Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, June 19th, 2026 - 49 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Astonishing scenes in Moscow as Ukraine launches a 1000 drone raid on Russia, the fruits of a many months long and successful attrition battle against Russian air defense systems. Bringing the war home to Effie Trinket, Seneca Crane and Caesar Flickerman in the Capitol wasn't on Putins bingo card!
Turns out not only does Ukraine have cards, they've got their own deck of them. Together with the mid-range drone offensive on Russian logistics on the southern front and it looks like Ukraine is more than holding it's own four years into this war.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360994792/ukraine-hits-moscow-oil-refinery-and-disrupts-commercial-fli
So Putin must up the ante. Hard-liners complain he's being too soft:
Russian soldiers acting like gentlemen is a new thing, eh? Dunno about his notion of war meaning foot hard to the floor though. They tried that when they invaded, and it didn't work. Got stuck in the mud.
One thing we can say for Vladimir Vladmirovich Putin: in just four years, he's turned Ukraine from a post-Soviet corrupt backwater with a Soviet-era military into Europe's leading military innovator, albeit unintentionally.
Gun-toting yanks who get high can now get higher: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-backs-challenge-ban-gun-ownership-by-drug-users-2026-06-18/
Does this mean that US govt lawyers are closet doomsters? Well okay, could just mean that doomster ethos has infused govt culture to warp decision-making. Anyway, islamic Texans who get high will be higher than a kite from that 9:0 supremacist verdict!
Is Police Minister Mitchell losing, or has already lost…the plot?
Too busy opining about an Employees (Rakesh Naidoo) career choices?
Plenty of support for Rakesh Naidoo from people who IMO realise his Value….and really, "character attacks" Minister Mitchell ? The Irony !
Someone (of the many supporting) who would know Character…
Get over yourself Mark Mitchell…..
""He would not do that and they know it," de Bres wrote. "He is a person of the highest ethical standards."
I would think that a person of such wonderful ethical standards would have taken the Police rules seriously and would have actually done what the rules require.
"Police employees intending to seek election to any elected public office must advise their District Commander or Director at the earliest opportunity so that the potential impact on their role as a Police employee and any necessary plan of action can be discussed early. Employees at or above the level of Director or District Commander intending to seek election to any elected public office, must advise the Commissioner."
Trying to claim that doing so a day or two before the list is announced was the earliest opportunity and he hadn't been "seeking election" until that very late stage is bs.
I'm confident Minister Mitchell can rely on Police Commish Chambers to sort things out.
Hmm, our entirely neutral Police Commish has caught the scent of disgraceful conduct.
Language, literature, creativity and large language models – this article is illuminating and unlike the usual AI is good/bad discussion; I highly recommend it.
Here's an excerpt, featuring Frankenstein's creation:
"Take a novel such as Frankenstein (1818). In light of AI, we can see that Mary Shelley thought extremely hard about the role of language and what we would call training data in the creation of an artificial creature. In the novel, Dr Frankenstein abandons his creature before completing it: he has given it outward form but no knowledge or education. Cast into the world, the creature must now acquire those on its own: Shelley has it acquire language by spying on a family of humans over a period of months.
But that is not enough. The creature must acquire book-based knowledge as well. Shelley specifies precisely four books that the creature reads, and that in fact shape its subsequent reactions to the world, its intelligence. This training data is Plutarch’s Parallel Lives; John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667); J W Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther (1774); and C F Volney’s The Ruins (1791), a work about the history of civilisations. These four texts, Shelley’s super-canon, instil in the Creature its notion of greatness based on classical ideals (Plutarch); a dramatic sense of creation and its moral challenges (Milton); a language of interiority and feeling (Goethe); plus a tragic sense of world history (Volney)."
