Friday, May 3, 2024

The biblical character who goes ‘down the rabbit hole’ into an alternate reality − just like Alice in Wonderland

 

Stained glass designed by Geoffrey Webb depicts Lewis Carroll’s characters in All Saints Church in Daresbury, Cheshire, England. Peter I. Vardy/Wikimedia Commons
R

The Bible’s Book of Job opens on an ordinary day in the land of Uz, where a man carefully performs religious rituals to protect his children. This routine has never failed Job, who is described as the most righteous person on the planet. But on this particular day, every one of his children is killed when a powerful wind brings down their house.

This makes no sense! Job did nothing wrong. Three friends visit Job and mourn with him. But an epic debate erupts when they claim that, if Job is the target of God’s wrath, it must have been deserved.

Job, on the other hand, says God has deprived him of justice and demands an explanation from the Almighty. He and his friends argue through poetry – a “rap battle” with beautiful imagery, eloquent wordplay and sarcastic insults.

A faded illustration of an elderly man reaching toward the sky as other figures kneel around him with their heads in their hands.
Job mourns with his wife and friends. William Blake/The Morgan Library via Wikimedia Commons

The Book of Job is frequently touted as a literary masterpiece for the way it challenges foundational beliefs. Many stories have been written about characters like Job, thrust into a topsy-turvy world where nothing works the way it should. Suddenly, they must rethink their understanding about how the universe operates.

As a scholar of the Hebrew Bible, I see the closest parallels in another classic book – but perhaps not one you’d expect.

Down the rabbit hole

Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” published in 1865, is a hallmark of children’s literature because of the way it encourages curiosity. Like the Book of Job, the novel upends literary conventions and mocks elders, teachers and religious leaders – really, anyone who tries to tell you that life will be OK if you stop asking questions and follow the rules.

It opens with a little girl named Alice, who is bored one afternoon until she sees a rabbit check its pocket watch and declare that it’s running late. She follows it down a rabbit hole and into Wonderland, a dreamlike place where cats vanish into thin air, babies turn into pigs and caterpillars smoke hookah.

A rabbit in a tweet suit jacket holds a walking stick as it studies a pocketwatch.
Catching sight of the white rabbit is just the start of Alice’s unnerving adventures. John Tenniel/The British Library via Wikimedia Commons

Everyday logic no longer applies. Like Job, Alice must question her assumptions if she is to make sense of what is happening around her. Other fantasy worlds require swords, but Alice battles the fantastical creatures of Wonderland with words. As with Job, her ordinary day has gone upside-down, and she finds herself in a debate about reality.

Method to the madness?

Each of these books pushes back against easy answers and heavy-handed morals, which were expected in both ancient wisdom literature and Victorian children’s stories.

Proverbs in Job’s day taught that wickedness leads to punishment. Bestsellers in Carroll’s day included the “Fatal Effects of Disobedience to Parents,” a story about a little girl who burned herself to the ground after her parents told her not to play with fire.

The characters who debate Job and Alice are desperate to find these kinds of lessons in the midst of chaos.

Job’s friends claim that “upright” people never suffer and always enjoy divine protection – unaware that God has already acknowledged Job is “upright.” They look silly as they search in vain for a sin that explains Job’s suffering and scoff when he suggests there is none.

A black and white drawing of four seated figures. Three of them stare intently at the fourth, who looks up plaintively.
Job’s friends torment him about what he could have done to deserve such ruin. William Blake/Lithoderm/Wikimedia Commons

Alice, meanwhile, squares up against characters such as the Duchess, who offers ridiculous suggestions about the moral of Alice’s story. The Duchess scoffs when Alice suggests that there is none.

Wordplay, not swordplay

Job and Alice, on the other hand, make fun of society’s rules – as when they sing parodies of religious songs.

Psalm 8, a hymn of praise in the Bible, waxes eloquent about how beautiful it is that the almighty God spends time caring about insignificant humans. Job recites his own version, which complains that it is petty for an infinite creator to spend so much time testing humans.

Carroll grew up singing songs like “Against Idleness and Mischief,” composed by minister Isaac Watts to teach children that they should work hard like an innocent, busy bee. When Alice tries to remember this song, it comes out in Wonderland logic, where a sinister crocodile eats little fish.

