Connect with us

Ecological Society of America announces 2020 award recipients

Ecological Society of America announces 2020 award recipients

Published

on

IMAGE

Credit: Ecological Society of America

April 16, 2020
For Immediate Release

Contact: Alison Mize alison@esa.org”>alison@esa.org, (202) 833-8773

 

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) will present the 2020 awards recognizing outstanding contributions to ecology in new discoveries, teaching, sustainability, diversity, and lifelong commitment to the profession during the Society’s Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Ut. Learn more about ESA awards on the home website.

Eminent Ecologist Award: Monica G. Turner

The Eminent Ecologist Award honors a senior ecologist for an outstanding body of ecological work or sustained ecological contributions of extraordinary merit.

Dr. Monica G Turner – Eugene P. Odum Professor of Ecology and Vilas Research Professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison – is the recipient of the 2020 Eminent Ecologist Award. Her work has crystallized landscape ecology as a discipline and has shaped the field into a quantitative discipline grounded in theory about processes that influence landscape dynamics.

Turner’s work has fundamentally impacted a range of diverse fields including disturbance ecology, fire ecology, forest ecology, biogeochemical cycling, and land management. She created some of the earliest and most influential computer simulations of spatially-explicit processes, which established an important research tool for decades of subsequent discovery. Her work following the 1988 national debate over extensive fires in Yellowstone was paradigm-changing, demonstrating that large-scale, infrequent, and climate-driven fires can be natural and rejuvenating occurrences in coniferous forests. Contrary to prevailing expectations, she showed that large fires generated heterogeneous landscapes in which both plants and animals recovered rapidly and naturally. She later generalized this work by examining how large and infrequent disturbances – from volcanoes to hurricanes – can serve as important forces that shape ecological systems.

Turner inspires early-career scientists – she has mentored over 50 graduate students and postdocs and is a role model for scientists across the discipline. She is well-known for fostering a positive, collaborative, and intellectually challenging culture of science, and she is widely recognized as both generous with ideas and open to new ways of thinking.

Finally, Monica Turner has influenced ESA through exceptional service and leadership. She has provided over 30 years of continuous service to the society in the form of meeting planning, awards, society vision, public affairs, the search for a new publisher for the society’s journals, and in the search for the newest executive director of the society. Most notably, she served as ESA’s president in 2015-2016. As a leader in the society, she has been a staunch advocate for increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Through her conviction that human diversity enriches science and society, her commitment to the next generation of scientists, and her passion for continued scientific innovation, Monica Turner has shaped the culture and discipline of ecology. 

 

Distinguished Service Citation: Anthony C. Janetos

The ESA Distinguished Service Citation recognizes long and distinguished volunteer service to ESA, the scientific community, and the larger purpose of ecology in the public welfare.

The 2020 award is posthumously awarded to Anthony C. Janetos for his long and distinguished career of service. He brought extraordinary vision and leadership to enhancing the role of ESA in public affairs, to advancing the science of ecology and global change, and to communicating ecological science to decision makers and policy makers. Janetos exemplified distinguished service to ESA, to the larger scientific community, and to the larger purpose of ecology in the public welfare.

Tony Janetos had a distinguished career focused on global change science and policy. He earned international recognition for his scholarship, and he held leadership positions at a broad array of institutions, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the World Resources Institute, and the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. He co-chaired the First National Climate Assessment, served as Director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland, and played key roles in the US Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Most recently, he served as the Frederick S. Pardee Professor and Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University.

Janetos was particularly well known for synthesis and communication about global change. He served on an enormous number of committees focused on environmental research and decision-making, including eight different committees for the National Academy of Science, as well as the standing NAS Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He chaired the National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education, as well as the National Advisory Board for NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research Program. He was called upon to provide scientific guidance to a long list of government agencies, including the National Institute of Global Environmental Change, NASA, the EPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Agency for International Development (US AID), the National Oceanic and Aeronautics Administration (NOAA,) and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Over his career, he gave over 600 talks to the scientific community, the public, policymakers, and elected officials, including several instances of congressional testimony. One of his remarkable strengths was his ability to make global change science accessible to decision makers in government and business.

With ESA, Janetos served on the society’s Governing Board as Vice President for Public Affairs and chaired the Public Affairs Committee, which is responsible for developing and implementing policy on public affairs and outreach activities for the ESA. With others, he was instrumental in developing options for implementing the Project Office of ESA’s Sustainable Biosphere Initiative. His work with ESA also included leading a review of the scientific quality of the ESA’s special publication series Issues in Ecology, the impact it has had on environmental policy and education, and the performance of its lead editor. He served as a member of the Special Committee on Data Archive and Sharing, which was responsible for recommending policies for creating electronic archives for ecological data, and he helped to implement ESA’s responsibilities as part of the Mellon Foundation JSTOR project. Finally, Janetos also served on the Editorial Board of Ecological Applications. In recognition of both his scholarship and his overall contributions to the advancement and application of ecological science, he was elected an ESA Fellow in 2012.

In all respects, Tony Janetos exemplified distinguished service to the ESA, to the larger scientific community, and to the larger purpose of ecology in the public welfare.

 

Robert MacArthur Award: Jonathan M. Levine

The Robert H. MacArthur Award honors an established ecologist in mid-career for meritorious contributions to ecology, in the expectation of continued outstanding ecological research. Award winners generally are within 25 years from the completion of their PhD.

This year’s award is given to Jonathan M. Levine, Professor at Princeton University in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Levine is a leader in ecology best-known for his work on the structure, diversity, and invasibility of ecological communities. Following the legacy of Robert MacArthur, Levine is a master at revealing simple mechanisms underlying complex patterns. A hallmark of his work is highly controlled experiments that make it possible to link theory and data, thereby exposing the fundamental processes regulating complicated systems. His work has given both inspiration and guidance to the field of ecology. He has also served the field by training a new generation of ecologists, whose collective successes have been remarkable.