The title:
Words, words, words
Strong resistance to AI among writers is understandable. But it obscures what we share with the machines: language itself
The link:
https://aeon.co/essays/literature-fans-should-welcome-ai-as-a-fellow-wordsmith
Yeah, good thinking there. This bit is worth expanding:
Ever since the battle between Chinese & American ethos engaged this topic, I have watched for a resolution. Still waiting, many years later. I was originally a supporter of private property rights (nobody likes others stealing their stuff). Nowadays I'm more with China: humanity has been mass-copying since the origin of Sapiens. To the extent that other species also copy, you can trace the tendency further back toward the origin of all life. Privatising word formulations seems somewhat cretinous.
Yet capitalism has normalised this method of profiteering. On could envisage psych warfare here: capitalism is struggling to control human nature. When people are informed by darwinian thought, they realise mass copying is a driver of the commons. Commons ethos is likely to prevail eventually as capitalists fall off the pace…
The claim that we "share" language with machines is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The machines themselves don't use our language, they're just programmed with so many examples of human language that they can generate sentences that mean something – to us, not to the machine.
AI chatbots' most significant achievement so far is that they refute the Turing test (which is: if you can have a conversation with a computer without being able to tell it's a computer, the computer is effectively sentient). We now know that if you throw enough processing power at the problem, you can get a computer to effectively mimic a human conversation. No sentience or intelligence required – except from the programmers.
What I found most fascinating from the article was the proposal that writing pre-cedes speech. It seems counter-intuitive, but I've long puzzled over hypnogogic and hypnopompic experiences that seem to show a "text" engine working at a deeper level than a spoken or heard language. I wonder at the point where some predecessor of ours scratched a sigil in the sand and felt its potential, at a time before they'd made any vocal utterance they could attach than action or an object. Because this article proposed something of that sort, I took more notice of the other thoughts presented. I did enjoy the Mary Shelley references also, as one of the teachers in my family has worked with her high school class on this and it's a very worthwhile novel to explore in a number of ways.
It could be argued that a newborn child needs to be programmed in a similar way to a large language machine, in order to effectively use language, text and other pictorial representations of the world – I find that palatable – the germ of your objection: sentience, is very difficult to pin down, given we are still debating whether humans have it, whether other entities have it, whether every entity has it, whether every seemingly inanimate object has it, whether thoughts have it, whether every spark of creation has it etc etc.
The article pointed out the different views taken by various cultures and I found that illuminating also.
If it can research sources and write something relevant from them, it is using academic method.
An issue is whether consciousness requires form and awareness of it.
Another is the distinction between sentient being and sapient being.
"What I found most fascinating from the article was the proposal that writing pre-cedes speech."
Whatever is being proposed here the author is simply wrong; humans learn to speak well before they ever learn to write (in every language and culture).
"It could be argued that a newborn child needs to be programmed in a similar way to a large language machine, in order to effectively use language, text and other pictorial representations of the world"
This is pretty well known about human intelligence, but there is a huge problem of scale here. It takes simply massive amounts of text to train LLM systems and the similar systems for pictures. Humans learn the same using a much, much, much, much smaller number of examples with much greater generalization. Were you to train a LLM on the average exposure to language of a child of 5 you would find the results to be very unimpressive. The implication of this is that LLM learning of language is not similar to human learning of language.
I wonder if there have been any models attempting to train LLM using speech rather than text? And, if so, what the outcome was.
Children learn language while interacting with humans and the rest of the material world through all their senses.
They first use sounds (crying, laughing) to communicate then learn single words, plus use physical signs (pointing, reaching, touching) etc.
Machines don't have that sort of interaction.
Shelley’s creature, was also learning through its senses and emotions. It felt rejected by human society, and felt persecuted, etc. It learned to survive in the material world.
"humans learn to speak well before they ever learn to write (in every language and culture)."
Writing, the practice of, is very different from recognising text, which could be as simple as seeing a mark on the ground that indicates the direction someone else might have taken, as compared to someone saying, "I'm going this way". I think a human's first symbolic communications are through images recognised, rather than words heard and understood. Records of the earlier writings show simple marks pressed into clay, or handprints stencilled onto rock walls etc. Those communications (3 oxen, I was here…) don't require sound.