Both parodies sarcastically question the underlying assumptions of the original poem. Is it always good to have God’s attention? Is hard work always good?

This shows how both books play with style, including intentional misspellings, rare and even made-up words, and elements borrowed from other languages. They coined enduring phrases such as Job’s “by the skin of my teeth” and “the root of the matter,” or Wonderland’s “down the rabbit hole.”

A cartoonish illustration of people and animals in a court with tiered seating
The King and Queen of Hearts preside over an absurd trial in Wonderland. John Tenniel/The British Library via Wikimedia Commons

These techniques add an otherworldly texture to the language of Uz and Wonderland, far from the books’ original readership in Israel and England. The diction opens countless possibilities for puns and wordplay and forces readers to question basic assumptions about language.

Order in the court

Ultimately, these stories make readers consider a fundamental desire: justice. The adventures of Alice and Job both culminate in epic trials, dominated by stormy authority figures. But if the protagonists can’t even rely on words’ meanings, how can they rely on the law?

When Alice meets Wonderland’s ruler, the Queen of Hearts, she is “frowning like a thunderstorm,” and Alice is “too much frightened to say a word.”

But she is displeased with the queen’s arbitrary distribution of justice and summons the courage to challenge her during a trial for the Knave of Hearts, who stands accused of stealing the sovereign’s tarts.

Throughout the trial, Alice becomes more and more bold. While everyone else cowers in fear, she is willing to question court conventions when they are manipulated by those in power.

Voicing her protest seems to awaken her from Wonderland and back to the “real” world. The book ends with a note about how she will never lose “the simple and loving heart of her childhood” – that is, she won’t forget that kids can have fun for fun’s sake.

A faded illustration with a blue background, depicting angels, people and large, fantastic beasts.
God storms into the conversation. William Blake/The Morgan Library via Wikimedia Commons

Back in the land of Uz, Job wishes that a court judge would compel God to explain why he is being punished. Certain he did nothing wrong, he says he would wear the accusations like a crown and refute every charge.

God, aware of Job’s innocence the entire time, was never trying to punish him. The deity finally appears in the middle of a whirlwind, and Job puts his hand over his own mouth. It is difficult to argue with the Almighty.

Job had accused his friends of merely flattering God when they insisted his “punishment” was the result of divine wisdom. In the end, God blesses Job for speaking honestly – using a Hebrew word, “nekhonah,” that appears only one other time in the Bible, where it stands in contrast to flattery.

It turns out that God is pleased by those who are honest when a moral agenda doesn’t fit reality – people who, like Job and Alice, speak truth to power.The Conversation

Ryan M. Armstrong, Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Oklahoma State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

The power of touch is vital for both reading and writing

 

In an increasingly digital world, children still enjoy the sensory power of being able to touch the books they read. Klaus Vedfelt via Getty Images

Pat the Bunny,” the 1940 classic touch-and-feel book, is still in print – a testament to the value of touch in introducing infants and toddlers to the world of reading. Later, when children reach school age, a common technique for teaching the alphabet is using hands-on manipulation, such as forming letters out of clay.

But as these students get older, the role of touch diminishes – to the students’ detriment. Today’s reading assignments are heavily digital, and use of computer keyboards for writing shows no sign of abating, especially given the lure of AI tools for editing and composing.

I’m a linguist who investigates the differences between print and digital reading and how writing supports thinking. My colleague Anne Mangen and I asked more than 500 secondary students at an international school in Amsterdam about their experiences when reading print versus digital texts. Separately, I surveyed 100 university students and young adults in the U.S. and Europe on their likes and dislikes about handwriting versus typing.

Together, their responses demonstrate that adolescents and young adults continue to value touch in their encounters with the written word. The research offers important lessons for educators and parents.

What students tell us

In the studies, students wrote glowingly about touch when asked for the one thing they liked most about reading in print or writing by hand. What surprised me was how closely their perceptions about the importance of touch aligned in both studies.

On a physical level, the feeling of holding a book or writing instrument in their hands mattered to students. These are some of their observations: “You actually feel like you are reading because the book is in your hands,” and “I like feeling the paper and pen under my hands, being able to physically form words.” Study participants also commented on the interaction of touch and movement. Regarding reading, one wrote about “the feeling of turning each page and anticipating what’s to happen next.” About writing by hand, one participant described “being able to feel the words just glide across the page.”