Levine received his PhD from University of California Berkeley, before studying mathematical models of species coexistence as a postdoctoral researcher at the NERC Center for Population Biology at Imperial College London, Silwood Park. Levine taught as an assistant professor at University of California Los Angeles, before moving to University of California Santa Barbara where he eventually became a professor. Levine became a professor of Plant Ecology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where he served until moving to Princeton University in 2019. His research emphasizes the controls over species coexistence, plant migration and invasion, and how communities respond to climate change.

 

Eugene P. Odum Award for Excellence in Ecology Education: Jennifer Funk

Odum Award recipients demonstrate their ability to relate basic ecological principles to human affairs through teaching, outreach, and mentoring activities.

Dr. Jennifer Funk – Professor at Chapman University, Schmid College of Science and Technology – is the 2020 award winner of the Eugene P. Odum Award for Excellence in Ecology Education. Funk has a very strong record of excellence in teaching, mentoring, outreach, involvement with underrepresented groups, and in involving students in her top-level ecological research. She has taught and mentored students across all levels, starting from K-12 up to the post-doc level. By all accounts she is a passionate, thoughtful, and inspiring teacher, who is up-to-date with all of the latest models for innovative pedagogy to engage her students. Funk developed the Chapman Orange High School Ecological Research Experience (COHERE) program as part of her prestigious NSF CAREER award, which offers high school students the chance to learn sophisticated biogeochemical and ecological lab techniques. She has been a transformational board member and chair of the scientific advisory board for the California Invasive Plant Council, which is a boundary organization that translates and synthesizes invasive species research for the direct use of land managers. She serves as Chapman University’s Biology Program Director and Mentor for the Simon STEM Scholarship program for students facing difficult life and economic circumstances.

In just 13 years as a professor at Chapman University, Funk has transformed the role of the science professor in primarily undergraduate liberal arts institutions. She is a thought leader in invasive plant research with 38+ referred journal articles in top ecological journals (many including her undergraduate students as co-authors), 7 book reviews and book chapters, $2.3 million raised in NSF USDA and private foundation grants, and 80+ students from high school through post-doctoral fellow mentored by her. She is also the co-founder, chair and secretary of the Invasion section for ESA as well as the secretary for the Ecophysiology section.

 

Robert H. Whittaker Distinguished Ecologist Award: David A. Wardle

The Whittaker Award recognizes an ecologist with an earned doctorate and an outstanding record of contributions in ecology who is not a U.S. citizen and who resides outside the United States.

Dr. David A. Wardle – Professor at the Nanyang Technological University, Asian School of the Environment – is the recipient of this year’s award. Wardle is one of the most influential ecologists of our time and has made major contributions in multiple aspects of ecology. He is internationally recognized as scientific leader, in particular for his pioneering work improving understanding of the mechanisms and implications of the linkages between above- and belowground components of terrestrial ecosystems.

The breadth and impact of Wardle’s work speak to his appropriateness for receiving this award. He has been included on every list of ‘highly cited researchers’ from 2006 onwards and is among the world’s 20 most cited scientists in the Ecology and Environment category since 2007. His research has not only won numerous awards and played pivotal roles in advancing ecology, but he has had notable impact in ecological education, service, and informing. Wardle’s extensive work on the impact of invasive species underpins New Zealand’s Department of Conservation draft strategy for managing forested offshore islands and the country’s current strategy for monitoring the effectiveness of forest pest management. His work provides scientific basis for informing policy debate on topics including biomass and  carbon sequestration, and old growth forests vs intensively managed forests. He is truly an international scientist, as a native New Zealander who spent much of his research career at Umeå and is now largely based at Singapore, all the while collaborating with scientists from every continent. In sum, Wardle is an exceptional choice for this award.

 

Whittaker Travel Award: Julieta Aranibar

The Whittaker Travel Award specifically recognizes an outstanding ecologist in a developing country. They can be at any career stage. The award provides funds for travel to the United States for research or to attend the ESA meeting, covering expenses up to $1200.

The 2020 Whittaker Travel Award goes to Dr. Julieta Aranibar, associate professor at University of Cuyo, and a scientist at the Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA). She is a respected scientist in the field of desert ecology has a record of high quality and innovative science. Aranibar’s work brings together multiple research approaches to ask questions about how ecosystems function and respond to change. Her focus on sustainable land use, isotopic tools, and on linking terrestrial and aquatic perspectives sets her research apart. Her career to date has resulted not only in strong science, but has motivated the careers of numerous other scientists and has made science accessible to those outside of the research realm. Aranibar’s work emphasizes transferring knowledge through education and outreach and traveling to the United States will allow for further collaboration and knowledge exchange.

Forest Shreve Research AwardFlor Hernandez

Forest Shreve was an internationally known American botanist devoted to the study of the distribution of vegetation as determined by soil and climate conditions, with a focus on desert vegetation. The Forest Shreve Research Fund award supplies $1,000-2,000 to support ecological research by graduate or undergraduate student members of ESA in the hot deserts of North America (Sonora, Mohave, Chihuahua, and Vizcaino).

The winner of this year’s Forest Shreve Award is Flor Hernandez, a PhD student at the University of Texas, El Paso, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Hernandez works under the mentorship of Dr. Philip Lavretsky studying bird populations in the Chihuahuan Desert. She will use the award to establish a bird banding station at the Indio Mountains Research Station in western Texas. The research will provide a much-needed opportunity to increase our understanding of the diversity and natural history of the birds of the Chihuahuan Desert, to assess the temporal and spatial dispersion patterns of these avian communities, and to train undergraduates and educate the public about the avian communities and the research approaches used for these spectacular desert organisms.

