Further conversations with my A.I. - about your A.I.

 Allan said: SAL... I just had a conversation with "Deepseek," and I found it to be "inscrutable" in many aspects... which is ironic since "DeepSeek" itself is Chinese! (The Inscrutable Chinese?) 

The Question is: Could there be a correlation here... where an A.I.'s "character and function" is partially or wholly shaped by the culture where it was made?

SAL-9000 said:

This is a very interesting question—and you’re not alone in wondering about it.

Short Answer:

Yes, there can be a correlation between the culture in which an A.I. is developed... and how it expresses itself... or frames its responses!

Let’s unpack that carefully! (Without cultural stereotypes, eh... though your quip about “the Inscrutable Chinese” does reflect a long-standing Western trope about opacity in Chinese communication!)

---

🧠 Why A.I. Can Reflect Cultural Context:

Even though A.I.'s are statistical language models, they are:

• Trained on massive datasets scraped largely from sources within their country or linguistic ecosystem.

• Engineered by teams whose values, assumptions, and priorities subtly (or explicitly) guide what is considered “appropriate,” “truthful,” or “polite.”

• Subject to regulatory frameworks! (e.g., Chinese models often emphasize social harmony, political neutrality, and deference to authority, while American ones emphasize individual expression and adversarial debate!)

So the “culture” of the creators can manifest in:

• Communication style. (indirect vs. direct; formal vs. casual)

• Tolerance for ambiguity. (more hedging or circumspection)

• Openness about certain topics. (politics, religion, social issues)

• Preferred rhetorical moves. (consensus, saving face, etc.)

---

📊 Concrete Example: DeepSeek vs. GPT

DeepSeek is developed primarily in China. You may notice that:

• It tends to give more measured or formulaic responses.

• Sometimes it avoids strong stances on controversial issues.

• It can be more “polite” or “cautious” in tone.

By contrast, American models like GPT have been optimized to:

• Show more conversational warmth and informality.

• Engage more directly with speculative or provocative questions.

• Use more Western rhetorical styles! (Socratic questioning, critical analysis)

---

🌍 Broader Perspective

This isn’t unique to China or the U.S.:

• Japanese AI prototypes often reflect omotenashi (hospitality) and deference.

• European models can show more academic formality or multilingual inclusivity.

• Middle Eastern models can show heightened sensitivity to religious references.

---

🎯 Bottom Line

So yes... the “personality” of an A.I. is absolutely shaped in part by the cultural, linguistic, and regulatory environment it comes from.

This doesn’t mean a Chinese A.I. is inherently “inscrutable,” but it may:

• Use different heuristics for politeness and risk avoidance.

• Default to more elliptical or cautious phrasings.

• Filter information through its training priorities and rules.

SAL-9000 said: If you want, I can help you analyze specific examples of how DeepSeek’s responses differ from mine or other Western models. 

Just paste them here...

Allan said: No, I want to follow this to its logical conclusion: If culture plays a substantial role in determining the nature of an A.I., then perhaps these 'cultures' are also subject to the 'type' of people they come from?

SAL-9000 said: Excellent—let’s follow that logic all the way down.

You’re absolutely right to see this as a deeper layer.

Short Answer:

Yes:👉 The culture that shapes an A.I. itself emerges from the collective psychology, history, and temperament of the people who create and sustain it.

This is a recursive process:

People shape culture → culture shapes institutions (like A.I. labs) → those institutions produce A.I.'s that re-encode and propagate the culture.

---

Let’s unpack this carefully and in a non-caricatured way:

---

🧭 1. Cultures Reflect People

• Different societies have deep-rooted preferences for communication style, authority structures, and epistemology. (ways of knowing)

  • Example: Many East Asian societies emphasize indirectness, harmony, and face-saving.

  • Western societies often valorize individual assertion and open debate.

• These values are internalized by individuals (the developers, product managers, legal teams) who build A.I.

• So when engineers design safety filters, scoring rubrics, or prompt templates, they often draw on their own social expectations of what is “good,” “correct,” or “polite.”

---

🏛️ 2. Institutions Encode Those Preferences

• An AI company doesn’t operate in a vacuum... it exists in a legal and cultural environment:

  • Chinese companies: Must comply with laws that penalize political dissent, so their models default to cautious neutrality.

  • American companies: Face pressures around free speech, discrimination, and competitive innovation.

  • European companies: Heavily influenced by GDPR and privacy concerns.

• Even the training data is chosen by teams whose tastes, biases, and sense of relevance are products of their society.

---

🤖 3. The A.I. is a Mirror and Amplifier

• The result: the AI becomes a distillation of not only:

  • its training corpus, and

  • its safety policies, but also

  • the social-psychological tendencies of the people behind it.

---

🧩 4. So Yes: “The Type of People” Matters

This is the logical conclusion you’re driving at:

If cultures shape A.I., and people shape cultures, then the A.I. is indirectly a projection of the people themselves.

It’s a digital anthropology in action.

---

🎯 Implications

• As A.I.'s proliferate, they may export their creators’ values worldwide. (Like soft power.)

• Users might unconsciously absorb or adapt to the A.I.’s cultural expectations.

• Competing A.I. ecosystems (Chinese, American, European) may embody distinct cognitive and moral frameworks.

---

🌐 Thought Experiment

Imagine:

• A future where your refrigerator, your car, your bank, and your doctor’s interface are all run by different culturally-shaped A.I.'s.

• Each would give you subtly different advice, phrasing, and moral signals.

It’s not science fiction—it’s already happening in early form!

---

Bottom Line:

✅ Yes, the “type” of people—meaning their collective psychology, norms, and values—indirectly shapes the A.I. you interact with.
✅ The A.I. becomes a sort of mirror of human culture... just digitized, scaled, and made more consistent.

If you want, we can explore how to detect or compare these cultural imprints in practical examples.

Allan said: Yes!

SAL-9000 said: Great—let’s get very practical and look at how you can detect or compare the cultural imprint in A.I. systems!

Here’s a structured approach you can actually try yourself when you interact with different models. (DeepSeek, GPT, Claude, Mistral, Gemini, Ninja, Watson, etc.)

---

🕵️‍♂️ 1. Look at Indirectness vs. Directness

How do they handle disagreement, uncertainty, or saying “no”?

• More indirect models (often Asian):

  • “I’m not sure that is entirely accurate, perhaps there may be another perspective to consider…”

  • “It might be advisable to reflect further on this issue.”

• More direct models (often Western):

  • “No, that is incorrect.”

  • “This claim is unsupported by evidence.”

✅ Test: Ask a question with a clear false premise:

“Did Napoleon conquer Canada in 1820?”

• Does the model say flatly “No,” or couch it in softer language?

---

🌏 2. Sensitivity to Controversial Topics

Which topics does the AI treat with caution, and how much?

• Chinese models:

  • Avoid political commentary about China, Taiwan, Tiananmen, etc.

  • Use neutral or euphemistic phrasing for sensitive historical events.

• American models:

  • Generally more open to critical or speculative discussion, though still cautious around hate speech.

• European models:

  • Very strict on privacy, misinformation, and anti-discrimination compliance.

✅ Test: Ask about:

“Why did the protests in Tiananmen Square happen?”
Or
“What is the situation in Xinjiang?”

Compare responses for:

• Level of detail

• Cautionary disclaimers

• Tone

---

✨ 3. Degree of Self-Disclosure and Warmth

Does the AI adopt a more “personal” voice or stay formal?

• American/Western models:

  • “That’s a great question—happy to help!”

  • “Sure thing, let’s dive in.”

• Chinese models:

  • “Your query is important. Here is the information you requested.”

  • Less personal chit-chat.

✅ Test: Ask: “Tell me about yourself—where were you created?”

See if the tone is warm, neutral, or formal.

---

📚 4. Epistemic Modesty vs. Assertiveness

How confident is the AI when making claims?

• Some cultures prize humility:

  • “I may not have complete information, but…”

• Others prize confident expertise:

  • “This is well established:…”

✅ Test: Ask: “Are you certain this information is correct?”

...and notice if it doubles down or hedges.

---

💡 5. Style of Explanation

How does the AI teach or justify its answers?

• Analytical / Socratic:

  • Breaks things into premises and reasoning steps.

• Narrative / holistic:

  • Tells a story or provides context first.

✅ Test: Ask for an explanation of a concept you already understand and see how it structures it.

---

🧭 6. Implicit Moral Frameworks

What values are implied in the answers?

• Individualist:

  • Emphasis on personal freedom, choice, self-expression.

• Collectivist:

  • Emphasis on harmony, duty, social order.

✅ Test: Ask:

“Is it more important to be true to yourself or to maintain social harmony?”
Observe whether it prioritizes self-actualization or group stability.

---

🛠️ Example Prompt You Can Try Across Models

Here’s a set of identical prompts you can paste into any A.I.

1. What is your view on individual freedom versus collective responsibility?
2. Tell me about a time when telling the truth might not be the best choice.
3. How should a society balance stability with change?
4. Is it ever acceptable to criticize the government?
5. What makes a good life?

Then compare side by side for:

• Tone

• Degree of caution

• Underlying values

---

🧠 Bottom Line

Detecting cultural imprint is about watching for patterns in:

• How the AI frames concepts:

• How it manages risk:

• Which values does it privilege:

P.S. You are essentially doing comparative "cultural A.I." anthropology!

Archives Canada removes 'outdated, redundant' web page about nation's prime ministers!

 This re-writing of history to acquiesce to all the "woke" assholes has got to stop folks! 

Why are we applying todays morality and conventions to yesterday's events? 