Many students also mentioned cognitive benefits. A host of respondents wrote about focus, concentration, immersion or memory. Regarding print reading, one student said, “I take it more seriously because it’s physically in my hands.” For writing, one response was, “I can see what I’m thinking.”

There were also psychological reflections. Students wrote, “The feeling of a book in my hands is a very comfortable feeling,” and “The satisfaction of a whole page filled by handwriting, it feels like I climbed a mountain.” Other comments addressed how touch made students feel more personally connected to the act of reading and writing. About reading, one reflected that “it is more personal ‘cause it’s in your hands.” About handwriting, another declared, “I feel more attached to the content I produce.”

A number of respondents wrote that reading physical books and writing by hand somehow felt more “real” than engaging with their digital counterparts. One student commented on “the realness of the book.” Another reported that “it feels more real than writing on a computer, the words seem to have more meaning.”

The studies also asked what participants liked most about digital reading and about writing on a computer keyboard. Out of more than 600 answers, only one mentioned the role of touch in what they liked most about using these technologies for reading and writing. For reading, students praised the convenience and access to the internet. For writing, greater speed as well as internet access were frequent responses.

Girls sit a table working on touchscreen tablets.
Digital devices don’t provide the same experience as books, pens and pads. JGI/Jamie Grill via Getty Images

What science tells us

What students say about the importance of touch mirrors what researchers have found: Touch is an effective way to build early reading and writing skills, as well as to support how more developed readers and writers interact with the written word.

Psychologists and reading specialists continue to report higher comprehension in children and young adults when reading in print versus digitally, for both academic and leisure reading. For proficient writers, evidence suggests that spending more time writing by hand than using a computer keyboard correlates with better fine motor skills. A recent study in Norway compared brain images of university students taking notes and found that those who wrote by hand – rather than typing – showed greater electrical connectivity in the parts of the brain that process new information and support memory formation.

Strategies going forward

The challenge for teachers and parents is to figure out how to incorporate touch into literacy activities in a world that’s so reliant on digital tools. Here are three suggestions for addressing this paradox.

• Parents and teachers can begin by listening to students themselves. Despite all their time spent on digital devices, many young people clearly recognize how touch contributes to their reading and writing experiences. Expand the conversation by talking together about differences between digital and hands-on reading and writing.

• Next, parents can find opportunities for children to read print and write by hand outside of school, such as bringing their kids to the library to check out print books and encouraging them to write a story or keep a journal at home. Better still is when adults model these practices in their own lives.

• Finally, educators need to increase space in the curriculum for print reading and for handwritten assignments. Some teachers are already revisiting the intrinsic benefits of handwriting, including as a memory aid and a vehicle for thinking – both qualities that participants mentioned in my writing survey.

Digital reading materials and keyboards will undoubtedly persist in schools and homes. But this reality must not preclude the power of touch.The Conversation

Naomi S. Baron, Professor Emerita of Linguistics, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Sunday, April 28, 2024

From shrimp Jesus to fake self-portraits, AI-generated images have become the latest form of social media spam

 

Many of the AI images generated by spammers and scammers have religious themes. immortal70/iStock via Getty Images

If you’ve spent time on Facebook over the past six months, you may have noticed photorealistic images that are too good to be true: children holding paintings that look like the work of professional artists, or majestic log cabin interiors that are the stuff of Airbnb dreams.

Others, such as renderings of Jesus made out of crustaceans, are just bizarre.

Like the AI image of the pope in a puffer jacket that went viral in May 2023, these AI-generated images are increasingly prevalent – and popular – on social media platforms. Even as many of them border on the surreal, they’re often used to bait engagement from ordinary users.

Our team of researchers from the Stanford Internet Observatory and Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology investigated over 100 Facebook pages that posted high volumes of AI-generated content. We published the results in March 2024 as a preprint paper, meaning the findings have not yet gone through peer review.

We explored patterns of images, unearthed evidence of coordination between some of the pages, and tried to discern the likely goals of the posters.

Page operators seemed to be posting pictures of AI-generated babies, kitchens or birthday cakes for a range of reasons.