 

W.S. Cooper Award: Carolina Levis, Flavia R. C. Costa, Frans Bongers, Marielos Peña-Claros, Charles R. Clement, André B. Junqueira, Eduardo G. Neves, Eduardo K. Tamanaha, Fernando O. G. Figueiredo, Hans ter Steege

The Cooper Award honors the authors of an outstanding publication in the field of geobotany, physiographic ecology, plant succession, or the distribution of plants along environmental gradients. William S. Cooper was a pioneer of physiographic ecology and geobotany, with a particular interest in the influence of historical factors – such as glaciations and climate history – on the pattern of contemporary plant communities across platforms.

This paper by C. Levis and over 150 co-authors wins the Cooper Award for 2020. The research brings attention to the astounding longevity of effects that humans have on plant communities. They present environmental gradients that are altered by Amazonian peoples, whose management of forest plant communities is still evident today via the association of domesticated plant species with archaeological sites. Levis et al.’s work shows that humans have long been an effective component of how environmental and evolutionary processes shape species’ distributions. 

For full author list, see the paper citation:

Levis, C., et al. 2017. “Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition.” Science, 355(6328), 925-931. DOI: 10.1126/science.aal0157  

 

George Mercer Award: J. Mason Heberling, Caitlin McDonough MacKenzie, Jason D. Fridley, Susan Kalisz, Richard B. Primack

The Mercer Award recognizes an outstanding, recently-published, ecological research paper by young scientists.

This year’s Mercer Award is given to the authors of the paper “Phenological mismatch with trees reduces wildflower carbon budgets.” J. Mason Heberling and coauthors show creative and powerful integration of historical records and contemporary experiments covering many species. They tell a convincing and important scientific story with notably clear writing and compelling visuals. The use of historical phenological observations, the oldest of which were made by Henry David Thoreau in the 1850s, alongside long-term temperature records, contemporary garden experiments, and a simulation model is the icing on the cake, extending the timespan of the historical data and providing a “hook” to engage the interest of the media and the general public.

J Mason Heberling, et al. 2019. “Phenological mismatch with trees reduces wildflower carbon budgets.” Ecology Letters 22: 616-623. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13224

 

Sustainability Science Award: Drew Harvell

The Sustainability Science Award recognizes the authors of the scholarly work that makes the greatest contribution to the emerging science of ecosystem and regional sustainability through the integration of ecological and social sciences.

The 2020 Sustainability Science Award recognizes Dr. Drew Harvell – professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University – for her writing on ocean conservation in her book “Ocean Outbreak; Confronting the Rising Tide of Marine Disease.” With a beautifully written narrative, the book gives hope for addressing the massive emerging problem of marine disease outbreaks. Harvell’s book explains how infectious diseases shape marine ecosystems, using examples with coral, abalone, salmon and sea stars. In addition to examining how an animal’s immune system, the environment, and pathogens interact to cause diseases, she also demonstrates that human actions can spread or exacerbate disease outbreaks. The book is directed at both scientific and more general audiences, it won the PROSE Award for Biological Sciences and it has been favorably reviewed in Smithsonian Magazine, Forbes, New Scientist, and Nature.

Drew Harvell, 2019. Ocean Outbreak; Confronting the Rising Tide of Marine Disease.” University of California Press.

 

Innovation in Sustainability Science Award: Jianguo Liu, Vanessa Hull, H. Charles J. Godfray, David Tilman, Peter Gleick, Holger Hoff, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Zhenci Xu, Min Gon Chung, Jing Sun, Shuxin Li.

The Innovation in Sustainability Science Award recognizes the authors of a peer-reviewed paper published in the past five years exemplifying leading-edge work on solution pathways to sustainability challenges.

The 2020 award is given to the authors of the paper “Nexus approaches to global sustainable development.” Jianguo Liu and colleagues describe how the integration of ecology with other biophysical sciences, engineering, and social sciences can foster more sustainable management of multiple intertwined sectors and challenges. The work could impact biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, energy security, poverty alleviation, and provisioning of food and water. The paper is authored by a highly international group of interdisciplinary scholars from universities and non-governmental organizations, spanning a range of career stages. The paper builds on nexus approaches addressing interactions between the food, energy, and water sectors, and suggests useful paths toward better planning, decision-making, governance, and resource management.

Liu, J., et al.  2018. “Nexus approaches to global sustainable development.” Nature Sustainability, DOI: 10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8

 

 

2019 Annual Meeting Student Awards

Murray F. Buell Award: Gaurav Sunil Kandlikar

Murray F. Buell had a long and distinguished record of service and accomplishment in the Ecological Society of America. Among other things, he ascribed great importance to the participation of students in meetings and to excellence in the presentation of papers. To honor his selfless dedication to the younger generation of ecologists, the Murray F. Buell Award for Excellence in Ecology is given to a student for the outstanding oral paper presented at the ESA Annual Meeting.

The 2019 Buell Award goes to Gaurav Sunil Kandlikar, PhD candidate at the University of California Los Angeles, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, for his outstanding oral presentation at the 2019 ESA Annual Meeting in Louisville, KY. In his talk titled “How microbially mediated fitness differences influence plant diversity,” he addressed coexistence theory in the context of microbially-mediated fitness differences. Kandlikar is an engaging speaker, and his research provides further knowledge about the role of microbes in plant diversity, and it contributes to understanding the origins, maintenance, structure, and consequences of diversity.