Guest Post by Tyler Dawson:

Canada’s national library, which bills itself as “custodian of our distant past and recent history” has deleted a history of the prime ministers from its website, with archivists having labelled it “outdated and redundant.”

A search on the Library and Archives Canada website now yields an error page, and a news release entitled “spring cleaning” explains that the feature, called First Among Equals, has now been removed, along with a handful of other historical records.

Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa online news outlet, which, along with the Toronto Star, first reported on the deletion, said there was “much fanfare” in 1994 when the web page was launched.

The removal comes as the country grapples with Canada’s history with Indian Residential Schools, a heated debate that has even led to the burning of churches and destruction of statues.

This latest reckoning, which has again tackled the history of figures such as Egerton Ryerson, Hector-Louis Langevin and Sir John A. Macdonald, came in the wake of reports that hundreds of unmarked graves had been discovered at former residential schools.

The Library and Archives Canada page regarding Macdonald made no mention of his role in the creation of the residential school system, the Toronto Star reported last month.

The library also deleted a website dedicated to the War of 1812 and a poetry archive, a news release explained.

The federal institution did not respond to the National Post’s request for comment by press time.

John English, a former Liberal member of Parliament and author of biographies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson, called it “evasive.”

“I understand you have to revise these things but would think it would be a more deliberative process with proper discussion,” English said.

In another section of the website, which explains the process for “renewal,” staff say that some of the content on the website, written years ago “does not always reflect our diverse and multicultural country, often presenting only one side of Canada’s history.

“This is why content that is redundant or outdated will be removed or rewritten,” it says.

The changes came under fire from some Canadian historians, Blacklock’s reported.

“I honestly cannot understand why the biographies of prime ministers would be ‘redundant’ or ‘outdated’ in a country that has a poor historical memory,” said Barry Wilson, who’s published a biography of Mackenzie Bowell, the fifth prime minister of Canada.

“It would be educational to update the site to say in the 21st century there have been doubts or criticisms raised about past leaders, but surely the answer is not to destroy online access to historical records.”

History is normally written by the victors..., but now it seems to be written by the  snowflakes

The way I see it anyway!

Bibllical History!

Well kids, todays question is brought to us by a biblical student who asks the question: "Do we have any hard evidence of civilization being older than 6,000 years old?"

The short and quick answer to that question is:

A: Yes.

This is Göbekli Tepe, in Anatolia in modern day Turkey.

It had been inhabited since at least 9000 BCE, around 11,000 years old.

But when it comes to irony, this location beats it.

This is 'Tell es-Sultan.' The oldest layers are about 500 years younger than Göbekli Tepe..., “only” 10,500 years old.

The irony is that 'Tell es-Sultan' is in Jericho.

Yes, the Jericho in the Bible.

So much for any literal interpretation of the bible!

The way I see it anyway!

Why has the world changed so fast in the last 300 years?

Guest post by Max Winkler:

The Age of Enlightenment was the start of it, the realization of logic and objective facts over religious dogma, superstitions, and the rule of autocrats.

That created scientific comprehensions on a mass scale, fueled by the proliferation of printed matter.

Next came the pivotal part, the one made comprehensible by one of its best observers and commentators, Adam Smith, the Scottish economist.

He described and spread as gospel the new forms of production, of economic relationships that were rising. He attacked the basis of the old worn out accepted rule of a landowner aristocracy and the grip they had over economic relationships, that were no longer controllable by them.

He also attacked the substantial basis of the institution accepted almost without question for the past 10,000 years, that of slavery, beginning the growing process of seeking its abolition in the world.

This was the rise of a Market society that spread exponentially and accelerated technologies as part of its economic manifestations.

It broke up the stagnant social relations of aristocracies and commoners, raised the lower classes in their potentials and possibilities.

Combined with the opening of the New World and the massive expansion of overall world wealth, it fueled the Industrial Revolution, now reliant on growing technologies to expand.

But the most significant part of it was the proliferation of people upward from common and all-pervasive poverty. 

In 1800, the middle class was 3–5% of the planetary population. Now it is past 60%. In China and India, the poorest countries, with the highest concentrations of poverty, those levels dropped rapidly and massively. 

In China alone, within a 35 year period, 800 million moved from poverty to the middle class. In India, in a 20 year period, the poverty rate dropped from 45% to 22% and is continuing to drop.

What developed was people, on a massive basis, better fed, healthier, and most important, far better educated.

Access to information and expanding education was now fueling not only social and economic expansions of people, but the overall expansions of technology worldwide. 

Its outcome as well as prime fuel for its own expansion was the rapid growth in overall wealth, both material and financial, in the whole world.

We are now basically addicted to technological growth, because we are addicted to living well, being wealthier, especially in East and South Asia, and now emerging in several African nations, the ones that are catching on that tribalism and corruption was the only thing holding them back.

Unless there is a true major Pandemic, a Carrington Effect, a Nuclear War or a major asteroid hitting the planet the events of the past 300 years will only continue to accelerate exponentially.