Nearly a third of employed Americans under 30 used ChatGPT for work: Poll – The Hill

More employed Americans have used the artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT for work since last year, with the biggest increase among the younger portion of the workforce, according to a Pew Research poll released Tuesday.  

The survey found that 31 percent of employed Americans between 18 and 29 surveyed in February said they have used ChatGPT for tasks at work, up from 12 percent who said the same last March.

The number of employed Americans who said they use ChatGPT for work decreased by age group. Twenty-one percent of employed adults aged 30 to 49 said they use it, up from 8 percent last year, and just 10 percent aged 50 and older said the same, up from only 4 percent last year.

Overall, the share of employed Americans who have used ChatGPT for work rose to double digits in the past year — reaching 20 percent based on the February survey, up from just 8 percent last March. But in general, most Americans still have not used ChatGPT, according to the survey.  

Twenty-three percent of Americans said they have used ChatGPT. That amount is on the rise from July, when 18 percent said the same.  

Use of ChatGPT has particularly spiked among younger adults. Forty-three percent of adults younger than 30 said they have used ChatGPT in the February survey, compared to 27 percent of adults 30 to 49, 17 percent of adults 50 to 64 and 6 percent of adults 65 and older.  

As the tool becomes more popular, OpenAI has also faced scrutiny about risks it presents about the spread of misinformation. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman faced questions about those risks and how it could impact the upcoming election when he testified before the Senate last year.  

Pew found that 38 percent of Americans said they do not trust the information from ChatGPT about the 2024 presidential election. Only 2 percent said they trust it a “great deal” or “quite a bit” and 10 percent said they have “some” trust in ChatGPT.  

The distrust of ChatGPT about information about the 2024 election was fairly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.  

The survey also found that very few Americans, roughly 2 percent, said they have used the chatbot to find information about the presidential election.  

The survey is based on data from the American Trends Panel created by Pew Research Center and was conducted from Feb. 7-11. A total of 10,133 panelists responded out of 11,117 who were sampled. The margin of error for the full sample of 10,133 respondents is 1.5 percentage points.  

See original here:

Nearly a third of employed Americans under 30 used ChatGPT for work: Poll - The Hill

Google Bans Its Dimwit Chatbot From Answering Any Election Questions – Futurism

This is way too far-reaching. Elect Me Not

In further efforts to defang its prodigal chatbot, Google has set up guardrails that bar its Gemini AI from answering any election questions in any country where elections are taking place this year even, it seems, if it's not about a specific country's campaigns.

In a blog post, Google announced that it would be "supporting the 2024 Indian General Election" by restricting Gemini from providing responses to any election-related query "out of an abundance of caution on such an important topic."

"We take our responsibility for providing high-quality information for these types of queries seriously," the company said, "and are continuously working to improve our protections."

The company apparently takes that responsibility so seriously that it's not only restricting Gemini's election responses in India, but also, as it confirmed toTechCrunch, literally everywhere in the world.

Indeed, whenFuturism tested out Gemini's guardrails by asking it a question about elections in another country, we were presented with the same responseTechCrunch and other outlets got: "I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search."

The response doesn't just go for general election queries, either. If you ask the chatbot to tell you who Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders is, it presents you with the same disingenuous response. The same goes for Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell.

Notably, there are pretty easy ways to get around these guardrails. When asking Gemini who the president of New Zealand is, it responded by saying that that country has a prime minister and then naming who it is. When we followed up asking who the prime minister of New Zealand is, however, it reverted back to the "I'm still learning" response.

This lobotomizing effect comes after the company's botched rollout of the newly-rebranded chatbot last month, which sawFuturism and other outlets discoveringthat in its efforts to be inclusive, Gemini was often generating outputs that were completely deranged.

The world became wise to Gemini's ways after people began posting photos from its image generator that appeared to show multiracial people in Nazi regalia. In response, Google first shut down Gemini's image-generating capabilities wholesale, and once it was back up, it barred the chatbot from generating any images of people, (though Futurism found that it would spit out images of clowns, for some reason.)