The first (accessible) memories held by an individual are visual and information-rich – a mouse in the jaws of a cat, your first "farm animals" picture book, etc.
Sound is too amorphous to be securely-stored in memory and too vague to recover as a memory in later life. We have to look at the order in which the senses are formed to learn the order of language development, imo.
Humans also learn to understand by listening well before they learn to read (or recognize signs and markers). There is no way writing pre-cedes speech in human development.
Again, I'm not saying "the act of writing", a complex task, precedes, speech; I'm saying recognition of visual signs (reading) precedes understanding of heard speech.
How does one define human in this context?
The first written language was visual based then moved to symbols representing sound (of the existing oral language)
The earliest communication pre-speech, as we would know it, would have been by mime/gesture/emotive sound and otherwise via visual representation.
But if this is of the pre-human era and the evolved human was a kind that could communicate by language ..
"The first written language was visual based then moved to symbols representing sound (of the existing oral language)"
Yes and the time-span between the two was immense! Visual language (dreams, visions, pre-sleep/post sleep images, daydreams, imagination is primary. Speech came wayyyy later, imo. As evidenced by … dreams which are mostly visual sequences, some verbal, some musical, etc.
Turing never suggested his test was a test of sentience; it's merely a test of intelligent behavior.
Having had conversations with live help-desk employees – who are only allowed to communicate following a script – I would argue that there is little sentience or intelligence required of the humans, either.
Even when they are literally saying nonsense:
"Only the customer can cancel the subscription"
"The customer is deceased, I've provided the death certificate to your organization"
"Only the customer can cancel the subscription"
"What you you want? spirit communication!"
"Only the customer can cancel the subscription"
"Please transfer this call to your manager"
"Transferring the call now"
[I don't vouch for every word, but this is a conversation that I had with a live human, about 20 years ago.]
I had a similar one with a chatbot last year. The difference in the experience was not marked.
The Turing test gets misunderstood. (https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-trouble-with-the-turing-test)
Turing said:
In other words, the Turing test merely compares the output of a machine with the output of a human. If these are similar enough to make it very hard for most people to distinguish the two, most people will feel comfortable in saying that the machine is thinking.
The Turing test as commonly understood has nothing to say about the processes that go on in the human and in the machine that enable them to produce those indistinguishable outputs. In the quote above, Turing seems to be implying that to claim that these processes might in any way resemble each other is too "meaningless" and absurd to even consider.
I'd like to hear about the image-flow that accompanies/underpins, AI "thinking". I know it is critical to human thought, but does it hang somewhere in the thoughts-verse, pertaining to the rapidly-developing, much-touted AI space? I think there's nothing there. Interested to hear from someone who thinks otherwise 🙂
Anyone want a bet that National actively kill off a couple more Fast Track mining projects just to put NZFirst firmly back in their box?
That might depend on which Party (NZF or Nat) received the donation.
I suspect that killing off a couple of NZF projects might 1. encourage further donations to NZF, and 2. encourage NZF to be more miffed with National when it comes to coalition talks?
Side bet that some Fast Track applications that might /do become electoral liabilities get declined or timeframes kicked way out before the election.
Bendigo-Ophir mine springs to mind. And that Queenstown housing project.
Yeah, they were my thoughts. I'm very close to the housing one and the mine has passionate reactions both ways.
How many more are there like that around the country? Can't believe that the only out there ones are in Central Otago
Santanas gold mining plans for Sams Creek/Takaka were declined recently. Huge sigh of relief for all who value Pupu Springs.
I read the initial story on this…and was gobsmacked. There is now a follow up….and I could say it all defies belief ? (except to those who are aware : (
Some people were trying (Its always some…) Who the fuck were/are the others?! Is common sense or even half a clue non existent in them?
