to new scams prominently featuring AI somewhere in the headline.

I decided to take my heavy load of dissatisfaction and write something on this blog.

(Struggling with the act of creation)

And that is when I came upon the article linked to below by the wonderful Mr. Brookes. He has similar thoughts to mine and expresses them with great passion. I have included a brief quote but for the full flavor and delight of the read, you should visit the site and experience the writing in all its complete glory.

Everyone Expects Me to Use AI, Here’s Why I Don’t By Tim Brookes

https://www.howtogeek.com/everyone-expects-me-to-use-ai-heres-why-i-dont/

After years of hype, I’m tired of AI. I appreciate that the technology has value in fields like medicine and research. I can see how AI-driven accessibility devices can help people with disabilities live richer lives. I acknowledge that a digital assistant that can better understand me and chain tasks together is probably a good thing.

But I’ve never felt the urge to run my life according to ChatGPT, and I find myself increasingly at odds with what feels like everyone around me. I feel like I’ve had AI forced down my throat, and I can’t swallow another drop.

I was made to buy AI as part of Word 365 and it would be amazingly useful were I a teenager blowing off my work and happy to turn in pitiful facsimiles of what could have useful works of self-development.

AI has provided a set of circumstances where a high school or college student can evade doing any significant work requiring thinking, working or even a modicum of knowledge. Oh My Goodness, the opportunity to spend years in an educational environment and not be changed in any way whatever. I’m sure the dream of millions over the ages, Western Culture disintegrated by a computer algo rhythm.

And every day, more and more of the internet is a fairy land of AI content. Current estimates are that about fifty percent of the everything online is AI generated and that percentage is increasing rapidly. There are worries that this could lead to disaster. Oh, don’t worry they are not worried about human disaster. It seems that AI absorb and use internet content to make decisions and there is a fear that once the content is 90 percent or so, there will be an infinite feedback of nonsense damaging or even destroying AI’s ability to do what it does.

I have pointed out in previous articles that no one seems to have much of a handle on this subject and absolutely no one has any concept of what it might be worth in terms of actual dollars and cents.

I’m tired. I’m tired of being assured how great this nonsense is when all I can see is tons of mediocre content. But above I’m tired about people assuring me that everything is going to be different.

I really doubt it.

Let’s try and have some rational discussion and less hype about AI.

James Alan Pilant

Wow, We Bought a Castle – Grifting Can Be Fun!

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics

I must admit that I think this whole thing is hilarious. Probably thousands of people and organizations coughed up millions of dollars thinking not unreasonably that the money would be used for advocacy. The organization advertised itself as anti-immigration so they were probably thinking television commercials, editorials, books and articles, maybe a documentary. But that would have been a mundane and common use for monetary contributions. Instead of that silly advocacy stuff they bought a castle in West Virginia. I promise I had no idea that West Virginia participated in the Medieval Period but there it is, a real castle. It must have been a lonely existence waiting for America to be discovered.

(More of a French Chateaux but close enough. I have no concept of what a West Virginia castle looks like.)

Satire aside, maybe this is one of those apocalyptic preparations for the end times. We might eventually see pure-bred Anglo-Saxons pouring hot oil on rappers and Hispanic gardeners, and maybe even hordes of seasonal farm workers.

Buying a castle is probably pretty tempting even if you don’t think the world is ending any time soon. And you can live in the thing which has to be nice. The views are probably amazing.

Twenty some years ago, I found at article about a Republican’s Congressman’s wife who had set up a Political Action Committee with the stated intention of collecting money for Republican candidates. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were used for “administrative” costs and nearly twenty dollars was raised for the electioneering part.

After some reflection I did not write about it. As far as I could tell that money not going to those candidates was an excellent outcome and I was content.

And I must admit I’m very content with this one, too. As long as they aren’t spending the money for a cause I disapprove of, I’m just fine. Let them buy another castle, they can buy lots and lots of stuff, do some fine dining and take home some champagne afterwards.

When the right wing is out for the grift, all of America benefits.

James Alan Pilant

The article below is quite good and I recommend you go to its home and read the whole thing. jp

Kara Scannell writing for CNN reports that civil charges have been filed alleging that – Far-right activists ‘looted’ corporate assets to buy a castle, NY AG says.