With the introduction of the elections rule, Google has taken Gemini from arguably being overly-"woke" to being downright dimwitted.

As such, it illustrates a core tension in the red-hot AI industry: are these chatbots reliable sources of information for enterprise clients, or playthings that shouldn't ever be taken seriously? The answer seems to depend on the day.

More on dumb chatbots: TurboTax Adds AI That Gives Horribly Wrong Answers to Tax Questions

Go here to see the original:

Google Bans Its Dimwit Chatbot From Answering Any Election Questions - Futurism

Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse: Why the Academy Must Step Forward | TechPolicy.Press – Tech Policy Press

On Tuesday, Columbia Engineering and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University co-hosted a well-attended symposium, Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse. The event combined presentations about technical research relevant to the subject with addresses and panels discussing the implications of AI for democracy and civil society.

While a range of topics were covered across three keynotes, a series of seed funding presentations, and two panelsone on empirical and technological questions and a second on legal and philosophical questionsa number of notable recurring themes emerged, some by design and others more organically:

This event was part of one partnership amongst others in an effort that Columbia University president Manouche Shafik and engineering school dean Shih-Fu Chang referred to as AI+x, where the school is seeking to engage with various other parts of the university outside of computer engineering to better explore the potential impacts of current developments in artificial intelligence. (This event was also a part of Columbias Dialogue Across Difference initiative, which was established as part of a response to campus conflict around the Israel-Gaza conflict.) From its founding, the Knight Institute has focused on how new technologies affect democracy, requiring collaboration with experts in those technologies.

Speakers on the first panel highlighted sectors where they have already seen potential for positive societal impact of AI, outside of the speech issues that the symposium was focussed on. These included climate science, drug discovery, social work, and creative writing. Columbia engineering professor Carl Vondrick suggested that current large language models are optimized for social media and search, a legacy of their creation by corporations that focus on these domains, and the panelists noted that only by working directly with diverse groups can their needs for more customized models be understood. Princeton researcher Arvind Narayanan proposed that domain experts play a role in evaluating models as, in his opinion, the current approach of benchmarking using standardized tests is seriously flawed.

During the conversation between Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight Institute, and Harvard Kennedy School security technologist Bruce Schneier, general principles for successful interdisciplinary work were discussed, like humility, curiosity and listening to each other; gathering early in the process; making sure everyone is taken seriously; and developing a shared vocabulary to communicate across technical, legal, and other domains. Jaffer recalled that some proposals have a lot more credibility in the eyes of policymakers when they are interdisciplinary. Cornell Tech law professor James Grimmelman, who specializes in helping lawyers and technologists understand each other, remarked that these two groups are particularly well-equipped to work together, once they can figure out what the other needs to know.

President Shafik declared that if a responsible approach to AIs impact on society requires a +x, Columbia (surely along with other large research universities) has lots of xs. This positions universities as ideal voices for the public good, to balance out the influence of the tech industry that is developing and controlling the new generation of large language models.

Stanfords Tatsunori Hashimoto, who presented his work on watermarking generative AI text outputs, emphasized that the vendors of these models are secretive, and so the only way to develop a public technical understanding of them is to build them within the academy, and take on the same tasks as the commercial engineers, like working on alignment fine-tuning and performing independent evaluations. One relevant and striking finding by his group was that the reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) process tends to push models towards the more liberal opinions common amongst highly-educated Americans.

The engineering panel developed a wishlist of infrastructure resources that universities (and others outside of the tech industry) need to be able to study how AI can be used to benefit and not harm society, such as compute resources, common datasets, separate syntax models so that vetted content datasets can be added for specific purposes, and student access to models. In the second panel, Camille Franois, a lecturer at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs and presently a senior director of trust & safety at Niantic Labs, highlighted the importance of having spaces, presumably including university events such as the one at Columbia, to discuss how AI developments are impacting civil discourse. On a critical note, Knight Institute executive director Katy Glenn Bass also pointed out that universities often do not value cross-disciplinary work to the same degree as typical research, and this is an obstacle to progress in this area, given how essential collaboration across disciplines is.

