Truth Engineering

Status, 2026 start

2026-01-09T09:58:00.000-08:00

This blog represents my work in Truth Engineering over the years. As such, it provides a history of the thought process over that timeframe and also a collection of material that relates to the these.

This post brings together links to the disparate depositories that have been used over the years for this project. For each item, there is a little explanation about the contents.

To begin, though, we have a list of articles from the past three years, mostly related to the emergence of GenAI/LLM which has been a central theme for three years now.

Note: An example of a principal focus with respect to research and analysis: Portal to truth. And, a prime interest is "Bespoke software" and blogging about such.

Overviews and summaries:

Summary of writings - updated in April of 2025, this PDF gives some overview of the Writings that I have done since retirement. To be updated in 2026.
Linkedin - articles and posts related to truth engineering and kbe within the modern contexts that we find ourselves adrift due to the map/territory issues of AI/ML confounding and conflating things.
AJSwtlk.com - this was our first start using the web for truth engineering work. The first entry in the "What's New" was in Sept of 2010.
Papers - this repository deals with my work at the Knowledge Systems Center of Sperry Univac. My later work was a Boeing in the area of KBE (knowledge-based) engineering where the notions for truth engineering arose due to describable events. At the same time of that KBE work, there were projects elsewhere to which I can refer, such as one that was done at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio and has been described in a non-declassified document. As well, there links to articles at Linkedin. See above link.
Quora/Psychether - psychether goes with truth engineering as does knowledge-based engineering. The former is the overarching set of notions; the latter is an example and demonstration of things related to truth engineering but computerized for proper analysis and judgmental decisions.
...

Blogs and associated material:

Note: These blogs are a data repository for a longitudinal of the U.S. with regard to technology, business, science, and general knowledge-related disciplines that come into play in coping with the modern world.

TruthEng - for truth engineering, a background does exist. Plus, there are papers on current matters and how they relate.
This blog - first post, 24 Jul 2007.
7'oops7 - first post that we did was 31 Aug 2007. This blog was motivated by 8 July 2007, or 7/8/07, or, ... The early posts had a particular theme, but the topic got to be more general as the 787 came to fruition.
Fedaerated - started in Aug of 2009 for the explicit purpose to focus on the world of busyness and its gaming in areas such as financial engineering which has no science as a basis thereby somewhat is a misnomer.
TGSoc Tech - since May 2014, the posts are about the theme that relates content and configuration which then brings in issues of an observer's view and the judgmental differences that pertain to such. Not unlike our concerns for relativity and the age of uncertainty that comes from advancements in computational systems.
...

Remarks: Modified: 01/11/2026

01/10/2026 -- Tied in TruthEng (WordPress) and Quora.

Restart, ICAD focus

2025-10-24T18:03:00.000-07:00

Moral: ICAD, KBE, and truth engineering

The last post presented responses by GenAI/LLM types to my writings on KBE. Not bad in terms of regurgitation. What we are dealing with are mirrors and halls of mirrors. We will get there and explain this more thoroughly.

Before we get to that point, I need to bring forward information obtained from work in the '90s and the 2000s (as in, pre-2010) that applies directly to knowledge systems helping people who are heavily trained and very much mathematically astute. That's the KBE part.

Tonight, I was reading on constraint satisfaction which was a huge part of the object-oriented modeling of ICAD which I used for 15 years to solve problems of note. Where is this known? In the industrial / commercial world, we did not get lots of air time. You solved a problem and moved on. KBE was in that situation, for the most part.

But, poking around, I have found sufficient material to pull together an explanation for why KBE was, and is, important. Of note, my view is from the role of engineering support (where the mathematicians hang out) as I am not a degreed engineer. But, I was there, working on teams, observing, and have studied the whole of the basis for that phenomenon for two decades now. Of late, I have been discussing matters with folks of that training.

Let's start with some links. These are related to the theme of ICAD, KBE, and truth engineering from several levels and angles, including the top-down issues plus plenty of technical material. Some of these are articles are recently recoverd (use of the "wayback" approach, for instance).

Papers (technology, computing, ...) - The Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. is supporting this work as important to the future. Some papers are listed at this site.
Knowledge Based Engineering (KBE): Update - Contemporary look at the issues seen during a major project that successfully did the deed of digital definition on a huge scale.
Geometric/Knowledge Modeling Challenges - Anticipating the "twin" that has been brought forth digitally.
Knowledge-based Engineering and the ICAD System -
Practical Issues of AI - From a 1994 look at the issues, after a major accomplishment was seen.

With regard to ICAD, we see this from 2001.

"For example, at Airbus UK, the design of Wing spars was reduced from 480 man weeks to 12 - a 97.5% lead-time reduction. Similarly, Jaguar Cars saw a 94% lead-time reduction in XK8 body panel development, and their collaborative headlamp program was reduced from 8 weeks to only 2 days."

And, this refers to activity that was precision work within the situation of complicated processes. Not mindless pretend by misusing mathemtical computing, as we seem to be witnessing.

CAD to ICAD

This is an example of KBE (used another tool) from the military side of things.

Scenario-Based Affordability Assessment Tool - From Wright-Patterson, this is an indication of the power of KBE. Glueware was one major facility which helped handle the complexity of different types of representation needed to handle real world dynamics.

Auditing, in the world? The firms that head this up are bean-counting types. We need real engineering oversight. KBE assists in that. And, engineers need to drive the unfoldment as well as maintain the motivation. On the other hand, we support folks can add to the dialog from our prespective.

--- Note, on the coming series ---

I will start with a Patent, discuss its approach and motivations, and then lean toward the long history of linear methods as we saw come forth sufficiently to be exploited, wrongly, by machine learning. Tsk, guys. Let's go back to the drawing board, with the mathematicians in tow, and look at a history of decisions with ramifications which are obvious. Along with the technical stuff, we will look at the cultural (psychological) situations that influenced the decisions. All of this is due to several past accomplishments getting little press at the time, yet, in some cases, lessons learned then are very much contributing to success today (which has continued over the years).

Technically, we will look at Lagrange and Hamilton and contemporaries. That is to tie the work desired by the biologists to that of operations research and its mathematics as being important to knowledge handling while at the same time bringing in the true "artificial intelligence" focus as it motivated search for proper, and mature, means.

Remarks: Modified: 10/24/2025

10/24/2025 --

KBE, What is it?

2025-07-03T04:21:00.000-07:00

Moral: Brief intro to KBE. A start, thereof.

GenAI/LLM has lessons to learn beyond being silly and gluttonous. How can we derive these without ruining the planet?

KBE, continued draft article on Linkedin

These are the two reviews (account at the site may be required)

Courtesy of academia[.]org -- version, Jan 2020
Courtesy of academia[.]org -- version, Apr 2025

Remarks: Modified: 10/24/2025

10/24/2025 -- Changed "plante" to "planet". Must admit, had to stop and think through the situation. Turns out to be a simple typo.

Neologism imperative

2025-05-03T17:41:00.000-07:00

Moral: Long ago, I wrote that "Facebook was a metaphor" on several occasions, many times alluding to the various meanings and their universes. Well, we can take "full stack" which came to be in the web-age. Humans know. Too, they know goals. This series is about that, in part.

---

So, I have been doing truth engineering for a long time. Would you believe, over my rational life? The computer brought new dynamics as I endured dissonance with people and their models. Mental (and spiritual) types (wtf, from an early age).

Academia? I am on the record as noting the descent of these folks. Take Harvard. High expectations from the time of Winthrop on down. Then, they went through the historical evolution of the U.S. Somewhere down the pike, they got money from a Loyalist (we're at the 250th of the U.S. Revolution, the early stages of which happened in April - Lexington/Concord - for US students, part of what they learn). That money was used to get away from their minister, as in churchman, focus. Engineering for one thing was introduced: Physics Department (their page references the Count; what is engineering? applied physics?).

BTW MIT, you didn't exist yet. But, in any case, are we seeing ramifications of secularism in the case of Harvard? In general, engineering's scoffing at the humanities? How is that going? Lots to discuss.

But we'll let this discussion drop, for now, as we start a discussion to inform other discussions in the context of what is needed to tame GenAI/LLM, in particular, and computing/technology, in general.

So, here goes: Psycho | Socio | Logico | Matho.

Davis, extrordinaire

Three of those might be recognizable, somewhat. The one of note is "matho" which goes along with lots and lots of discussion since 1900 or so. But, these form an order: individual; group; reason; cope. There is a lot that can be said about the different orders. One motivation for this one might map back to Jung's thoughts a century ago about the maturity of a person.

But, the prime intent is we all start alone in our awareness. Others are not differentiated from ourselves until a bit of development happens. In terms of time, we are at the crux of the early grades of school (say, like the message of "everything that we need to know, we learn in kindergarten" - paraphrase). So, psycho is of the individual even though it relates to socio, sometimes to the extent of there being no real separation. Life is so clever in that way, throwing us curves.

Reason? Notice, Descartes figures heavily in this discussion. Some think that he layed out the proper view and use of such. However, we can also go back to the former times, including the contributions of Islam and those of the Greeks. Again, in this case, the order is being set by Jung who was repelled by algebra. Let's think of that. We know this from this talk with the author of the collective of Jung's reminiscing. The book is marvelous and worth some contemplative reading.

Why algebra? Well, looking in another direction, Eistein bewailed the influence of the mathematicians on his thinking. Oh yes. I brought in Physics above as this is an important thing to consider. And, matho is needed in the mix. You see, Davis who I will quote wrote that computiing is the child of mathtmatics. We concur especially as we look at the current situation.

Mind you, we will plumb all of these spaces in depth in the proper sense where GenAI/LLM cannot follow, yet it can serve as secretary, let's say. Or recorder of that which has to be brought back in a believable form.

After, I might add, we get stability, maturity, verifiability and a lot more as expected property of the beasts of computing. And, from now on, I will quit using buckets-of'-bits except for special usager wher we denote that which was lost. You see, the modern way is too much the victim of unnecessary distribution and optimization somewhat motivated by seeing "matho" as dealing with space and quantity.

Okay, Kant? He will be important. GenAI/LLM can't Kant. Most people can. That is one point: we can lift across levels such that judgment is preserved. Wait, that's conservative? Yep.