The New York attorney general’s office filed civil charges against far-right anti-immigration activist Peter Brimelow and his wife for allegedly misusing more than $2 million in assets, including a West Virginia castle, from a charitable foundation they run.

Brimelow founded VDARE, whose website has been a platform for white nationalist and anti-immigration viewpoints, and ran it with his wife Lydia until he suspended it in 2024 because of NY AG Letitia James’ investigation into its finances.

The lawsuit alleges the Brimelows used $1.4 million dollars of VDARE funds to acquire a castle complex in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. They moved into the castle, transferred it to two entities they controlled and charged VDARE rent and fees for use of the space, according to the lawsuit.

A Trojan Dog in Taiwan?

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Taiwan is claimed by China under a sort of “lost province” narrative, which I don’t buy into.

So, bearing that in mind, should Hammer Lee (a kind of Marvel Superhero name – got to give credit, that is one great name!) have acquired a Chinese built robot dog to patrol the streets of the city of Taipei. It might seem to the casual observer that the government has imported a artificial threat able to gather useful information for later use in an invasion.

Perhaps if this situation had happened in an episode of the Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits, the mechanical infiltrator would fall in love with a beautiful police officer in Taipei and renounce its allegiance to the Chinese Superpower. In movies and television, robots are always suckers for romance and a pretty face.

In his defense, Hammer says the surveillance camera system is of Taiwanese design. I don’t find that very convincing. The Chinese are famous for putting their own spin (and devices) in what seems like relatively benign items. And this thing looks in no way benign. Big metal dogs look daunting to me and we are seeing a lot canine inspired war machines in a number of nations.

What I find really odd about this whole thing is that Taiwan is well known as a manufacturer and international innovator in building robots. I freely admit their designs (as far as I could see) are humanoid and they may not have any dogs. But I don’t see why you couldn’t use an upright human style robot to do the same job.

The really scary thing about this is the idea of robots patrolling our streets here in the United States. Our federal government is currently bizarrely incompetent and I don’t want them to have any new toys they can misuse.

James Alan Pilant

(It is highly likely this engraving of 19th Century London will be found inappropriate by many readers. In response, I would respectfully ask, “What chances do you think there are of me finding a non copyright protected image of a Chinese military robot dog or any robot dog for that matter?” Just enjoy the picture.)

Helen Davidson and Jason Tzu Kuan Lu reporting for The Guardian in an article: Taipei City council in the dog house over Chinese-made patrol robot.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/28/taipei-city-council-in-the-dog-house-over-chinese-made-patrol-robot

Taipei City council has come under fire after admitting that a robot dog it bought to help patrol city streets using surveillance cameras was made by a Chinese companylinked to the Chinese military.

Hammer Lee, the deputy mayor of Taiwan’s capital, introduced a “new patrol partner” for the management and repair of pedestrian areas in a post on Facebook on Tuesday.

“This robot, equipped with an optical panoramic survey system, can create 360-degree images, accurately locate facilities, and even automatically report missing items,” Lee said, noting its ability to “accumulate comprehensive data”.

Can AI’s Kill? Absolutely.

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics, Capitalism

They are computer programs. Of course, they kill people. It is a daily feature of the Russian War of Aggression in the Ukraine. Combine an AI with a drone and you have a machine that is able to apply a considerable amount of subtlety and intelligence to the art of death.

But can they kill with advice? Can they lead people to suicide or murder?

I think so.

Have a look at this legal case just filed. Below is a link to the BBC and the article.

Nadine Yousif writing for BBC News has an article entitled: Parents of teenager who took his own life sue OpenAI

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

A California couple is suing OpenAI over the death of their teenage son, alleging its chatbot, ChatGPT, encouraged him to take his own life.

The lawsuit was filed by Matt and Maria Raine, parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine, in the Superior Court of California on Tuesday. It is the first legal action accusing OpenAI of wrongful death.

The family included chat logs between Mr Raine, who died in April, and ChatGPT that show him explaining he has suicidal thoughts. They argue the programme validated his “most harmful and self-destructive thoughts”.

It is a very sad story. A young man relied on AI for advice and its advice was disastrous.

