On the lookout

Does it matter if the book you're reading was written with the help of artificial intelligence? Does that somehow make the book corrupt or invalid or phoney?

The USA release of horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard has been cancelled after it was suspected that most of the book was a product of AI.

Recently the literary agent Kate Nash noticed that the submission letters she was getting from authors were becoming more thorough and more formulaic. She thought nothing of it until she saw a reference to AI on one of the letters.

Publishers in general are now on the lookout for AI-generated books, but AI can be hard to detect and no doubt some are slipping through the net.

Does it really matter though if a book has AI input? Surely the key question is whether it's a good book or not? If AI enables the author to writer a better book or do some useful editing for her, what's wrong with that?

The idea seems to be that only a book written totally by a human being, with no outside help, relying entirely on human imagination and creativity, is of value, while anything that uses a machine must be inferior.

What alarms authors of course is that publishers will start producing AI-written books themselves and do away with authors altogether. Which would be disastrous for authors but probably of no great concern to readers.

Perhaps I can use AI to write my blog posts?

PS: The New York Times has cut ties with freelance journalist Alex Preston after discovering he used AI to help write a book review.

Act your age

Thankfully I don't often get told to "act your age". If people think I'm behaving in an unseemly way age-wise, they have the tact to let me get on with it and not tick me off.

What on earth does "act your age" mean anyway? What behaviour exactly is suitable for someone of sixty? Or seventy? Or eighty? Should we wear clothes that hide every square inch of flesh? Should we never say anything rude or controversial? Should we avoid contentious subjects like sex, drugs, religion or politics? Should we avoid doing anything that might be seen as childish or immature?

You could tie yourself in knots trying to act the way people expect an oldie to act - whatever that may be. Who gives a damn? The way I see it, we oldies have spent decades being bossed around by employers, bureaucrats, relatives and big companies, and in our final years we should be able to behave however we like and ignore any age-based remarks.

Perhaps "act your age" should mean act like someone who's old enough to have seen plenty of life, who's well-informed, experienced, worldly-wise and confident enough to expose young people's naivety and wishful thinking. That would be a definition worth pursuing.

Fuss and bother

I've commented before on how anything involving sex or nudity can cause a ridiculous fuss out of all proportion to what's being objected to.

I keep thinking people will become more relaxed about what is perfectly harmless behaviour, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

What am I talking about? A long list of things. Breastfeeding in public. Kissing in public. Skimpy female clothing. Visible cleavage. Bra-less breasts. Naked male chests. Nudity on TV. The word vagina. Politicians having affairs. Older people's sex lives. Photos of women with stretch marks, scars or mastectomies.

There's still a huge tacit understanding about what is and what isn't allowed, and one step over the boundary can unleash a barely-concealed puritanism.

What the complaints usually amount to is a supposed flouting of "decency" (or sometimes public decency). But decency is such a vague concept it's almost meaningless.

Given my enthusiasm for kissing and hugging in public, I'm surprised nobody has ticked me off. But we in Northern Ireland are very keen to show public affection, even to people we've only just met. It's a delightful custom.

Not so British

Just for a laugh I thought I'd try the British citizen test, which you have to take if you're applying for British citizenship or settlement in the UK.

I didn't do very well. The pass mark is 75 per cent or 18 correct answers out of 24. I only got 79 per cent. But that's quite good considering the questions are ridiculously obscure and have little to do with everyday life in Britain.

For example, some of the questions:

• When did the Habeus Corpus Act become law|?
• What was called the Glorious Revolution?
• When was the first Prime Minister in power?
• Who had important ideas about economics during the Enlightenment?
• Which two countries took part in the Battle of Agincourt?
• Does Scotland have its own banknotes?
• Who supported King Charles 1st during the Civil War?
• Where was Anne Boleyn executed?
• Who developed radar?

As far as I'm concerned these questions completely miss the everyday reality of living in Britain. It would be more relevant to test the person's knowledge of the health service, childcare, education, transport or any number of things that directly affect people's lives in 2026. Who on earth needs to know about the Habeus Corpus Act or the Glorious Revolution?

Oh and just to show me up, Jenny did the test and got 92 per cent. Smartass.

Into the eighties

It's my birthday in a few days' time (the 20th) and my modest celebration will consist of a box of Lindt truffles, a game of Scrabble and a meal at one of our local restaurants. We haven't had a birthday cake or candles for many years.

Which started me looking into the history of birthday cakes and how they came about.

Cakes have been a part of birthday celebrations in Western Europe from at least the mid 19th century. They started off very simple but became increasingly elaborate with multiple layers, icing and decorations. For a while the cakes were generally only available to the very wealthy. They became affordable to the lower classes as the Industrial Revolution led to mass production of ingredients.

So I'm 79 this year. Next year is the big milestone as I become an octogenarian. Will I still be fairly fit and healthy into my eighties or will I be a crumbling wreck? Who knows?

If I'd been born earlier, before all the recent medical advances, I might not have made it to 79. I may well have died in my sixties. I wonder what the eighties have in store?

Inside outside

 

Isn't it weird that we can never see ourselves as others see us, because we're always inside ourselves looking out and can never be outside ourselves looking in (or at).

I might think of myself as having a rather nondescript appearance, while others see me as very distinctive. I might consider myself kind and considerate, while others think I'm somewhat mean and selfish. I might imagine I'm highly intelligent while others think I'm rather a dimwit.

Wouldn't it be interesting if I could step outside myself for 24 hours and see myself as others see me? Would it be a bit of a shock as my rosy picture of myself was rapidly demolished? Or would it be a pleasant surprise as I discovered I was more appealing than I thought I was? And would I be embarrassed by some of my daft remarks and clumsy gestures?

I might think someone has got me completely wrong, only to find out that actually they've caught the real me.

If only some of those public figures who think they're so wonderful could stand outside themselves and be confronted with the mortifying reality....

Jaywalking

I'm an incorrigible jaywalker. As long as the road is clear enough I'll happily defy convention and dart across.

Jenny thinks jaywalking is dangerous and tries to stop me but I'm undeterred. I've been jaywalking all my life and I've never yet been hit by a vehicle. Ironically while Jenny was jaywalking for a few minutes yesterday she slipped and fell and got a few minor injuries.

It helps of course that jaywalking isn't illegal in the UK so I'm not going to end up in a police station.

I see it's illegal in most US states and in Canada, though people aren't too fussed and prosecutions are fairly rare, usually resulting in no more than a smallish fine.

One reason I jaywalk is that the pedestrian phase on some street crossings can take quite a while to appear and I can't be bothered to wait for it.

So why is it called jaywalking? I gather the word jay refers to a gormless hick from the countryside and the term jaywalking was coined by the auto industry to blame pedestrians for accidents. How very sneaky of them.

Devalued lives

I can't begin to understand how a person can place no value whatever on another human being's life. How other people become mere objects to be exploited.

Obviously I'm thinking of all the political leaders who're prepared to sacrifice thousands of lives in the name of some dubious cause or other - territory, power, religion, whatever. They show absolutely no sign of hesitation or conscience or shame but just carry on sending people to their death.

Of course it happens at every level of society, not just at the top. Husbands killing adulterous wives, gangsters murdering other gangsters, fanatics on shooting sprees, racist attacks, honour killings.

The devaluation of other humans implies also a belief in the potency of violence, and the idea that violence can solve problems, which it seldom does. Isn't it obvious that it just leads to more violence, and endless terror for whoever's on the receiving end?

The normal inhibitions that stop most of us resorting to violence are absent in these murderous individuals. Their inhibitions have somehow been suppressed, either by nature or nurture, and sooner or later they cause havoc.