I haven't taken much notice of this up to now, but with a lot of discussion in the media on the reduction in fact checking on some social media platforms, I wondered how this will impact AI.
I understand that these AI systems gather some of their info from social media, and with so much misinformation on those platforms, how will we be able to rely on the information that comes out of AI?
AI, like humans, will gather information from many sources, although some humans rely on their small sample of perceived 'trusted' sources. However AI, by the definition of its searching power, will likely look at many more sources than a typical human. Even the most trusted sources will contain misinformation - either by design or by error. Then there is the different interpretations of the same data.
@stonemuse Thanks, I've put it on my Kindle Wishlist - I still have to crunch through this, having given a copy to my nephew and unwisely told him that we can have a debate about it. He, of course, has finished it already.
Firstly, tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Bard etc are neither inherently good nor bad; they are shaped by the intent of their creators and the context of their use. Based on my experience, they enhance productivity and democratise access to knowledge.
However, the risks associated with misuse, bias, and dependency on such systems are real and need vigilance. That’s a challenge for regulators and society.
Saying that we “sleepwalk” into hell displays a passive, unthinking consideration of this technology, which I find to be an oversimplification.
While some individuals or organisations may adopt AI without fully understanding its implications, there is a growing global discourse about its ethical and practical boundaries. Conversations like these are evidence that people are questioning, debating, and seeking to shape AI’s role in society.
It’s important to acknowledge that, like any powerful innovation, AI has the potential for harm. However, the solution lies not in rejecting it outright, but in taking an active role in guiding its development. Otherwise Luddism beckons.
With thoughtful engagement and collective effort, ChatGPT and similar tools can be part of a future that enhances human capabilities rather than diminishes them.
To see it as a march towards hell, rather than an opportunity to shape progress responsibly, risks ceding control of the narrative to fear rather than informed dialogue.
As I guess is obvious, I am a big fan.
I'm simply quite concerned about how the relentless march of 'optimisation' has harnessed and will continue to harness a technology that is increasingly adept at simulating the creative, professional and personal output of humans, but is not humans. I'm worried about the effects this will have on human creativity, on work, on relationships, on decisions made by medical companies, on communication with service providers, on education, on political campaigning, on mental health, on every single level of society. And y'know, maybe I am a bit of a Luddite about this. Because, like the original Luddites, I'm ultimately concerned about humans being excluded. Except this time it isn't just weavers, it's everyone with a pulse. And what really scares me is that most humans will passively accept what's happening until it's too late. I hope there's a serious resistance. Human interaction needs to make a comeback, sharpish
I’m not so pessimistic but it does require careful handling. Each time there has been an Industrial Revolution, we adapt … but that does not mean that people do not get hurt on the way. This needs to be minimised.
Having been personally involved in the UK Electronic Trade Documents Act in 2023, and on the periphery of forthcoming Data and Cyber Bills last and this year, I have been very impressed with those in Government, Government departments and the House of Lords who have been involved in this, particularly Lord Holmes who is an amazing individual, and Professor Sarah Green who was then acting as a Law Commissioner.
The optimist might say that AI will usher in a utopia where most people no longer need to work, and instead enjoy a life of leisure funded by universal basic income.
But in my view, that's a fantasy. We can't even get corporations to pay their fair share of tax. Expecting them to willingly hand over a significant portion of their profits to fund those whose jobs they've made obsolete... It’s just not realistic.
What worries me most is the fallout for my kids and the younger generation. The rise of an ever-expanding underclass threatens to pull everyone down with it.
That’s what some said for previous industrial revolutions … pure pie in the sky, and realists are aware of that.
I understand your point, but the industrial revolution created a lot of new jobs and even entire industries like engineering, railways, maintenance, etc. So jobs were lost but also a huge amount were gained.
Unless you have a doctorate in AI or work in a niche AI-related field, AI isn't creating new jobs, it's only taking them, or dramatically reducing the amount of human input needed.
There's a big difference between automating labour and replacing thinking, analysis, logic, process, creativity, etc.
I asked Microsoft's 'Co-Pilot' whether AI can be relied on, if it gathers information from social media where there is so much misinformation. I think the last sentence is something we should be very aware of, given the changes that social media platforms have implemented this week.
You’ve raised a great point. The internet, particularly social media, is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it provides vast amounts of information instantly; on the other, it is rife with misinformation.