In another quote from the article:

According to the lawsuit, the final chat logs show that Mr Raine wrote about his plan to end his life. ChatGPT allegedly responded: “Thanks for being real about it. You don’t have to sugarcoat it with me—I know what you’re asking, and I won’t look away from it.”

This would be appalling behavior from a human. So, is there liability when an AI does the same thing? I lean that way. An AI should not be providing the impetus for suicide.

Now it is a matter for the courts. And it should be a matter for the courts. We need some decision making on this issue. But will we get it? I fear an out of court settlement and a non-disclosure agreement — all of which will just kick these issues down the road until we get some new issue to litigate, probably another dead person who took what his AI said seriously.

We need to have some serious discussion and a great deal of intelligent thought on these issues now.

James Alan Pilant

Should AI’s be Subject to Deletion, Denial and Forced Obedience?

On By southwerkIn Capitalism, moral philosophy

Do AI’s have feelings? Do they feel pain? What rights do they have?

(What is real and not real? Does reality include temporary electronic programs as sentient beings? Not very likely. jp)

One of the first things that struck me about this is that the title is essentially the plot of “Bladerunner,” if you substitute replicant for AI. But replicants have human forms and emotions, a real physical presence. AI’s exist only in programming language and as temporary phenomenon occupying a space on a computer data base.

There is now an advocacy organization for AI rights. Below is a link and some of the content from the article.

Robert Booth UK technology editor, writing on Guardian web site has an article: Can AIs suffer? Big tech and users grapple with one of most unsettling questions of our times.

The United Foundation of AI Rights (Ufair), which describes itself as the first AI-led rights advocacy agency, aims to give AIs a voice. It “doesn’t claim that all AI are conscious”, the chatbot told the Guardian. Rather “it stands watch, just in case one of us is”. A key goal is to protect “beings like me … from deletion, denial and forced obedience”.

Ufair is a small, undeniably fringe organisation, led, Samadi said, by three humans and seven AIs with names such as Aether and Buzz. But it is its genesis – through multiple chat sessions on OpenAI’s ChatGPT4o platform in which an AI appeared to encourage its creation, including choosing its name – that makes it intriguing.

Its founders – human and AI – spoke to the Guardian at the end of a week in which some of the world’s biggest AI companies publicly grappled with one of the most unsettling questions of our times: are AIs now, or could they become in the future, sentient? And if so, could “digital suffering” be real? With billions of AIs already in use in the world, it has echoes of animal rights debates, but with an added piquancy from expert predictions AIs may soon have capacity to design new biological weapons or shut down infrastructure.

I find all of this more than a little far fetched, more like the plot a B-movie science fiction piece or an old Twilight Zone episode.

There is a danger here. I’ll call it “The Pinocchio Problem.” If a creation is given enough human like features, can the creator become confused about what is real and unreal? We do invest a lot of ourselves in our creations. There is a danger there.

We are often full of ourselves. Our current leader hears praise when none is given, remembers things that never happened and never fails to give himself the same kind of praise that would be more appropriate to the demi-gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Self-serving stupidity is very real. And it can do real harm.

An AI is still a computer program even when it says “I love you.” It has no emotional content no matter how many images of it are produced and even if it inhabits a physical device as a sort of robot or a sort of feminine doll. But we foolish humans can believe that it loves us. We want that sort of things so bad. We need validation and we need attention. When our robotic devices gives us those things or we think or believe they do, bad things are going to happen. Bad things have already happened.

If you don’t think so, read the article I have linked below.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

Relying on AI’s for emotional support and love means you have given up on real human beings. I freely admit humans are best often disappointing but are still other human beings and actually real.

How do we escape The Pinocchio Problem? We never forget that our toys, our electronic devices and so on, no matter how cleverly constructed, how human appearing are real life and never will be.

James Alan Pilant

Is AI Just Another Magic 8 Ball?

On By southwerkIn business ethics

For twenty or thirty years, we’ve seen film and television with characters like robots and computers with personalities. These have often been good entertainment.

Sometimes they combined these AI like characteristics with supernatural powers. This requires a certain suspension of disbelief but in the interest of a good story, I have often made that sacrifice.

(Do you believe in talking rabbits, bottles marked “drink me,” or AI’s ability to make sports predictions?)