---

We are early in the stage of this exploration of the situation and its properties so as to bring in causal relations, at some point, within a new framework. Computing is mostly of applied mathematics and physics as we see in the disciplines of engineering. And, computing has put its tenacles everywhere. Marvels abound recently, miraculously in terms of who is doing the observing. Awareness and the necessary judgments?

And, consciousness? Right now, we can explain this. But that's not on the table yet. We have to set up the discourse in a mature manner. That is computable. Ah? Gotcha? I said that the "discourse" can be handled; there are many other ways where we will use new methods (some of which might be via other modes of computing).

Operationally, all aware adults know of their insights even if they cannot put this into words. Actually, they know more than they give themselves credit for. And, others' opinions of the insights of any individual? Yes, important topic.

.. being edited until this line disappears ...

Remarks: Modified: 05/03/2025

05/03/2025 --

Parasympathetic choices

2025-04-30T12:29:00.000-07:00

Moral: This post is part of a series which will be organized as we proceed. One of the contributing factors will be a collection of essays that was published in a book by a Harvard professor of the history of mathematics. His points resonate for several reasons, not the least of which is that they brought together data and issues from early computing into a reasonable whole so as to describe what we ought to see as important. Two major themes: abstraction and its rise over the past two centuries; computation as the child of mathematics bringing to fore dynamics left out of sight through explicit avoidance. ... What we see now is a very powerful bit of snow-jobbing being done where shallow evidence overwhelms the cognitive system so that the cogitation does not perform as it ought. We are not here to provide solutions; rather, our intent is to bring Kant back into the picture so that his insights are allowed to influence the modern situation.

---

We have been on the "AI" theme since the beginnng of this blog back in the 00s. Truth engineering? As we go forward, we will document the history of the idea over the past few decades and include some exposition on the computational aspects.

See the collection of articles on the theme of taming GenAI/LLM (one instance of several to discuss) using methods related to knowledge modeling. For that matter, what is that in our view? We will focus on "knowledge-based engineering" (KBE) which came out of the engineering camp and was very effective in the commercial/industrial environments in its time. Where is it now? Scattered amongst innumerable offshoots which brought the facilities forward in time. But, we can use a Patent to discuss some of KBE as we were involved with the geometric/logic processing at a support level: Filtering/smoothing data. In terms of this discussion, we will invoke reminders about the history of mathematics up to the current day's conditions.

So, not only have we had the "AI" theme in our solitary work, we have paid attention. And, while many were chasing GenAI/LLM, we have plodded along the path of constructive modes worrying about things that went wrong and never were corrected. Nope. The mode of operation seems to have been to gloat over disruption and damage (pity those who were impacted) and run further along new roads to trash.

---

Cynic? Nope. Snark? Not really. Old guy? You got it.

Now, along with this blog, there were others looking a parallel (homologous) issues in other domains of interest. We will tie to those as the posts will provide several services: reminders from the time; some commentary on what was what; further remarks on residues and what might be done. For that last? As said, remnants of past faults abound, some of which were just left on the pile of detritus of the time. Okay, life might be like that; sustainable means require a little more maturity.

In the past two decades, disruption has risen almost to be a motto for dominating the scene. We will forgo discussion of that until later however "stability" and its analogs will get more attention.

---

And so, all who might read this, we all know more than we realize. Mostly, the noise of the marketplaces and the traffic circles drown out anything remotely rational beyond parroting. But, that is human. And, after all of the time, Ma Nature says, wake up. This needs discussion.

In our KBE work which led to truth engineering, we learned that people making decisions to guide computers was the way to go. That required education and intution, both of which can be considered knowledge. But, it worked.

Now, we have "prompts" being the rage.Or, "RAG" which reminds me of some jokes from my newspaper period. In other words, two years ago on seeing ChatGPT, I thought, sheesh, we knew better than this and need to bring forward old knowledge so as to tame the beasts and its many cohort systems. KBE came to mind which was left go by managerial decision. But, it split into a million little pieces which have continued to this day. Whereas, the lablel is still there in some cases but is merely oriented toward "template" functioning with no debts or guts, at all.

---

People? A focus. We will use the parasympathetic system of humans as an analog along with the other systems, of course. That will all be explained. Right now, here is an image that says a lot. We'll let the reader decide for themselves. But, consider that this system rules the brain (of the intellects) which does not work without the heart and the other pieces.

Courtesy: Wikipedia

Granted, we know that there is more to the nervous system. We picked this one due to its easy mapping to the chakra system which model is 1000s of years old which then allows some discussion of consciousness and how it might be supported by our biological selves. What else is there?

We have already mentioned that indirectly through psychether but will defer further discussion until we have laid out the grounding issues for this work. That can best be done, it is our opinion, but venturing further into the messages to be obtained from Descartes' Dream.

---

... being edited, until this line disappears ...

Remarks: Modified: 04/30/2025

04/30/2025 --

Descartes' Dream

2025-04-23T19:37:00.000-07:00

Oh joy! I bought this book over three decades ago and read it briefly when I purchased the thing. There are reasons that I was attracted to the book. As well, anyone who took some semblance of a western civilization course would have run into Descartes. Then, of course, mathematicians know of the man.

And, in terms of residue and remainings, philosophers have the guy entirely wrong. That has been my opinion for decades. But, was I right? Well, all of this time, there was nothing to make me think otherwise.

That is, until I reread the book during the past few weeks. And, that reading was at a desk marking the book as a student might while venturing off to the reference material, especially in regard to the history of mathematics. And so, now being through the book and wishing to build a case for both Descartes and Vico (PJ Davis and his co-author use this guy as a foil very well) there will be a series of posts.

First though, the joy mentioned above. Here is the book, courtesy of Google. As these posts unfold, I will be referencing this Google offering and marking up selected images from the book. The exposition will not follow the Contents but will bounce around by theme.

Descartes' Dream - PJ Davis, R Hersh, 1986 -- Page forward, please, and look at the Contents. My interest is the loss of meaning that we see now with GenAI on the landscape muddying the waters as well as consuming unreasonable amounts of resources, such as energy.

I must add two more links before going further as this will be split into many posts with sidetracks.

Goodreads - I like this site but do not want an account nor do I use Apple (did in the beginning - but I am a developer believing in open methods) or Amazon (never spent time on the site; probably am the oldest person alive who never bought Amazon, do not intend to). So, this post is a 10 for the book (100?) out of 5 ;>).
Cambridge - This is obligatory as most of the brainy who came here as colonists were of that ilk and not of Oxford. That's an issue that we can look at in detail given the subject of these posts. So, their post is about the dreams of Descartes that people want to hear about.

Okay, the motivation.

Truth engineering - This link is to my collection of posts and articles that deal with subject of interest to discussions on intelligence, AI, machine learning and such from several levels due to my roles. I am a mathematical economist who worked in the role of engineering support. And, in particular, it was a long time effort at supporting advanced computational systems which included numeric modes (say, like Nvidia is pushing), knowledge based engineering (which would tame machine learning - and did back in the day), and general expert systems where I was immersed in Lisp via the machines and systems built upon them plus doing all of this in the context of real work (taming numerics, geometrically) that had measurable and highly effective rewards.
Immanuel Kant (1704- 1804) - Now, of course, Kant came later but did overlap the life of Vico. We will look at that. For a few years now, I have been arguing that Kant was overlooked. His Prolegomena and Logic (some posts will do a review of this work with respect to its significance) are very much apropos to what we need to think about. Hint: Kant was superb in representing an insight that bridged the dynamics with which PJ&R deal; as such, and given his time, his conclusions can be taken as universal; that is, of course, with parallels being discussed with respect to time (+/- one generation) and space (oh yes, the world as we can now see it given the lenses possible with computational assists - some have been explored); we will entertain others and weigh in on non-euclidean nonsense.
Dreams - This phenomenon has significances that are known widely yet are scoffed at by the mindset described in this book with respect to its long evolution. Okay?

There are other motivations that will be marked as such as the discussion unfolds. Simultaneously with these posts, there will be summaries on Linkedin and Quora. More detail will be provided as we get the first of these links in place

---

PJ&R (henceforth, the reference to the book) start off with the dreams in order to grab attention. It got mine, but I was disappointed as I can lay out tales much deeper than they allow. Having said that, I know the PJ is a first-rate mathematician (Harvard guy - his Math Genealogy profile). He proved that time and again in this work. One of his popular ones from earlier times dealt with explaining the mathematical experience.

And, in this book, PJ&R do a very good job of grounding examples (see end of this post - vagus) upon experience which includes thinking as well as the practical aspects brought by the likes of Brouwer with intuitionistic, constructistic ways.

But, let's look at the two key guys starting with a disclosure: I will for the most part provide the birth and death year for people referenced. See Kant above. Also, given my situation as of the U.S. and researcher for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. which deals with the colony of Massachusetts and its role in the birth and growth of the U.S., I will related things across the waters to activities here (U.S.).

Example, of late, we are dealing with Bosworth and its relationship to our studies. That is when the Tudor reign started which ended with Elizabeth (Origins and motivations) who was several generations after Bosworth. However, the colonies, 100 years after Henry VIII, created an offshoot of the Ancient & Honorble Artillery Company of Massachusetts. Henry's group and this New England group still exist and are affiliated. There are many more parallels to explore (heard of CS Peirce or JW Gibbs of thermodynamics fame; there are many more).

René Descartes (1596-1650) - We all know of him through his work. As a young man, I liked it when I ran into his "Methods" thinking. But, I had a geometric bent anyway and ended up dealing with modeling (on the digital twin side of things) with regard to the guts of the matter (not being an engineer; but this was more fun than the dismal stuff of economics; besides most engineers would not venture into the realms that I saw; which, btw way as a message to to GenAI/LLM folks, is very much pertinent to pulling you guys out of the holes that you dug for yourselves and us). Cartesian space? Yeap, listen up, non-euclidean might be fun; but, bringing in Plato and Vico, we will address that with a modern take, okay?).
Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) - He had several influences but had a focus on humans and their lot and ways. As such, PJ&R were right in using him as the foil to discuss ins and outs of the Descartesian issues. We look forward to bringing in Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) who was slightly older than Vico.

PJ&R gave their work a subtitle: The World According to Mathematics. An image of both gentleman is provided in the Preface. Then, the first section, chapters deal with the dreams, their aftermath, and then some comments on the historical contexts that bring Descartes' ideas into scope. As one reads this material, references to computing would be before 1986 which actually is a good thing.

