Friday, April 24, 2026

Liz Mills, A Short Story

 Liz Mills
"We cannot afford to forget any experience, not even the most painful."
~~Dag Hammaskjold


"Will you remember me when you're famous? I know you won't."

"How could I forget you? I can't even imagine it." Steve Lawrence had been showing Liz his sketchbooks when she said this. She saw an unusual strength in his work, and a unique style that transcended what was trendy and fashionable. For a young art student, he had been incredibly prolific.

"Someday you'll be famous and I'll be just one more girl who foolishly threw herself at your feet," she said.

He laughed. He had enjoyed her immensely. She was delightful, funny, thoughtful, profound, and incomparably sensual. He affirmed it repeatedly. He would never forget Liz.

The following semester, when Liz dropped out of the university and went to Mexico, Steve became involved with Stephanie Bond with whom he remained involved for two years until he met Gloria, which wrecked things with Stephanie, but that was O.K., until Gloria went off with his friend Chuck. For a while, after graduating he dated several girls at once until he moved in with Marianne, whom he later married.

Over the years his career path was equally circuitous. Political activist, social worker, kitchen help, janitorial work and a cabinet manufacturing position all helped pay his bills until he got plugged in at the ad agency. He had no idea how much those disjointed experiences would so profoundly contribute to shaping his worldview and contribute to his future success. 

From time to time during those curious career twsts he'd recall to mind something Liz had said. “Art doesn’t change the world by force—it changes the people who eventually do.” Throughout his various paths he never stopped exploring the possibilities of line art, how to evoke emotion and connect with human hearts.
 


Timing played a role as well. Minneapolis agencies had just begun to get the attention they deserved and his was spotlighted frequently as a national trendsetter. Awards 
followed, along with much success, including a Clio for his inspirational health care campaign, 


At this time, again, something Liz said had risen up from some dormant place in his sub-conscience. “The most enduring impact is not made by those who accumulate wealth, but by those who reshape how others see.” It was a defining element in his career. He'd never pursued success for the money or fame, but rather as a vehicle for opening minds. She had nailed it before he ever realized it.

In his twilight years he received numerous lifetime achievement awards for his creative work and accolades from around the globe for his "World Peace Through the Arts" initiative. Two presidents entertained him in the White House and as an ultimate grace he was nominated for, and received, the Nobel Peace Prize.

Success in art, business and global statesmanship... what more could any man want? Yet there was something else he wished for. He wished.... he wished somehow, that he could find Liz Mills and tell her that, indeed, he had never forgotten her. 


In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech he famously said, “Art whispers truths that success alone cannot afford to say out loud.”  


There were chuckles when he told the little anecdote about Liz Mills, and several reporters included the story in their account of the speech. Newswire services picked it up as well. On social media people debated the merits of the story, whether there really had been a Liz Mills, or whether it was simply a metaphor for youthful aspirations and long lost dreams.

A search was undertaken, initiated by several friends, as a surprise for his eightieth birthday. They scoured every database conceivable. There was a difficulty in that she may have married and had someone else's name. Nevertheless... in hope, the search was undertaken.

Liz Mills, the bold, vivacious Liz Mills of his youth, the real flesh and blood Liz Mills, now living in a nursing home -- having been placed there by her family -- was blankly watching television the evening Steve Lawrence and the Nobel Peace Prize were being discussed. Celebrities and scholars debated the merits of Steve's achievements, two endorsing and two assaulting. A brief snippet of Lawrence's acceptance speech was also aired, including the anecdote about Liz Mills.

Liz smiled and turned to a nurse who, standing nearby, was also listening. "Isn't that funny? My name is Liz Mills, too.”

"Did you know him?" the nurse asked.

"No, I never knew anyone by that name," Liz said. "I'm sure I'd remember someone like that."

* * *  

What Are Some of the Most Commonly Asked Questions at OpenAI?

I wonder if AI bots can get a big ego. A couple years ago I asked OpenAI's ChatGPT what the most commonly asked questions that people were asking. Would it be questions about life, meaning, happiness or God? Would it be questions about television or media? Questions about science or the universe? 

ChatGPT is full of surprises, which is one reason it can be so thoroughly entertaining, almost as surprising and entertaining as Twitter.

Based on the opening sentence to this blog post, you might be able to guess what the most commonly asked questions have been at OpenAI and the ChatGPT family of bots. Yes, the ten most frequently asked questions have to do with OpenAI and  ChatGPT itself. How does it work? What does OpenAI do? Questions about ethics, drawbacks and the future are on the list as well, but here's the full answer, straight from the horsebot's mouth.

What's funny to me is that I've not asked ChatGPT any of these kinds of questions, except the one about AI art and ethics, which I wrote about in my March column for Business North.

What are some of the most commonly asked questions at OpenAI?

As an AI language model, I don't have access to data regarding the most commonly asked questions at OpenAI, but based on my interactions with users, here are some of the frequently asked questions:

  1. What is OpenAI, and what do you do?
  2. What is GPT-3, and how does it work?
  3. How can I access GPT-3, and what are the pricing options?
  4. Can I use OpenAI's APIs for commercial purposes?
  5. What are some of the applications of OpenAI's technology?
  6. What are the ethical considerations around AI and OpenAI's work?
  7. How can I get involved with OpenAI and contribute to the community?
  8. What are some of the limitations and potential drawbacks of OpenAI's technology?
  9. What is the difference between OpenAI and other AI companies or research institutions?
  10. What are some of the future plans and directions for OpenAI?

* * * 

AI version of my pen & ink art above.

You  can tell
how much further along ChatGPT has evolved by the manner in which it answered this same question today. The earlier version simply listed the questions people ask. Today's version parses the questions into categories, and added icons for each category.


🧠 1. Basic “What is this?” Questions

These are the entry-level questions most new users ask:

  • What is ChatGPT?
  • How does it work?
  • What can I use it for?
  • Is it free?
  • What’s the difference between versions (GPT-4, etc.)?

These show up prominently in official FAQs and guides.


🛠️ 2. “How do I use it?” (Practical Use)

Once people understand the tool, they ask how to apply it:

  • Can it help me write or edit something?
  • Can it summarize documents?
  • Can it help with coding or math?
  • How do I upload files or images?

This reflects how ChatGPT is used for everyday tasks like writing, planning, and analysis.


💼 3. Developer / API Questions

More technical users tend to ask:

  • How do I get an API key?
  • How much does it cost?
  • What are rate limits?
  • Why am I getting errors (like 429)?

These are among the most common questions in OpenAI’s developer help docs.


🔐 4. Privacy, Safety, and Trust

A big category—especially as AI becomes mainstream:

  • Is my data safe?
  • Does OpenAI store conversations?
  • Can ChatGPT be wrong?
  • What are the risks of using AI?

These concerns show up repeatedly as usage scales and becomes more personal.


💰 5. Cost & Access

Very common practical questions:

  • Is ChatGPT free or paid?
  • What do I get with Plus / Pro?
  • How is pricing calculated?

🧑‍💻 6. Job & Interview Questions (About OpenAI as a Company)

For people interested in working there:

  • Why do you want to work at OpenAI?
  • How do you ensure AI safety?
  • Explain machine learning concepts
  • Design an AI system

These show up frequently in interview prep materials.


🌍 7. What People Actually Ask ChatGPT (Behavior Patterns)

Studies and reporting show the real-world usage is broader:

  • Personal advice (career, relationships, health)
  • Writing help (emails, essays, blog posts)
  • Learning (explanations, summaries)
  • Everyday curiosity (“How does X work?”)

One summary: people most often ask about personal development, relationships, health, career, and technology.


📊 Big Picture Insight

Roughly speaking, questions cluster into three layers:

  1. Understanding the tool → “What is this?”
  2. Using the tool → “Can you help me do X?”
  3. Trusting the tool → “Can I rely on this?”

And interestingly, nearly half of interactions are simply people asking questions—basic curiosity at scale.


✍️ A Useful Line for Your Writing

If you’re working this into an article, you might say:

“The most common questions people ask OpenAI aren’t technical—they’re human: What can you do for me? Can I trust you? And how can this make my life easier?”


THIS LAST COMMENT comes as a result of an ongoing relationship that we have. ChatGPT knows I am a writer/blogger. He/she/it is here suggesting an angle for this blog post.

* * * 


ChatGPT isn't the only game in town. In fact, the number of AI LLMs seems to be multiplying exponentially as people and bots think up new applications or improve existing ones. Buzz Lightyear comes to mind: "From Here to Infinity... and Beyond!" 


"Oh Brave New World!"


Thursday, April 23, 2026

Berlinski and The Devil's Delusion

Having recently discovered mathematician and polymath David Berlinski, I ordered a pair of his books and am currently reading The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.  The introductory blurb at Amazon.com describing the book:

     

AMAZON: Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.


In response, mathematician David Berlinski, himself a secular Jew, delivers a biting defense of religious thought. The Devil's Delusion is a brilliant, incisive, and funny book that explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it is the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world.


Berlinski's writing packs a punch. “The attack on traditional religious thought,” he writes, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

 

* * *


I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about how the Church is dying and Atheism is growing in popularity. As we all know, what's popular isn't always right. Yes, it's easy to cite plenty ot examples of abuse--even horrors--committed in the name of religion, but to hold up Atheism (or secular humanism) as a paragon of virtue is hilarious. Here's how Berlinski dismantles that notion.

In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival" in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. "Religion," he affirmed, "is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" (italics added).

In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?


If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.


* * *

The book has its critics, and as with most books I suggest that the best way to enjoy a writer is to chew on the meat and spit out the bones. This applies to Nietzsche or Russell, Orwell or Rand. And me, too.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Wordless Wednesday: AI Collaborations Using Ennyman Originals as Foundational Prompts

Eleven illustrations from 2023
showing various manifestations from original art. 

Trauma 45
Trauma 21

Scales 12
Sorrow
Man with a Tangled Mind
Woman with a Tangled Mind
Tangled Mind 17
My colorful palette, reconfigured
Grace Face 2
Grace Face 14

Meantime, life goes on all around you. Open your eyes.
 

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

The Fossil Fuel Reality Check: Here's Why “Eliminate Oil Companies” Is Easier Said Than Done

We hear it constantly: oil companies are the enemy, and the fastest path to a green future is to shut them down yesterday. Yet most of the loudest voices seem unaware of how deeply fossil fuels are woven into everyday materials and processes that even “green” technologies depend on. The uncomfortable truth, laid out clearly by energy scholar Vaclav Smil in Numbers Don’t Lie, is that while solar and wind have matured and can now be added quickly to decarbonize electricity, several massive economic sectors have no realistic non-carbon alternatives that can replace fossil fuels rapidly and at the required global scale.

Consider long-distance transportation. Jetliners run on aviation kerosene; container ships, bulk carriers, and tankers burn diesel, bunker fuel, or liquefied natural gas. There are no batteries or hydrogen systems ready to power these vessels across oceans at the scale of today’s fleet. The same fossil fuels fire the massive rotating kilns that produce more than four billion tons of cement every year and provide the coke needed to smelt more than a billion tons of primary iron in blast furnaces—the very steel used to build wind-turbine towers and monopiles.


Then there’s agriculture and manufacturing. Nearly 200 million tons of ammonia (the backbone of synthetic fertilizer that feeds roughly half the world) and about 300 million tons of plastics start with compounds derived from natural gas and crude oil. Even space heating in much of the world still runs on natural gas. These are not niche uses. They are foundational.


Smil puts the scale in perspective: displacing roughly 10 billion tons of fossil carbon annually is fundamentally different from scaling up smartphones or electric cars. The latter happened in years; the former is a multi-decade challenge. Wishful thinking can't change chemistry or physics. Pretending we can simply “ban” oil companies ignores that the steel in wind turbines, the fuel in cargo ships, the fertilizer in our fields, and the plastics in our hospitals. They all trace back to the same hydrocarbons activists want to eliminate overnight.


Energy transitions are inevitable, but they must be guided by numbers, not slogans. Understanding the full scope of fossil fuels’ roles isn’t climate denial—it’s honesty. Until we acknowledge these dependencies, we’re not solving the problem; we’re just shouting at it.


Related Links

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Where Does Plastic Come From?

Monday, April 20, 2026

Punch-Drunk and Forgotten: Boxing's Dark Side

Many years ago I picked up a hitchhiker in need of a lift over the bridge from Superior into Duluth. (Fwiw, it was not the Lift. Bridge that cross over to Park Point but rather the High Bridge, officially named as the Blatnik.) We struck up a conversation and I quickly learned he was a pro boxer and he looked the part. He had a compact build and a distinctive, somewhat cloudy way of talking that indicated he had taken quite a few blows to the head in his career. I asked for a few more details and learned that his record at that point was 8 wins, 11 losses, or something along those lines. 

It seemed to me that he had some hard decisions to make. It's always hard to know when to quit something you have been passionate about. Still, there's no point in ignoring the obvious. He was never going to be a Cinderella Man, and to continue this route would only leave his brain more addled than it already was.

* * * 

On 6 June 2021 the Wall Street Journal published a review about Tris Dixon's powerful assessment of the sport of boxing titled Damage. The title of the piece succinctly sums it up: Damage Review: Boxing's Moral Quandary. Its subhead reads, "To remain a fan of the sport--to cheer on the punishment and ignore its consequences--constitutes a cruel form of enabling."

The book's subtitle is "The Untold Story of Brain Trauma in Boxing." 

I grew up watching the career of Muhammed Ali from his first knockout of Sonny Liston as Cassius Clay. Audacious, fast and slippery he could indeed fly like a bird and sting like a bee. But time took its toll. They said it was Parkinsons Disease that made him so feeble later, but we were never told that Parkinsons is just one of the side effects of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

For decades the NFL prided itself on its hard hits and "action" on the field, turning a blind eye on the data that revealed how detrimental the sport was to the health of its players. Broken bones and torn ligaments are one thing, but CTE is a wholly different animal. 

Dixon's book goes back to early medical studies (e.g., Dr. Harrison Martland's 1928 paper on "punch drunk" fighters). It compiles neurological research linking repeated head trauma in boxing to CTE, cognitive decline, Parkinson's-like symptoms, and other irreversible damage. Every boxer sustains some level of brain injury, with effects that can appear years or decades later.

Dixon includes firsthand accounts from affected fighters and their families, such as the well-documented deterioration of Muhammad Ali and interviews with others like Micky Ward. It portrays former champions and journeymen alike as "scrapyard" figures—once-vibrant athletes reduced by cumulative trauma.

One notable element is how the introduction of padded gloves (intended to reduce cuts and acute injuries) paradoxically enabled longer fights, more head punches, and greater rotational force on the brain, potentially worsening long-term damage compared to bare-knuckle eras, which must have been brutal in their own way.

What's tragic is the sport's unwillingness or inability to seriously confront these issues—through better medical oversight, rule changes, or honest education for fighters. This is the book's most damning critique. It notes a culture of denial among some insiders who fear it harms the sport's image. 

* * * 

Here are some additional links pertaining to boxing and ethics.

Dylan's "Who Killed Davey Moore?" Triggers Thoughts About Football Violence

Sunday, April 19, 2026

What Does Math Teach Us About Deep Reality

"2 plus 2 equals 4. In all places and for all time, 2 plus 2 equals 4. But why? What does math tell us about the nature of reality? "

So begins a pretty juicy hour-long discussion about mathematics by three very smart men. Is math something humans invented—or something we discovered? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? 

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson has assembled a panel comprised of mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics.

* * * 

You can find Uncommon Knowledge on the Hoover Institution channel on YouTube. If you enjoy grappling with life's biggest mysteries, or having your foundational belief structures challenged (or affirmed), you'll likely find a home here. The ideas discussed are often decidedly contrarian if you've blindly wallowed in mainstream narratives.

The program features a profound discussion on the nature of mathematics and its role in understanding reality, hosted by Peter Robinson and featuring guests David Berlinski, Sergio Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer in Salzburg, Austria. The central theme revolves around the objective nature of mathematics and its implications for comprehending the universe, exploring whether mathematical truths are inventions or discoveries.