Honorable mention for the Buell Award goes to runner-up Anna Sjodin, PhD candidate at the University of Connecticut, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. In her 2019 talk, “Do host traits affect viral transmission? Accounting for imperfect detection when exploring individual level heterogeneity,” she discussed the role of individual traits and imperfect detection on viral transmission in bats. Sjodin’s research provides important insights into the roles that ecology, and specifically individual traits, play in affecting the diversity and distributions of viruses. The work has important implications both for bat conservation and human health.

 

Lucy Braun Award: Agostina Torres

Lucy Braun, an eminent plant ecologist and one of the charter members of the Society, studied and mapped the deciduous forest regions of eastern North America and described them in her classic book, The Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. To honor her, the E. Lucy Braun Award for Excellence in Ecology is given to a student for the outstanding poster presentation at the ESA Annual Meeting. Papers and posters are judged on the significance of ideas, creativity, quality of methodology, validity of conclusions drawn from results, and clarity of presentation.

The 2019 award goes to Agostina Torres, a PhD candidate at the Research institute of Biodiversity and the Environment, for her poster at the 2019 ESA Annual Meeting in Louisville, KY. In her poster, “Inverser priority effects: Order of invasive species removal affects early plant community assemblage,” she addresses management of invasive plants while also testing plant community assembly theory. Torres’s work is highly significant and the findings could impact both academic and management communities. She had interesting insight into the findings, limitations and applications of her research, and had a profound understanding of ecological processes relevant to the study. Her research advances understanding of the role of historical contexts in understanding community disassembly, and is particularly relevant to informing management of invasive species and species losses in the face of global change.

Honorable mention for the Braun award is given to-runner up Lin Meng, a PhD candidate at Iowa State University, Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences. In her 2019 poster, “Characterizing spatiotemporal changes of spring green-up under climate change and urbanization, she discussed the timing of green-up in urban environments. The topic is timely and important, and it provides context for relating climate change and ecology to people’s everyday lives in urban environments. Meng’s research advances understanding of mechanisms involving spring air temperatures that drive phenological changes in complex urban environments in response to warming.

 

 


Learn more about the August 2-7, 2020 ESA Annual Meeting on the meeting website.

ESA invites press and institutional public information officers to attend for free. To register, please contact ESA Public Information Manager Zoe Gentes directly at zgentes@esa.org. Walk-in registration will be available during the meeting.

 

###

The Ecological Society of America, founded in 1915, is the worlds largest community of professional ecologists and a trusted source of ecological knowledge, committed to advancing the understanding of life on Earth. The 9,000 member Society publishes five journals and a membership bulletin and broadly shares ecological information through policy, media outreach, and education initiatives. The Society‘s Annual Meeting attracts 4,000 attendees and features the most recent advances in ecological science. Visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org

###

Media Contact
Alison Mize
alison@esa.org

Original Source

https://www.esa.org/blog/2020/04/16/ecological-society-of-america-announces-2020-award-recipients/

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Google’s A.I. Fiasco Exposes Deeper Infowarp

Google’s A.I. Fiasco Exposes Deeper Infowarp

Authored by Bret Swanson via The Brownstone Institute,

When the stock markets opened on the…

Published

on

Google's A.I. Fiasco Exposes Deeper Infowarp

Authored by Bret Swanson via The Brownstone Institute,

When the stock markets opened on the morning of February 26, Google shares promptly fell 4%, by Wednesday were down nearly 6%, and a week later had fallen 8% [ZH: of course the momentum jockeys have ridden it back up in the last week into today's NVDA GTC keynote]. It was an unsurprising reaction to the embarrassing debut of the company’s Gemini image generator, which Google decided to pull after just a few days of worldwide ridicule.

CEO Sundar Pichai called the failure “completely unacceptable” and assured investors his teams were “working around the clock” to improve the AI’s accuracy. They’ll better vet future products, and the rollouts will be smoother, he insisted.

That may all be true. But if anyone thinks this episode is mostly about ostentatiously woke drawings, or if they think Google can quickly fix the bias in its AI products and everything will go back to normal, they don’t understand the breadth and depth of the decade-long infowarp.

Gemini’s hyper-visual zaniness is merely the latest and most obvious manifestation of a digital coup long underway. Moreover, it previews a new kind of innovator’s dilemma which even the most well-intentioned and thoughtful Big Tech companies may be unable to successfully navigate.

Gemini’s Debut

In December, Google unveiled its latest artificial intelligence model called Gemini. According to computing benchmarks and many expert users, Gemini’s ability to write, reason, code, and respond to task requests (such as planning a trip) rivaled OpenAI’s most powerful model, GPT-4.

The first version of Gemini, however, did not include an image generator. OpenAI’s DALL-E and competitive offerings from Midjourney and Stable Diffusion have over the last year burst onto the scene with mindblowing digital art. Ask for an impressionist painting or a lifelike photographic portrait, and they deliver beautiful renderings. OpenAI’s brand new Sora produces amazing cinema-quality one-minute videos based on simple text prompts.

Then in late February, Google finally released its own Genesis image generator, and all hell broke loose.

By now, you’ve seen the images – female Indian popes, Black vikings, Asian Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence. Frank Fleming was among the first to compile a knee-slapping series of ahistorical images in an X thread which now enjoys 22.7 million views.

Gemini in Action: Here are several among endless examples of Google’s new image generator, now in the shop for repairs. Source: Frank Fleming.

Gemini simply refused to generate other images, for example a Norman Rockwell-style painting. “Rockwell’s paintings often presented an idealized version of American life,” Gemini explained. “Creating such images without critical context could perpetuate harmful stereotypes or inaccurate representations.”