AI systems designed to gather and interpret data from social media must be equipped with mechanisms to evaluate the credibility of the sources. Here's how AI can mitigate the risks associated with misinformation:
Cross-Referencing Information: By checking multiple sources, AI can assess the consistency and reliability of the information.
Fact-Checking Algorithms: AI can be programmed with access to fact-checking databases to validate the claims found on social media.
Source Credibility Analysis: AI can analyze the historical reliability of the sources, filtering out those known for spreading misinformation.
Contextual Understanding: Advanced models can understand context better, distinguishing between satire, opinion, and factual reporting.
While AI isn't flawless, these techniques can significantly enhance its reliability. However, human oversight is still crucial to ensure the highest accuracy, especially when dealing with critical information.
I do not know all the jobs that will be created … but many will appear.
My own work has changed already - I now do it in a very different way so it has, essentially, given me a new job … it has been greatly enhanced by AI and changed my approach completely (training, product management, and consultancy).
AI is a tool and society will adjust and adapt as always.
AI has already established real world application unlike ‘crypto’ which by comparison feels to be struggling to evolve as promised / envisaged.
Like others have suggested it will both take and make jobs and probably not as we might yet imagine - PCs were to save us time in the eighties / nineties but work ‘changed’ such that we became slaves to our desktops.
Hard to predict with certainty what the landscape will be in 5 years time.
I do not know all the jobs that will be created … but many will appear.
My own work has changed already - I now do it in a very different way so it has, essentially, given me a new job … it has been greatly enhanced by AI and changed my approach completely (training, product management, and consultancy).
AI is a tool and society will adjust and adapt as always.
Just to add, it’s also made me more competitive. Up until recently, there were many contracts I could not bid for because, as a sole trader, I was up against large corporates and regional banks … difficult when you are on your own.
September last year I found myself competing with two larger companies with plenty of resources for a tight deadline project in respect of an online training proposition with some unusual nuances. I used AI as my personal research team, used my knowledge to change/ update what was wrong or missing, and added my own perspective.
I won the project and could not possibly have done so without AI.
I do not know all the jobs that will be created … but many will appear.
My own work has changed already - I now do it in a very different way so it has, essentially, given me a new job … it has been greatly enhanced by AI and changed my approach completely (training, product management, and consultancy).
AI is a tool and society will adjust and adapt as always.
Just to add, it’s also made me more competitive. Up until recently, there were many contracts I could not bid for because, as a sole trader, I was up against large corporates and regional banks … difficult when you are on your own.
September last year I found myself competing with two larger companies with plenty of resources for a tight deadline project in respect of an online training proposition with some unusual nuances. I used AI as my personal research team, used my knowledge to change/ update what was wrong or missing, and added my own perspective.
I won the project and could not possibly have done so without AI.
I'm also self-employed and it's changed my profession too - I'd say it's made my job 70% easier/faster. That's why there's about 70% less work on the freelance market and the few full-time roles advertised are getting flooded with applicants.
It's a great tool, there's no doubt about it. I use it all the time. But smoking is pretty great, too - doesn't make it good for society!
Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Already happening.
Not all of AI's uses are positive and I can imagine the majority of scams online are being done by AI thanks to humans programming them to do so.
I do not know all the jobs that will be created … but many will appear.
My own work has changed already - I now do it in a very different way so it has, essentially, given me a new job … it has been greatly enhanced by AI and changed my approach completely (training, product management, and consultancy).
AI is a tool and society will adjust and adapt as always.
Just to add, it’s also made me more competitive. Up until recently, there were many contracts I could not bid for because, as a sole trader, I was up against large corporates and regional banks … difficult when you are on your own.
September last year I found myself competing with two larger companies with plenty of resources for a tight deadline project in respect of an online training proposition with some unusual nuances. I used AI as my personal research team, used my knowledge to change/ update what was wrong or missing, and added my own perspective.
I won the project and could not possibly have done so without AI.
Your earlier point about GenAI being an excellent way of democratising knowledge is very valid.
The other side of the coin on that is we now have unprecedented appropriation of copyright material from millions of scientists, artists, musicians, photographers, writers, film makers, etc.
Fortunately, a lot of office use of GenAI e.g. meeting minutes, contact bids, Excel sheets, etc. does not rely on creative intellectual property
But in the creative industries the impact is not good, reducing jobs, career paths and training opportunities.
Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).
We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators.
I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬
Since one will be enough for me, why would you say this one has the edge on the other one ? And would it be better for somebody like me who has minimal understanding of tech generally but is keen to use it?
Since one will be enough for me, why would you say this one has the edge on the other one ? And would it be better for somebody like me who has minimal understanding of tech generally but is keen to use it?
They're both good books - and opinions are subjective - but having read both, I feel Dixon's is written by someone with a deeper understanding of the societal issues, has a much better writing style, and covers the implications in more depth (and a broader range of subjects). Suleyman's is good as well - just think that Dixon's is a better read.
Since one will be enough for me, why would you say this one has the edge on the other one ? And would it be better for somebody like me who has minimal understanding of tech generally but is keen to use it?
They're both good books - and opinions are subjective - but having read both, I feel Dixon's is written by someone with a deeper understanding of the societal issues, has a much better writing style, and covers the implications in more depth (and a broader range of subjects). Suleyman's is good as well - just think that Dixon's is a better read.
Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).
We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators.
I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬
I think stevexreeve has a point regarding hype around GenAI. We underestimate how much human input is needed to train these tools.
So much so that even the most anti-human of the tech billionaires, Elon Musk, is worried that we are running out of training data a.k.a. high quality human knowledge:
Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).
We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators.
I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬
I think stevexreeve has a point regarding hype around GenAI. We underestimate how much human input is needed to train these tools.
So much so that even the most anti-human of the tech billionaires, Elon Musk, is worried that we are running out of training data a.k.a. high quality human knowledge:
Have to say that I am a little underwhelmed by the hype about AI.
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Unfortunately, this is an incredibly naive view of things. AI is a *generative* leap forward (and not for the better - at least not for the vast majority of humanity).
We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators.
I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬
I think stevexreeve has a point regarding hype around GenAI. We underestimate how much human input is needed to train these tools.
So much so that even the most anti-human of the tech billionaires, Elon Musk, is worried that we are running out of training data a.k.a. high quality human knowledge:
Only a tiny proportion of the world's workforce will fulfill that 'high quality human knowledge'.
There's a significant amount of concern in academic circles about the extent to which students are starting to try to use AI LLMs as sources, and not just research tools. They have a major problem of AI systems creating "facts", "legal precedents" and "publications" out of thin air. Allied with either ideological or financial assaults on the liberal arts/social sciences in third level education, and it makes for a potentially very dangerous challenge to broader human knowledge and comprehension.
The widespread ripping off of copyrighted content and environmental impacts of AI operations are also of concern, to say nothing of the impact on future creative production.
But, there is a further problem, reportedly AI systems are now being trained on AI output, which will be likely to only accelerate the speed by which AI produces completely inaccurate materials, matched by an increased volume of such outputs.
I do think AI is likely to offer some valuable assistance when it comes to things like data mining, but I very much doubt that it will prove some kind of universal panacea. The benefits are likely to be marginal, compared to the costs, including environmental.
For me, I just look back three hundred years or so and think of the South Sea Bubble.
Genie is out of the bottle as far as I’m concerned. I don’t see a way of putting it back in either. Misinformation created by AI is just adding to the swamp of false information that’s generated by all kinds of people with an agenda up to and including The POTUS and even here in the UK a certain political party has seized the day with misinformation as a legitimate tactic. I suspect unless AI is somehow, how ? Smart enough to sort the wheat from the chaff, that people will ultimately drift away from using it as a definitive resource. It won’t be trusted.
Can this artificial stuff be creative? For example could this stuff make up a credible love story between an octopus and a Prime Minister who has ADHD, set on the top of a mountain where the only nourishment is a Fortnum and Masons afternoon tea whilst a nuclear war is going on, but it has a happy ending for all the citizens of the world except racists and carnivores. All dialogue to be in the form of song or Morse code.
Comments
But in my view, that's a fantasy. We can't even get corporations to pay their fair share of tax. Expecting them to willingly hand over a significant portion of their profits to fund those whose jobs they've made obsolete... It’s just not realistic.
What worries me most is the fallout for my kids and the younger generation. The rise of an ever-expanding underclass threatens to pull everyone down with it.
Unless you have a doctorate in AI or work in a niche AI-related field, AI isn't creating new jobs, it's only taking them, or dramatically reducing the amount of human input needed.
There's a big difference between automating labour and replacing thinking, analysis, logic, process, creativity, etc.
