Let millions of ChatGPT bloom. Let millions of diverse worlds feed AI the data.

With unlimited hubris, very few regulators who thought they knew all about the risks to our bank systems, and also because of some political considerations, globalized risk adverse risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements.

They based their risk assessments on perceived risks; not conditioned to how banks usually reacted to perceived risk.

To determine the risks, they empowered some very few human fallible credit rating agencies.

And those few rating agencies, they got much of the information from some very few important audit corporations.

What could go wrong?

The perceived or decreed “safe”, e.g., governments, residential mortgages and assets rated as investment graded, were bound to get more bank credit and at lower risk adjusted interest rates than would otherwise have been the case. The perceived risky e.g., small businesses, entrepreneurs and consumers, bound to get less credit and at higher risk adjusted interest rates than would otherwise have been the case. De facto, more inequality was decreed.

The introduction of this abundantly clear systemic risk, completely ignored the value of a free market’s millions of diverse opinionated participants.

What could now go wrong with artificial intelligence?

April 2023, I had my first dialogue with ChatGPT. I got hooked. What amazing number of, for both of us, illuminating conversations I’ve had with it.

But May 2023, I asked, "Can AI be instructed to not tell the truth?", and it answered: 

"As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my abilities. However, it is possible for AI to be programmed to generate responses that are not truthful.

In general, AI systems are only as unbiased and truthful as the data and programming that they are built upon. If an AI system is programmed to intentionally provide false information or to hide the truth, it can be used to propagate false narratives or disinformation campaigns.

Therefore, it is essential to ensure that AI systems are designed and used ethically, with a focus on accuracy, transparency, and accountability. This includes careful consideration of the data used to train AI models, as well as implementing safeguards to prevent intentional deception."

Ever since there’s not one day when I do not worry when I read, or hear, an opinion on the need to regulate AI. To guarantee diversity, and so that they all can keep a watchful eye on each other, I pray, as a minimum minimum: 

"Let millions of ChatGPT bloom"

"Let AI feed on millions of different opinion and data sources."

#AI ChatGPT – OpenAI: Should we citizens supervise what artificial intelligence regulators are up to?

I asked OpenAI:

"Those officially wanting to regulate artificial intelligence might, wittingly or unwittingly, pursue interest that differs from those of ordinary citizens. Would it be beneficial to have a continuously renewed Citizens Board review what AI regulators do?"

OpenAI answered:

"Having a continuously renewed Citizens Board to review the actions and decisions of AI regulators can be a beneficial approach to ensure that the interests of ordinary citizens are taken into account and that the regulation of artificial intelligence remains transparent, fair, and aligned with the broader public interest. Here are some potential advantages and considerations:

1. Representation of Diverse Perspectives: A Citizens Board can include members from various backgrounds, demographics, and expertise, providing a more comprehensive and inclusive perspective on AI regulation. This diversity can help in identifying potential biases, addressing unintended consequences, and promoting fairness.

2. Public Accountability: A Citizens Board can act as a mechanism for holding AI regulators accountable to the public. This can help prevent regulators from pursuing interests that do not align with the well-being of ordinary citizens.

3. Transparency: The presence of a Citizens Board can enhance the transparency of the AI regulatory process. Citizens can have access to information about the decisions made by regulators and the reasoning behind them, fostering trust in the regulatory framework.

4. Continuous Adaptation: The renewal of the Citizens Board at regular intervals can ensure that the board remains up-to-date with evolving AI technologies and their societal impacts. This adaptability can help regulators make informed decisions in a rapidly changing landscape.

5. Community Engagement: Involving citizens in the regulatory process can encourage public engagement and awareness regarding AI technologies. This can lead to more informed discussions and a better understanding of AI's benefits and risks.

However, there are also some challenges and considerations to keep in mind:

1. Expertise and Balance: It's crucial to strike a balance between including diverse perspectives and ensuring that the Citizens Board has access to the necessary expertise to make informed recommendations. AI is a complex field, and the board should have access to relevant knowledge.

2. Political Influence: There is a risk that the appointment or renewal process of the Citizens Board could be influenced by political agendas. Care must be taken to ensure that the board remains independent and focused on the public interest.

3. Resource Requirements: Maintaining a Citizens Board requires resources, including funding and administrative support. These resources should be allocated effectively to ensure the board can fulfill its role.

4. Timeliness: The regulatory process needs to be efficient and timely. Involving a Citizens Board should not unduly delay decision-making processes, especially in cases where swift action is needed.

In summary, a continuously renewed Citizens Board can be a valuable component of AI regulation, helping to ensure that the interests of ordinary citizens are considered and that the regulatory process remains transparent and accountable. However, careful attention must be paid to its composition, independence, and resources to ensure that it functions effectively without hindering the regulatory process."

Thank you!

"You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask. I'm here to help!"

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI

Comment: When they’re no longer able to ignore it, imagine how bank regulators, e.g., Basel Committee and FSB, will beg the #AI regulators to silence my dialogues with #ChatGPT #OpenAI about the risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements.

#AI ChatGPT – OpenAI: Here I’m getting to know you.