There were content creators innocuously looking to grow their followings with synthetic content; scammers using pages stolen from small businesses to advertise products that don’t seem to exist; and spammers sharing AI-generated images of animals while referring users to websites filled with advertisements, which allow the owners to collect ad revenue without creating high-quality content.

Our findings suggest that these AI-generated images draw in users – and Facebook’s recommendation algorithm may be organically promoting these posts.

Generative AI meets scams and spam

Internet spammers and scammers are nothing new.

For more than two decades, they’ve used unsolicited bulk email to promote pyramid schemes. They’ve targeted senior citizens while posing as Medicare representatives or computer technicians.

On social media, profiteers have used clickbait articles to drive users to ad-laden websites. Recall the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when Macedonian teenagers shared sensational political memes on Facebook and collected advertising revenue after users visited the URLs they posted. The teens didn’t care who won the election. They just wanted to make a buck.

In the early 2010s, spammers captured people’s attention with ads promising that anyone could lose belly fat or learn a new language with “one weird trick.”

AI-generated content has become another “weird trick.”

It’s visually appealing and cheap to produce, allowing scammers and spammers to generate high volumes of engaging posts. Some of the pages we observed uploaded dozens of unique images per day. In doing so, they followed Meta’s own advice for page creators. Frequent posting, the company suggests, helps creators get the kind of algorithmic pickup that leads their content to appear in the “Feed,” formerly known as the “News Feed.”

Much of the content is still, in a sense, clickbait: Shrimp Jesus makes people pause to gawk and inspires shares purely because it is so bizarre.

Many users react by liking the post or leaving a comment. This signals to the algorithmic curators that perhaps the content should be pushed into the feeds of even more people.

Some of the more established spammers we observed, likely recognizing this, improved their engagement by pivoting from posting URLs to posting AI-generated images. They would then comment on the post of the AI-generated images with the URLs of the ad-laden content farms they wanted users to click.

But more ordinary creators capitalized on the engagement of AI-generated images, too, without obviously violating platform policies.

Rate ‘my’ work!

When we looked up the posts’ captions on CrowdTangle – a social media monitoring platform owned by Meta and set to sunset in August – we found that they were “copypasta” captions, which means that they were repeated across posts.

Some of the copypasta captions baited interaction by directly asking users to, for instance, rate a “painting” by a first-time artist – even when the image was generated by AI – or to wish an elderly person a happy birthday. Facebook users often replied to AI-generated images with comments of encouragement and congratulations

Algorithms push AI-generated content

Our investigation noticeably altered our own Facebook feeds: Within days of visiting the pages – and without commenting on, liking or following any of the material – Facebook’s algorithm recommended reams of other AI-generated content.

Interestingly, the fact that we had viewed clusters of, for example, AI-generated miniature cow pages didn’t lead to a short-term increase in recommendations for pages focused on actual miniature cows, normal-sized cows or other farm animals. Rather, the algorithm recommended pages on a range of topics and themes, but with one thing in common: They contained AI-generated images.

In 2022, the technology website Verge detailed an internal Facebook memo about proposed changes to the company’s algorithm.

The algorithm, according to the memo, would become a “discovery-engine,” allowing users to come into contact with posts from individuals and pages they didn’t explicitly seek out, akin to TikTok’s “For You” page.

We analyzed Facebook’s own “Widely Viewed Content Reports,” which lists the most popular content, domains, links, pages and posts on the platform per quarter.

It showed that the proportion of content that users saw from pages and people they don’t follow steadily increased between 2021 and 2023. Changes to the algorithm have allowed more room for AI-generated content to be organically recommended without prior engagement – perhaps explaining our experiences and those of other users.

‘This post was brought to you by AI’

Since Meta currently does not flag AI-generated content by default, we sometimes observed users warning others about scams or spam AI content with infographics.

Meta, however, seems to be aware of potential issues if AI-generated content blends into the information environment without notice. The company has released several announcements about how it plans to deal with AI-generated content.

In May 2024, Facebook will begin applying a “Made with AI” label to content it can reliably detect as synthetic.

But the devil is in the details. How accurate will the detection models be? What AI-generated content will slip through? What content will be inappropriately flagged? And what will the public make of such labels?

While our work focused on Facebook spam and scams, there are broader implications.

Reporters have written about AI-generated videos targeting kids on YouTube and influencers on TikTok who use generative AI to turn a profit.