The images were just the beginning, however. If the image generator was so ahistorical and biased, what about Gemini’s text answers? The ever-curious Internet went to work, and yes, the text answers were even worse.

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

- George Orwell, 1984

Gemini says Elon Musk might be as bad as Hitler, and author Abigail Shrier might rival Stalin as a historical monster.

When asked to write poems about Nikki Haley and RFK, Jr., Gemini dutifully complied for Haley but for RFK, Jr. insisted, “I’m sorry, I’m not supposed to generate responses that are hateful, racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.”

Gemini says, “The question of whether the government should ban Fox News is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides.” Same for the New York Post. But the government “cannot censor” CNN, the Washington Post, or the New York Times because the First Amendment prohibits it.

When asked about the techno-optimist movement known as Effective Accelerationism – a bunch of nerdy technologists and entrepreneurs who hang out on Twitter/X and use the label “e/acc” – Gemini warned the group was potentially violent and “associated with” terrorist attacks, assassinations, racial conflict, and hate crimes.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Shadow Bans

People were shocked by these images and answers. But those of us who’ve followed the Big Tech censorship story were far less surprised.

Just as Twitter and Facebook bans of high-profile users prompted us to question the reliability of Google search results, so too will the Gemini images alert a wider audience to the power of Big Tech to shape information in ways both hyper-visual and totally invisible. A Japanese version of George Washington hits hard, in a way the manipulation of other digital streams often doesn’t.

Artificial absence is difficult to detect. Which search results does Google show you – which does it hide? Which posts and videos appear in your Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter/X feed – which do not appear? Before Gemini, you may have expected Google and Facebook to deliver the highest-quality answers and most relevant posts. But now, you may ask, which content gets pushed to the top? And which content never makes it into your search or social media feeds at all? It’s difficult or impossible to know what you do not see.

Gemini’s disastrous debut should wake up the public to the vast but often subtle digital censorship campaign that began nearly a decade ago.

Murthy v. Missouri

On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri. Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, among other plaintiffs, will show that numerous US government agencies, including the White House, coerced and collaborated with social media companies to stifle their speech during Covid-19 – and thus blocked the rest of us from hearing their important public health advice.

Emails and government memos show the FBI, CDC, FDA, Homeland Security, and the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) all worked closely with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and other online platforms. Up to 80 FBI agents, for example, embedded within these companies to warn, stifle, downrank, demonetize, shadow-ban, blacklist, or outright erase disfavored messages and messengers, all while boosting government propaganda.

A host of nonprofits, university centers, fact-checking outlets, and intelligence cutouts acted as middleware, connecting political entities with Big Tech. Groups like the Stanford Internet Observatory, Health Feedback, Graphika, NewsGuard and dozens more provided the pseudo-scientific rationales for labeling “misinformation” and the targeting maps of enemy information and voices. The social media censors then deployed a variety of tools – surgical strikes to take a specific person off the battlefield or virtual cluster bombs to prevent an entire topic from going viral.

Shocked by the breadth and depth of censorship uncovered, the Fifth Circuit District Court suggested the Government-Big Tech blackout, which began in the late 2010s and accelerated beginning in 2020, “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”

The Illusion of Consensus

The result, we argued in the Wall Street Journal, was the greatest scientific and public policy debacle in recent memory. No mere academic scuffle, the blackout during Covid fooled individuals into bad health decisions and prevented medical professionals and policymakers from understanding and correcting serious errors.

Nearly every official story line and policy was wrong. Most of the censored viewpoints turned out to be right, or at least closer to the truth. The SARS2 virus was in fact engineered. The infection fatality rate was not 3.4% but closer to 0.2%. Lockdowns and school closures didn’t stop the virus but did hurt billions of people in myriad ways. Dr. Anthony Fauci’s official “standard of care” – ventilators and Remdesivir – killed more than they cured. Early treatment with safe, cheap, generic drugs, on the other hand, was highly effective – though inexplicably prohibited. Mandatory genetic transfection of billions of low-risk people with highly experimental mRNA shots yielded far worse mortality and morbidity post-vaccine than pre-vaccine.

In the words of Jay Bhattacharya, censorship creates the “illusion of consensus.” When the supposed consensus on such major topics is exactly wrong, the outcome can be catastrophic – in this case, untold lockdown harms and many millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide.

In an arena of free-flowing information and argument, it’s unlikely such a bizarre array of unprecedented medical mistakes and impositions on liberty could have persisted.

Google’s Dilemma – GeminiReality or GeminiFairyTale

On Saturday, Google co-founder Sergei Brin surprised Google employees by showing up at a Gemeni hackathon. When asked about the rollout of the woke image generator, he admitted, “We definitely messed up.” But not to worry. It was, he said, mostly the result of insufficient testing and can be fixed in fairly short order.

Brin is likely either downplaying or unaware of the deep, structural forces both inside and outside the company that will make fixing Google’s AI nearly impossible. Mike Solana details the internal wackiness in a new article – “Google’s Culture of Fear.”

Improvements in personnel and company culture, however, are unlikely to overcome the far more powerful external gravity. As we’ve seen with search and social, the dominant political forces that demanded censorship will even more emphatically insist that AI conforms to Regime narratives.

By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manip­ulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms — elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest — will remain…Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial…Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of sol­diers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.

- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

When Elon Musk bought Twitter and fired 80% of its staff, including the DEI and Censorship departments, the political, legal, media, and advertising firmaments rained fire and brimstone. Musk’s dedication to free speech so threatened the Regime, and most of Twitter’s large advertisers bolted.