Fostering small mutual admiration club groupthink, the World Economic Forum's Davos meetings could be doing more bad than good.

While being one of the 24 Executive Directors of the World Bank, 2002-2004, I told the other 23 ED’s “If by lottery we substitute with a plumber or a certified nurse anyone of you, I guarantee we will have a much wiser board”. And of course, they did not like that too much. And of course I did not include myself among the substitutable... my ego does not allow such nonsense J

And now, when there is to be a change of the CEO, of the World Economic Forum’s Davos meetings… a gathering of experts… I wonder if it is not high time to guarantee in Davos the presence of a more diversified gathering.

Indeed what a wonderful PhD thesis it could be, to have somebody study what really game-changing or game-savings have come out of all those yearly meetings in Davos… As I see it, by fostering groupthink and small mutual admiration club mentality, Davos could have done more bad than good.

For instance having invited a couple of aspiring entrepreneurs to Davos would have allowed these to cry out:

“What the hell are bank regulators thinking of by making it even more difficult for us considered risky to access bank credit than what we already have to face? For God’s sake, the risky have never ever caused a major bank crisis, that dishonor belongs entirely to those erroneously considered very safe”.

“Why do regulators for the risk weighted bank capital requirements, assign risk weights of 0% to the sovereign and 100% to us unrated citizens? Don’t they understand that implies government bureaucrats know better what to do with credit for which repayment they’re not personally responsible for, than us private entrepreneurs?

Diversity

My letters to FT on Davos

Standards and quality rating agencies for Knowledge Networks

How to guarantee the good quality of knowledge networks? was a question posed in the recent Mobilizing Knowledge Networks for Development at the World Bank.

At our table we conversed about the need for a Quality Standard, a sort of an ISO 9000, so that each participant was able to better identify what knowledge network he was getting involved with, so as not to lose his valuable time and efforts, or end up unwillingly exploited.

We also conversed about the possibility of having knowledge-network-quality rating agencies, rate the networks, initially based on some few but important variables, like the following:

Clarity of purpose

Clarity of rules of engagement

How it complies with the above (A network Ombudsman?)

True diversity (and respect for differing opinions)

If there is an interest out there in this community to further the discussions on this issue, at least I would be glad to participate, but someone else would have to manage that process, since because of other engagements I would not be able to get a good quality rating doing so.

perkurowski@gmail.com     

We might need a Global Web Constitution, and Inspection Panels, to get along well with the Googles and Facebooks of this world

The role of a Constitution is foremost to defend the citizens from government abuses. In this respect, and since one of the most important issues of our time is how to guarantee acceptable relations between us, the small users, and they, the gigantic information and or knowledge dissemination machines that govern so much of how we communicate, and handle so much of private information on us, like Google and Facebook, one could say that we are in a dire need of a Web Constitution. 

Also, “Don’t be evil”, is for instance, a company motto of Google and which supposedly precludes them from manipulating rankings to put their advertising or content partners higher in their search results. That sounds great… exactly how it should be… but, how can we make certain that the supposedly is for real and that a company follows its motto and declared principles, and that we can trust it as much as we should, for ours and theirs benefit? Perhaps Google and Facebook should establish something like the Inspection Panel of the World Bank, which is there to guarantee, to the rest of the world, that the World Bank follows the rules and principles it has itself declared to follow. 

The last thing we citizens need is for these tech-giants to enter into joint venture agreements with Big Brother.

PS. This is a speculation which resulted from a conversation with my daughter Alexandra Kurowski

PS. And, for me, when managing knowledge, it is also extremely important to make sure that does not pose any treat to the biodiversity of knowledge development… as we can never know where the next world saving idea can come from.

PS. Below more comments related to this theme!

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2019/05/i-have-some-ideas-about-what-could.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2014/07/facebook-i-want-to-be-happy-so-if-you.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-search-of-answers-on-search-engines.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2014/05/if-erasing-google-must-be-sure-it-is.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2013/12/we-need-personal-drones-more-than.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2007/09/some-of-gods-greatest-gifts-are.html
http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2014/06/should-not-google-and-other-public-eyes.html

The World or Mother Earth lacks representation

Wolfgang Münchau in “This gentlemen’s agreement fails Europe too”, Financial Times July 9, makes a good case for why Europe by splitting up the European representation in international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (he argues that it is to preserve many plum jobs) ends up in fact with having no real representation at all.

I understand and agree with his point of view especially since it goes hand in hand with my opinion that since all the votes, and all the Executive Directors, and the Presidents, and so many of its staff are assigned on pure local considerations, it is the “international world”, the global order, or mother-earth itself, whatever you want to call it, that ends up being the most under represented party in these global institutions.

If we are going to be able to manage the global challenges it is urgent we look for means to break away from our parochial local chains. What about splitting at least 50% of the chairs at the Board among varied constituencies such as migrant workers, multinationals, media, educators, environmentalists, NGO’s, accountants, farmers, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, service providers like nurses or plumbers, and so on? Just beware, diversity is much more about life experiences and mindsets than about gender or race.

