Garbage in...Garbage out...

Whenever I come across an interesting passage in a book, I frequently will dog-ear the page or take a picture with my smartphone so that I can look up the point being made at a later time.  I was recently reading the 19th century satirical novel Erewhon by Samuel Butler (more on the novel shortly) when I came across the sentence: 

"There are few who are so holy as to feel that 19 and 13 make 32 as certainly as 2 and 2 make 4."  

I thought it was an interesting sentence, so I did what I typically do and dog-eared the page so that I could come back to it later.  Here's where things get interesting, at least in my opinion.  I looked up the passage on Google and Google's artificial intelligence (AI) engine (Gemini) came up with the following   information, which I am copying verbatim:

This famous quote comes from Walter Bagehot, a well-known English writer and economist from the 1800s.

To help me share more details, let me know if you are interested in:

• The book or essay where he wrote this
• More information about Walter Bagehot himself
• Other famous quotes about how humans think about logic

Let me know how you would like to explore this quote further!

I was a little surprised about the result.  Admittedly, Samuel Butler first wrote the book in 1872, and Walter Bagehot was a British economist who lived from 1826-1877, so it seems plausible that Bagehot could have written the sentence first.  Of course, that would mean that Butler committed plagiarism, but I'm not sure a 19th century editor would have noted that an obscure sentence in the 20th chapter (page 175 of the Penguin Classics edition) of a satirical novel was previously used by someone else.  After reading Gemini's explanation, I responded in the affirmative to the prompt about whether I wanted additional information.

To my surprise (again), here is what Gemini responded with:

Actually, my previous mention of Walter Bagehot was incorrect. This quote actually comes from Samuel Butler, another famous English writer from the 1800s.  The line appears in Chapter 20 of his brilliant 1872 satirical novel, Erewhon.

Well, at least Gemini recognized and corrected its mistake!  I was telling my wife and our son (who as a computer science engineer knows a lot more about AI than I do) about my experience, and I decided to try it all again.  The next day, I typed the exact quote into the Google, and Gemini came back with the following:

This beautiful quote comes from C.S. Lewis, a famous author who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia.  He wrote this line in his 1943 book about religion and human nature called The Problem of Pain.

Once again, I was confused by the response.  Given that C.S. Lewis lived from 1898 to 1963, I think it is logical to assume that if he did, in fact, use the quote in his book, The Problem of Pain, which was published in 1940, he borrowed the quote from Samuel Butler!  That's probably okay, but when I prompted Gemini to explain further, here is the response that I received:

I need to correct my previous answer.  That quote actually comes from Samuel Butler's famous 1872 satirical novel, Erewhon.  

Just to give Gemini one final chance ("The third time is a charm" after all), I checked again one day later.  At least it was consistent and claimed that the quote came from C.S. Lewis.  However, this time Gemini stated that the quote came from his book, The Screwtape Letters.  Once again, I can neither confirm nor deny that C.S. Lewis included this particular quote in his book, but the fact that I've received three different citations to the quote (two of which were corrected when I asked for additional information) leads me to be very suspicious about the accuracy of all these responses!

The irony here is that the whole reason that I read Samuel Butler's novel is that he talks about an early form of artificial intelligence (AI) in a famous three-chapter section of the book called "Book of the Machines."  Butler was heavily influenced here by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection in On the Origin of the Species and technological innovations produced in the Industrial Revolution.  The material he covered in "Book of the Machines" involved concerns that machines would attain artificial consciousness ("intelligence") through a process similar to natural selection.  He first raised these concerns in an excellent article published in 1863, "Darwin among the machines", which I found to be a much easier and enjoyable read than his novel.

There is no question that "artificial intelligence" is going to be a game-changer (maybe it already has been one).  However, we also need to acknowledge that AI obtains its information to "learn" from what is already available in the public sphere.  Sometimes that information is correct, but sometimes that information is wrong.  As the saying goes, "Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet."  If the information used by AI is false, then AI learns incorrectly.  As I discussed in a recent post on Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas (see my post, "Magnifica humanitas"), AI is not human.  However, as my example above clearly shows, AI is at least human-like in one regard - it's far from perfect!  As the adage goes, "Garbage in...Garbage out!"

