Driving Milton Little

 I have been cleaning out a lot of old files and papers recently since we returned from selling our cottage and unpacking the many things we moved back to our house here in Parkhill.  In the process I came across a clipping from an old newspaper article about a church in New Westminster celebrating its one hundredth anniversary.  Sixth Avenue United Church congregation was 100 years old in 1990.  The article noted that my father, Rev. Milton Little, was minister from 1954 to 1960.  I was young and impressionable at that time being born in 1949 – so it was part of my formative years.

The article had an insert about my father and his time while he was the minister there which I have reproduced here:

DRIVEN?

Rev. Milton Little was in charge of Sixth Avenue United Church from 1954 to 1960.  According to a collection of memories put out by the church, Little was “a very unostentatious person”.  He also was an amateur automobile mechanic, and he drove and old pre-war vehicle that some members of the congregation felt reflected negatively on the church.

One evening, while at a church meeting, a runaway truck smashed into Little’s car.  The insurance company wrote it off as being totaled.  “Ahah” said the church people, “Now he’ll have to buy a new car, and he certainly can’t find one as old as he’s been driving.”

But Little did.  The insurance company made a cash settlement with him and let Milton keep his old, smashed-up, jalopy.  With it and with the other vehicle of the same make, model and vintage that he had found, he was able to create one car that he could drive and which was just as “disreputable” as before.

I remember much about these events and looking back, I think that my sympathies were with the congregation members.  The “pre-war vehicle” was a 1936 Chev which I remember well.  It was an embarrassment to me, and I presume my older brother and sister – although I haven’t checked this out with them.  I don’t specifically remember my reaction to the car being demolished but I think it was probably along the same lines as the congregation – now Dad will have to get a more up to date vehicle which is not an embarrassment to be seen riding in. I was realistic enough to know that there was no way my father would get a new car, but it was probably my deep secret desire.  However, a more up to date one was a realistic hope.

Of course, my hope and dream along with those of the congregation, were dashed when, true to form, my father came up with a replacement which was, for all intents and purposes, a clone of the demolished one.  I must admit that one feature of the old car which I enjoyed was the running boards.  I do have fond memories as a young child riding on the running boards for short distances when my father allowed it.  I’m not sure if my mother approved but I imagine it may have caused some friction.

My father and I were not much alike in personality.  We did share a great interest in theology, and we connected on that basis.  However, I have never been a mechanic of any kind – amateur or otherwise and I have always had a preference for new cars which, perhaps I can blame on my embarrassment of that 1936 Chev in my formative years – that new car smell is hard to beat. I won’t say that my prayers and those of the congregation members were answered when that beloved car was demolished - I don’t remember actually praying for that to happen.  However, I think, on some level, it was a case of unconscious prayers of a seven- or eight-year-old child being answered at least for a few days until they were dashed with the reality of my father’s love of that car and of being frugal, which, I must say, stayed with him all his life.

To close on a positive note, I am able to see my father as a complex person with strengths and weaknesses who loved his family in his own way which I did not always appreciate.  Hindsight, if not always 20-20, can be clearer as time goes by as it was in this case. 

 

Is AI a Danger to Humanity?

I grew up as a science fiction nerd.  I consumed a great deal of SF starting with comic books, DC comics of course, with all the superheroes who were my idols if not models of what a hero should be.  As I grew older – perhaps not growing up in this area, I graduated to science fiction novels.  Of course, being a child of the manse (minister’s kid), I also had a good dose of bible stories, and I always favoured the old testament with its heroes such as the shepherd boy David who slew the giant Goliath with a stone from his sling, and Samson who slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.  There was also Noah who built the arc to house two animals or every kind (or seven depending on the verse).  Somehow, I missed the part of the story where Noah becomes drunk and naked, to the shame of his sons, after the flood.  But that came later in my education.

One of the science fiction authors that I consumed was the great Isaac Asimov who wrote novels such as the Foundation Trilogy.  His work came to mind with the recent discussion and controversy around the expectations claiming that there is a possibility that Artificial Intelligence could break out and severely harm, if not wipe out humanity.  Being a person of great imagination, Asimov foresaw the danger in AI early on and devised a solution to the problem of robots running amok and doing harm to people on even a universal scale. 