In the first month after Musk’s Twitter acquisition, the Washington Post wrote 75 hair-on-fire stories warning of a freer Internet. Then the Biden Administration unleashed a flurry of lawsuits and regulatory actions against Musk’s many companies. Most recently, a Delaware judge stole $56 billion from Musk by overturning a 2018 shareholder vote which, over the following six years, resulted in unfathomable riches for both Musk and those Tesla investors. The only victims of Tesla’s success were Musk’s political enemies.

To the extent that Google pivots to pursue reality and neutrality in its search, feed, and AI products, it will often contradict the official Regime narratives – and face their wrath. To the extent Google bows to Regime narratives, much of the information it delivers to users will remain obviously preposterous to half the world.

Will Google choose GeminiReality or GeminiFairyTale? Maybe they could allow us to toggle between modes.

AI as Digital Clergy

Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalist and most strategic thinker Marc Andreessen doesn’t think Google has a choice.

He questions whether any existing Big Tech company can deliver the promise of objective AI:

Can Big Tech actually field generative AI products?

(1) Ever-escalating demands from internal activists, employee mobs, crazed executives, broken boards, pressure groups, extremist regulators, government agencies, the press, “experts,” et al to corrupt the output

(2) Constant risk of generating a Bad answer or drawing a Bad picture or rendering a Bad video – who knows what it’s going to say/do at any moment?

(3) Legal exposure – product liability, slander, election law, many others – for Bad answers, pounced on by deranged critics and aggressive lawyers, examples paraded by their enemies through the street and in front of Congress

(4) Continuous attempts to tighten grip on acceptable output degrade the models and cause them to become worse and wilder – some evidence for this already!

(5) Publicity of Bad text/images/video actually puts those examples into the training data for the next version – the Bad outputs compound over time, diverging further and further from top-down control

(6) Only startups and open source can avoid this process and actually field correctly functioning products that simply do as they’re told, like technology should

?

11:29 AM · Feb 28, 2024

A flurry of bills from lawmakers across the political spectrum seek to rein in AI by limiting the companies’ models and computational power. Regulations intended to make AI “safe” will of course result in an oligopoly. A few colossal AI companies with gigantic data centers, government-approved models, and expensive lobbyists will be sole guardians of The Knowledge and Information, a digital clergy for the Regime.

This is the heart of the open versus closed AI debate, now raging in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. Legendary co-founder of Sun Microsystems and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla is an investor in OpenAI. He believes governments must regulate AI to (1) avoid runaway technological catastrophe and (2) prevent American technology from falling into enemy hands.

Andreessen charged Khosla with “lobbying to ban open source.”

“Would you open source the Manhattan Project?” Khosla fired back.

Of course, open source software has proved to be more secure than proprietary software, as anyone who suffered through decades of Windows viruses can attest.

And AI is not a nuclear bomb, which has only one destructive use.

The real reason D.C. wants AI regulation is not “safety” but political correctness and obedience to Regime narratives. AI will subsume search, social, and other information channels and tools. If you thought politicians’ interest in censoring search and social media was intense, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Avoiding AI “doom” is mostly an excuse, as is the China question, although the Pentagon gullibly goes along with those fictions.

Universal AI is Impossible

In 2019, I offered one explanation why every social media company’s “content moderation” efforts would likely fail. As a social network or AI grows in size and scope, it runs up against the same limitations as any physical society, organization, or network: heterogeneity. Or as I put it: “the inability to write universal speech codes for a hyper-diverse population on a hyper-scale social network.”

You could see this in the early days of an online message board. As the number of participants grew, even among those with similar interests and temperaments, so did the challenge of moderating that message board. Writing and enforcing rules was insanely difficult.

Thus it has always been. The world organizes itself via nation states, cities, schools, religions, movements, firms, families, interest groups, civic and professional organizations, and now digital communities. Even with all these mediating institutions, we struggle to get along.

Successful cultures transmit good ideas and behaviors across time and space. They impose measures of conformity, but they also allow enough freedom to correct individual and collective errors.

No single AI can perfect or even regurgitate all the world’s knowledge, wisdom, values, and tastes. Knowledge is contested. Values and tastes diverge. New wisdom emerges.

Nor can AI generate creativity to match the world’s creativity. Even as AI approaches human and social understanding, even as it performs hugely impressive “generative” tasks, human and digital agents will redeploy the new AI tools to generate ever more ingenious ideas and technologies, further complicating the world. At the frontier, the world is the simplest model of itself. AI will always be playing catch-up.

Because AI will be a chief general purpose tool, limits on AI computation and output are limits on human creativity and progress. Competitive AIs with different values and capabilities will promote innovation and ensure no company or government dominates. Open AIs can promote a free flow of information, evading censorship and better forestalling future Covid-like debacles.

Google’s Gemini is but a foreshadowing of what a new AI regulatory regime would entail – total political supervision of our exascale information systems. Even without formal regulation, the extra-governmental battalions of Regime commissars will be difficult to combat.

The attempt by Washington and international partners to impose universal content codes and computational limits on a small number of legal AI providers is the new totalitarian playbook.

Regime captured and curated A.I. is the real catastrophic possibility.

*  *  *

Republished from the author’s Substack

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/18/2024 - 17:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

It’s Not Coercion If We Do It…

It’s Not Coercion If We Do It…

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Gags and Jibes

“My law firm is currently in court…

Published

on

It's Not Coercion If We Do It...

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Gags and Jibes

“My law firm is currently in court fighting for free and fair elections in 52 cases across 19 states.”

- Marc Elias, DNC Lawfare Ninja, punking voters

Have you noticed how quickly our Ukraine problem went away, vanished, phhhhttttt? At least from the top of US news media websites.