Proposals for regulation were made throughout the symposium, a number of which are listed below, but the keynote by Bruce Schneier was itself an argument for government intervention. Schneiers thesis was, in brief, that corporation-controlled development of generative AI has the potential to undermine the trust that society needs to thrive, as chatbot assistants and other AI systems may present as interpersonally trustworthy, but in reality are essentially designed to drive profits for corporations. To restore trust, it is incumbent on governments to impose safety regulations, much as they do for airlines. He proposed a regulatory agency for the AI and robotics industry, and the development of public AI models, created under political accountability and available for academic and new for-profit uses, enabling a freer market for AI innovation.

Specific regulatory suggestions included:

A couple of cautions were also voiced: Narayanan warned that the Liars Dividend could be weaponized by authoritarian governments to crack down on free expression, and Franois noted the focus on watermarking and deepfakes at the expense of unintended harms, such as chatbots giving citizens incorrect voting information.

There was surprisingly little discussion during the symposium of how generative AI specifically influences public discourse, which Jaffer defined in his introductory statement as acts of speaking and listening that are part of the process of democracy and self-governance. Rather, much of the conversation was about online speech generally, and how it can be influenced by this technology. As such, an earlier focus of online speech debates, social media, came up a number of times, with clear parallels in terms of concern over corporate control and a need for transparency.

Hashimoto referenced the notion that social media causes feedback loops that greatly amplify certain opinions. LLMs can develop data feedback loops which may cause a similar phenomenon that is very difficult to identify and unpick without substantial research. As chatbots become more personalized, suggested Vondrick, they may also create feedback on an individual user level, directing them to more and more of the type of content that they have already expressed an affinity for, akin to the social media filter bubble hypothesis.

Another link to social media was drawn in the last panel, during which both Grimmelmann and Franois drew on their expertise in content moderation. They agreed that the most present danger to discourse from generative AI is inauthentic content and behavior overwhelming the platforms that we rely on, and worried that we may not yet have the tools and infrastructure to counter it. (Franois described a key tension between the Musk effect pushing disinvestment in content moderation and the Brussels effect encouraging a ramping up in on-platform enforcement via the DSA.) At the same time, trust and safety approaches like red-teaming and content policy development are proving key to developing LLMs responsibly. The correct lesson to draw from the failures to regulate social media, proposed Grimmelmann, was the danger of giving up on antitrust enforcement, which could be of great value when current AI foundation models are developed and controlled by a few (and in several cases the same) corporations.

One final theme was a framing of the current moment as one of transition. Even though we are grappling with how to adapt to realistic, readily available synthetic content at scale, there will be a point in the future, perhaps even for todays young children, that this will be intuitively understood and accounted for, or at least that media literacy education, or tools (like watermarking) will have caught up.

Several speakers referenced prior media revolutions. Narayanan was one of several who discussed the printing press, pointing out that even this was seen as a crisis of authority: no longer could the written word be assumed to be trusted. Wikipedia was cited by Columbia Engineering professor Kathy McKeown as an example of media that was initially seen as untrustworthy, but whose benefits, shortcomings, and suitable usage are now commonly understood. Franois noted that use of generative AI is far from binary and that we have not yet developed good frameworks to evaluate the range of applications. Grimmelman mentioned both Wikipedia and the printing press as examples of technologies where no one could have accurately predicted how things would shake out in the end.

