Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Another fundamental in speak to people seems to have been lost.

I recently had the misfortune of sitting in a conference room for a period of time that was greater than three hours and somewhat less than an infinity of pain. I, and another couple dozen colleagues, was facing a giant screen to read important words in a PowerPoint. The speaker, the person educating us, was standing behind us and talking to the backs of our heads.

Some people, me, don’t hear well any more, so it helps to see the face and moving lips of a person speaking to us (me). Sigh. Forget it. Just read the words on the screen and tune out the voice of that person talking to he back of my head.

There is a fundamental of communication called “eye contact.” I don’t know if anyone else remembers that. I realize that different cultures assign different meanings to eye contact, but here in our American culture eye contact is important. Well, it used to be important. All these ZoomerTeams meetings where the eyes are not looking at the camera and hence no eye contact has perhaps changed that culture.

And this was always part of being polite and respectful. Two really old concepts.

Anyways, speaking to the back of heads definitely prevents eye contact. Well, another rant from an old man. Perhaps it is time to re-calibrate things I have learned and move on.

by Dwayne Phillips

Common usage is incorrect, but, hey, what’s the problem? Yet another headache.

My grandson is a “rising junior.” That means, and everyone in America understands this but me, that he is between his sophomore and junior years of high school. (And he’s 6’3″ tall which puts him far above me, but I digress.)

This is wrong. “Junior” is the noun indicating he is a junior now. “Rising” is the adjective meaning that he, as a junior, is rising to something let rising in the morning and falling out of bed.

But then again, as an AI chattering bot instructs me, “While your grammatical analysis is sound, ‘rising junior’ is an established idiom in the context of American education. It’s a commonly accepted and understood term to describe students in that specific transitional period. So, while it might not be perfectly logical in a purely literal sense, it’s highly functional and ubiquitous in its particular domain.” This is an “anticipatory labeling.”

By gad. The illiterates win again. I get another headache. Where is the aspirin?

by Dwayne Phillips

Short-range drone attacks using low-cost hardware and software. Could we use this stuff for other things?

During 2025, most of the world was amazed by a couple of military actions that involved drones. Urkaine destroyed Russian military facilities deep inside Russia. Israel destroyed Iranian facilities deep inside Iran. Both of these operations involved drones that didn’t have the flying range necessary. Someone drove a truck deep into forbidden territory, walked away, and the drones few the last mile.

These attacks used inexpensive hardware and software. Most of the software was 20 years old and open-source. Daring, dangerous, and successful.

I wrote a short story in 2014 about such drone attacks. Was I some sort of genius to foresee this? Nope. Just about anyone who gave this a moment’s thought could do the same.

Here’s a question: if someone can send cause cheap drones to deliver explosives to a tiny target in hostile territory thousands of miles away, can someone deliver medicine into an open window at the home of an infirmed person?

The answer must be, “Yes.” And the next question is, “Why aren’t we doing it?” Come on scientists, engineers, technologies, managers, billionaire$. Let’s do some good things for just plain folks.

by Dwayne Phillips

AI has upended large parts of the education system. What to do? Back to basics. Decide what is important to learn and teach that.

Teachers give an assignment. Students use one of these chattering bots to write the answer. Task done. No learning, but the task is done so move on. This is an indictment of the school, teacher, and the education system.

What to do?

There was a time in America when high school students took typing as a course. Some high schools taught four years of typing (I never took typing as a class, but somehow managed to learn approximately where to put my hands and bang out 80 or 90 words a minute). A critical skill to learn was how to position a piece of paper in the typewriter machine so that there was a one-inch margin at the top and bottom of the page and at the right and left of the text. Another critical skill was how to use correction paste or tape and correct mistakes. The teacher knew these critical skills; the students needed to know them. Hence, lots of instruction and practice until the students mastered the skills.

The margin and correction on paper in a typewriter are no longer critical skills. No one teaches them and no one learns them. Times change, technology changes, and education changes. The same is true for calculating square roots of numbers long hand and looking up sine, cosine, etc. in tables and interpolating. Those aren’t critical skills any longer.