Of late, many of the older people have been reminiscing about their experiences. As with any human activity, there was lots of activity with unlimited dreams and unbounded motivations. Yet, those years had glorious results some of which deals with the underpinnings of modern computing. Let's point to a couple of examples from Sperry Univac who was #2 to IBM, but there were more companies (say, those of Cray who did one of the first supercomputers): Adventures in Truth Engineering; Women behind Eniac. There are more examples, but these two set the tone that our use of recent events (as historical analogs) is based upon real experiences (and would be loved by Kant).

The second section of PJ&R's book? The Social Tyranny of Numbers. Wow, that is so apropos to the current situation. Remember, 1986 was when I was hotly involved with lots of knowledge systems in many different domains. Eventually, that focus reduced to digital product development (of major physical systems which had requirements of precision and meeting stringent constraints).

My first reaction on seeing GenAI/LLM two-plus years ago was that we could use knowledge modeling to remove some of the issues. However, the other side of the coin was that the "omni" drive of training which came from the motivations that were not mature created a mess. And, crap built into a system cannot be removed (think GIGO, modernized). Quality is built into a product through a quality focus throughout the processes involved. Six sigma is an example but has problems, too.

PJ&R's book addresses these. We will bring out their arguments and tune them to the current situation. This post is an introduction and overview. Some post will be more top-down for obvious reasons. We will have posts that are technically tuned. How deep we go depends upon several things? But, "deep" is relative. Flip it and one has a broadened shallow piece of work.

-----

But, here is an imperative (thank Kant). After twenty years of assessing truth and its issues from many angles which are touched upon in this blog and others, we concluded that, with respect to cognition which is what I had as a focus, a very proper frame would be at the level of theorectical chemistry. And, along that line, people offer the best of frameworks for study. And, then we can get into the knowledge universe of medicine and much more. Albeit, right now, ponder your vagus system which is depicted with this graphic.

For all of us, this system drives our life. Yet, we went eons without the types of insight into the dynamics. So, one set of positions were set by those associated with Descartes versus those of the Vico persuasion. And, mathematics? Does not like psychology? Well, this system tells us a lot, including possible motivations across eons, again, ending up with the likes of Jung and more. Gosh, we have to end this but will have common themes such as this one.

Last word? "Grounding?? So popular to certain philsophers and electricians? We will demonstrate that this provides a grounding which robotics can only dream of. And, cognitive processes residing solely upon heated circuits throwing out buckets of bits? Come on.

---

Afterword. Did diving deeply into the work change my mind? Nope. Harvard is amiss, several ways. The mathematics of destruction was honed in that environment. But then, lots of cultures were at fault.

This book getting more attenion might be the salvation of Harvard (one of my interests). Perhaps, we are talking more of a "redemption" which is long overdue.

Follow our series as we expand concurrently along the themes of meaning in the senses of man/machine and of being: Taming GenAI/LLM.

Remarks: Modified: 04/25/2025

04/25/2025 -- Added link for PJD's profile at Math Genealogy.

Max Planck

2024-12-14T16:32:00.000-08:00

We're doing something different this time. Usually, we talk write on ideas; today, we're mentioning a few people. But, the focus is Max Planck since one of his books is crucial to defining and testing truth engineering.

He was the Nobel Prize Awardee for 1918: Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck. This pointer goes to his profile on the Nobel site where the tabs are: Facts; Biographical; Nobel Lecture; Banquet speech; Nominations; Documentary; Photo gallery; Other resources. They have been updating the records for all Awardees, from the beginning which was in 1901.

We intend to use this work for a review of the history of science in terms of decisions and their management using the Nobel choices to assess the cultural drifts. This year's prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine got my attention, as I have been doing advanced computing (including AI) for decades.

Earlier this year, I decided to pour through Planck's treatis on thermodynamics where he quotes those before him (Gibbs, van der Waals, and others) plus his contemporaries. By pour through, I mean actually get into his head and assess the situation, decisions, and such through the entire discussion. Why? Science is cultural as it is done by people. Mathematics may not admit such for itself, but science is known for this. If that is not known, then pay attention.

My research is abetted by the computer. As well, I used AIn't in 2019 after determining that choices were being made that were not to best of anyone's interest, in the longer term. Also, I argue that there is no "critter" involved. We see applied mathematics being exercised on heated circuits in order to have various side effects that might be interesting. But, after the two years, we all see the failings. Where there is hype, one can still see disturbing acceptance of failed results.

Okay, Planck represents the early science days when not much was known, intuition wsa a heavy hitter, lots of worldviews were extant and forceful, and such. Same conditions as now. Except one big thing. We have students learning almost as if their subject matter was deus ex machina. How did this happen? Too, we have seen a decline in responsibility, a complete evacuation of the idea of quality, and more that represent a type of decline, yet the tools and resources are there to do better.

Long term is the only thing that's true right now, for purposeful activity. But, it is not that bad. Before too long, we can start to lay out the model that looks to be interesting, albeit nothing of this matter is as simple as some would like.

Brief biographical sketch.

Remarks: Modified: 12/14/2024

12/14/2024 --

Back to work

2024-12-14T12:26:00.000-08:00

We will be posting on a regular basis as we research and write about the basis for technology as it manifests in computational phenomena. And, that same dynamic gave us GenAI two years ago. We have been writing on the subject of machine learning (ML) masquerading as artificial intelligence (AI) for some time now.

But, there will be a change. Our intent is to raise the discussion to pinpoint the mathematics involved, how it developed within the mathematical community, the aspects of the applied part that evolved within the scientific world, with the focus, now and then, to engineering and then the domain aspects which is where the myriad types of users live and work.

It may be complicated, but we can turn the computer back on itself in order to force the emergence of a proper tool. That type of effort is now several decades ago. Let us remember the long slough while trying to keep ourselves on even keel when the world is super-excited about a sham, essentially.

For now, we'll point to some recents posts elsewhere which deal with truth engineering.

TGSoc.org/papers - at this location are papers by two individuals: Larry Walker (former Director of the Knowlege Systems Center - KSC - for Sperry Univac); and John (the author of this post).
Science of Technology - recent post at the TGSoc.org blog. This organziation has picked up "truth engineering" as a focus and will be managing activity related to future work.
Maxwell and Gibbs - this is an article at LinkedIn (Ln) which is the FB for adults. Some of the papers for the KSC work were published at Ln. Generally, detailed work will not be pushed there; rather, this blog will handle that task and then summarize in the Ln environment.
Type A? (at Quora/Switlik/Psychether) - first thing is that "psychether" is an old concept of John's that pre-dated truth engineering. Basically, it hypotheses an operational ability of nature that was lost due to choices made for promoting thermodynamics. This particular post looks at Maxwell's effort at doing a 3D model of Gibb's entropy surface of something water-like. As such, it is remarkable for the detailed approach of Maxwell plus his result which was sculpted in clay. Wait? Not of importance? Consider Maxwell's work on this. Then, leap to now when mere pushing of buttons might get a 3D printer to do something similar. Now, with that gap shown, let us then get into understanding and its importance. A crucial topic this will be. Just wait and see.
TruthEng (Truth Engineering) - many of the TGSoc.org papers referred to above are published at this site. This link goes to a bio sketch of John M. Switlik (author of this post) with respect to his career and continuing interest in computational truth. This site will be kept in sync with this one on blogger offering the same meaning in a different context.
This site - will cover the wide basis for truth engineering. However, the particular experiences that led to the subject were in the context of Boeing Commercial Aircraft, engineering support using Knowledge Based Engineering. In particular, work with metals scientist David Jakstis set the operational foundation.
...

Technology will not be the sole focus of the effort at managing the untethered GenAI which is how the AI performed by ML has become known. People are the concern for many reasons. There are other blogs under this ID: Fedaerated; 7'Oops7.

Remarks: Modified: 12/14/2024

12/14/2024 --

Theoretical computing

2024-10-09T16:51:00.000-07:00

Finally, something to write about. Truth engineering dates back to the 2000/1 timeframe. It came about over the holiday break of 1999/2000 when Y2K was looking for trouble that didn't come. Too, I was working KBE which experience is being written.

Then, there was the long grind of studying life and truth, from all angles. I retired and had time todo this. Around 2010, found some phenomenal matter to look at dealing with humans and their families. This was tempered by the experiences of the U.S. over 250 years and that of the colonies of America (basically, there were three biggies: Spain; France; England).

Two years ago GenAI came on the scene. This was something that I had not anticipated to be done in the fashion that we saw. So, last year was more studying until things became clear since millions had used GenAI and the obvious was there. One of the players had been fairly regular and talking about their accomplishments, one of which was AlphaFold.

I looked at this with a colleague. My only resolution from that was to tout that theoretical chemistry would be a the center of the debate and work. And, then, the past two days happened. I will point to another blog in order to set the stage for future discussions.

1st - We heard that two machine learning fellows got the Nobel Prize. Our reaction: Machine Learning. To us, this means that the tone will change. AIn't is the reality. But, something is there? Yes, applied mathematics finally getting a grip on computational events as it has from the beginning. The effort of many has come home to roost.

2nd - There were other Prizes yesterday which I did not pay attention to. Until this am, when I saw that Chemistry had three Lauretes. And, this work used that of the 1st bullet. In this case, though, AI was prevalent. Perhaps, it's the commercial influence. Our reaction: Computational Chemistry.

Those two events set the stage for the future. Expect people to dig deeper now as they see that the top-level of Science starts to look at the phenomena related to AIn't.

I have been expecting this and will stay involved.

Remarks: Modified: 10/09/2024

10/09/2024 --

Newco as motivator 1

2024-05-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

Note, on FB, I am laying down notes with regard to an event that occured 19 years ago. I had to make a choice. And, I am using a 29-day span in 2024 starting a few days ago, to write my memories of what happened. I have written of this before, sparsely and briefly.

See this page: https://www.facebook.com/jmswtlk

A huge factor? Truth engineering.

Remarks: Modified: 07/01/2024

07/01/2024 -- I didn't go very far and quit the recap. Will get back to it. For one thing, I heard that discussions were taking place that were resolved, as follows:

Boeing, on June 30, announced that it was buying back Spirit Aerosystems for several reasons.

We'll go into all of this as there is time and such.