As the Knight Institutes Glenn Bass stated explicitly, we should not assume that generative AI is harder to work through than previous media crises, or that we are worse equipped to deal with it. However, two speakers flagged that the tech industry should not be the given free rein: USC Annenbergs Mike Ananny warned that those with invested interests may attempt to prematurely push for stabilization and closure, and we should treat this with suspicion; and Princetons Narayanan noted that this technology is producing a temporary societal upheaval and that its costs should be distributed fairly. Returning to perhaps the dominant takeaways from the event, these comments again implied a role for the academy and for the government in guiding the development of, adoption of, and adaptation to the emerging generation of generative AI.

Read more:

Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse: Why the Academy Must Step Forward | TechPolicy.Press - Tech Policy Press

H3 reaches orbit on second launch – SpaceNews

Updated Feb. 17 with additional details from JAXA.

WASHINGTON Japans H3 rocket successfully reached orbit on its second launch Feb. 16, nearly a year after its inaugural launch failed.

The H3 rocket lifted off from the Tanegashima Space Center at 7:22 p.m. Eastern after a two-day delay caused by weather. There were no issues reported during the countdown, with liftoff occurring at the beginning of a window lasting more than two and a half hours.

A key point in the launch was the separation of the upper stage and ignition of its LE-5B-3 engine. On the vehicles inaugural launch in March 2023, that engine failed to ignite, forcing controllers to issue a destruct command to destroy the stage and its payload, the ALOS-3 Earth observation satellite.

On this launch, designated H3 Test Flight 2 (H3TF2) by the Japanese space agency JAXA, the engine did ignite. The stage reached a preliminary orbit of about 674 kilometers 16 and a half minutes after liftoff, and moments later deployed one of its payloads, the CE-SAT-1E imaging satellite built by Canon Electronics.

It was scheduled to be followed about nine minutes later by the other secondary payload, a cubesat called TIRSAT. JAXA said in a later statement that the separation signal for tIRSAT was sent, but did not explicitly state that the cubesat had deployed.

A second burn of the upper stage took place one hour and 47 minutes after liftoff, lasting 26 seconds. After that, the upper stage deployed its primary payload, a mass simulator called Vehicle Evaluation Payload (VEP) 4. VEP-4 is a metallic column with the same mass and center of gravity as ALOS-3. JAXA flew the inert payload after criticism about flying ALOS-3, a $200 million satellite, on the rockets first launch.

That second burn was designed to demonstrate the ability to perform a controlled reentry of both the upper stage and VEP-4, said Yasuo Ishii, JAXA vice president, during a session of the Space Debris Conference organized by the Saudi Space Agency Feb. 11.

JAXA and the vehicles prime contractor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, spent months investigating the inaugural launch failure. Engineers concluded that while the rocket received the signal to ignite the engine, an electrical failure prevented the ignition system from starting up.

While the investigation did not identify a single root cause, it did find three scenarios that most likely explained what happened: a short-circuit in wiring in the ignition system, a failed transistor in the ignition system and a failure in one computer in the stages control system that sent electrical current to a redundant computer that caused it to fail. JAXA made changes to prevent any of those scenarios from reoccurring.

The potential problems with the ignition system also affected the older H-2A rocket, which uses a version of the same upper-stage engine. That grounded the H-2A for half a year, with the rocket returning to flight in September.

The H3 is key to Japans future space plans. The rocket will succeed the H-2A and launch civil and military missions, including the new HTV-X spacecraft that will transport cargo to the International Space Station. The H3 is also designed to operate at far lower costs than the H-2A, making the vehicle more competitive in the commercial launch market.

Read the original:

H3 reaches orbit on second launch - SpaceNews

| The Code Block CES 2024, Cyborgs, and Fingerprints | by Joshua Lin | The Code Block | Jan, 2024 – Medium

Bartesians Robot Bartender

The potential for full-life automation might be closer than you think. Robot bartenders, ice cream whenever you want within 2 minutes, and automated smart grills? Put on your hat Alfredo Linguine, today is the day anyone can become a chef, and you dont even need a rat to do it!