Computer programming: students need to learn how to create a loop control structure in the syntax of a language. Practice, practice, and practice through programming assignments. Well, sorry folks, but that is no longer a critical skill. For the life of me, I don’t know how to loop in a bash shell, but I do know to ask a chattering bot how and get a working piece of code (feel the vibe?).

The typing teacher is gone. The programming teacher is … well, is it too early or too late to say that teacher is gone as well?

What are the teachers supposed to teach? And how? Back to basics (funny how things seem to always go back to basics). What are the requirements? (back to that question) What are the critical skills right now? Answer that right now. Create assignments to practice that right now.

And one more thing: some students really don’t need to be students in this or that school. They already have critical skills and should be out creating new businesses and industries. Let them go without requiring a school first.

by Dwayne Phillips

Two fundamental tasks most of us should attempt everyday.

Perhaps you manage work in your profession. Much of what I write is pointed towards us managers of work. I also point towards us leaders of people. Manage and lead. Fundamentals.

Two basic tasks of managers and leaders are observing and noticing. Two different things.

Observing turns on all the senses and takes in everything—well almost everything as sometimes everything is overwhelming. See, touch, taste, smell, hear, etc.

Noticing comes from observing. I have been watching all these people walk in and out of Starbucks this morning. I noticed that few people wear socks in the middle of July. It is too hot for socks or maybe socks are out of style these days.

I sit in a meeting. I observe carefully. I listen carefully as my hearing isn’t as good as it used to be. If I don’t listen carefully, I don’t hear what people are saying. I notice that people speak at one volume as they enter the room and chat about whatever. Once the meeting begins, people speak in a lower volume.

Observe by listening; notice the change in volume. Now I can manage the work and lead the people. Why are people speaking softly when they express their opinion about the work and the organization? Are they afraid? Do they lack confidence? Are battles raging behind the scenes? Those are questions a leader may ask and issues a leader may address.

Observe. Notice. Let’s do better.

by Dwayne Phillips

New tools sometimes allow us to modify the techniques we use. The new tools don’t require modification, but allow it.

These kids today, these engineers and scientists under 30, they just … well, they just do things differently. They have new tools (and I have new tools). They work the way the new tools allow. I, sometimes, modify they way I work to adapt and adopt.

Consider typing—you know, banging on the keyboard to put words and such into the computer. This may go away, but anyways, the kids today type differently. Word processors and look-ahead and think-ahead applications correct typing in real time. The kids are sloppy in their typing. They just fudge the words on the screen as the software corrects the spelling for them. You no longer have to start a sentence with an uppercase letter as the word processor fixes that for you. You don’t have to spell all the words correctly as the word processor fixes that for you. Slop the words on the screen. Don’t worry.

Now consider these chattering bots. They give a different answer every time you ask the same question. Huh? Ever heard of a repeatable experiment? Well, its all probability, so the answer is probably a good one, until it isn’t.

New tool. Modify the technique. Ask a question. Don’t like the answer? Ask again. Change the order of the words in the question. Oh, here’s a different answer. Like it?

Take what is good enough, check the box that the task is done, and move on to the next task.

Hey, that isn’t how I always worked in the past. New tools, modify the technique. Move on.

by Dwayne Phillips

Information created with funds provided by the public is owned by the public. Hence, it is in the public domain.

Public domain is an interesting and fundamental concept. The writings of Jane Austen, one example, are in the public domain. The copyright protection she earned by writing in her lifetime has expired. Anyone can publish her works and sell them.

There is another aspect of the public domain that seems to escape people, particularly those people who are employed by the public. If the public pays for something to be created, the public owns that. It is in the public domain. If members of the public who are employed by the government write something, that something is in the public domain. Members of the public should have access to it and be able to profit from it in business.

If public funds are used by a government agency to write software, that software—created with money from the public—is in the public domain.