His solution was the Three Laws of Robotics.  Using AI, I was quickly able to refresh my memory of the Three Laws and what they involved.  Here’s the information provided by Google AI.  I think that in this case the information can be trusted as being accurate and not invented by AI.

 The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, which were to be followed by robots in several of his stories. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although similar restrictions had been implied in earlier stories.

The Laws

The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:^[1]

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The Laws are incorporated into almost all of the positronic robots appearing in his fiction, and cannot be bypassed, being intended as a safety feature.  Asimov added a fourth, or zeroth law, to precede the others:

1.    A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

 

It seems to me that this would address the challenge which has been identified by those AI geeks.  However, the obvious problem is that there we are not dealing with the positronic brain that was envisioned by Asimov – whatever that actually would entail.  I do know that Data, Star Trek, the Next Generation had one – but even an inveterate watcher of TNG didn’t understand what a positronic brain would consist of. 

The other problem seems to be that there seems to be little desire on the part of the world governments of countries where AI is being developed at such dramatic speed, to put controls on the developers.  It requires something like a nuclear proliferation treaty requiring all countries to put those laws or restrictions in place. 

We can only hope and pray that governments will wake up and smell the bacon sizzling on the AI hot plate before it is too late.  After all, even a 5% possibility of annihilation (one of the lower estimates) is 5% too much.  

Giving Thanks

Today is Thanksgiving – a note to my American friends we celebrate Thanksgiving earlier than you.  This morning my thoughts are focused on two things – giving thanks, and home. 

When I think of giving thanks, the passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:18 comes to mind, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."  It is important to note that it says, ‘in every thing’ and not ‘for every thing’.  I don’t think the writer of this passage intends us to give thanks to God for everything that happens to us.  It would be inappropriate to give thanks for the premature death of a loved one, or for a vehicle accident in which you or a passenger was seriously injured, and the many things that many or all of us have experienced in life that are tragic, or heart wrenching, or horrible, to contemplate.  That also applies to the not so serious events in life when fate seems to be conspiring against you.  However, it is possible to give thanks to God when life gives us a wrong turn for God is with us particularly in those difficult times. 

With that in mind, I consider what I am thankful for this Thanksgiving?  Fortunately, I do not have much that is difficult for me to not be thankful for.  Lorna and I have returned from our summer at the cottage in PEI.  We have had 14 years of enjoying and appreciating our time each year at the cottage and with many friends and good neighbours.  That has come to an end with the decision that it was time to close that portion of our lives and sell the cottage.  So, thankfully we were able to sell the cottage in a slow real estate market – the sale was finalized on our last day – something to be truly thankful for.  We were able to pack up all we wanted to bring back to Ontario (more than might be imagined for a cottage), sell what we didn’t, and give to the local second-hand shop.  I was also thankful for the safe journey home which was uneventful if a bit stressful.  Actually, the whole process was quite stressful, and we both are thankful that we didn’t wait until next year to undertake all this as we are definitely not getting any younger – but I hope we are getting better.  So here we are back in our home in Parkhill and settling in for it to be our year-round home.

That brings us to the second thing on my mind this morning – home.  What comes to mind for this is the quote from TS Eliot, "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."  Our cottage was home for us and our house in Parkhill Ontario was and is also home.  However, neither of those homes was, I believe, what Eliot had in mind when he wrote those memorable lines.  I give thanks that Lorna and I had our home at the cottage with friends and neighbours and the opportunity to worship at an Anglican church.  There are things in both homes that have components of what Eliot was expressing.  There was a place where we were safe and secure and could enjoy the aspects of life that fulfilled us – Lona had her garden and I had my bunkie.  We had St. Alban’s church where we could worship God in a meaningful way and where I could preside and provide music with people we love.  That is true of our home in Parkhill – in ways that are different but the same.  We have the Anglican Church of St. John the Evangelist at home in Parkhill.  Both those homes are reflections and indications of what our true home will be when we shall arrive once more at the place we each started and see it truly for the first time.

So, there is much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.  I hope that you have much to give thanks for as well – in everything give thanks but definitely not for everything.