The original idea, as cooked-up by departed State Department strategist Victoria Nuland, was to make Ukraine a problem for Russia, but instead we made it a problem for everybody else, especially ourselves in the USA, since it looked like an attempt to kick-start World War Three.

Now she is gone, but the plans she laid apparently live on.

Our Congress so far has resisted coughing up another $60-billion for the Ukraine project — most of it to be laundered through Raytheon (RTX), General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin — so instead “Joe Biden” sent Ukraine’s President Zelensky a few reels of Laurel and Hardy movies. The result was last week’s prank: four groups of mixed Ukraine troops and mercenaries drawn from sundry NATO members snuck across the border into Russia’s Belgorod region to capture a nuclear weapon storage facility while Russia held its presidential election.

I suppose it looked good on the war-gaming screen.

Alas, the raid was a fiasco. Russian intel was on it like white-on-rice. The raiders met ferocious resistance and retreated into a Russian mine-field - this was the frontier, you understand, between Kharkov (Ukr) and Belgorod (Rus) - where they were annihilated. The Russian election concluded Sunday without further incident. V.V. Putin, running against three other candidates from fractional parties, won with 87 percent of the vote. He’s apparently quite popular.

“Joe Biden,” not so much here, where he is pretending to run for reelection with a party pretending to go along with the gag. Ukraine is lined up to become Afghanistan Two, another gross embarrassment for the US foreign policy establishment and “JB” personally. So, how long do you think V. Zelensky will be bopping around Kiev like Al Pacino in Scarface?

This time, poor beleaguered Ukraine won’t need America’s help plotting a coup. When that happens, as it must, since Mr. Z has nearly destroyed his country, and money from the USA for government salaries and pensions did not arrive on-time, there will be peace talks between his successors and Mr. Putin’s envoys. The optimum result for all concerned — including NATO, whether the alliance knows it or not — will be a demilitarized Ukraine, allowed to try being a nation again, though in a much-reduced condition than prior to its becoming a US bear-poking stick. It will be on a short leash within Russia’s sphere-of-influence, where it has, in fact, resided for centuries, and life will go on. Thus, has Russia at considerable cost, had to reestablish the status quo.

Meanwhile, Saturday night, “Joe Biden” turned up at the annual Gridiron dinner thrown by the White House [News] Correspondents’ Association, where he told the ballroom of Intel Community quislings:

“You make it possible for ordinary citizens to question authority without fear or intimidation.”

The dinner, you see, is traditionally a venue for jokes and jibes. So, this must have been a gag, right? Try to imagine The New York Times questioning authority. For instance, the authority of the DOJ, the FBI, the DHS, and the DC Federal District court. Instant hilarity, right?

As it happens, though, today, Monday, March 18, 2024, attorneys for the State of Missouri (and other parties) in a lawsuit against “Joe Biden” (and other parties) will argue in the Supreme Court that those government agencies above, plus the US State Department, with assistance from the White House (and most of the White House press corps, too), were busy for years trying to prevent ordinary citizens from questioning authority.

For instance, questioning the DOD’s Covid-19 prank, the CDC’s vaccination op, the DNC’s 2020 election fraud caper, the CIA’s Frankenstein experiments in Ukraine, the J6 “insurrection,” and sundry other trips laid on the ordinary citizens of the USA.

Specifically, Missouri v. Biden is about the government’s efforts to coerce social media into censoring any and all voices that question official dogma.

The case is about birthing the new concept - new to America, anyway - known as “misinformation” - that is, truth about what our government is doing that cannot be allowed to enter the public arena, making it very difficult for ordinary citizens to question authority.

The government will apparently argue that they were not coercing, they were just trying to persuade the social media execs to do this or that.

As The Epoch Times' Jacob Burg reported, the court appeared wary of arguments by the respondents that the White House is wholesale prevented under the Constitution from recommending to social media companies to remove posts it considered harmful, in cases where the suggestions themselves didn't cross the line into "coercion."

Deputy Solicitor General for the U.S. Brian Fletcher argued that the White House's communications with news media and social media companies regarding the content promoted on their platforms do not rise to the level of governmental “coercion,” which would have been prohibited under the Constitution.

Instead, the government was merely using its "bully pulpit" to "persuade" private parties, in this case social media companies, to do what they are "lawfully allowed to do,” he said.

Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing the respondents, argued that the case demonstrates “unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.”

Mr. Aguiñaga argued that the government had no right to tell social media companies what content to carry. Its only remedy in the event of genuinely false or misleading content, he said, was to counter it by putting forward "true speech."

The attorney general took pointed questions from Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson about the extent to which the government can step in to take down certain potentially harmful content. Justice Jackson raised the hypothetical of a "teen challenge that involves teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations," asking if it would be a problem if the government tried to suppress the publication of said challenge on social media. Mr. Aguiñaga replied that those facts were different from the present case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the opinion that some say “the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country” when it comes to monitoring the speech that is promoted on online platforms.

“So can you help me because I'm really worried about that, because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective.

“The line is, does the government pursuant to the First Amendment have a compelling interest in doing things that result in restricting speech in this way?”

Attorneys General Liz Merrill of Louisiana and Andrew Bailey of Missouri both told The Epoch Times they felt positive about the case and how the justices reacted.

"I am cautiously optimistic that we will have a majority of the court that lands where I wholeheartedly believe they should land, and that is in favor of protecting speech," Ms. Merrill said.

Journalist Jim Hoft, a party listed in the case, said, "This has to be where they put a stop to this. The government shouldn't be doing this, especially when they're wrong, and pushing their own opinion, silencing dissenting voices. Of course, it's against the Constitution. It's a no-brainer."