This is pretty simple. I am not a lawyer, so some lawyers may write and explain how my simple thoughts may be incorrect.

by Dwayne Phillips

AI agents are all the rage. Really? Of course these things are old news.

OpenAI released the ChatGPT Agent recently. Wow! Great stuff! Okay, it is pretty good stuff. Here is a prompt in plain, everyday English. When something happens, do something. Here are instructions in plain, everyday English. Do that complex task. Good stuff.

Uh, let’s see. Programming a computer: if this then do that. Uh, been doing that since someone invented a one and a zero.

But wait, this is more complicated. This involves analysis of lots of data that is complicated and requires some computation (and maybe “thougtht”) before doing something else that is complicated and requires some computation (and maybe “thought”).

I did a PhD dissertation in computer vision in the late 1980s. I used an idea called a frame where I attached actions to the frame. Analysis of imagery caused an action in the frame to happen. Sort of like an AI agent? That was way back when. I didn’t invent the frame. It existed from a couple of decades before me. It was just something useful that fit part of what I was doing. Old stuff.

Ten years ago I worked with some grad students at George Mason University. They were doing what AI agents are doing. Complex analysis auto-magically triggering complex actions. Too bad they didn’t call their work agentic AI. I guess folks would have laughed at them, but that is more history.

Well, today’s AI agents do much more with much more. They should, they run on super-duper computers the size of giant buildings (called AI datacenters). My AI frames ran on an Intel 386 processor (or was it a 286 processor? I forget).

AI agents? Lots of potential. I walk into a building, tell a computer, “I have a pain here in my lower back.” The computer triggers a series of exams using computer-controlled equipment, analyzes the results, and prescribes treatment. I tell a computer, “Sell this family land.” The computer finds the going rate for land, runs advertisements in the right venues, takes calls from buyers, shows the buyers videos of the land, and has the buyer sign a contract and deposit the money in my account.

Yes, things like the above are useful. Got an AI agent that does those things? Let me know when.

by Dwayne Phillips

Replace people with AI? Cut human jobs? Deciders at companies are deciding these things. It is unfortunate, but deciders at companies have a history of choosing poorly.

Replace people and their jobs with AI. Think of the benefits. Save money. Better the bottom line. And remove some of those pesky people whose major contribution is giving me a headache.

On the other hand, these are tough decisions. The decisions will come from company owners et al. Those folks are known for “choosing poorly” as someone once said in a movie. Well, we all choose poorly the first time we choose. We all choose poorly many times we choose.

This universal mistake making doesn’t help the person who becomes unemployed and struggles to provide for their family.

Here is a prediction and it is one I make with great confidence: the first few rounds of decisions about replacing humans with software will be wrong. There will be much backtracking and changing.

by Dwayne Phillips

There is too much talk out there online. Companies should block that so people can read reliable sources. I know just the source for them.

The Internet cost$ nothing. Well, a few dollars a month to Xfinity or someone or something, but really, the cost is nothing. I can access all sorts of good information. I can publish all sorts of good information (if the information comes from me, it is good).

But then again, every yahoo out there can publish on the Internet. Lots of misinformation, disinformation, and dat-information out there. We need to stop dat-information.

I am not naive. This is a political topic. Some politicians want to regulate speech online. I agree there is lots of bad information online that misleads people into doing harm to themselves and others. I wish dat-information wasn’t there. I wish people noted better information.

My information of course falls in the “better” category. Listen to me. It seems I am not the only one who believes that my information is better. It seems that is part of the human condition.

Should conventional wisdom be challenged? Should conspiracy theorists publish and garner attention? If not, we would still have the four food groups (something the dairy lobby published). If not, we would still treat women for hysteria. We would measure the size and shape of a person’s head to determine whom to hire and to whom we loan money. The list of conventional wisdom from experts and purveyors of good information goes on and on.

Sigh. What to do? Hope for the best; prepare for the worst. And contribute good information in a wise manner. It may be worth the effort. Again, I am not naive, but I believe that good washes out bad. Let’s try.