You’ve raised a great point. The internet, particularly social media, is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it provides vast amounts of information instantly; on the other, it is rife with misinformation.
AI systems designed to gather and interpret data from social media must be equipped with mechanisms to evaluate the credibility of the sources. Here's how AI can mitigate the risks associated with misinformation:
Cross-Referencing Information: By checking multiple sources, AI can assess the consistency and reliability of the information.
Fact-Checking Algorithms: AI can be programmed with access to fact-checking databases to validate the claims found on social media.
Source Credibility Analysis: AI can analyze the historical reliability of the sources, filtering out those known for spreading misinformation.
Contextual Understanding: Advanced models can understand context better, distinguishing between satire, opinion, and factual reporting.
While AI isn't flawless, these techniques can significantly enhance its reliability. However, human oversight is still crucial to ensure the highest accuracy, especially when dealing with critical information.
It's a great tool, there's no doubt about it. I use it all the time. But smoking is pretty great, too - doesn't make it good for society!
We have experienced technical advances ever since we began to leave Africa all those millennia ago!
Wheels, agriculture, boats, writing, printing, guns, industrialisation, looms, railways, electricity, cameras, typewriters, cars, planes, radio, television, atomic power / bombs, radar, cheap refrigerators, birth control, photocopiers, computers, the internet, the f...ing mobile phone, goal line technology, ,VAR, "AI"?
Sung to "We didn't start the fire" or the Big Bang.
Most of these have had massive and lasting effects on employment and peoples ability to communicate.
But, in the end things just carry on and society changes a little.
For instance, we no longer have servants or hundreds of thousands of ladies who spend hour after hour typing and retyping documents, Is this good or bad? . But we do have more engineers and influencers. Is this good or bad?
"AI" is able to reformat a document with better syntax or look things up on the internet but I don't think this is a big deal.
A big change might eventually come when computers become intrinsically malicious, devious, manipulative and dishonest as well as clever and wealthy but this has little to do with "AI".
Not all of AI's uses are positive and I can imagine the majority of scams online are being done by AI thanks to humans programming them to do so.
The other side of the coin on that is we now have unprecedented appropriation of copyright material from millions of scientists, artists, musicians, photographers, writers, film makers, etc.
Fortunately, a lot of office use of GenAI e.g. meeting minutes, contact bids, Excel sheets, etc. does not rely on creative intellectual property
But in the creative industries the impact is not good, reducing jobs, career paths and training opportunities.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Will-Change-Your-Life/dp/1805222570
We're not talking about 'Electricity', or 'Antibiotics' or 'the Internet' here. We're talking about the replacement of around 40% of jobs over the next 20-25 years, on a planet that is already hurtling towards global conflict within that period, with the background of climate change rendering vast swathes of it pretty much uninhabitable, and all under the control of oligarchs puppetmastering populist wannabe (or actual) dictators.
I don't think you've fully grasped the scale of the issue - referring to 'reformatting a document'... 😬
They're both good books - and opinions are subjective - but having read both, I feel Dixon's is written by someone with a deeper understanding of the societal issues, has a much better writing style, and covers the implications in more depth (and a broader range of subjects). Suleyman's is good as well - just think that Dixon's is a better read.
So much so that even the most anti-human of the tech billionaires, Elon Musk, is worried that we are running out of training data a.k.a. high quality human knowledge:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/09/elon-musk-data-ai-training-artificial-intelligence?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Only a tiny proportion of the world's workforce will fulfill that 'high quality human knowledge'.
The widespread ripping off of copyrighted content and environmental impacts of AI operations are also of concern, to say nothing of the impact on future creative production.
But, there is a further problem, reportedly AI systems are now being trained on AI output, which will be likely to only accelerate the speed by which AI produces completely inaccurate materials, matched by an increased volume of such outputs.
I do think AI is likely to offer some valuable assistance when it comes to things like data mining, but I very much doubt that it will prove some kind of universal panacea. The benefits are likely to be marginal, compared to the costs, including environmental.
For me, I just look back three hundred years or so and think of the South Sea Bubble.
For example could this stuff make up a credible love story between an octopus and a Prime Minister who has ADHD, set on the top of a mountain where the only nourishment is a Fortnum and Masons afternoon tea whilst a nuclear war is going on, but it has a happy ending for all the citizens of the world except racists and carnivores. All dialogue to be in the form of song or Morse code.