"He who knows most knows best how little he knows"

I recently read a book about wine, Reflections of a Vintner: Stories and Seasonal Wisdom from a Lifetime in Napa Valley by Tor Kenward.  Tor Kenward has spent nearly 50 years at the forefront of Napa Valley's wine, food, and tourism industry.  Kenward was drafted and sent to Vietnam during college, and upon returning from his tour of duty, he realized that life was too short and that he only wanted to do things that brought him joy.  That pursuit of joy eventually brought him to Napa Valley, California, where he worked for several years at Beringer Vineyards as their designated "Vice President of all the Fun Stuff" (perhaps his description of what he did, not theirs).  He and his wife Susan launched TOR Wines in the early 2000's, where he continues to make outstanding wines today.  The book is part memoir, part reflection on the wine industry in general, and part words of wisdom for anyone looking for how to live a better life.

There was one theme that Kenward kept repeating throughout the book.  What's amazing is that if you weren't paying attention, you would have easily missed it.  He kept repeating the sentiment that the older he got, the more he became aware of the less that he really knew.  At some point, he finally offered a statement that I think is absolutely one of the most profound statements on wisdom that I have ever heard.  Seriously.  Kenward said, "The wisdom that comes from age is misrepresented. You just forget more of what you already know."

On the surface, Kenward's statement sounds a lot like a self-deprecating statement describing how you forget a lot of what you have learned as you grow older.  And while that is true up to a point, I think Kenward's meaning is much deeper.  The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates described wisdom in a similar way, stating, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" (incidentally, I used this exact quote in a post several years ago that also discussed something that I call the "Analogy of the Marbles").  True wisdom begins when we recognize the boundaries of our own understanding.  Here, wisdom is finally attained when we recognize what we do not know.  

I am also reminded of a movie quote from the Jedi Master Yoda, from the original Star Wars trilogy.  Yoda said, "You must unlearn what you have learned."  True wisdom is finally achieved when we recognize that the only path to learning is by setting aside our rigid habits, assumptions, notions, and preconceived limits.  Yoda's definition of wisdom is more active than passive here.  We actually need to let go some of the knowledge that we have acquired over time, so that we can move forward to learn and acquire new knowledge.

I enjoyed reading Kenward's book.  Admittedly, as you have no doubt recognized, I enjoy learning (and posting) about wine!  My most important takeaway from the book, however, had absolutely nothing to do with wine, but rather wisdom.  Unlearn what you have learned.  Recognize that you can't know everything.  Thomas Jefferson reportedly said, "The wise know too well their weakness to assume infallibility; and he who knows most knows best how little he knows."

Confucius says...stay humble!

The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius lived in the fifth-century BCE during a time known as the Spring and Autumn period.  The name "Confucius" is actually the Latinized form of the Mandarin Chinese word for "Great Master Kong" or "Wise Teacher Kong" that was coined by Jesuit priests in the 16th century.  By tradition, Confucius is said to have authored many ancient texts, and many of his aphorisms were collected in a text known as the Analects.

Confucius once said, "The good man does not grieve that other people do not recognize his merits.  His only anxiety is lest he should fail to recognize theirs."

Rather than constantly seeking praise, attention, and recognition, Confucius is telling us that we should instead focus on recognizing the abilities and contributions of others.  We should use the "we" a lot more frequently than the "me."  

Phillip Bourne wrote an article a couple of years ago for the journal PLOS Computational Biology called "Ten simple rules for good leadership".  His second rule was on being humble.  Bourne wrote, "A great organization is facilitated by a good leader, but not solely the result of one.  Recognize that and be humble...Give credit whenever possible and take little for yourself."

Stay humble my friends!

Krakatoa's Child

Every once in a while, I come back to a previous post with an update.  I posted about the famous eruption of the volcano Krakatoa on August 27, 1883 a few years ago (see "Krakatoa").  Krakatoa was actually an archipelago located in the Sunda Strait between the islands of Java and Sumatra in the modern day country of Indonesia.  Krakatoa became increasingly active with a series of small eruptions occurring from May 20-October 21, 1883.  However, the volcano more or less "blew its top off" on August 27, 1883, destroying nearly 70% of the island and surrounding archipelago, which collapsed into a caldera.  The eruption was one of the deadliest and most destructive eruptions in recorded history.

Krakatoa's eruption was heard almost 3,000 miles away by scientists on the island nation of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean.  The accompanying pressure (blast) wave circled the world at least 7 times.  Massive tsunamis that occurred in the aftermath caused most of the 36,000 reported deaths.  There were multiple reports of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of pumice stone hundreds of miles away from the eruption, some of which washed up on the shores of the east coast of Africa up to a year after the eruption.  