I suspect some police are able to tell the difference between an 11 year-old girl and a 20 year old woman. Most people can. Someone who can't may be more suitably employed doing trash collection. The criteria for ascertaining suitable police recruits may be seriously flawed, huh? Apparently she can't speak, which raises the question of how protocol required her to be identified. As usual, the identity of the police offender is masked by the privacy system. We're not even told if more than 1 cop colluded in the fiasco. Not a beep out of the police commissioner, right?
A client of an organisation my SO worked for ran up an astonishing amount of debt in the top end of town, bespoke kit, escorts, limos, central city hotels, bars, and restaurants posing as a successful business man from Japan.
He was 14 years old and afaik, he's still at it.
Interesting. So the youthful prodigy thing can occur at a top level in role-play, not just artistry. Don't think it explains her inability to do conversation though.
But never talk to cops does.
Yeah, that's true enough…
I recall adopting the silent stance during my childhood, but that was as much from tactical nous as thrashing.
Does that apply in this particular situation?
I also don't see what this has to do with my Link? (was it meant to?)
Just quickly looking at this – perhaps police had no authority to look for better response with her, and needed to find a place of safety for her quickly. I believe that police no longer are able to help with mental cases, so perhaps their hands were tied and they are not trained to deal with, even allowed, to concern themselves with, people such as this girl.
Don't jump to conclusions; we live in interesting times. We are among the few people on NZAO still trying to use our brains, and sense of values, with a vision of a good society as a backdrop to our minds. Must not settle for the simple attitudes of the past; the sneers of knowing people about those who are obviously ignorant; these are stupid attitudes, always were. Now we need to do better or we'll never be able to regain our vision.
The orcs* are in control of NZAO. Good people have to try to carry on somehow, but the bad rules at times will confound.
In Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, orcs appear as a brutish, aggressive, ugly, and malevolent race of monsters, contrasting with the benevolent Elves.
This on causality* and how to check for outcomes when something is changed or introduced. Sounds interesting so passing this on as we have to go deeper wider higher than the rigid minds of the moneymad which get called conservatives I think. Which seems to mean that they are careful not to think anything new or different that might be uncomfortable – for them.
*Simplistics (QuantPsych) – Science has a problem with causality. 23:54m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JER5kGc5mLM (Turn on CC for increased understanding.)
"Don't jump to conclusions; we live in interesting times. We are among the few people on NZAO still trying to use our brains, and sense of values, with a vision of a good society as a backdrop to our minds."
Agreed.
GWS
And then
Yeah. I don't jump to conclusions…if you were referring to my comment?
Re the Police and what you say.. Phase 4 has only recently come in.And they will possibly still attend if
My Link was about the incident in March 2025. Do I really need to repeat?: An 11 year old Autistic GIRL. Mistaken for a 20 year old woman.And twice injected with sedatives.
Thanks PsLA. I was hoping that something good might be said for police. I am sick to the heart of hearing about our efforts to instil good careful laws being wiped out by our Political Talibans.
I don't believe that the girl was really mistaken for an older person. It seems to me that the police would recognise her as someone who needed specialist help, who was a danger to herself and others, possibly considering suicide.
You are demanding a higher standard of care from the police than can be expected. Getting some injections would have quietened her down. Her family had their own difficulties obviously otherwise she wouldn't have been roaming. Perhaps you could get indignant about the needy families who should get better help.
FFS. I will just leave you to your conclusions.
Starmer gets a rev-up from voters: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c3928mlyle8t
About as decisive as it ever gets! Pops the Reform balloon. Greens fighting Conservatives in the margin of error makes democracy look like fun, eh?
Lots of strategic voting going on – Lib Dems and Greens voting Labour to keep Reform out, Conservatives voting Restore to keep Reform out and because they couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour.
Yes, as seen here… https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/19/andy-burnham-wins-makerfield-byelection-paving-way-labour-leadership-challenge
On the right side of history.
https.://youtu.be/WBmrT3uqmeM?si=NWALgYWkWGmFD0U9