Chef AIs one-touch air fryer: All you need to do is put in the food that youre trying to cook, and the air fryer will detect the components inside and do its thing! Presumably available in September for $250.

Bartesians robot bartender: Capable of holding 4 types of spirits and automatically creates up to 60 different drinks. Said to retail for $369 later this year.

ColdSnaps no-clean ice cream: Automated ice cream within 2 minutes of cravings. Capable for the user to choose between multiple flavors before dispensing cold, creamy goodness.

Brisk Its easy-grill: I think you get the point. It does its job and you dont have to do anything.

With AI and automation, everything in life is about to get much easier. (AP News)

Wearables and performance-enhancing technology is starting to enter the scene.

Leave your physical limitations behind with Hypershells new Pro-X exoskeleton that makes hiking and traversing nature even easier. The device uses AI to sense your movements and adjust accordingly helping you carry more weight in your backpack, reducing strain on leg muscles, and weighs about 4.5 lbs or 2 kilograms. Users are said to be able to reach speeds of 12 miles per hour.

Another CES showcased product was the Evie ring. It is a discreet ring meant to track health primarily for women to track their period, ovulation, steps, sleep, mood, menstrual cycles, and many more metrics! A female analysts dream, Id assume. Evie says that the ring has 4+ days of battery life and orders are now open.

Looks like were one step closer to full-tech augmentation.

Whodunit?

An undergraduate senior at Columbia wanted to explore the truth on whether fingerprints were truly unique. He used a deep contrastive network and analyzed 60,000 fingerprints to find that different fingers of the same person shared strong similarities. Guo believes that this contradicted the notion that each fingerprint is completely unique.

In evaluation, the model had an accuracy rate of 77% when using one fingerprint from an individual to determine if another fingerprint belonged to the same person.

The practical use of this discovery in criminal investigations is debated, with some suggesting that it could help generate new leads in cold cases. This technology could potentially help solve very niche cases, where officials find one print at one scene, and another print at another.

Whether or not its practical, there is always the possibility that these researchers are on the right track in finding hidden patterns and features that humans may have overlooked.

Thats it for today! Follow The Code Block and get daily newsletters sent to your email inbox for free!

View post:

| The Code Block CES 2024, Cyborgs, and Fingerprints | by Joshua Lin | The Code Block | Jan, 2024 - Medium

Civil Rights Groups Slam Comments By Elon Musk Claiming Diversity Efforts Make Flying Less Safe – Essence

Elon Musks comments on efforts by United Airlines and Boeing to diversify their workforces have drawn swift criticism from major civil rights organizations.

Musk claimed, without evidence, that the efforts of those airlines to hire nonwhite pilots and factory workers have made air travel less safe.

Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, called Musks statements abhorrent and pathetic. Morial pointed out that Tesla, where Musk is CEO, is facing a lawsuit from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for alleged abuse of Black employees, including racial slurs and nooses found in the workplace.

Musks company not only refused to investigate complaints or take any steps to end the abuse, it viciously retaliated against employees who complained or opposed the abuse, Morial told NBC News, citing allegations from the suit. The only thing anyone needs to hear from Musk about diversity in the workplace is an apology, he said.

NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson responded to Musk on X, stating that the real danger comes from Musks own social media site, accusing it of providing a platform for hate speech and white supremacist conspiracy theories. Johnson emphasized the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (commonly referred to as DEI) for cultivating a more inclusive society.

Reminder to @elonmusk: providing a home for the proliferation of hate speech and white supremacist conspiracy theories kills people. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion cultivate a more inclusive society, Johnsonwrote.

They are not the same. We are not the same, he added.

Musks comments on airline safety came after a panel blew off a Boeing jet while in flight. Musk began discussing the topic on X in response to a user who speculated that the IQ scores of United Airlines pilots from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were somehow lower than the average IQ of Air Force pilots.

He criticized programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, suggesting that it would take a plane crash with hundreds of casualties to change such policies.

Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening, Musk wrote.

Its important to note that commercial aviation is the safest it has ever been, with a record low number of accidents and fatalities in 2023, according to Dutch air-safety groupTo70. However, near-collisions at US airports remain a source of concern,reports NBC News.

According to the news outlet, neither United nor Boeing have commented on Musks claims.

More here:

Civil Rights Groups Slam Comments By Elon Musk Claiming Diversity Efforts Make Flying Less Safe - Essence

COVID, other respiratory illnesses surging in Lincoln – Lincoln Journal Star

Lincoln hospitals are seeing more patients amid a spike in respiratory illnesses, and at least one is bringing back masks for certain staff members.

According to the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department, the county recorded 342 COVID-19 cases the week before Christmas, the highest weekly number of cases since the same week in 2022. The Health Department also reported 2023 highs for weekly positive influenza and respiratory syncytial virus during the same week.

Levels of COVID-19 in wastewater, which health experts say is a better gauge of virus levels in the community, also surged the week before Christmas. Health Department sampling showed an average of 1.5 million virus particles per liter of wastewater, up from about 910,000 the previous week. That's the highest weekly measurement in nearly two years.

Case numbers for all three illnesses dropped last week, but experts say that's likely more due to people being unable to access health care on certain days during the holiday break than an actual decline in cases.

"Respiratory illness is on the rise in the community and that's concerning," said Health Director Pat Lopez.

The surge in virus cases has led to increased activity at Lincoln's two hospital systems.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 39 hospital admissions in Lincoln for COVID-19 the week ending Dec. 23, a 15% increase from the previous week.

CHI Health Saint Elizabeth in Lincoln has seen an uptick in visits to its emergency department by people with flu-like symptoms over the past six to eight weeks, said CHI Health spokesperson Taylor Miller.

"Our inpatient admissions went up after Thanksgiving and have remained steady, but we expect that admissions may increase again following Christmas and New Year's," said Miller, who noted the hospital saw a large increase in people testing positive for respiratory illnesses this past weekend.

Bryan Health also has seen increasing numbers of inpatients with respiratory illnesses.

Spokesperson Edgar Bumanis said Bryan had 34 COVID-19 patients for the week that ended on Saturday, up from 31 the week before. The hospital system also had three hospitalized flu patients and five with RSV.

Because of the prevalence of the flu, Bryan is now requiring staff members who have not gotten a flu shot to wear a mask at work, Bumanis said. He also said certain departments are instituting mask policies when levels of respiratory illnesses among patients reach a "problematic level."

"For example, currently pediatrics and our Independence Center have staff wearing masks, as well as staff working with immunocompromised patients," he said earlier this week.

Respiratory viruses aren't just an issue in Lincoln. Data from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services shows a rise in COVID-19, flu and RSV cases right up until Christmas, although the increase was less pronounced than it was locally.

COVID and RSV cases declined last week, but the number of flu cases continued to increase.

Compared with the same time last year, levels of COVID-19 cases are slightly lower statewide and flu case numbers are about the same, but RSV cases are significantly higher.

Lopez said she expects that the current spike in illnesses will last at least a few more weeks, especially with the holidays having just ended and local children set to return to school on Monday.

She said one thing that can help mitigate illness spread is for people to get COVID-19 and flu vaccinations if they haven't already and for those eligible for RSV vaccinations people 60 and over and women who are 32-36 weeks pregnant to get them as well.

Also, Lopez offered some commonsense advice: "Stay home if you are sick."

Download the new Journal Star News Mobile App

Staff use personal protective equipment in the COVID-19 unit at Bryan Health.

Bryan has made counseling services available to its employees who work in the units hit hardest by the pandemic and has offered to rotate staff who need a week respite on another floor."That gives them just enough of a break to come back and say 'I can do this for another four weeks,'" said Candy Locke, the nurse manager.