The eruption itself caused a volcanic winter as temperatures dropped by an average of 0.4 °C in the northern hemisphere.  Global weather patterns changed, with some areas reporting record rainfalls and widespread flooding, while other areas experienced severe drought.  The ash darkened the skies and changed the character of the setting sun as far away as the United States.  Krakatoa's eruption served as inspiration, albeit indirectly, for the famous painting The Scream by the artist Edvard Munch and the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

Here is the update to this story!  The smaller island (also a volcano) of Anak Krakatoa (which is Indonesian for "Child of Krakatoa") formed after the 1883 eruption.  I mention Anak Krakatoa now, because the volcano began to erupt just this past Friday (September 4, 2026).  More than a quarter million airline passengers have been stranded over the weekend, due to the closure of several airports in the region caused by the ash cloud.  So far, there haven't been any tsunamis, and I haven't seen a reported death toll either.  Regardless, Anak Krakatoa continues Krakatoa's legacy and provides us with yet another reminder of nature's power!

The word of the day is...arbejdsglæde

I mentioned the term "arbejdsglæde"  in a recent post (see "The Trust Hormone").  It's actually a Danish compound word that is made up of the word "arbejde" meaning work and "glæde" meaning happiness.  Together, the two words form the word "arbejdsglæde" which literally means happiness at work.  There is no English word equivalent.  Perhaps that is one simple explanation for why Denmark is consistently ranked amongst the highest countries in the world - they actually have a word to describe happiness at work, where most people spend up to a third of their lives!  For example, in the 2026 "Happiest Countries in the World" survey conducted by the World Population Review, Denmark ranked second (behind Finland and ahead of Iceland and Sweden) as the Happiest Countries in the World survey.  For context, the United States of America ranked 24th (see also "The Nordic Exceptionalism: What explains why the Nordic countries are constantly among the happiest in the world").  

The core pillars of "arbejdsglæde" focus on:

1. Flexible (and reasonable) working hours: According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average American works 1,790 hours per year, while the average Dane works only 1,540 hours per year.  Danes tend to leave work at a reasonable hour on most days, and they get five to six weeks of vacation per year, several national holidays, and generous maternity and paternity leaves.

2. Low power distance: A high power distance tends to reflect a highly centralized, hierarchical power structure where the manager/boss sits at the top of the pyramidal organization chart.  Here, decision-making occurs at the top levels of the hierarchy.  A low power distance suggests a more flattened organizational structure, where decision-making tends to occur throughout the hierarchy.  According to Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede, the average power distance in the United States is 40, compared to an average power distance of 18 in Denmark (the lowest in the world).  Apparently, there is a Danish law that states that any workplace with more than 35 employees has to open up seats on the Board of Directors for employee representatives, who are elected by their peers and serve on an equal footing with the same voting rights as the other members of the Board.  

3. Generous employee benefits: Danish workers enjoy a very generous benefit package compared to American workers.  For example, Danish companies provide unemployment insurance at 90% of original salary for up to two years.  In addition, Danish workers receive constant education and training to upskill jobs.  The so-called "Nordic model" provides free healthcare and subsidized education, which do not exist to nearly the same degree in the United States.  Notably, these benefits do come at a cost - the Danes are taxed at a much higher rate than Americans, though they happily pay these higher taxes.

4. A focus on happiness: The Danes focus on happiness - they literally have a word for "happiness at work", whereas the United States does not.  At least the United States doesn't have a word like "karoshi", which in Japanese means "death from overwork".  Denmark, similar to the other Scandinavian countries, focus on work-life balance and psychological safety in the workplace.

I am not saying that the Danes have figured everything out.  However, perhaps there is something that we can learn from Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark.  We hear a lot about "happiness" in the United States these days, mostly because people seem less happy.  Perhaps at least part of the answer is right their in front of our eyes - in Denmark...

Magnifica Humanitas

I don't think a day has gone by for at least the past year that I haven't read or heard something mentioned about artificial intelligence (AI) in the media or during conversations at work.  I recently attended the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin (Epic Systems Corporation is a privately held healthcare software company and currently the largest electronic health record vendors by market share in the world), and just about every session mentioned AI.  There's no question that AI is transforming the world literally in front of our eyes!

It's not often that some form of technological innovation changes society to the degree that we are experiencing with AI.  There was of course the invention of the wheel, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the microchip, and most recently, the Internet.  AI is the latest in a long line of technological innovations that have changed the world as we know it.  Even if AI is not a disruptive innovation in the truest sense (and I mean, according to Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive innovation), there's no question that AI is going to - for better or for worse - "disrupt" our lives.  Scott D. Anthony, Professor of Business Administration at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business wrote a book last year, Epic Disruptions and listed generative AI as one of eleven major innovations that shaped our modern world (some of Anthony's innovations make sense, others, including Julia Childs' The Art of French Cooking and disposable diapers were surprising to me).

I continue to be fascinated by the back-and-forth discussion on the impact of AI on productivity and employment (see two recent posts on this topic, "Will we get replaced by AI?" and "Fewer jobs, more machines").  I am by no means an expert on this topic (not even close), but I hope to re-visit this topic in a future post soon.  Today, I want to talk about Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas.  The encyclical was published on May 25, 2026, and given the topic ("Safeguarding the human person in the age of artificial intelligence"), I read it shortly after its release.  Notably, the date of the encyclical's publication was selected to fall on the 135th anniversary of the publication of Rerum novarum, the landmark encyclical regarding industrialization and its impact on humanity, written by Pope Leo XIII.  "Rerum novarum" is Latin for "revolutionary change", so the juxtaposition of these two encyclicals is as intentional as it is appropriate.

Pope Leo XIV starts off his encyclical by stating, "Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible.  Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world."  He argues that society today faces a monumental choice between constructing a "new Tower of Babel" or building "the city in which God and humanity dwell together."  Recall that the Tower of Babel is a biblical story in chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis, in which a united human race all speaking the same language decide to build a tower that was tall enough to reach heaven.  The God of the Old Testament watches them closely and, remarking on humanity's power in unity, suddenly makes them all speak different languages so that they can no longer understand each other.  He then scatters them around the world, and the tower goes unfinished.  Pope Leo writes, "When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused and people no longer understand each other.  The result is not unity, but dispersion.  Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God's blessing."

Pope Leo goes on to contrast the Tower of Babel story with another story from the Old Testament - the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, which appears in the Book of Nehemiah.  The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed by the Babylonians and had lay in ruins for over 150 years.  The Israelites return to Jerusalem to rebuild the ancient city.  They are led by the prophet Nehemiah, but Nehemiah does not lead by authority (as Pope Leo states, "He did not impose solutions from above").  Here we have yet another great example of the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise", but I digress.  Instead, he charges all the families to each work to rebuild a different section of the wall.  Nehemiah coordinates their efforts, so that everyone, together, rebuilds the wall.  Pope Leo writes, "The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all."

It's an apt metaphor.  With AI, we have the power to collectively transform all of society.  It's not a choice between "yes" and "no" to AI, but instead, whether we use AI to construct a metaphorical Babel or the metaphorical walls of Jerusalem.  Pope Leo writes that the choice is one "between a power that claims to dominate the heavens" versus one in which we all work together "to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence."  AI has the power to unite us or separate us.  AI has the power to build or destroy.  We should avoid at all costs what Pope Leo calls the "Babel syndrome", which he describes as "the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language - even a digital one - can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance."

 

Pope Leo has two major concerns with AI.  First and foremost, he is worried about AI replacing human persons, and I don't mean from a labor standpoint.  He writes, "The use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people's lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom.  Important and sensitive decisions - concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person's reputation - risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know 'compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,' and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion."  He expands on this point, "If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool 'to be used well,' since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person.  For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it."  

Pope Leo is increasingly concerned that the design (and governance) of AI is increasingly being placed in the hands of just a few.  He writes, "When such power [referring here to the power to design AI, including what data and models are used in that design] is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities."  Margherita Stancati and Sam Schechner from The Wall Street Journal reported that Pope Leo said, "Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed, freed from the logic that turned it into an instrument of domination, exclusion and death...It must be at the service of all, and of the common good."  His solution is to place the design and governance of AI in the hands of the public (by which he means the government).  While I share his concerns, I do not believe that government-run technology is the answer.  

John Thornhill from The Financial Times agrees to some extent with the Pope and writes, "AI systems may present themselves as objective but they reflect and reinforce ideological bias and power structures.  Given the concentration of corporate power and the possibilities of exploiting personal data to create a new form of digital colonialism, the pope rightly fears that innovation can become an accelerator of injustice."  The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal wrote a review and opinion piece entitled "Pope Leo's AI Manifesto" shortly after the encyclical became public.  They emphasize that the pope's concerns are real and perhaps legitimate, but his faith in the state to regulate AI and technology is misplaced.  

Pope Leo's second major concern involves what he calls the "dignity of work" - here is where he argues against AI replacing human workers.  He writes, "Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives.  It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfillment...While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work."  His concerns are legitimate, and as I have shared in previous posts, I have these same concerns.  However, I do not think that the question of whether automation technology and specifically AI will result in loss of employment has been fully or adequately answered.  Pope Leo further writes, "The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good."

I will end today's post by suggesting that Pope Leo's first encyclical makes for an interesting and compelling read.  I don't think we can know for sure what lies ahead, but it is good that these concerns are voiced and further studied.  We owe it to ourselves, and ultimately, to society at large, to make sure that AI is leveraged for the common good.

The Odyssey

Several people who know me really well have been telling me that I need to go see the Christopher Nolan movie, The Odyssey, starring Matt Damon as the main character, Odysseus, along with an incredible all-star cast!  About a week or so ago, I was attending the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin, and I took the opportunity to finally see the movie with our son (who lives in Verona) on the night before the conference started.  It was well worth it - the movie truly lived up to all of the hype!

While Nolan took some poetic license in his version of the story (much to the chagrin of Emily Wilson, among others, who published a highly praised translation of Homer's epic poem in 2017), I do think that he stayed true to some of the major themes in the original work (at least in my humble and admittedly non-expert opinion).  At its most basic, The Odyssey is a story of a man who has lost his way and who eventually finds his way back home.  In Nolan's version of the story, Odysseus is lost almost by choice.  He feels guilty about the fact that he was the one that came up with the idea of the Trojan Horse to "trick" the people of Troy to let the Greeks in through the gates of their city and eventually destroy it.  

Eliana Dockterman writes in her Time magazine review, "Odysseus, much like the father of the atomic bomb millennia later [is] wracked with guilt for conjuring something that destroyed not just one city but, in his mind, an entire civilization: the Trojan Horse. In creating the vessel in which the Greeks hid to penetrate the walls of Troy and massacre its citizens to ultimately win the war, Odysseus believes he violated what characters throughout the movie refer to as Zeus’ Law. In doing so, he then gave tacit permission for others throughout the Mediterranean to break the rules that long held this ancient civilization together."

It is this violation of the ancient Greek law known as xenia that is the source of Odysseus' guilt.  Xenia means hospitality, and refers to the moral obligation to treat even complete strangers as guests in your home.  Xenia was known as Zeus' law, because Zeus was the patron god of strangers.  His law dictated that strangers must be welcomed with food, shelter, and respect.  If you consider that ancient Greece was really comprised of several islands and city-states, a law like xenia makes perfect sense.  If you ever found yourself stranded on one of those islands, you would want to be treated with kindness and offered food and shelter.  Bear in mind that the ancient Greeks believed too that the gods often mingled among the people, even showing up as strangers at the door to someone's home.  Treating a stranger kindly (unkindly) could earn a divine reward (punishment).  

The Golden Rule from the Christian tradition sounds very similar to xenia and states, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  The ancient Greek law of hospitality took things even one step further.  Guests were expected to reciprocate that kindness, trust, and respect that was showed to them.  Guests were also prohibited from taking advantage of the hosts' kindness.  Those who violated Zeus' law received divine punishment.  Odysseus felt his punishment for violating xenia was to wander for 10 years in search for home.  It is only after he forgives himself and then asks for forgiveness from the goddess Athena, that Odysseus finds his way back home.  

One additional theme that recurs throughout the movie is that of loyalty.  Odysseus wife and son, Penelope (played by Anne Hathaway) and Telemachus (played by Tom Holland) stay true to Odysseus, hoping and expecting that he will return, even after 10 years without hearing anything about him.  Both fight off Penelope's treacherous suitors, who constantly plot against them in an attempt to usurp Odysseus' throne.  Odysseus swineherd, Eumaeus (played by John Leguizamo) helps them both and remains loyal to Odysseus until the very end, as does Odysseus beloved and faithful dog, Argos, who dies after seeing his master one last time.

Leadership is a lot about trustworthiness, loyalty, perseverance, resilience, and ultimately, xenia.