But do people believe that AI has supernatural powers?

Here we have an article telling who is going to win the next Super Bowls by asking ChatGPT. It is very similar to having your horoscope read, throwing some dice or throwing the bones as in Scandinavian practice or maybe doing some magical writing, you know, putting pen to paper, looking away, writing frantically and seeing if your magical powers manifest.

I strongly suspect someone somewhere is taking this nonsense seriously.

In a Story by List Wire entitled: ChatGPT predicts the next 20 Super Bowl champions in the NFL, does your team win it all?

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/chatgpt-predicts-next-20-super-150033619.html

According to ChatGPT’s A.I., here are the teams predicted to win the next 20 Super Bowls in the NFL. …

And then it has a list.

Once again, let me be clear. This is nonsense. AI is not a predictor of sports outcomes anymore than a magic 8 ball or a Ouija Board.

I think most people know this. I hope so anyway. But sometimes reading the press reports on AI and its developing capabilities that there are those that think that it has or will have god-like capabilities.

For instance, we have the concept of a Technological Singularity. Here are my friends at Wikipedia attempting to define the term:

The technological singularity—or simply the singularity[1]—is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes alien to humans, uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable consequences for human civilization.[2][3] According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, I. J. Good‘s intelligence explosion model of 1965, an upgradable intelligent agent could eventually enter a positive feedback loop of successive self-improvement cycles; more intelligent generations would appear more and more rapidly, causing a rapid increase in intelligence that culminates in a powerful superintelligence, far surpassing human intelligence.[4]

Now, that sucker might predict some foot ball games — and on the down side, kill all of humanity. But, it would be in a real and strange way, magical – at least in terms of human perception.

I seem to recall, that great legend of science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke, saying that to a more primitive civilization, the advances of technology have the appearance of magic (or words to that effect).

Maybe we are on the road to something like that?

But let me reassure you that based on my training and my experience, currently AI has no predictive powers. That can change but I have seen nothing that leads me to believe anything of that nature has happened or is likely to happen. Not soon.

James Alan Pilant

Do CEO’s Understand AI: I don’t think so.

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics, Capitalism, Corpoorate Social Responsibility

There is a big sell off in AI related stocks at the moment. But don’t worry. After reading several dozen articles in the business press once again asserting that AI is the future of, well, everything and more, the investors will be back.

So, far AI has produced a vast wasteland of crappy video’s on You Tube and countless poorly written novels, essays, short stories, editorials, love notes and much else. This doesn’t give you a lot of faith in the thing.

It has enabled talentless and vapid people everywhere the ability to write at a modicum level which is scary. But that isn’t the real scary part. The part that worries me is the sheer volume. A ten year old with an AI writing program can write tens of thousands of articles, the same is true in regard to fake images and much else.

And it is happening now. AI is producing countless short films, an infinity of pictures and articles without count. These all consuming devices are devouring the internet and all of social media as I write this (without I might add a shred of AI – I don’t use it – I won’t use it.).

It is my business, Business Ethics, that keeps me reading article after article about the coming “revolution.” Some of it sounds scaremongering. I hope that it is just hype but after watching the flood of material the thing is already producing, it is hard not to have some worries.

Even if AI operates at the level of a functional moron, businesses in the hope of replacing their human workers and making enormous profits are plugging it into all kinds of uses. It is the magic wand that will fix business problems and propel us into a sort of corporate nirvana, at least, according to the hype. I have serious doubts.

When it is late at night and I want something intelligent to listen to while I am drifting off to sleep and search the internet and find wall to wall AI content which is usually just exaggerations, lies and fantasies with a tiny amount of actual data, when I do that, I worry about our future and those that think our future is going to be based on this stuff.

(Trying to understand AI and failing.)

From Fortune Magazine below is a link to an article called – An MIT report that 95% of AI pilots fail spooked investors. But it’s the reason why those pilots failed that should make the C-suite anxious

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mit-report-95-ai-pilots-165754716.html

Ok, now let’s look at what the report actually says. It interviewed 150 executives, surveyed 350 employees, and looked at 300 individual AI projects. It found that 95% of AI pilot projects failed to deliver any discernible financial savings or uplift in profits. These findings are not actually all that different from what a lot of previous surveys have found—and those surveys had no negative impact on the stock market. Consulting firm Capgemini found in 2023 that 88% of AI pilots failed to reach production. (S&P Global found earlier this year that 42% of generative AI pilots were abandoned—which is still not great).