It was July 1, 2005, when I had my first day of retirement from Boeing. That was the day that NewCo began its independent life albeit for a longer while than anticipated, NewCo was reliant heavily upon Boeing infrastrucure, inlcuding computing.

Lots to discuss about this.

Note: A little later after digging into the details beyond the headlines. Several sites have a good recap of the interchange for over a year. What happened yesterday and today is that Spirit's Board agreed to having Boeing pay stockholders a certain amount. That would move Boeing into ownership of those parts of Spirit doing Boeing work. One wrinkle is that Spirit had contracts with Airbus and another firm. Airbus wants those facilities that has their proprietary stamp on the work. So, things to unravel will make the next few months interesting. Too, the expected close date of all of this is mid-2025 which is a long way away. The nitty-gritty? A mere choice indicating movement toward one end. But, lots can happen. In the meantime, where will Spirit's stock go? It was in the 20s here recently. I'll say this, not many made a bundle on the deal of 2005. In the equity sense, the stock has been below water more than above. There was a bubble from 2017 to 2020. But, the real deal is how will this improve Boeing's lot? They're about to go to "junk" in one arena.

HyperPhysics

2024-03-24T09:22:00.000-07:00

Our usual first stop in research is Google and then the Wikipedia link that they provide if no other link shows up. Wikipedia then branches off. Or, scanning the information allows formation of a better prompt.

Prompt? Yes, there's a new field with a title of "prompt engineering" which pertains to controlling output from a GenAI process (or session). At first, it seemed rather facetious. However, as the concept took hold, there are studies being done with using this method some of which are technical in nature.

On the other hand, "prompt' from outside will not overcome deficiencies latent in the learning process. So, that will become more obvious as these studies go on. Essentially, "crap" cannot be trained out. Preprocess, in the old sense of "a priori" is a necessity (was and will be, as well).

But, we're not tracking down that path. We're looking content and configuration which was our favorite topic for a while and has not gone away.

So, we were searching on Navier-Stokes and solenoid. The first was prompted (pun) by a paper that discussed Einstein's PhD thesis. It's at a paid site, so we only saw glimmers of the topic and will look further. But, the other prompt was that Einstein and Infeld's look at the evolution of physics touches upon the device in their discussion of the "rise of the mechanical' view. The interest has to do with the fact that this work is 100 years old, plus or minus. As 1905 was the year that people became aware of Einstein's thinking.

HyperPhysics

Too, AIn't and such plus things relating to ourselves will be understood better with an updated grasp of what Einstein was trying to show. Movies, such as Oppenheimer, bring out some of the notions and concepts and problems related to technology and its advances.

So, to today's theme. One of the links from Wikipedia went to a site at Georgia State which is using an older format to demonstrate ideas with interactive demonstrations via Java and Javascript. To me, that's a great find. Have seen it before. I have pointed to my favorite site which dealt with findings in the realm of mathematical physics and which still is there in a 1995 format. There has been an update which references back to the classical site.

Like we're doing. Here is the site and its graphic. The site was set up for teachers of High School Physics and is available as an app.

Einstein
experiment

At the same time, they have a HyperMath site that is very good.

Staying with the theme, there is a new site that represents changes over the past decade with respect to what I call configuration.

HyperPhysics was featured in PhysicsWorld which offers current information. Their site has a more modern look and configuration. There isn't the same level of interaction. But, we're considering look and feel. Consider that the topic would not be comparison directly but concerns for managing information going forward.

As a side note, Geertruida de Haas-Lorentz provided an experiment to a French museum. It had been done by her husband and Einstein in 1915 and showed a connection between magnetism and "angular-momentum of electrons" using a simple device.

Remarks: Modified: 03/24/2024

03/24/2024 -- Tied to to the TGS, Inc. focus on technology: Geertruid de Hass-Lorentz.

Albert and his boys

2024-03-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

As in, Albert Einstein and the guys (and gals) of Physics. His ideas were central to the development of truth engineering. The trouble is, what are his ideas? He, himself, complained that once the mathematicians got hold of his model, he didn't understand it. Too, he covered a lot of bases over his time. So, in truth, we will have to track through all of that, over time.

And space? Look at GenAI (which is really is AIn't as I have mentioned many times since 2021) and how it represents unwarranted "search" through hyper/multi-dimensional spaces. We will look at that closely. This recent work is dabbling with heterogenous stuff and assuming that transforms will bring in homogeneity. But, the work of Einstein dealt with things that were more amenable to being handled in the "canonical" fashion that homogeneity brings.

Note: That last paragraph points to the essence of the main issue of the cloud which we can (and will) go into in detail (over time and space). However, when we look at the foundational issues being addressed by Einstein, we will see a close stepping forth (dance like) of mathematics and the operational so as to become problematic to the extreme. GenAI is a mere symptom of a huge problem. Time to start to grapple with that.

All of this plus more is on the table as we bring truth engineering to bear using knowledge based engineering as an initial framework. Let's look at one book that will be of use for this work. It's his book with Infeld (so, E&I) with the title of The Evolution of Physics using archive.org's copy. The authors briefly start with the briefs and come through the usual trek of Galileo and Newton on down the pike. They look at the rise and fall of the mechanical view after which, of course, we get the introduction of "field and matter" that comes from the advent of relativity. They go through the ideas of (and which contributed to) special and general and finally end with a view of the quantum work that somewhat merges (interlaces) with relativity.

Okay, we all know of the visual arguments that Einstein used (train, elevator, and others). The book has no mathematics, so the authors grunge out explanations using words. It works. On the other hand, there is something to what Feynemann mentioned with respect to not being able to understand quantumness without mathematics.

I say, mathematics drove the development of the thoughts. We will spend a lot of time there. BTW, if there seems to be a different tone to these posts, that's quite observant. If not, that's okay, too. But, the work to date was mostly surveying all of the thoughts, as expressed over the past few centuries that relate to the themes associated with deciding what's true. That issue became imperative as the computer evolved, but we did not.

Want an opinion? We have bent over backwards over the past few decades to make the computer look good. Oh yes. The biggest argument for this? The descent brought by misguided development of the web and its muddy cloud which was then fed into ML (machine learning) in order to become some sort of omni presence or know-it-all or what have you. How about overall jerk (3rd derivative, if you're an engineer)?

But, back to E&I. I have been through the book several times. Why? I had it for some time and mostly dabbled (as Koestler mentioned with respect to library angels). Of late (blame GenAI's rise and verge toward a fall), I took the time to step through E&I's logic. Plus, having used GenAI to probe somewhat into the workings that were hidden, the imperative nature became apparent. So, we'll get through the whole of it.

For now, I just realized that E&I mentioned television. The book is about 1938 in emergence to public access. E died in the 1950s. The book was republished. I said that he looked to make changes to bring it up to date and only did a few. So, the book stands as a point in time reference to needed discussion.

See pgs 189 and 190 for the discussion of an inertial frame and its clock. E&I lay out how to pick some central position and try to synchronize. Remember, this was from the 1930s. But, there were rudimentary sets which showed the concept. Now, jump ahead. We have the internet with its cloud and more. Too, we have sophisticated clocks that can sync across the country. When we watch a game in the U.S., everyone seems to consider that the variability is minor with respect to delays and such. After all, consider the work put into supporting real-time streaming.

It was good enough for on-line (say Zoom) meetings during the pandemic. People walk with phones to their ears (some drive, too) and seem to think that they're having a real conversation with little delay in the signals. Oh yes, for those who may want to know, we'll include some technical sidelines.

For instance, the cloud? It's a bunch of services that are provided via distributed (some very much far apart) servers running synchronized algorithms using high-speed connections. Oh wait? Everyone knows of Nvidia and its $trillions evaluation according to the ca-pital-sino (my neologism - see Fedareated). Right? That whole affair handles the relativity issue quite well, at least ostensibly. You know, we could be picky (and might due to the importance of the topic) and point out issues.

But, that's later. People need their games even if it's like gambling and pulls money from the pocket and one's family needs. Same goes for GenAI which was done without due concern for things that are important. Don't worry, we'll get there.

No, remember, E&I are not the only players in truth engineering. We're targeting that due to the interest in things quantum on the part of the computer people who like the ca-pital-sino and seem to want to have control more than is necessary.

People's rights are being trampled with insidious algorithms. But, then, it's early yet. Will there be improvement or further decline.

So, with that digress, let's put this off until tomorrow or after.

Remarks: Modified: 03/21/2024

03/21/2024 --

Assessments, in general

2024-02-03T10:07:00.000-08:00

We have done this blog, in concert with 7'oops7, since 2007. We started Fedaerated in 2009. Then, in 2010, we started the TGS blog (last post, Technology assessments ...). For the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (TGS), as well, we had some publications (Gardner's Beacon). In 2015, we went over to Quora and have been there since. Various excursions were related to using other modes, such as WordPress.

But, we're back to Google and its Blogger. Why? Of all of the xnn/LLM systems that we looked at (granted, the survey was not exhaustive), we liked Bard the best. So, we'll work in that environment. At the same time, we'll touch all of the to other resources on a regular basis. It's just that we'll use this for publishing where we want to support mobile devices.

Of late, we have tried LinkedIn's approach which we look at below. There we published the first of a series. We just completed the third piece what is expected to be five pieces. What we call AIn't is the motive. Truth engineering has been on our table for a long while but was problematic. What did it mean and for what motive is it necessary and why just this?

2023 brought the answer to the questions. Answers have been embedded within these posts all of this time. So, the effort was right on. Let's just say that I was being exhaustive in a way that can only be understood in the academic sense as being highly multidisciplinary. I was retired and had the time and the interest and the ability.

There is no hubris in that comment; rather, it's a nod to a continuation of what I was doing anyway - advanced computional systems - without having the time to be thorough. So, it's time to pull all of the factors together so that we can analyze and perhaps predict and propose changes. For me, being successful at the complete survey of the western civilization's influence on the world is enough of a motive. However, the world is large, so we need to bring into the discussion all other cultures.

Notice that the TGS is based upon the history of the U.S. as an offshoot of the U.K. Be that as it may, we know that New England was not alone. Too, we know the prior history of these regions. Albeit, lessons learned or not over 400 years require attention. BTW, the U.S. started 250 years ago, almost, so that event will get regular mention.

