Pages

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Just a Thought...

From James Somers, "The Case That A.I. Is Thinking: ChatGPT does not have an inner life. Yet it seems to know what it’s talking about," The New Yorker: ...Was ChatGPT mindlessly stringing words together, or did it understand the problem? The answer could teach us something important about understanding itself. “Neuroscientists have to confront this humbling truth,” Doris Tsao, a neuroscience professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me. “The advances in machine learning have taught us more about the essence of intelligence than anything that neuroscience has discovered in the past hundred years.” 

Tsao is best known for decoding how macaque monkeys perceive faces. Her team learned to predict which neurons would fire when a monkey saw a specific face; even more strikingly, given a pattern of neurons firing, Tsao’s team could render the face. Their work built on research into how faces are represented inside A.I. models. These days, her favorite question to ask people is “What is the deepest insight you have gained from ChatGPT?” “My own answer,” she said, “is that I think it radically demystifies thinking.”

...People in A.I. were skeptical that neural networks were sophisticated enough for real-world tasks, but, as the networks got bigger, they began to solve previously unsolvable problems. People would devote entire dissertations to developing techniques for distinguishing handwritten digits or for recognizing faces in images; then a deep-learning algorithm would digest the underlying data, discover the subtleties of the problem, and make those projects seem obsolete. Deep learning soon conquered speech recognition, translation, image captioning, board games, and even the problem of predicting how proteins will fold.

...Today’s leading A.I. models are trained on a large portion of the internet, using a technique called next-token prediction. A model learns by making guesses about what it will read next, then comparing those guesses to whatever actually appears. Wrong guesses inspire changes in the connection strength between the neurons; this is gradient descent. Eventually, the model becomes so good at predicting text that it appears to know things and make sense. So that is something to think about. A group of people sought the secret of how the brain works. As their model grew toward a brain-like size, it started doing things that were thought to require brain-like intelligence. Is it possible that they found what they were looking for?

...Jonathan Cohen, a cognitive neuroscientist at Princeton, emphasized the limitations of A.I., but argued that, in some cases, L.L.M.s seem to mirror one of the largest and most important parts of the human brain. “To a first approximation, your neocortex is your deep-learning mechanism,” Cohen said. Humans have a much larger neocortex than other animals, relative to body size, and the species with the largest neocortices—elephants, dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, dogs—are among the most intelligent.

...I do not believe that ChatGPT has an inner life, and yet it seems to know what it’s talking about. Understanding—having a grasp of what’s going on—is an underappreciated kind of thinking, because it’s mostly unconscious. Douglas Hofstadter, a professor of cognitive science and comparative literature at Indiana University, likes to say that cognition is recognition... Hofstadter was one of the original A.I. deflationists, and my own skepticism was rooted in his. He wrote that most A.I. research had little to do with real thinking, and when I was in college, in the two-thousands, I agreed with him. There were exceptions. He found the U.C.S.D. group interesting. And he admired the work of a lesser-known Finnish American cognitive scientist, Pentti Kanerva, who noticed some unusual properties in the mathematics of high-dimensional spaces...

Hofstadter realized that Kanerva was describing something like a “seeing as” machine. “Pentti Kanerva’s memory model was a revelation for me,” he wrote in a foreword to Kanerva’s book. “It was the very first piece of research I had ever run across that made me feel I could glimpse the distant goal of understanding how the brain works as a whole.” Every kind of thinking—whether Joycean, Proustian, or logical—depends on the relevant thing coming to mind at the right time. It’s how we figure out what situation we’re in...

...L.L.M.s appear to have a “seeing as” machine at their core. They represent each word with a series of numbers denoting its coördinates—its vector—in a high-dimensional space. In GPT-4, a word vector has thousands of dimensions, which describe its shades of similarity to and difference from every other word. During training, a large language model tweaks a word’s coördinates whenever it makes a prediction error; words that appear in texts together are nudged closer in space. This produces an incredibly dense representation of usages and meanings, in which analogy becomes a matter of geometry. In a classic example, if you take the word vector for “Paris,” subtract “France,” and then add “Italy,” the nearest other vector will be “Rome.” L.L.M.s can “vectorize” an image by encoding what’s in it, its mood, even the expressions on people’s faces, with enough detail to redraw it in a particular style or to write a paragraph about it.