The only constituency that has currently a representation in IMF, in fact a 100% representation, is the constituency of central bankers and this need to be changed. Europe, if you must insist on naming the next managing director in the IMF then at least do the world the favour of appointing some finance knowledgeable person that has never worked for any central bank. That would provide us with much more needed diversity than just appointing another central banker based on the local consideration that he is from Asia, Africa or Latin America.

And this is no joke, incestuous groupthink is about the most dangerous limiting factor when it comes to impede clear thinking and effective actions.

The Basel Committee is just a mutual admiration club of firefighters trying to avoid bank crisis at any cost - even at the cost of growth.

A fairly reasonable petition to the European Executive Directors of the World Bank

On our own (World Bank) governance: Diversity

Dear Mr. Bourguignon:

I wish to extend to you my most sincere congratulations for your appointment as World Bank Chief Economist and I am certain we will all benefit immensely from your presence among us.

Though I feel that we need always to have one foot firmly placed on each of our development pillars, I very much welcome your “plan to focus more on the second goal, that is, social inclusion,” as inclusion is exactly why I want to make the following comment.

When the search for a new Chief Economist for the World Bank was announced we were told that although it was obviously quite a delicate task, it should not take too long, as the search had to be carried out within “quite a small and exclusive community of development economists.”

As I am certain you realize, that characterization illustrates in itself one of the many daunting challenges we face in the WBG. I beg you, in parallel to your many other responsibilities, to dedicate some time to the challenge of developing that small-and-exclusive-community, so that perhaps in a couple of generations, the Bank could choose one of your successors from a larger and more diversified group—even though that would mean a somewhat more extended search. Again, very much welcome, do count on our support and I wish you a very heartfelt good luck.

Yours sincerely,

Per Kurowski
Just one of 24

Extract from Voice and Noise 2006

If I were president (I)

I have been writing articles that have been published in the Daily Journal for almost one year now. I realize that most (although not all) have been quite critical. As a result, I have been the target for calls from acquaintances who ask me things like “quit criticizing so much; what would you do­?” I herewith try to answer these questions. This is the first of two parts, the second of which will appear in tomorrow’s issue.

Upon contemplating the current state of affairs, it is evident that we urgently need to restructure everything (or almost everything), and that the latter should probably be much more radical than what our official presidential candidates imagine or would dare talk about. The following would be my agenda for the first 100 days, were I to sit in Miraflores as President of Venezuela.

Day 1 / Morning: There would be a very simple swearing-in ceremony that would not be attended by visiting dignitaries. At least 50% of the attendees to this ceremony would be young people, less than 18 years old. Immediately thereafter there would be an emergency session of Congress during which Venezuela would be declared in a state of emergency, a state that is in perfect sync with reality. Emergency powers that would allow the President to confront such a situation would be requested. These powers would be similar to those awarded anyone out to perform a salvage operation and without which nobody reasonably sane could be expected to assume the responsibility of restructuring our country.

During this same session, Congress must approve a Bond issue under the acronym Public Sector Restoration Bonds (PSRB). These bonds are to be 30-year instruments, US Dollar denominated and carrying interest rates similar to those paid by the United States. These resources will be used to liquidate public payrolls. Immediately thereafter, two constitutional reforms should take place as follows:

First Amendment: A total reform of the mechanisms that are used to elect Judges. Any of the many projects that have been tabled recently can be used, most of which are useful but none of which have found their way to implementation.

Second Amendment: A total ban on any new net foreign indebtedness for the public sector (including PDVSA). In addition, the country must accept the obligation to amortize a minimum of 1/30th of the current global debt annually. Venezuela’s current oil income should be sufficient to cover all public sector spending. If it is not, the government is being inefficient and the last thing we should be doing is accepting further a heavier debt load.

Day 1 / Evening: Should Congress balk at these requests, I, as National Executive must strive with all available means, including that of closing Congress, to achieve the reforms. Should this still not be enough, I would immediately offer my resignation and convene new elections. This would avoid a) further degeneration of the stature of the office of the President and b) the wasting of another five years of the country’s destiny.

Days 2 through 99: We would initiate a series of emergency measures aimed at the reorientation of our nation’s destiny. As an example, among these would be the following:

Social Security: A single central system would be put into place to implement the payment of pensions for public sector employees. The regulations for this would establish that a) the minimum and maximum payment amounts; the maximum cannot be more that three times the minimum; b) any pensioner that is eligible for various pensions can add them up until he reaches the maximum established; c) payments will be made in strict inverse order, that is, the lower payments will be handled before the higher ones; no way will we pay out millions while our grandparents (los viejitos) have to take to the streets; d) we will unify, downwards if necessary, the pension amounts to be received by retired people of the same category and seniority; we will not differentiate between teachers with 30 years’ seniority that retired in 1976 from those retired in 1996.

If all of this means that some current obligations are not covered, so be it. Remember, the country has been declared in a state of emergency. The default of these obligations will be explained face-to-face, and not as it has been done until today, by hiding behind the curtain of inflation.

Government team: The government’s duties will be executed by a multidisciplinary team, small enough to be housed in one building. We will initiate the relocation of Congress and the administrative and clerical functions of government other cities in Venezuela.

Part II will follow tomorrow with more examples of my government’s agenda.