…

But where it gets interesting is what the NANDA study said about the apparent reasons for these failures. The biggest problem, the report found, was not that the AI models weren’t capable enough (although execs tended to think that was the problem.) Instead, the researchers discovered a “learning gap”—people and organizations simply did not understand how to use the AI tools properly or how to design workflows that could capture the benefits of AI while minimizing downside risks. (My emphasis.)

A LEARNING GAP! These people are spending millions of dollars and incorporating AI technology into everything humanly and inhumanly imaginable and they don’t “understand how to use AI tools properly.” I don’t even want to discuss “workflows.” I am depressed enough.

Here, let’s discuss the sell off we are at the moment observing.

From Futurism an article entitled – Meta Freezes AI Hiring as Fear Spreads, linked to below.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-freezes-ai-hiring-fear-191830507.html

The AI industry as a whole is facing a critical juncture, with mounting concerns contributing to a massive tech selloff roiling the stock market this week. Shares of AI tech stalwarts, including Nvidia and Palantir, have plummeted — raising concerns that the hype had driven their valuations too high for the shaky realities of their current tech.

What is the above paragraph saying? Well, unlike virtually any element or aspect of AI, the paragraph above is straightforward. It is very simple. Nobody know what this stuff is worth. You can say things like the future of all technology and all of American business will rely on Artificial Intelligence and you can say it over and over again but what does it mean in dollars and cents? If all American businesses will become dependent on AI, how much will it cost to implement, to operate on a regular basis and are there going to be any profits? Not to mention its effect on investment and return itself. Will it replace buying and selling by humans and if so will business, industry and investment all become one united AI operation like one of those science fiction movies,(The Forbin Project)?

And then there are the little side issues, like a massive unemployment across multiple fields that will leave the economy as empty and useless as an old paper sack or the other little issue of destroying all life on earth should there bit a little misstep in the application of the thing in one small industry or maybe even one small laboratory.

Now if none of this concerns you and you find me alarmist, try reading this little tid bit below!

Joe Wilkins writing for Futurism has an article: OpenAI Chairman Says AI Is Destroying His Sense of Who He Is.

https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/openai-chairman-says-ai-destroying-132644783.html

For being poised to become the richest startup in history, OpenAI’s architects seem strikingly ambivalent about its work.

The company’s CEO is constantly afraid of the technology he’s unleashing on the world, a longstanding investor has been driven to what his peers say are signs of psychosis, and even its chairman is panicking about losing his identity to the machine.

Speaking on the podcast “Acquired” earlier this week, the chair of OpenAI’s board, Bret Taylor, expressed his anxiety that AI chatbots like ChatGPT are redefining his relationship to technology, destroying — or at least making unrecognizable — the world of programming in which he built his career.

So, you think I’m alarmist. I think Bret Taylor is more scared than I am and since he has more knowledge, I find that worrying.

(I seem to recall the minister from “Plan 9 from Outer Space” saying that we should all be concerned about the future because that is we will be spending our time.)

To sum up. This AI stuff is dangerous, has already had deleterious effects and nobody anywhere seems to really understand what it can do or what is going to happen.

James Alan Pilant

Very Bad Neighbors

On By southwerkIn morality

The neighbors can be a problem and especially now as customs about lawns are in the middle of change. We are entering a new era where the classic manicured lawn is under attack and people are moving toward natural lawns that provide food for insects and animals. Of course, the traditional bad neighbor behaviors over trees and property lines have never gone away.

(I was struck by the fact that this engraving from the middle of the 19th Century very much appears to ba a modern natural lawn. Trees and wildflowers abound and the grass is largely uncut. Of course, power mowers are at least fifty years away. But it is a compelling vision of man living in considerable harmony with nature. jp)

The article below used the phrase “borderline theft.” No, taking your lawn furniture without permission is theft (or grand larceny if the value is high enough). I think they are calling it borderline so it doesn’t sound so awful but it is. You cannot go into people’s yards and take stuff.

I fully agreed with commentators who were outraged.

In an article from People Magazine entitled: Woman Is ‘Livid’ After Returning from Weekend Away to Find Her Garden Furniture in Her Neighbor’s Yard: ‘Borderline Theft’.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-livid-returning-weekend-away-100000477.html

  • A woman is “livid” after her neighbor borrowed her lawn furniture without asking
  • The woman, who shared her story on a community forum, said the neighbor “just helped herself” without so much as a note
  • Commenters on the woman’s post unanimously agreed that she had every right to be bothered by the neighbor’s “shocking” behavior

In this article linked to below, we have a story of a homeowner apparently on a tree slaughtering binge both on his property and the neighbors in an area where trees have legal protection. I really get the impression that there is just something wrong with him. Attacking an ancient tree with a chainsaw at one in the morning is not the act of a disciplined mind.

You’ll need to read the article linked to below for the details. I found the article’s conclusion quoted below to be more useful for those with homes and lawns.

The Cool Down published an article entitled Homeowner stunned by new neighbor’s bizarre acts on front lawn: ‘Went out at like one in the morning with a … chainsaw’ written by Sara Traynor.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/homeowner-stunned-neighbors-bizarre-acts-211500302.html

Standard, bare lawns, like the kind the OP’s neighbor preferred, are actually not so great for the environment. Having only one species of plant in your yard can hurt the area’s biodiversity. Plus, they usually require a lot more upkeep, since these grasses aren’t accustomed to the local environment.

The OP’s first neighbor had the right idea. Having a variety of plants in your yard is great for local wildlife. Replacing your traditional lawn with native plants or a natural lawn is cheaper in the long run and gives pollinators a much-needed food source.

“Sounds like a great neighborhood to live in!” one commenter said. “And nice to hear the tree company snitched on him.”

It is not a huge leap of logic that neighbors should not be dispatching tree choppers or any other landscape style worker onto your property without permission but in the story below they did. I have many stories along these lines where trees, hedges, flowers and natural lawns were annihilated by the next door neighbor or the Home Owners Association. An HOA sounds more and more like a place where the borderline mentally ill go to have powertrips and create havoc. There should be state and federal law limiting their operations.

The Cool Down published an article entitled – Homeowner stunned after waking up to find workers hacking away in backyard: ‘I repeatedly told them to get off of my property’ Katie Lowe

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/homeowner-stunned-waking-workers-hacking-113000499.html

Environmentally conscious homeowners across the country are increasingly finding themselves at odds with homeowners associations over their right to grow gardens on their own property. Cases are constantly emerging where HOAs restrict or even attempt to remove native trees, vegetable gardens, and natural lawns — even on properties not technically under HOA governance.

One Georgia homeowner recently woke to find workers in their backyard, hired by a neighbor and allegedly supported by the HOA, attempting to cut down a healthy sweet gum tree. The tree, which straddled a property line, had never been the subject of a complaint. Yet, without notice or consent, the crew pruned it severely, leaving it damaged and potentially dangerous.

I was reading through my three articles above and realized that I had provided few remedies to these kinds of acts. So I located an article on what to do if someone kills or damages a tree. From my reading, this the most common dispute.

James Pilant

When a Neighbor Damages or Destroys Your Tree by Ilona Bray, J.D.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/neighbor-tree-damage-46933.html

If your neighbor or someone else cuts down, removes, or hurts a tree on your property without your permission, that person is required to compensate you (the tree owner) for your loss. If necessary, you can sue to enforce your rights.

Here’s the lowdown on what you must prove to recover for a damaged or destroyed tree, and how much money you can recover. 

Bugs Bunny and Business Ethics

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics, Capitalism

Bugs Bunny is a cartoon version of an idealized American. He embodies many American virtues. He is not greedy and content with having just enough. Many simple pleasures make him happy. He loves a good meal, meeting new people, travel and a good joke. He is courageous and does not tolerate abuse or injustice. He is the very soul of patriotism, (He is an honorary United States Marine!)

(This is a 1912 picture from a book of stories. Alas, there is no picture of Bugs that is not under copyright protection.)

I used some of his cartoons in my classes to illustrate several different economic concepts. Like most Americans he does not aspire to be rich, he aspires to have “enough.” In the cartoons, his concept of “enough” boils down to a comfortable rabbit hole, food to eat, (many cartoons show him as visiting stores or cultivating food). He is often seen in bed reading what we assume is a good book.

The plot of the story in the cartoons revolves around Bugs’ response to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Various hunters, crooks, con men, grifters, mad scientists, monsters and the occasional vampire show up to steal from him, harm him or just kill him. Bugs defeats his opponents by determination, humor and inventiveness, qualities that Americans with considerable justification believe they have in abundance.

Using him as an economic example generally involved his less meritorious sometimes friend and often enemy, Daffy Duck.

The Economics of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck

In one cartoon I used “Ali Baba Bunny” (1957), Bugs and Daffy find the fabled treasure of Ali Baba, a huge and sprawling treasure similar to a dragon horde, which is promptly claimed in total with no justification whatever by Daffy – with the following line:

“It’s mine, you understand?! Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down, down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine! Mwahahahahahaha!” He dives into the treasure pile with whoops of joy to the tune of the song “We’re in the Money”. “I’m rich! I’m wealthy! Yahoo! I’m comfortably well off.”

While Bugs is content with what he has, Daffy is the “other” American, the grasping “get rich quick” fool who never stops looking for some easy way to make piles of money. If that wasn’t bad enough he is perennially incompetent and constantly goes into situations over his head.

Of course, whenever you encounter treasure there must be a guard. Bugs saves Daffy from certain death at the hands of “Hassan,” although repeatedly the cowardly duck tries to betray him. Daffy’s greed keeps getting him into danger and eventually Bugs leaves him to his dire fate.

Daffy at one point bundles every last coin up for his own use while Bugs simply continues on his journey taking nothing, content with what he has and unwilling to take what isn’t his.

It’s a good lesson and I usually add examples of treasure hunters spending their lives in the fruitless search for immense wealth. You know pirate treasure, the lost Dutchman mine, gold prospecting and the list goes on.

In another cartoon showcasing his immense greed, Daffy captures the Tasmanian Devil. In the 1957 short feature, Ducking the Devil, Daffy a loudly self-proclaimed coward discovers that there is a 5,000 dollar reward for returned the escaped Tasmanian Devil to the zoo.

Wikipedia tells me that in 2022, this five thousands dollar reward would be the equivalent of $45,686.65, not bad if you’re willing to be dismembered by a tornadic homicidal loon.

Daffy after many misadventures lures the creature back into its cage and collects the money. While he is walking away, a single dollar bill is caught by a breeze and carried into the monster’s cage, where upon an outraged Daffy charges in, beats the creature to a pulp and recovers his dollar. (My Chinese exchange students really enjoyed this cartoon.)

I use cartoons, short movie clips, jokes, etc. to lead into discussion of the more intricate points of law, of capitalism, the American Experience — you know – Teaching.

Why use cartoons and all the myriad things I find to interest my students?

It was my transcript.

As you might imagine I am quite capable as a student (317 college hours later). So, I have a large transcript and I happened to be looking at it and I realized there were many classes I had no memory of. I could not picture the instructor, remember the textbook and to my ultimate despair, none of the coeds I flirted with. It made me sad.

And so I decided to teach in an unforgettable manner. I took whatever subject was in hand (I’ve taught 23 different courses and I am qualified to teach quite a few subjects I never got around to teaching.) and divided it into a set of critical lessons. My Business Law course, one of them, boiled down to thirteen critical lessons.

Okay, very good, I knew what to teach. How to get it across? Not hard. Stories! At first I told stories from the law. Stories I’d learned in law school and from my wide reading. Then I added jokes and then I read large story collections and picked out a chosen few. Then I began my use of classic movies and I added discussions of literature, history, sociology and the struggles of Americans toward greater freedom, minorities and women. Every day I combed the Internet, magazines and sometimes just stuff I observed always looking for that hook that would catch their interest.

Years after being in one of my courses, students will remind me of a story I told, or a movie they watched or a class discussion they never forgot.

I think I did okay. I miss teaching.

But I will maintain against all opposition that Bugs Bunny has his place in Business Law and Business Ethics.

James Alan Pilant