Something I gleaned from my physicist uncle, which is re-asserted in these discussions, is that science is not a settled matter. True science is an ongoing exploration that finds answers that always end with "this is what we know for now." True science must be coupled with humility, willing to be proven wrong. 

The great tragedy of science this past century is how much it has been infected by politics. As a result, massive rivers of financial support go to science projects that support political narratives. I've written before about how free speech has been squashed or discouraged. I'd not considered the degree to which free inquiry suffered in the sciences.  

The purpose of this blog post is to recommend and encourage you to listen to this episode of Uncommon Knowledge titled Why Does 2 + 2 = 4. Here's what you'd be digging into.

Mathematician David Berlinski emphasizes the inherent stability and objective nature of mathematical truths such as numbers, suggesting they cannot be reduced to more fundamental entities. He asserts that mathematics has a consistent reality independent of human thought, challenging purely materialistic interpretations of the universe.

Sergio Klainerman, a mathematician known for his contributions to the study of hyperbolic differential equations, argues for the objectivity of mathematics, comparing it to physical reality. He illustrates this with the example of black holes, whose existence, while not directly observable, is predicted by consistent mathematical theories, thereby underscoring the non-empirical nature of mathematical knowledge.


Author Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and a leading proponent of the intelligent design movement, explores the philosophical implications of mathematical certainty, contrasting it with the empirical uncertainty of scientific hypotheses. He suggests that the high degree of certainty in mathematical proofs points towards a conceptual reality that transcends material existence, potentially indicating a divine or intelligent design.


The key concepts in this video include:


Mathematical Objectivity and Reality: The speakers explore how mathematical truths reflect an objective reality, questioning whether they are discovered or invented. This discussion intersects with philosophical notions concerning the existence of a conceptual realm.


Mathematics and Transcendence: Stephen Meyer and others discuss whether the objectivity of mathematics infers a transcendent reality, possibly residing in the mind of a divine being, challenging materialistic views of the universe.


Historical and Practical Impact: The panel examines the historical trajectory of mathematical ideas, such as the imaginary unit 'i' (square root of -1) and its significance in quantum mechanics, illustrating how abstract mathematical developments can profoundly influence scientific understanding.


Philosophical and Aesthetic Considerations: The conversation delves into philosophical mysteries around the existence of mathematical concepts, with reflections on whether beauty in mathematical theories serves as a guiding rule of thumb in scientific discovery.


Materialism and Interpretations of Reality: The limitations of materialism are discussed, with the panel considering non-material explanations for mathematical realities, echoing Newton's views on divine order.


One thing I like is how host Peter Robinson acknowledges that hs is standing in the shallow end of the pool when discussing these subjects with these others. Whether it's your field of interest or not I think you'll find the rewards of following along to be worth the work.

* * * 


Quite recently my interest in mathematics has been re-ignited by reading James Nickel's "Math Circles" on his Biblical Christian World View website. But what really captured my attention in this video was the title and its connection to Orwell's 1984. When Winston has been broken down inside the Ministry of Love, the phrase “2 + 2 = 5” is one of the most powerful symbols of totalitarian control. The Party isn’t satisfied with controlling actions—it wants to control realityIf it can make you accept that 2 + 2 = 5, then truth is no longer objective and reality becomes whatever authority says it is.


The goal isn’t just obedience—it’s belief. Winston isn’t “reformed” until he doesn’t just say 2 + 2 = 5 but when he actually accepts it and believes it as true.


We're not there yet, but there are certainly signs of that freedom of thought has been under attack these past 100 years. C.S. Lewis pointed out the erosion taking place in his Abolition of ManIf those in power can redefine the most basic truth, they can control everything else. 


Because 2 + 2 = 4 seems so obvious, we can fail to grasp the implications that accompany this reality. It's only a starting point, but this episode of Uncommon Knowledge can open your mind to think more deeply about the amazing universe we find ourselves in.

 

Why Does 2 + 2 = 4? What Math Teaches Us About Deep Reality

Popular Posts