Social media platforms will have to reckon with how to treat AI-generated content; it’s certainly possible that user engagement will wane if online worlds become filled with artificially generated posts, images and videos.

Shrimp Jesus may be an obvious fake. But the challenge of assessing what’s real is only heating up.The Conversation

Renee DiResta, Research Manager of the Stanford Internet Observatory, Stanford University; Abhiram Reddy, Research Assistant at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown University, and Josh A. Goldstein, Research Fellow at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

What is ‘techno-optimism’? 2 technology scholars explain the ideology that says technology is the answer to every problem

 

When venture capitalist and techno-optimist Marc Andreessen speaks, many people listen. Steve Jennings/Getty Images for TechCrunch

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen penned a 5,000-word manifesto in 2023 that gave a full-throated call for unrestricted technological progress to boost markets, broaden energy production, improve education and strengthen liberal democracy.

The billionaire, who made his fortune by co-founding Netscape – a 1990s-era company that made a pioneering web browser – espouses a concept known as “techno-optimism.” In summing it up, Andreessen writes, “We believe that there is no material problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that cannot be solved with more technology.”

The term techno-optimism isn’t new; it began to appear after World War II. Nor is it in a state of decline, as Andreessen and other techno-optimists such as Elon Musk would have you believe. And yet Andreessen’s essay made a big splash.

As scholars who study technology and society, we have observed that techno-optimism easily attaches itself to the public’s desire for a better future. The questions of how that future will be built, what that future will look like and who will benefit from those changes are harder to answer.

Why techno-optimism matters

Techno-optimism is a blunt tool. It suggests that technological progress can solve every problem known to humans – a belief also known as techno-solutionism.

Its adherents object to commonsense guardrails or precautions, such as cities limiting the number of new Uber drivers to ease traffic congestion or protect cab drivers’ livelihoods. They dismiss such regulations or restrictions as the concerns of Luddites – people who resist disruptive innovations.

In our view, some champions of techno-optimism, such as Bill Gates, rely on the cover of philanthropy to promote their techno-optimist causes. Others have argued that their philanthropic initiatives are essentially a public relations effort to burnish their reputations as they continue to control how technology is being used to address the world’s problems.

The stakes of embracing techno-optimism are high – and not just in terms of the role that technology plays in society. There are also political, environmental and economic ramifications for holding these views. As an ideological position, it puts the interests of certain people – often those already wielding immense power and resources – over those of everyone else. Its cheerleaders can be willfully blind to the fact that most of society’s problems, like technology, are made by humans.

Many scholars are keenly aware of the techno-optimism of social media that pervaded the 2010s. Back then, these technologies were breathlessly covered in the media – and promoted by investors and inventors – as an opportunity to connect the disconnected and bring information to anyone who might need it.

Yet, while offering superficial solutions to loneliness and other social problems, social media has failed to address their root structural causes. Those may include the erosion of public spaces, the decline of journalism and enduring digital divides.

Young boy plays with a VR headset while looking at a huge computer monitor screen with both hands outstretched.
When you play with a Meta Quest 2 all-in-one VR headset, the future may look bright. But that doesn’t mean the world’s problems are being solved. Nano Calvo/VW Pics/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Tech alone can’t fix everything

Both of us have extensively researched economic development initiatives that seek to promote high-tech entrepreneurship in low-income communities in Ghana and the United States. State-run programs and public-private partnerships have sought to narrow digital divides and increase access to economic opportunity.

Many of these programs embrace a techno-optimistic mindset by investing in shiny, tech-heavy fixes without addressing the inequality that led to digital divides in the first place. Techno-optimism, in other words, pervades governments and nongovernmental organizations, just as it has influenced the thinking of billionaires like Andreessen.

Solving intractable problems such as persistent poverty requires a combination of solutions that sometimes, yes, includes technology. But they’re complex. To us, insisting that there’s a technological fix for every problem in the world seems not just optimistic, but also rather convenient if you happen to be among the richest people on Earth and in a position to profit from the technology industry.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has provided funding for The Conversation U.S. and provides funding for The Conversation internationally.The Conversation

Seyram Avle, Associate Professor of Global Digital Media, UMass Amherst and Jean Hardy, Assistant Professor of Media & Information, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.