When [my friend] Max asked ChatGPT to help him out with [a] sprinkler at the park, the model wasn’t just spewing text. The photograph of the plumbing was compressed, along with Max’s prompt, into a vector that captured its most important features. That vector served as an address for calling up nearby words and concepts. Those ideas, in turn, called up others as the model built up a sense of the situation. It composed its response with those ideas “in mind.” ...

====

Fredric Brown, "Answer" 1954

Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.


He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies. 


Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev." 


Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel. 


Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn." 


"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer." 


He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?" 


The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay. 


"Yes, now there is a God."


Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch. 


A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.

Straws in the Wind - Part 184

From the NY Times: The University of Chicago was where fun went to die. Tulane University was where you could die from too much fun. Neither place liked its reputation, but in 2016, both felt confident enough in changes on their campuses that they started offering an early decision option for student applicants. Apply by November (or January for the “Early Decision II” option) and get an answer weeks later. You just had to agree to attend if you got in.

Within a handful of years, two-thirds of Tulane’s first-year class had taken the deal. The University of Chicago found so much success that it recently added an opportunity to apply even earlier, in some cases before the senior year of high school has even begun. The enrollment chiefs who made this all happen also found success. According to federal filings from 2023, Chicago’s vice president for enrollment and student advancement, James G. Nondorf, received $967,000 over a year from the university and “related” organizations. At Northeastern University, the executive vice chancellor and chief enrollment officer, Satyajit Dattagupta, got $1.079 million in compensation after decamping in 2022 from Tulane, where he had a strong run in a similar role.

If you’re the gatekeeper at schools like these, where over a third of the students will pay full price — $400,000 or so over four years — you earn your keep by landing just a few more of them each year. Miss your number, however, and the shortfall can cascade through four years of revenue shortages. You could also be out of a job. Vice presidents of sales at high-performing organizations make the big bucks, and thousands of teenagers now sign up each year to say Chicago, Northeastern or Tulane is their true love always...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/business/tulane-university-chicago-early-decision.html.

---

From Inside Higher Ed: House Republicans held a hearing [last] Wednesday broadcasting long-standing conservative allegations of a left-wing bias in the small, prestigious Truman Scholarship program. Witnesses called by the GOP said the winners disproportionately espouse causes such as promoting racial justice and fighting climate change—and wind up working for Democrats and left-leaning organizations—while few recipients profess interest in conservative aims.

...Rather than counter the allegations, Democrats and their invited witness largely called the proceedings a distraction from the issue of college unaffordability, which they accused the GOP of exacerbating...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/financial-aid/2025/12/04/house-republicans-accuse-truman-scholarship-liberal-bias.

Saturday, December 6, 2025

Calimony Money to Burn

For those worried about the budget squeeze, you'll be glad to know there is money to burn for certain activities:

From the Mercury News: Cal’s football expenses are soaring following general manager Ron Rivera’s decision to fire coach Justin Wilcox with two years remaining on his contract. In addition to the dead money, the Bears must hire a replacement — Oregon defensive coordinator Tosh Lupoi, a former Cal player, is the heavy favorite — and pay for new assistants and support personnel. All told, the changes likely will cost the Bears in excess of $35 million.

Good thing they will have the cash to cover the transition, courtesy of the University of California.

The so-called Calimony subsidy payments headed to Berkeley from UCLA — to the tune of $30 million over three years — aren’t the half of it. Literally. The Bears will receive an additional $45 million in “bridge” financing from the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) in three annual installments of $15 million, according to a document obtained by the Hotline through a public records request and supplemental information provided by UCOP.