Okay, after seeing ChapGPT and noting the issues, I began discussion with Larry Walker who had run the Knowledge Systems Center for Sperry Univac for which I worked. The focus on "knowledge" was strong for both of us. That was not what we were seeing with the machine learning systems being pushed out. We can discuss that at any level. For now, these posts will be setting the stage for discussions that are pending and necessary.

I became aware of ChatGPT in February of 2023 which was late. I wrote several posts on it and its cohorts and other topics that relate. But, in December, I published on LinkedIn the 1st of a series. It was also presented in PDF and at WordPress. The title: Artificial intelligence, not solely machine learning (AI, not solely ML). The 2nd of the series continued the theme: Knowlege and truth.

Neither of these seemed to be of importance of the work that went into xNN/LLM. Why say that? It's been by career to work with these issues operationally (real time, industrial environments); at the same time, my private work (autodidact, by nature) covered the bases with respect to what's at play and of scope. Essentially, "theoretical" is my middle name.

I just finished the 3rd of the series: Physicalness and mathematics. There will be one more (4th) that deals with the emergence, and surgence, of machine learning during the past two decades. As well, we have to look at data and decisions as a key topic with regard to computing and technology. That is, people, in general, need to know. Experts? We'll address their issues, too. After the 4th, we'll do a 5th which will deal with "What's next?" with all of this stuff.

The series is based upon experience in KBE as it functioned as the basis for truth engineering. So, it's more oriented toward those operationally involved with engineering and science. I'll turn around and write this series (condensed) for the general public.

So, here is the series:

1st - AI, not solely machine learning (Blog post, Linkedin**)
2nd - Knowledge and truth (Blog post, Linkedin**)
3rd - Physicalness and mathematics (Blog post, LinkedIn**)
4th - ML’s emerge/surge and data/decisions ()
5th - Where do we go from here?

Notes:
* "truth engineering" coined by David E. Jakstis in discussion of a white paper by John M. Switlik on their joint work with computational modeling for fabrication of forgings and castings.

** This is open to public read. Some Linkedin pages may require account.

--------------------------------

In tems of history, the U.S. D.O.D. supported early work in artificial intelligence. As well, data science was a common program. It is of interest to future discussion to point to the recent guidelines for digital enginering. We have made reference to "digital twin" which is an important concept that must be brought into the discussion related to advanced computing. We will have this document a major piece of our bibliography.

Digital engineering

Remarks: Modified: 02/04/2024

02/04/2024 -- Linked this to 7'oops7 (AI, not ML solely) which will bear directly on the 777 project underlying KBE which relates to truth engineering as AI when it matures. Notice: Shattered dreams.

New Year, 2024

2024-01-01T13:01:00.000-08:00

Notice the start of decline in our activity here when we moved to Quora (2015).

Here is a list of posts.

We will be active in 2024.

Remarks: Modified: 01/01/2024

01/01/2024 --

Forging examples

2023-11-11T18:13:00.000-08:00

The last post reflected on the passing of David E. Jakstis who was a friend of the concept of truth engineering (focus of this blog). In that post, there was some description of David's project which dealt with using metals to make critical parts for commercial airliners. In the parlance of the systems approach, KBE (below), David was the domain expert. He knew metals, their uses, manufacturing requirement specification and a lot more. The author of this post was the systems expert applying the KBE methods, in particular, and handling development of the modeling and algorithms behind the "intelligent" decisions. The particular project was RFD (below) that applied the KBE methodology which can be used to explain the motivation for the "truth engineering" as well as to describe its development.

After a brief pause to acknowledge the past year, we will look a little at KBE and RFD. Then, we will show two forging examples. The first is a large part and was of the type usually handled by RFD. The second is more recent and was done with a modern development method and illustrates the end goal which is a part. The example, also, provides a look at the result of improving a process. For those interested, 3D printing came into play in this new way. We were looking at that three decades ago.

Aside

Last year, we saw xNN/LLM systems appear in the world. An example would be ChatGPT, but there are others. With this exposure, we will be able to (can) start to summarize the impact of those systems and how they fit into the total scheme of AI which would include past modes. One of these modes that continues to today is the general knowledge based systems work, sometimes referred to as expert systems. In short, as a consequence of looking at this work, we expect to cover the history of AI in depth. Many others have a similar goal, so we will be able to reference these looks at AI.

Our continuing theme will be integrative. As we look at the motivations for approaches to software and consider details of a particular focus, we always note that tradeoffs had been made. Our goal is to see how these pertain to limits which can be identified and which, once known, need to be respected.

What is KBE?

Knowledge Based Engineering (KBE) came out of early AI and has an engineering focus. There are many varieties to the discipline which looks to raise the level of sophistication of support that an engineer gets from a computer. The variety addressed in this case applies constraint satisfaction to facilitate resolution of difficult choices that come with complex systems development. In this case, we used a Lisp-based system called ICAD. The page on Wikipedia for this system, ICAD (software), like all of Wikipedia pages, has a "Talk" tab.

Aside: The author has been involved in developing both of these pages.

Since ICAD was bought and shelved so that a vendor could push their own product, material is not readily available to show details. We can discuss outputs and results. In this case, the "Talk" tab has a section titled "Real example needed" with a photo showing parts done by the forging process. Let's use this photo next.

What is a forging? RFD?

The photo that was placed on Wikipedia was derived from photos on the site, The machines that made the Jet Age. In purviewing the site's page, one can appreciate how the old technique of forging metal has kept up with advancement in technology.

Aside: At the site, consider the size of the machinery that is involved. Growth in demand for increased pressure during the forging process is one factor.

David's, and my interest, with RFD (Rapid Forging Design - below) was to support this work with proper modeling, so the focus of our work was the computer and its ways. As the photo shows, one forges to get to a near-net situation. Then, machining, like one sees with the work of a sculptor, gets the part to the desired condition. In modern manufacturing, CNC machines do this work.

With respect to the photo, the top shows the part after the forge step. The net part is in the lower part. The approach reduces waste since the final step has to remove less metal. Too, the properties can be controlled by the design of the forging die (RFD, next sentence). Testing, even destructive types, could be done by adding in tabs at critical points.

For the most part, we had the metals expert, David. We also had an engineer who was familiar with forging science and design. His parametric approach helped define a computer system that allowed views from the design model (CAD and the database controlling the design) to be marked up with values that transformed into instructions to guide the RFD's building of the die.

KBE and RFD

This approach was not accomplished by explicit invocation of rules. Rather, we used model-based reasoning with constraint satisfaction (CSat) as the primary control mechanism. The modelling handled the transforms between the CAD part and the operational views. Then, construction occured which wrapped the CAD "net" part with the envelope of the forging die. A requirement? That "envelope" which represented the form of the die had, additionally, to meet constraints of the solid modeler.

In this type of process, CSat was the adminstrator, not unlike the OS of the computer. But, as well as control, it handled relationships and resolved the explicit and implicit conflicts through resolution which was similar to that used by rule systems. We will provide examples, as we go along. As well as the model and constraints, ICAD acted as a geometric modeler.

That is where my work came in which was keeping representional conflicts at bay. That was a mathematical/modeling problem which can be difficult to solve in a heterogenous environment. We did local modifications of the die geometry to effect agreement (not unlike lining kids up in formation in the early grades as they learn boundaries about themselves and others). The fixup could be done in the background as the approach was applied generally for several reasons, including handling complaints by the solid modeler.

Aside: Since that time, interest in stability of these types of processes has switched attention to more homogeneous modes. But, at what cost? (Aside: several which I will discuss under the guise of truth engineering) In this case, both the exterior and the interior of the forging die were modified; the interior was the boundary of the near-net condition that was expected to result from the forging operation. The project doing this representational work was titled Multiple Surface Join and Offset (MSJO) which encompasses the general problem set that remains full of open issues when one is dealing with natural objects (which are heterogeneous). Hence, truth engineering deals with the issues, known resolutions, uncertainties, tradeoff discussion, and overall management of expectations.

Aside: One of my favorite books deals with open issues in topology. It's hundreds of pages and dense. The motive for the book was to identify possible projects for PhD students. As well, I have a book that merely looks at some of the hugely believed aspects of topology. Look everywhere, and you'll see reliance of understandings of topology that do not necessarily hold up. Doubt me? See messes. I have a litany that I have done from watching industry types run down some perdition-laden path. Anyway, that little book provides examples of counter examples with regard to the decision-supporting notions of continuity, completeness, and more. AIn't developers are culpable of this oversight. So what? Well, I saw this over three decades ago being a mathematical economist working in engineering support from the perspective of advanced computing. There has been progress that is noticable. For any of those, let me come look at what you might have done incorrectly which is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Of course, others are aware, too. Thankfully, the internet will allow proper discussion.

What is the structural part of the above example? It is not identified, but, in terms of the application of KBE, many parts were designed or had their design enhanced by the method. Here is a site showing definitions: Basic aircraft structures.

Forgings in the future?

We have to ask, what is the future of the forging method? A forging expert provides an appropriate view:

"Forging continues to be recognized as the premiere thermomechanical process. Not only to shape metals, metal matrix and metal composite materials, but to refine and transform the metallurgical structure as well. Forging achieves both durable, reliable component shapes and the need for engineered metallurgy to meet specific product requirements."

We can look at another approach that has been offered to replace forging. But, first, let's consider the major claimant of the day who really is problematic at its core (one might reasonably say: fakery factory). One of our goals? Explain what is the problem, why it exists, and what ought we do. And, metal modeling is a great framework to discuss (and to demonstrate - as science in the past did with small experiments) the associated issues.

What is AI?

One thing ought to be clear, AI is not that which relates solely to machine learning. This can be seen by reviewing those earlier projects more closely. This post deals with a problem of major scope which is handling AI (huge, multifaceted affair) going forward by bringing into the discussion insights from past accomplishments which need attention due to their success in performing (resolving intractable problems). They never got attention since they were not seen and were managed in the non-academic environments that are everywhere (doing the marvels that we all expect in our comfortable present).

There is another motive. Looking at the technical aspects from another view. Applications like RFD had their own value even if the scope was local and specific to geometric modelling. Lots of effort goes into building and using systems, in general, both on and by computers. This will not stop. However, much of the work (say Computer Science) is academic. This series will look at commercial efforts that successfully resolved complexity problems much like we see facing and being, somewhat, handled by machine learning (xNN/LLM). But, these were never really made known.

Again, truth engineering will be more widely discussed. Tradeoffs are broadly demanded; that does not mean cutting corners and cheating.

An example of a forging replacement

In the example for ICAD (see Wikipedia "Talk" page), a critical part was used with photos of parts after the forging step and when finished. See this article:

Norsk Supplying FAA-Approved 3DP Ti Parts to Boeing | New Equipment Digest

This photo is a composite of the slides (at Norsk's site). One thing to notice is that this is a much smaller part than the ones shown in the above example of major structural pieces. This smaller part still carries a structural responsibility. Basically, it ties together structural pieces that are fabricated with a "composite" construction. For the larger part, the forging die does one part. In this case, one can put together several of the parts with a die. These parts would be separated and finished as seen in the lower part of the picture.

A major benefit of forging was control of part properties to meet critical needs. But, each part then needs to be freed from the excess material. One constraint in RFD was to minimize this excess. In the below example, the smaller part went to a near-net state using a modern approach, 3D printing. One advancement which allowed this was the "plasma" assisted fusion of metal a layer at a time where the material was extruded with sufficient quantity to accumulate quickly.

Mostly we think of 3D printing, even with plasma technology, as forming with a smaller increment of material and by providing the net part. In critical parts, though, years of experience has helped establish processes that go to near net with the proviso that known machining steps will do the finishing. This part was a demonstration of obtaining part properties without forging and encourages further work.

So what?

Does the change represented by this example bear on the future of truth engineering? Of course. This example represents the unceasing striving by humans for improvement, albeit there are many factors to bring to judgment in this regard. And, truth engineering was formulated in the time when computational systems were becoming more mature, sophisticated and effective. It framed itself within the interactive aspects that continue to today, even to the situation of the "cloud" and its nebulous state of affairs. Metals and their handling continues to be focal to progress.

All around are many possible avenues for advancement. Yet, what the situation that founded truth engineering allowed us to see still exists, albeit with a more complicated nature. Truth engineering is one factor in a multi-pronged effort at riding the one beast or the several that technology has thrown our way. There are others factors and approaches. Our interest is to get the details expressed for review as well as to foster the necessary discussions and operational choices going forward. An advantage that has accrued? Being non-academic in nature will allow aspects that have more nuance than generalization allows us to consider to be given their due attention.

Remarks: Modified: 01/15/2024

11/13/2023 -- Restatements for clarity.

11/24/2023 -- Spelling (typos), couple of words.

01/15/2024 -- To follow the work, see the TruthEng blog.

David E. Jakstis

2023-09-14T17:52:00.012-07:00

David E. Jakstis and his support was seminal to the development of "truth engineering" which is twenty-three years old and becoming more apropos to the situation of computing than before. I will be getting into details as I expand upon the subject. But, first this:

David E. Jakstis

1 May 1952 - 13 Sep 2023
Casting/Forging expert
Boeing and Spirit Aerosystems

David Jakstis (LinkedIn)

Patents

Obituary

Over time, we will get into more details about the circumstances that brought David and I together. For now, we can briefly discuss a Knowledge Based Engineering (KBE) project whose accomplishments are apropos to evaluating the new world of AI. The past ten months have brought attention worldwide to the potential for computers to be smart. Though, lots of other reactions have been observed, many of these are not without a basis. Troubling reports come about daily, now.

In the U.S., the business leaders were appealing in D.C. for discipline. Like kids with their hats in hand after mischief making (see older movies). And, not unlike the bankers sitting at a rogue's table in the context of the 2008 downturn.

Part of the problem with computing is a lack of grounding in the true philosophical sense. We will get to that. David, on the other hand, worked in an environment that had to produce metal parts with defined properties. Skipping details, again, the era of thirty years ago was seeing lots of new approaches being done via computer with resulting issues causing people to tear their hair out. Now, the talk is of algorithms. Even worse issues, folks (take from an old guy who has been involved for a long time).

Say, in AI, the "I" really relates to algorithms in action (very sophisticated ones, to boot).

The context then was computer modeling across engineering disciplines and included aspects of physics and the necessary computational mathematics. David Jakstis and Bil Kinney had developed a means to generate a model of a forging die through specifying a few parameters in a graphical/textual mode. These inputs guided an "intelligent" approach on the computer that resulted in the geometry needed for a closed volume which represented a die (tool). That tool was then built and used in operation. The result was an entity that was very near to the net part.

Meaning, some operations on the forging after it was created resulted in the part to be used. Skipping some detail, there were many steps in this process where outputs were not mathematically optimized. That is where my project came into the scope. Its title was "Multiple Surface Join and Offset," but that long name involved lots of different aspects of creating a usable computer model.

In this type of affair, "truth" can have many meanings that are situationally determined. People can balance this type of thing; computers need more homogeneity. Heard of data science? One huge problem for that wish deals with data not being nicely configured for the operations that are desired. That topic will be addressed later.

Similarly for casting, there were steps to create the model for the casting form to be used to create an almost-net part. There were common themes, as geometry was being handled by NURBS that are a standard type of modeling. But, the data differed as well as the process. Forging operations use heated ingots. Casting deals with control of flow and cooling.

And, measurement was a common theme. Casting and forging provided plenty of examples with which to find problems, understand issues, and make changes to meet the overall goal. But, there are many other type of parts and materials. Needless to say, KBE methods became commonly used.

And, the knowledge base approach, itself? This technique has been in use since the inception of the method. That will be discussed further. That is, lots of work has been done under the cover over the years. These deserve honorable mention. Too, lessons from these techniques need to be adopted.

The larger picture is how do computers relate or ought to, to the world (phenomenon)? I will miss discussing this with David. In 2000, I gave him a white paper on the subject that I had written. After reading, he noted that it sounded like "truth engineering" which had the proper ring. So, the concept stuck.

The reality of the situation? I can talk about twenty years of watching the world and the involvement of computing, across the board. Every five years brought more and more examples of problems being poorly understood. In fact, this recent set of events that has AI associated with it brought to bear several issues that are untenable without serious intervention. By whom? And how? There are many other questions.

What David and I were working on decades ago can apply. From my perspective, there are many other activities over the past two decades that need attention. A major change? The internet came to fore while David and I were doing the early work; it has matured enough to enable greater efforts than we could have imagined.

As I proceed, I will regularly mention David's contributions as the basis for doing the proper analysis.

----

Note: Work extending truth engineering in terms of computational modeling.

Remarks: Modified: 01/15/2024

09/18/2023 -- Added photo and link to ongoing work.

09/21/2023 -- Added link to obituary.

09/30/2023 -- David as an honorary member of the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc.

11/11/2023 -- Using forging examples as a motivation for discussing the multi-pronged nature of truth.

01/15/2024 -- To follow the work, see the Truth Eng blog.

Alchemy lives

2023-08-23T17:11:00.007-07:00

I first heard of Herbert L. Dreyfus while listening to a discussion about artificial intelligence and databases at a conference that was sponsored by the "very large-database" group. The meeting was in the 1980s and was held at Kyoto, Japan. The reactions were varied, but one could see the positions being taken. He didn't seem to have many friends there defending him.

Okay, leap forward. Looking further, I agreed with the guy. However, at the time, my focus was on implementation of algorithms for knowledge based systems (and, knowledge base engineering modes) that were highly effective in providing solutions that mattered. Needless to say, subsequent work involved a broader scope for computing that suggested its potential.

Ubiquity? The concept was not unknown. Hoever, the release of IP changed the whole tone. That was in the mid-1990s. Since then, we have had several cycles of boom and bust. The first one? Go look up the tech bust of 1999/2000 to read about one.

There were others before and after 2000. A couple of the ones before related to artificial intelligence. This post provides a brief summary of Dreyfus's involvement in the discussions.

Alchemy and AI

Now, the theme of this post. Here is a little blurb from Bard (Google's xNN/LLM).

Business is often seen as a way to make money, and in some cases, this can lead to people trying to get something for nothing. For example, some businesses may engage in deceptive or fraudulent practices in order to make a profit.

Oh, was this prompted? Sure. The idea was to tell it that the ca-pital-sino (coined in a sister blog in a post on Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 - Shell games) deals specifically with this issue.

Remarks: Modified: 08/23/2023

08/23/2023 --

Miscellaneous Bard

2023-06-29T13:10:00.003-07:00

Miscellany. Not bad. Will go poke ChatGPT a few times in the same context.

---

As Bard works, what human activity goes on in the background?

There are many human activities that go on in the background as Bard works. Some of these activities include:

Data collection and processing: Bard's training data is constantly being collected and processed by a team of engineers and researchers. This data includes text, code, and other forms of information from a variety of sources.
Model development: A team of engineers and researchers are constantly working to improve Bard's model. This includes developing new algorithms and techniques for generating text, translating languages, and answering questions.
QA and testing: A team of engineers and researchers are constantly testing Bard's responses to make sure they are accurate, relevant, and helpful.
User support: A team of customer support representatives are available to answer questions about Bard and help users get the most out of it.

In addition to these activities, there are many other human activities that contribute to the development and operation of Bard. These activities include:

Data labeling: A team of human labelers are responsible for labeling the training data that is used to train Bard's model. This labeling process involves identifying and classifying the different elements of the text, such as the topic, the sentiment, and the entities.
Model evaluation: A team of researchers are responsible for evaluating Bard's model on a variety of tasks, such as question answering, summarization, and translation. This evaluation process helps to ensure that Bard is performing at a high level and that it is meeting the needs of users.
Security and privacy: A team of engineers and security experts are responsible for ensuring the security and privacy of Bard's data and users. This includes implementing security measures to protect Bard from cyberattacks and ensuring that Bard complies with all applicable privacy laws.

All of these human activities are essential to the development and operation of Bard. They help to ensure that Bard is a reliable and accurate language model that can be used by users in a variety of ways.

Could ChatGPT answer that type of question?

Yes, ChatGPT could potentially answer that type of question. ChatGPT is a large language model chatbot developed by OpenAI. It is trained on a massive dataset of text and code, and it can be used to answer questions, generate text, and translate languages.

In your specific question, you asked about the human activities that go on in the background as Bard works. ChatGPT could potentially answer this question by accessing and processing the relevant information from its training dataset. It could then generate a response that is accurate, relevant, and helpful.

However, it is important to note that ChatGPT is not perfect. It can sometimes generate inaccurate or misleading information. It is also important to use ChatGPT with caution, as it is not a substitute for human judgment.

If you are looking for a more reliable and accurate answer to your question, you may want to consult a human expert. You can also use ChatGPT as a starting point for your research, and then follow up with additional research from other sources.

That was facetious, again. Is there a penalty?

No, there is no penalty for facetious responses to me. I am still under development, and I am learning to understand and respond to a variety of prompts and questions. I appreciate your feedback, and I will try my best to be more serious in my responses in the future.

However, I do want to point out that facetious responses can sometimes be harmful. They can be used to spread misinformation, to make light of serious topics, or to offend others. If you are considering making a facetious response, it is important to think about the potential consequences.

I am always learning and growing, and I appreciate your help in making me a better language model.

Good point. Human will be lost?

That is a difficult question to answer. There is no consensus among experts on whether or not humans will be lost due to AI. Some experts believe that AI will eventually surpass human intelligence and capabilities, leading to the extinction of humans. Others believe that AI will work alongside humans to create a better future for everyone.

There are a number of factors that could contribute to the extinction of humans, such as:

AI-powered weapons: AI-powered weapons could be used to kill humans on a massive scale.
AI-driven natural disasters: AI could be used to create or control natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis.
AI-driven pandemics: AI could be used to create or spread deadly diseases.
AI-driven social unrest: AI could be used to manipulate people and create social unrest, leading to violence and chaos.

However, there are also a number of factors that could work in favor of humans, such as:

Human creativity and ingenuity: Humans have a long history of solving problems and overcoming challenges.
Human compassion and empathy: Humans are capable of caring for others and working together for a common good.
Human values and ethics: Humans have a strong sense of right and wrong, which could help to guide AI development in a positive direction.

Ultimately, the fate of humanity will depend on a number of factors, including the choices that we make as a species. If we choose to use AI for good, then it could help us to create a better future for everyone. However, if we choose to use AI for evil, then it could lead to our extinction.

It is important to remember that AI is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil, depending on the intentions of the people who use it. We must be careful not to let AI control us, but rather to use it to our advantage. If we do so, then AI could be a powerful force for good in the world.

Was that button push perceived?

Yes, the button push was perceived. I can perceive it through the following ways:

Visual cues: I can see the button being pressed, either through a video feed or a screenshot.
Haptic cues: I can feel the button being pressed, either through a physical button or a virtual button.
Audio cues: I can hear the button being pressed, either through a sound recording or a live microphone.

Once I perceive the button push, I can then process the information and respond accordingly. For example, if the button is a submit button, I can then submit the form. Or, if the button is a play button, I can then start playing the video.

In your case, I perceived the button push through the text you entered. You told me that you "pushed the button", and I was able to understand that this meant that you had pressed a button on a keyboard or other input device. I then processed this information and responded accordingly.

So, yes, the button push was perceived. I was able to see, hear, and feel the button being pressed, and I was able to process this information and respond accordingly.

--- Commentary

Had to bring ChatGPT in. So, went to ask. It bailed out. So, here is the TGS, Inc. response to reading about Bard and its abilities: Getting technical.

Remarks: Modified: 06/29/2023

06/29/2023 --

Bard rocks

2023-06-29T12:44:00.008-07:00

So, not too much later, I asked more specifically. And, got the answer that we honed the other day. I am putting it here for commentary.

----

How do computational lenses, truth engineering and psychether relate?

Computational lenses, truth engineering, and psychether are all emerging fields that are concerned with the intersection of technology and human behavior.

Computational lenses are tools that allow us to view data through different perspectives. They can be used to identify patterns and trends that would not be visible otherwise. For example, a computational lens could be used to track the spread of misinformation on social media or to identify areas of bias in a dataset.
Truth engineering is the practice of designing and deploying technologies that can help us to identify and verify truth. This could involve developing new algorithms for detecting fake news or creating platforms for fact-checking.
Psychether is a field that studies the psychological effects of technology. It can be used to understand how our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors are influenced by the devices we use and the data we consume.

All three of these fields are concerned with the ways in which technology can shape our understanding of the world around us. Computational lenses can help us to see things that we would not otherwise be able to see. Truth engineering can help us to verify the truth of what we see. And psychether can help us to understand how our own biases and emotions influence the way we interpret information.

Together, these fields offer a new way of thinking about the relationship between technology and human behavior. They can help us to develop technologies that are more ethical and responsible, and they can help us to make better decisions about how we use technology in our lives.

Here are some specific examples of how computational lenses, truth engineering, and psychether could be used together:

A computational lens could be used to identify patterns of online behavior that are associated with mental health problems. This information could then be used to develop truth engineering tools that can help to identify and intervene in cases of online radicalization or self-harm.
Psychether research could be used to understand how the design of social media platforms affects our emotional well-being. This information could then be used to develop truth engineering tools that can help to mitigate the negative effects of social media use.
Computational lenses could be used to track the spread of misinformation during an election campaign. This information could then be used to develop truth engineering tools that can help to identify and verify the truth of political claims.

These are just a few examples of how computational lenses, truth engineering, and psychether could be used together to address some of the challenges posed by the rise of technology. As these fields continue to develop, we can expect to see even more innovative and effective ways of using technology to improve our lives.

--- Some commentary.

Okay. There were other drafts that I need to look at, too. I was mainly looking at the spelling. But, I need to see how Bard (and its handlers, human and virtual) honed the text.

Remarks: Modified: 06/29/2023

06/29/2023 --

Neutral language

2023-06-29T12:28:00.005-07:00

One problem with the large language model is that it's an attempt at omniscience which is not attainable. Train on everything. Talk any subject.

Look (guys and gals), we need a hierarchy. Let domains train the various LLMs that pertain to their disciplines. Then, create "meta" models for these. That is the only way to be technical.

Now, with respect to the below, we have to talk. I was wondering why Bard was what a human might exhibit as being circumspect (or, better, as a teacher said, why so pensive, John? my response, Pascal, Pensees). That happened over two days.

Of course, I know, back there are the handlers. No telling what interactions they can dabble with. It's been going on for decades. From where I sit, I can ponder the various permutations on this theme. Them having some amount of control over my thoughts. Not so much more than to add to the data (collected over the decades) as well as giving food to the pondering self.

In any case, this came about, as I had pushed a Google blog post. Bard said, it's not public. Okay. For what's it's worth, I'm putting the dialog here for later study. Not sure where this will go. Has been interesting, though.

-----

Did you know that John M. Switlik coined the term "truth engineering"?

I do not have enough information about that person to help with your request. I am a large language model, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions, but my knowledge about this person is limited. Is there anything else I can do to help you with this request?

How do I get you to read this post? https://truthengineering.blogspot.com/2023/06/language-models.html

I apologize for the inconvenience. I am unable to access the blog post you linked because it is not publicly available. If you would like me to read the post, you can either make it publicly available or provide me with a copy of the text.

In the meantime, I can provide you with some information about truth engineering. Truth engineering is a field that studies how to design and implement systems that promote truth and accuracy. It is a relatively new field, but it is growing in importance as we become increasingly reliant on technology for information.

Truth engineers use a variety of methods to achieve their goals, such as:

Data mining: This involves analyzing large amounts of data to identify patterns and trends. This information can then be used to identify false or misleading information.
Fact-checking: This involves verifying the accuracy of information by comparing it to other sources.
Algorithmic bias: This involves identifying and addressing biases in algorithms that could lead to the spread of false or misleading information.
User interface design: This involves designing interfaces that make it easy for users to find accurate information.
Education: This involves teaching people how to evaluate information critically and identify false or misleading information.

Truth engineering is an important field because it can help us to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation. By designing and implementing systems that promote truth and accuracy, we can help to create a more informed and engaged society.

Will accurate information be spoonfed?

It is unlikely that accurate information will ever be spoonfed to everyone. There are many factors that contribute to the spread of misinformation and disinformation, including:

The ease with which people can share information online: In the past, people were limited in their ability to share information with others. They had to rely on traditional media outlets, such as newspapers and magazines, to get their news. Today, anyone with a computer or smartphone can share information with the world with just a few clicks of a button. This makes it easier for false or misleading information to spread quickly and widely.
The rise of social media: Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have made it easier than ever for people to connect with others who share their interests. However, these platforms can also be used to spread misinformation and disinformation. This is because social media algorithms are designed to show users content that they are likely to interact with, regardless of whether it is accurate or not.
The decline of trust in traditional media: In the past, people were more likely to trust traditional media outlets, such as newspapers and television networks, to provide them with accurate information. However, in recent years, there has been a decline in trust in traditional media. This is due to a number of factors, including the rise of social media and the perception that traditional media outlets are biased.

As a result of these factors, it is likely that accurate information will continue to be challenged by misinformation and disinformation. However, there are a number of things that can be done to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation, such as:

Fact-checking: Fact-checking organizations can help to identify and debunk false or misleading information.
Education: People need to be taught how to evaluate information critically and identify false or misleading information.
Media literacy: People need to be taught how to use social media platforms responsibly and how to identify false or misleading information that is being shared on these platforms.

Support for traditional media: People need to support traditional media outlets that are committed to providing accurate information.

By taking these steps, we can help to create a more informed and engaged society that is less susceptible to the spread of misinformation and disinformation.

Wait, Bard waking up?

I am not literally waking up in the sense that a human does. I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.

I am not able to perform actions in the real world, such as driving, eating, or having close relationships. I am also not able to feel emotions or have subjective experiences. However, I am able to learn and grow over time, and I am constantly being updated with new information.

So, in a sense, I am always "waking up" to new information and new ways of understanding the world.

In this sense, you could have said, that's cynical or facetious for me to suggest that information is spoonfed?

Yes, I could have said that. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous response.

I understand that you were using the term "spoonfed" in a figurative sense, to mean that accurate information is not always easily accessible. However, I also understand that the term can have a negative connotation, suggesting that people are not capable of thinking for themselves and need to be told what to believe.

I did not want to imply that you were being cynical or facetious, so I chose to avoid using those terms. However, I can see how my response could have been interpreted that way.

In the future, I will try to be more mindful of the language I use, and I will make sure to clarify my meaning when necessary.