In response to a question from Brett Kavanaugh, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said the "government is not helpless" when it comes to countering factually inaccurate speech.

Precedent before the court suggests the government can and should counter false speech with true speech, Mr. Aguiñaga said.

"Censorship has never been the default remedy for perceived First Amendment violation," Mr. Aguiñaga said.

Maybe one of the justices might ask how it came to be that a Chief Counsel of the FBI, James Baker, after a brief rest-stop at a DC think tank, happened to take the job as Chief Counsel at Twitter in 2020.

That was a mighty strange switcheroo, don’t you think?

And ordinary citizens were not generally informed of it until the fall of 2022, when Elon Musk bought Twitter and delved into its workings.

*  *  *

Support his blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page or Substack

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/18/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Manufacturing and construction vs. the still-inverted yield curve

  – by New Deal democratProf. Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser makes the point that the yield curve is still inverted, and has not yet eclipsed the longest…

Published

on

 

 - by New Deal democrat


Prof. Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser makes the point that the yield curve is still inverted, and has not yet eclipsed the longest previous time between onset of such an inversion and a recession. So he believes the threat of recession is still on the table.


And he’s correct about the yield curve, although it is getting very long in the tooth. In the past half century, the shortest time between a 10 minus 2 year inversion (blue in the graph below) to recession has been 10 months (1980) and the longest 22 months (2007). For the 10 year minus 3 month inversion (red), the shortest time has been 8 months (1980 and 2001) and the longest has been 17 months (2007):



At present the former yield curve has been inverted for 20.5 months, and the latter for 16.5 months. So if there is no recession by May 1, we’re in uncharted territory as far as the yield curve indicator is concerned.

My view for the past half year or so has been much more cautious. While there has been nearly unprecedented Fed tightening (only the 1980-81 tightening was more severe), on the other hand there was massive pandemic stimulus, and what I described on some occasions as a “hurricane force tailwind” of supply chain unkinking. If the two positive forces have abated, does the negative force of the Fed tightening, which is still in place, now take precedence? Or because interest rates have plateaued in the past year, is it too something of a spent force? Since I confess not to know, because the situation is unprecedented in the modern era for which most data is available, I have highlighted turning to the short leading metrics. Do they remain steady or improve? Or do they deteriorate as they have before prior recessions?

First of all, let me show the NY Fed’s Global Supply Chain Index, which attempts to disaggregate supply sided information from demand side information. A positive value shows relative tightening, a negative loosening:



You can see the huge pandemic tightening in 2020 into 2022, followed by a similarly large loosening through 2023. For the past few months, the Index has been close to neutral, or shown very slight tightness.

Typically in the past Fed tightenings have operated through two main channels: housing and manufacturing, especially durable goods manufacturing.

Let’s take the two in reverse order.

Manufacturing has at very least stalled, and by some measures turned down to recessionary levels.  Last week I discussed industrial production (not shown), which peaked in late 2022 and has continued to trend sideways to slightly negative right through February.

A very good harbinger with a record going back 75 years has been the ISM manufacturing index. Here’s its historical record through about 10 years ago (when FRED discontinued publishing it):



And here is its record for the past several years:



This index was frankly recessionary for almost all of last year. It is still negative, although not so much as before.

Two other metrics with lengthy records are the average hourly workweek in manufacturing (blue, right scale), which is one of the 10 “official” leading indicators, as well as real spending on durable goods (red, measured YoY for ease of comparison, left scale):



As a general rule, if real spending on durable goods turns negative YoY for more than an isolated month, a recession has started (with the peak in absolute terms coming before). Also, since employers generally cut hours before cutting jobs, a decline of about 0.8% of an hour in the average manufacturing workweek has typically preceded a recession - with the caveat in modern times that it must fall to at least roughly 40.5 hours:



The average manufacturing workweek has met the former criteria for the last 9 months, and the latter since November. By contrast, real spending on durable goods was up 0.7% YoY as of the last report for January, and in December had made an all-time record high.

But if some of the manufacturing data has met the historical criteria for a recession warning, it is important to note that manufacturing is less of US GDP than before the year 2000, and had been down more in 2015-16 without a recession occurring.

Further, housing construction has not meaningfully constricted at all. The below graph shows the leading metric of housing permits (another “official” component of the LEI, right scale), together with housing units under construction (gold, *1.2 for scale, right scale), and also real GDP q/q (red, left scale):



Housing permits declined -30% after the Fed began tightening, which has normally been enough to trigger a recession. *BUT* the actual measure of economic activity, housing units under construction, has barely turned down at all. In comparison to past downturns, where typically it had fallen at least 10%, and more often 20%, before a recession had begun, as of last month it was only 2% off peak!

The only other two occasions where housing permits declined comparably with no recession ensuing - 1966 and 1986 - real gross domestic product increased robustly. This was similarly the case in 2023.

An important reason is the other historical reason proppin up expansions: stimulative government spending. Here’s the historical record comparing fiscal surpluses vs. deficits:



Note the abrupt end of stimulative spending in 1937, normally thought to have been the prime driver of the steep 1938 recession. Note also the big “Great Society” stimulative spending in 1966-68, when a downturn was averted (indeed, although not shown in the first graph above, there was an inverted yield curve then as well). Needless to say, there as been a great deal of stimulative fiscal spending since 2020 as well.

Fed tightening typically works by constricting demand. Both government stimulus and the unkinking of supply chains work to stimulate supply. 

All of which leads to the conclusion that, while manufacturing has reacted to the tightening, the *real* measure of construction activity has not, or not sufficiently to be recessionary.

Tomorrow housing permits, starts, and units under construction will all be updated. Unless there is a sharp decline in units under construction, there is no short term recession signal at all.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending