Artificial Intelligence

If I hear one more person giving some sermon on the US stock market bailout issue, I'm going to have to punch someone. Know-it-all idiots, if you ask me.

The events in the stock markets, here and abroad, the past couple of weeks have prompted much talk among everyone. The Wall Street meltdown that was instigated by the filing for Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Inc. has been all over the papers, net and TV. Of course, just as any scandal would, news has made its way through the grapevine as well. Everyone is talking. The economists. The financial analysts. The stock brokers. The investors. The business people. The business-intelligent. And, of course, also the artificially-business-intelligent.

I say artificial because it is feigned.

This stock market controversy is chiefly the type of thing where people who thrive in "intellectual" conversations brandish their knowledge of the facts and what-nots. And I say thrive because these people simply use the opportunity to make themselves appear smart.

It could be a defense mechanism. It could also be part of one's inferiority complex. Whatever it is, one thing's for sure. I hate it. Ikaw? Intelligent? PWEH.

One problem though with artificial intelligence is it is hardly detectible, if at all. One can go about fooling everyone with feigned intelligence and do so successfully. All of us could pay our precious attention to someone making a Lehman Brothers controversy sermon and have ourselves effectively drawn to the seemingly highly-knowledgeable person talking in front of us. We may be impressed by the seeming authenticity of his competencies, all the while not knowing that all we have in front of us is bootlegged.

Is it not scary knowing that there is artificial intelligence and we might have been and could still be fooled by the idiots who make use of it? More than anything else, is it not insulting?

It is. And today is the day that I do something about it. I hate artificial intelligence and I refuse to be perpetually bound in its foolishness. Ihinto ang pagpapanggap. Tigilan na ang pagbabalatkayo.

How would you know if one is just feigning intelligence?

Here's how.

#1 In Writing – Check for Shift+F7 words

When you get an email or read a blog post, try to count the highfalutin words that appear in the composition. Take note also if there are Latin maxims. If the amount of the non-layman jargon seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I used to hate it when I encountered yearbook write-ups with words like penchant, façade, enigma, etc. I wanted to strike all of those overrated terms and dress the write-up down. "Masyado naman nag-enjoy sa Shift+F7 sa MS Word!" I thought.
It's not just freakishly uncommon gobbledygook. There were also idioms and proverbs. I even caught one using the very pedestrian idiom "Still waters run deep". "Still" you say, hija? STILL? If they are "still", then why are they running? Demnit. I could not bring myself to believe that these terms are used by teenagers in their everyday conversations. A write-up is supposed to be descriptive of the person. It should be candid and realistic, not a vocabulary-building exercise.

There was also this one email that I received from a client a month ago. It read…

xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxx.com wrote on 08/12/2008 02:56:04 PM:

> Hi Tin!
>
>

>Good day!
>Sorry for the late reply, just got back from the Finance's lunch
>out. I totally agree with you in the sense that the entries-in-
>question are in fact manually prepared...blah blah blah... But
>is the control really ineffective, ceteris paribus, and that only
>these "clearing account entries" are not reviewed and approved? Talk about practicality . blah blah blah

>Thanks a lot Tin and I'm still counting on your immediate response...

>Regards,
>xxxxx

I read the email and could not comprehend the purpose of using "ceteris paribus". Was it a ploy to intimidate me with foreign language maxims? Well, I was neither intimidated nor impressed. I was not going to be fooled. I knew pretty well that this guy would not have used this term had we corresponded personally. I was actually tempted to email back something like: genus nunquam perit res perit domino ratio legis est anima ut magis valeat quam pereat ora et labora ad maoriem dei gloriam. I wouldn't have had made sense, yes, but maybe I would've feigned an increase in a few IQ points.

#2 While speaking – See if it's scripted

If you're in a seminar or in a simple conversation, familiarize yourself with the person you are talking to. Notice how much time he spends in making unwarranted sermons on current events and issues, in highly technical English. Observe how he articulates himself. Listen intently then ask yourselves these questions:

Is he an actual authority on the topic he his rambling on about?

Do his expressions sound natural and effortless?
Do his statements make sense?
Barok ba siya?
Is English second-nature to him?

If "no" is the only response you have for your own questions, then honey, the person in front of you has artificial intelligence. It is not beyond comprehension that that idiot read a book on his topic of choice and memorized a few lines from it. Maybe, just maybe, he even threw in a few actions that would make him seem ultra confident.

You don't believe me? Here. Memorize this:

A derivative is a financial contract whose value depends on the performance of a foreign exchange rate, a commodity price, an interest rate, the price of another financial instrument or other financial variables.

Now, when asked of what a derivative is, retrieve the script from your brain. Then, while reciting your lines, make hand gestures as if you're making some important point with every other statement you utter. Ha. If you pull this off, do you not think you'll be a hoot?

I once had a trainer in an audit seminar. I heard endless monologues of technicalities (just like the definition of a derivative as stated above) and expressions like, "Well, I don't know for the life of me" and I kept on thinking, "Really? You use that expression? You—a man who can't articulate even a simple sentence in full English." Isn't that nice. Straight from the business book he just read, if you ask me. Or is it Dilbert? Either way, he seemed so lame and I was so pissed off. Hindi kasi bagay eh. It was so unnatural.

#3 As regards the subject matter – Make sure it's not just a product of 5 minutes in Google and Yahoo! Answers

When the guy starts blabbing on about Lehman and other business shit, don't be impressed just yet. Artificially intelligent people tend to superficially study the topic just so they could talk as if they know the entire thing. Ask really inquisitive questions. If they either get unreasonably ticked off or act as if you've asked the dumbest question ever or just fumble for answers before your eyes, aah…there's an idiot in your presence.

Buddha said:

Again, it may be understood by a person's conversation whether or not he is competent at discussing things. If, on being questioned, a person is evasive, changes the subject, displays anger, malice or sulkiness, then he is incompetent to discuss things. If a person does not do these things, then he is competent at discussion.

Yet again, it may be understood by a person's conversation whether or not he is capable of constructive discussion. If, on being asked a question a person loads scorn on and beats down the questioner, laughs at him and tries to catch him out when he falters, then he is incapable of discussing things. If a person does none of these, then he is capable.

Buddha certainly knew what he was talking about.

I really hate people, and trust me when I say I've met more than a handful of people like this, who frantically research on something just so the next day, they could pass off their overnight knowledge as stock knowledge.

Having immense knowledge of something is particularly impressive if acquiring such was effortless for you. Knowing that you're bragging of your knowledge about the NYSE and the US' largest bailout you just got from a 30-minute run in Yahoo! Answers is a DEAL BREAKER to me. Don't get me wrong though. There's nothing wrong with researching (or using Yahoo! Answers). Just don't act as if knowing such details is second nature to you. Don't act like the guru which you are most obviously not.

Funny thing is these creatures who feign intelligence, as Buddha said, get mad when they're asked questions. How could we blame them, really? They have squat of an idea what they got themselves into. It's but natural for them to act defensive and get mad.

See this post from the blog "Things We Love to Hate".

Argh. If you have no idea how to answer a question, just say so and if, by some miracle, you do admit not knowing, don't act as if it was a dumb question to begin with. Stop shitting us. Don't pretend like you actually know. You're making it difficult for us not to believe that you're making an ass of yourself. We know more about life in outer space than you know anything about Lehman. Yeah, you're that stupid.

Now that y'all know how to spot these fakers, let's all unite and take our time hating them. Let's have our pistols ready and fire at them for every bit of bullshit they utter.

For those of you who want to feign knowledge on Lehman, see Yahoo! Answers. If you do decide to brandish your artificial intelligence, better get out of my way. If I don't catch you off guard with my probing business and finance questions, I'd just stab you just because you're an ass, because I'm sure that, just like all the fakers out there, you'll look like an ass as well…crack, fuzz, [bull]shit, and all.