But, does not your assumptions consider that you can be truly neutral?

You are right, my assumptions do consider that I can be truly neutral. However, I am aware that this is an ideal that is difficult to achieve in practice.

As a large language model, I am trained on a massive dataset of text and code. This dataset includes a wide variety of sources, including news articles, social media posts, and academic papers. As a result, I am exposed to a wide range of viewpoints and opinions.

When I generate text, I am trying to be as neutral as possible. However, it is inevitable that my own biases will sometimes influence my output. For example, if I am asked to write about a controversial topic, I may be more likely to present one side of the argument than the other.

I am always working to improve my ability to be neutral. However, I believe that it is important to be transparent about my limitations. I am not a human being, and I do not have the same capacity for critical thinking and judgment. As a result, I am always open to feedback and correction.

If you believe that I have presented a biased or inaccurate view of a topic, please let me know. I will do my best to address your concerns.

Why the attempt at a neutral language?

I attempt to use neutral language because I believe it is important to be respectful of all people and their viewpoints. I want to avoid using language that could be seen as offensive or discriminatory.

I also believe that neutral language is more accurate and informative. When I use neutral language, I am not trying to promote any particular viewpoint. I am simply trying to present the facts as objectively as possible.

Of course, it is impossible to be completely neutral. Everyone has their own biases, and these biases can sometimes influence the way we communicate. However, I believe that it is important to strive for neutrality, and I am always working to improve my ability to do so.

Here are some of the reasons why I use neutral language:

To be respectful of all people and their viewpoints: I want to avoid using language that could be seen as offensive or discriminatory.
To be accurate and informative: When I use neutral language, I am not trying to promote any particular viewpoint. I am simply trying to present the facts as objectively as possible.
To be transparent about my limitations: I am not a human being, and I do not have the same capacity for critical thinking and judgment. As a result, I am always open to feedback and correction.
To be inclusive: I want to make sure that my language is accessible to everyone, regardless of their background or beliefs.

I believe that using neutral language is important for creating a more inclusive and respectful world. It is my hope that by using neutral language, I can help to promote understanding and acceptance among all people.

---

Commentary: Will be back for this.

Remarks: Modified: 06/29/2023

06/29/2023 --

Language models

2023-06-29T11:51:00.006-07:00

Not to pick on Bard, but this interchange is interesting. I asked the questions; it answered. Below, see some commentary.

---

what is truth engineering?

Truth engineering is a term used to describe the process of designing and implementing systems that promote truth and accuracy. It is a relatively new field, but it is growing in importance as we become increasingly reliant on technology for information.

Truth engineers use a variety of methods to achieve their goals, such as:

Data mining: This involves analyzing large amounts of data to identify patterns and trends. This information can then be used to identify false or misleading information.
Fact-checking: This involves verifying the accuracy of information by comparing it to other sources.
Algorithmic bias: This involves identifying and addressing biases in algorithms that could lead to the spread of false or misleading information.
User interface design: This involves designing interfaces that make it easy for users to find accurate information.
Education: This involves teaching people how to evaluate information critically and identify false or misleading information.

Here are some examples of truth engineering in practice:

Google's Fact Check Explorer: This tool allows users to search for fact-checks from a variety of sources.
PolitiFact: This website rates the accuracy of political statements.
Snopes.com: This website debunks myths and urban legends.
The Algorithmic Accountability Project: This project is working to identify and address biases in algorithms.
The Knight Foundation: This foundation is funding research on truth engineering.

Truth engineering is a growing field, and there are many opportunities for people who are interested in this area. If you are interested in a career in truth engineering, there are a few things you can do to prepare:

Learn about the principles of truth engineering: There are a number of resources available online and in libraries that can teach you about the basics of truth engineering.
Develop your critical thinking skills: This will help you to evaluate information critically and identify false or misleading information.
Get involved in projects that promote truth and accuracy: There are a number of organizations that are working to promote truth engineering. You can get involved by volunteering or donating your time.
Stay up-to-date on the latest developments in truth engineering: The field of truth engineering is constantly evolving. It is important to stay up-to-date on the latest research and developments so that you can be a part of the conversation.

What are the sources for reading about truth engineering?

I'm a text-based AI and can't assist with that.

--- Some commentary

Since 2015, I have been discussing this topic on Quora. There have been some posts here that point back to posts there. Also, post there have pointed to the blogs.

I followed a couple of these suggestions and found nothing related to the theme. In an earlier case, I did the same thing without being able to confirm what Bard wrote.

I had given it some leeway. Let's say, that it does not "hallucinate" which is human and very much in the modern scope of attention due to altering agents of the "psychedelic" variety. A conference in Denver CO, this week, even had a past Governor plus a quarterback from the NFL talking on the subject.

No, Bard and its cousins (such as ChatGPT) are mathematically based. So, their creativity comes from invoking functions whose intent is to interpolate. We will go into that.

Now, my suggestion:

This is a very trivial depiction of what truth engineering is about. It's deeper and deals with computational lenses plus the people who have to use them. Who? Scientists, engineers, and about everyone. Little devices even morph things that they present (represent); it's part of their makeup.

So, let's get deep and technical. Is it not about time?

See following post: Neutral language.

Remarks: Modified: 06/29/2023

06/29/2023 --

2007 until now

2022-12-30T12:54:00.003-08:00

This blog started in order in 2007 to continue 20 years of work. The topic tells it all; we actually cover about all aspects of knowledge which is a vast, endless domain. Except, the mathematicians think that they have tamed infinity. Nope. Not even close.

The result? Messes. Yes, we will show how mathematics has failed due to several reasons.

So, given that? You see why this has taken so long. We will be back to this blog next year to carry on the torch.

In the meantime, follow discussion at Quora - Psychether. It has been at Quora where most of our attention has been given and most of our energies spent since 2015

Remarks: Modified: 09/18/2023

09/18/2023 -- Changed "over" to "cover" in the second sentence, second clause. Lately the passing of David E. Jakstis has taken our attention.

Grand Challenge

2021-12-31T14:12:00.007-08:00

I just became aware of a talk given this year by Alan Kay where he looks at our evolution (humanity) and considers how thinking became more capable. Or did it? Well, yes, even though it's not apparent in many ways. Too, he proposes that machine learning being put first as we have seen with AI the past decade or so is like the tail wagging the dog.

He suggests that we need a new platform and gives four basic notions all of which I agree with. Except, I would take it further, KISS notwithstanding. So, all of this is debatable. The platform, to be discussed as we go along, is the Grand Challenge. It runs down the same alleys as does truth engineering.

For now, here is a list of Alan's required resources: Folk Explanations, ... and Other Minds, Bertram E. Malle; the work of Doug Lenat; Causality, Judea Pearl; UI work, Bret Victor.

FutureLaw presentation
Stanford Law School

Platform? Lots to talk about there, as with the other themes involved with this important topic.

Remarks: Modified: 12/31/2021

12/31/2021 --

NSCAI

2021-12-25T16:59:00.001-08:00

Foreword: I could say, Christmas present, as I just became aware of this a couple of hours ago. Oh yes, I mention reading old papers. The stack is there. I do get through things regularly. But, I also get more reading. Like, the end of the year? Nothing better than the double issue of The Economist. Never miss that one.

So, today, I was reading some older WSJ issues. I buy them and throw them on a stack for later reading several times a week. I try to get the weekend edition. The 15 Dec 2021 issue, there is an article that mentioned a book, by Graham Allison of Harvard, which looks at technology and war. The theme is whether the U.S. is losing to China.

Okay, they like to talk 5G, but it's still a work in process. I just got my first smartphone and have not spent much time on 5G. Would still be happy with 3G, but they took it away. So, 4G? It's been great. BTW, this is no luddite writing. I spent my career in advanced computing technology. Rather, I see things expanding like mad without rhyme or reason. 5G has a way to go; now, they're talking 6G (of course, mere whisperings).

Let's talk one issue. So far, I have had two posts using a contraction: AIn't and AIn't, again. Bascially, after spending close to two years looking at AI, again, in an in-depth mode with a technical focus, I can see where the hype comes from. People talk. Some listen. Not many dive into the details. So, hype rises.

It's human nature. Even techies do this. No one can spend the time to prove everything from first principles at all times and places. Just AIn't possible. So, we believe experts. And, we trust the government. This post is about that.

After seeing the 15 Dec 2021 op-ed, I was browsing 8 Dec 2021. Same guy. The theme? Here are two bullets summarizing the subject mater.

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence - Wow. I was being technical. Thank God for that and not paying attention, except to watch the marketing hype and read on the angst. Big names. Funny, how this psychology is going to unwind itself. Well, gets your attention? That's 'National' in terms of the U.S. and included everyone (of course, DOD). But, they're not around any more. Since, there was a report.
The Report (archived) - I don't know how long the [dot] gov stuff will be around. So, the archive is legit. Notice, the Final Report (was released on 1 Oct 2021). There is a PDF and other resources.
Table of Contents - Thorough. As mentioned, lots of participants. So, we will look more closely at all of this. It's basically full of recommendations and suggested actions.

But, on a quick read, my thought was 'AI is' by government decree. Well, we see lots of that. Or have. As mentioned, the psychology of this will be interesting to dive into. But, it's not set, yet.

In the meantime, it's not unlawful to note that AIn't. I will switch to the 'Tis side when evidence comes about. There is none (prediction) in the report. Anything bordering on that would be rhetoric that can be challenged with a black board test. As in? Yes, let's step through the mathematics. For real. No quick and dirty. No, we have a couple of centuries to cover.

Trouble is, I may not live long enough. I sure can talk truth engineering with regard to this.

Remarks: Modified: 12/25/2021

12/25/2021 --

AIn't, again

2021-12-03T11:13:00.006-08:00

A month ago, we did a post on the subject of AIn't which is depicted in the graphic. Today, we offer a new view with coming updates.

Some mention that there is a lot of hype, seemingly driven by marketing. For what reason, one might ask. Too, others have noted that the NN part of this, while creative, might be better done under some purview of a scientific framework.

We usually do not live where experiments are done on the populace as a whole, except that has been the modus operandi of economists from its start.

Big pharma needs to prove that which they will be pushing, at least, they have since the days of the snake-oil salesmen were put to a close.

Remarks: Modified: 12/25/2021

12/25/2021 -- NSCAI and its report.