The additional funding was not approved by the UC regents, although they were made aware of it, and had not been widely disclosed. All told, $75 million is bound to Berkeley in three installments of $25 million that began in 2024-25 and will continue through the 2026-27 academic year. The cash isn’t specifically for football and will be used to support the overall athletic department budget, according to Cal. In response to a request for comment on the additional $45 million from UCOP, a university spokesperson provided the following statement:

“The Berkeley campus appreciates the commitment of the University of California system to preserve and build upon Cal Athletics’ tradition of educating student-athletes while enabling them to compete at the highest level of national competition.”

The Bears have plenty of uses for the influx, over and above the coaching change.

Wilcox’s buyout is approximately $11 million, and the Bears likely will spend at least $20 million on a new coach  — a five-year deal at $4 million annually seems like the minimum outlay — and another $5 million (minimum) to dismiss current assistants and hire new ones.

Also, the athletic department reported a budget shortfall in the 2023-24 fiscal year, with $120 million in revenue and $149 million in expenses, according to financial statements reported to the NCAA. Notably, the revenue figure included approximately $35 million in support from central campus...

Full story at https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/12/03/cal-has-more-cash-coming-than-just-ucla-subsidy-for-football-hire-and-everything-else/.

Straws in the Wind - Part 183

From NBC: Americans have grown sour on one of the longtime key ingredients of the American dream. Almost two-thirds of registered voters say that a four-year college degree isn’t worth the cost, according to a new NBC News poll, a dramatic decline over the last decade. Just 33% agree a four-year college degree is “worth the cost because people have a better chance to get a good job and earn more money over their lifetime,” while 63% agree more with the concept that it’s “not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off.”

...The eye-popping shift over the last 12 years comes against the backdrop of several major trends shaping the job market and the education world, from exploding college tuition prices to rapid changes in the modern economy — which seems once again poised for radical transformation alongside advances in AI.

...What has shifted is the price of college. While there have been some small declines in tuition prices over the last decade, when adjusted for inflation, College Board data shows that the average, inflation-adjusted cost of public four-year college tuition for in-state students has doubled since 1995. Tuition at private, four-year colleges is up 75% over the same period. Poll respondents who spoke with NBC News all emphasized those rising costs as a major reason why the value of a four-year degree has been undercut...

[Click on image to clarify.]

Full story at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna243672.

----

From Inside Higher Ed: Chief diversity officers find their work has gotten harder and more stressful over the past two years, according to a new national survey by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. The survey results... are based on responses from 394 chief and academic diversity officers in February 2025.*

...About 68 percent of respondents reported their jobs were less predictable than two years ago; 87 percent found their work more stressful, and 77 percent reported their jobs were more upsetting. The vast majority of diversity officers—91 percent—identified the political climate as the greatest challenge to DEI work on campuses. Students’ and employees’ mental health and crisis management also rose to the top of their concerns. About 31 percent of respondents said their roles have changed in the past two years, with write-in responses about promotions, demotions, title changes and expanding responsibilities related to student success, human resources, Title IX and other campus functions. About 29 percent reported their DEI offices had been reorganized.


Friday, December 5, 2025

The Elephant in the Zoom


The California State Auditor (CSA) apparently raised questions about use of "Online Program Management" companies (OPMs) to provide online instruction UC campuses. Since online instruction came into use, there have been commercial firms that provide instruction and have internet platforms for doing so. The Auditor apparently was concerned about who was doing the instruction as opposed to the method of delivery. The systemwide Academic Senate conducted a review in response.

Much of Senate review seems focused on "transparency" about who was doing the instruction, i.e., disclosing whether the instructor was from UC or from the outside OPM. But there seems to be a larger issue about outsourcing teaching. While much is said in the review about assuring quality, the review seems to sidestep the issue of outsourcing instruction. This avoidance seems surprising given the sometimes excessive concerns at UC and at the UC campuses about protecting "brands." Do we really want to have students, who have competed to be admitted to a UC campus and program, be taught by outside OPM instructors? Is that what our students thought they would be getting when they applied?

That's the unaddressed Elephant in the Zoom.

We reproduce below the cover letter of the review dated Nov. 20 to UC Provost Newman from Academic Council Chair Palazoglu. However, as noted, the issue raised in the Nov. 5 letter to Chair Palazoglu from Katheryn Niles Russ, Chair, Davis Division of the Academic Senate, Professor of Economics, University of California, Davis, seems to have been neglected in the final report: 

...UGC [Undergraduate Council] highlights their concern that the California State Auditor’s (CSA) report revealed that OPM-run courses were misrepresented as UC offerings, and wonders which departments are already using OPMs, how these arrangements benefit students, and what circumstances truly require OPM-hired instructors versus UC faculty and instructors. Similarly, CAES [College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences] questions what prompted the audit by the CSA and asks what the perceived benefits of hiring an outside company to manage these courses rather than vetting and hiring lecturers to manage the course internally are. CAES also wonders whether every OPM instructor should be reviewed and appointed as a lecturer to ensure that they meet UC standards, and whether the interim policy reflects a move to start offering third-party online courses for students for credit...

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-provost-presidential-opm-policy.pdf (p. 9)

=====================

November 20, 2025

Katherine S. Newman

Provost and Executive Vice President, Academic Affairs

Re: Systemwide Senate Review of Interim Presidential Policy for the University of California’s Use of Online Program Management Companies

Dear Provost Newman,

As requested, I distributed for systemwide Academic Senate review the Interim Presidential Policy for UC’s Use of Online Program Management Companies (OPMs). All 10 Academic Senate divisions and two systemwide Senate committees (UCEP [University Committee on Educational Policy], UCFW [University Committee on Faculty Welfare]) submitted comments. These were discussed at the Academic Council’s November 17, 2025 meeting, and the compiled feedback is attached for your reference.

The policy responds to recommendations from the California State Auditor (CSA) concerning UC’s use of OPMs. It establishes systemwide standards to uphold academic integrity, transparency, and compliance with federal and accreditation requirements in OPM partnerships. The policy requires that students be informed when courses are taught by non-UC instructors employed by OPMs and that instructor affiliations and credentials be clearly disclosed. It prohibits enrollment-based financial incentives, outlines expectations for student interaction and assessment, and provides guidance for working with accredited and non-accredited affiliates. The policy currently applies to graduate-level programs but may extend to undergraduate programs as UC expands online course offerings.

Senate reviewers expressed general support for the intent of the interim policy to ensure academic integrity, transparency, and compliance with federal and accreditation standards in UC’s partnerships with OPMs. They viewed the policy as an appropriate and necessary response to the CSA’s findings and an important step toward establishing consistent systemwide standards to address identified risks. However, reviewers found that the policy would benefit from greater clarity and detail regarding faculty oversight, intellectual property, and implementation mechanisms.

Policy Scope and Definitions: Reviewers requested clarification of the policy’s scope, noting inconsistent references to courses, programs, and divisions, as well as conflation of terms such as “schools,” “divisions,” and “Extension.” They recommended aligning terminology, clearly distinguishing between instructional and non-instructional OPM activities, and defining the policy’s coverage as UC expands into undergraduate online instruction.

Senate Oversight: Reviewers emphasized that Senate review and continuing faculty oversight must apply to all OPM-affiliated courses and programs. UCEP specifically noted the need to align OPM-related instructional hiring with Senate Regulations 750A and 800A, which govern faculty appointments and course approval. The committee also highlighted variation in Professional and Continuing Education hiring practices across campuses and recommended stronger coordination and oversight to ensure consistency and academic standards.

Instructor Qualifications and Transparency: Faculty supported disclosure of instructor affiliation and credentials but questioned the usefulness of fine distinctions among UC-employed and UC-contracted instructors. Several noted that professional programs may appropriately prioritize industry experience over traditional academic credentials.

Student Data Privacy and Security: There was strong concern about protecting student information handled by third-party vendors. Reviewers urged that all OPM contracts undergo IT security and privacy review consistent with UC data protection policies and that data retention and recovery protocols be clearly specified.

Intellectual Property and Course Ownership: Reviewers sought explicit assurance that instructional materials developed by UC instructors remain UC or faculty property and that UC retains control over the use and withdrawal of content hosted by OPM platforms.

Course Evaluation: Reviewers supported student evaluations but advised aligning them with UC’s established evaluation practices, supplementing them with peer or faculty review and periodic program-level assessments similar to academic program reviews. UCEP recommended that evaluations include items addressing the adequacy of online modality support for students.

Compliance, Accountability, and Transparency: While reviewers supported the prohibition on incentive-based compensation, they found enforcement provisions vague and recommended clearer accountability for campuses and vendors, defined consequences for violations, and greater transparency into UC’s OPM relationships. Many suggested a systemwide registry or regular reporting of contracts, financial terms, and oversight outcomes, and encouraged UC to build internal capacity for online program management to safeguard academic quality.

Overall, Senate reviewers support the policy’s goals and urge UCOP to strengthen provisions related to faculty oversight and appointment processes, clarify terminology and scope, specify data and intellectual property protections, and establish robust enforcement and transparency mechanisms before issuing a final policy.

Thank you for the opportunity to opine. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ahmet Palazoglu

Chair, Academic Council

cc: Academic Council, Director of Academic Planning and Policy Corona, Senate Division Executive Directors, Senate Executive Director Lin

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-provost-presidential-opm-policy.pdf (pp. 1-3)

Straws in the Wind - Part 182

From the Cornell Daily Sun: Cornell’s $60 million settlement with the Trump administration includes a unique financial provision 一 a $30 million investment in agricultural research, to occur in installments over the next three years. However, it is not yet clear how exactly funds will be distributed. The settlement, which was reached on Nov. 7 after months of negotiations following the Trump administration’s decision to freeze $250 million in federal research grants and contracts from April 2025, also requires the University to pay $30 million to the federal government over the next three years. In return, the administration agreed to drop the Civil Rights complaints and investigations they had raised against the University and will restore the halted funding. 

The settlement states that the agricultural investment should be directed towards “research programs that will directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency, including but not limited to programs that incorporate AI and robotics, such as Digital Agriculture and Future Farming Technologies.”

...When asked about the purpose of the agricultural research investment and the University's plans for allocating the funds, a Cornell spokesperson referred back to the settlement FAQ page,* stating that it “includes all the information we have to share at this time.” Currently, the University is developing “a program within the Office of the Vice Provost for Research (OVPR) to administer the disbursement of this funding. More information will be disseminated by the OVPR later in the year,” the Federal Agreement FAQ page states...

Full story at https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2025/11/where-could-cornell-s-30-million-agriculture-research-investment-from-the-settlement-deal-go.

===

Thursday, December 4, 2025

The Forecast

The UCLA Anderson Forecast met yesterday on campus to discuss the economic outlook, despite gaps in federal data caused by the government shutdown.

From a news release by the Anderson School: The December 2025 UCLA Anderson Forecast for the United States and California describe a situation with two economic trends currently working in opposition. In some sectors of the economy, ongoing and optimistic investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure and rising income among high-wealth households drive the economy, while tariff-induced inflation, policy-driven uncertainty and a gradually weakening labor market indicate signs of sectoral weakness. The result is an economy expected to soften through the first quarter of 2026 before regaining strength later in the year.

In California, the outlook is further complicated by a bifurcated economy: AI, aerospace and other high-productivity


sectors continue to expand, while construction, non-durable goods, leisure and hospitality, and government-funded services face significant headwinds. Deportations, elevated input costs, and weak job growth prolong an employment recession expected to last into early 2026, even as the state continues to outpace the nation in overall productivity.

On balance, the Forecast does not expect an immediate downturn or an immediate resurgence. Instead, both the nation and the state are poised to muddle through early 2026 before experiencing stronger growth in 2026 and 2027...

Full news release at https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/press-releases/us-economy-slow-through-early-2026-while-california-navigates-two-speed-recovery.

You can see the full forecast conference - which includes discussion of cryptocurrency and private equity - at the link below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks0Wu0fw3FI.