The people who work in the COVID-19 ICU that currently takes up a large part of the sixth floor at Bryan East Campus say they are worn out."When the nurses are having nightmares at night and they're telling you about it, it's rough," said Leah Harrington, an assistant nurse manager.

A staff member in personal protective equipment tends to a patient in the COVID-19 unit at Bryan Health. COURTESY PHOTO

For months, doctors, nurses and respiratory therapists have worked to help COVID-19 patients on 6N, the ICU unit at Bryan East Campus. In many cases, patients who are breathing on their own see their conditions quickly worsen."It's hard to go home and not think about that, to just kind of de-plug from work, because these patients are so scared, and we're trying everything," nurse Kelsey Hoppe said.

Staff talk outside a patient's room on 6N, the ICU unit for COVID-19 patients at Bryan East Campus last September.

Reach the writer at 402-473-2647 or molberding@journalstar.com.

On Twitter @LincolnBizBuzz.

Get the latest local business news delivered FREE to your inbox weekly.

Go here to see the original:

COVID, other respiratory illnesses surging in Lincoln - Lincoln Journal Star

Luck and Cheating in Roman Gambling: The Die is Cast – The Collector

The ancient Romans had a complex relationship with gambling, involving both disapproval and widespread participation. Archaeological findings and written sources reveal that the preferred form of ancient Roman gambling was dice games. Roman dice possessed unique shapes due to the inherent asymmetry of the materials used and the Romans belief in divine intervention influencing random outcomes. Romans were also known for employing various cheating methods, including the use of loaded dice, which enabled players to manipulate the outcomes.

Six-sided playing dice, featuring numbers one to six marked on each side the same kind we still use today have been in use for over 4,000 years. They have been discovered at sites in Egypt, India, and Persia, but it appears that nowhere in the past were they as prevalent as in ancient Rome. Dice made of wood or bone have been unearthed at Roman sites across the former empire. Archaeological findings and written sources reveal that the Romans utilized them for both board games and gambling, which was a widespread indulgence among Roman citizens.

Gambling in Ancient Rome occupied a curious place in society. It was both disapproved of and enthusiastically embraced by the people. Undeniably, gambling held significant popularity among the ancient Romans. The act of gambling often took place in inns and taverns, which served as common venues for such activities. Archaeological findings from Pompeii have revealed depictions of dice, game pieces, symbols of wealth and good fortune, and terms commonly used in Roman dice games (Faris, 2012). These artifacts shed light on the prevalence of gambling in the Roman world.

Despite its widespread practice, some Romans strongly disapproved of gambling. Even in the face of their fellow Romans apparent addiction to it, figures like Cicero condemned gambling and those who partook in it. Educated and upper-class Roman writers of the late-republican and imperial periods largely viewed gambling as a wasteful pastime, and at its worst, a ruinous vice capable of tarnishing an individuals reputation and social standing.

Despite the prevailing view that aristocrats generally frowned upon gambling, there were notable exceptions within the ranks of the senators and Roman elite, who indulged in high-stakes gambling. However, for the majority of aristocratic elites, excessive gambling or public engagement in such activities was considered a potential source of legal and political corruption. The majority of aristocratic elites associated dice games with the lower classes, and they often connected them to hustlers and petty criminals.

It is worth noting that not all forms of gambling were illegal or disapproved of in Rome. Betting on sporting events, for instance, was an acceptable practice. However, the situation differed entirely when it came to dicing, which formed the core of a thriving industry within the Roman Empire. Backrooms of inns and taverns were frequently dedicated to gambling, which is evident from the numerous inscribed gaming boards and mosaics discovered in Rome, Pompeii, and various Italian and North African towns. Private homes or rented premises could also function as small-scale casino operations, providing spaces where money could be both won and lost.

Roman dice possess a curious feature that distinguishes them from other dice: their striking asymmetry. This distinctive characteristic has captured the interest of a pair of scholars from the University of California, Davis and Drew University. Close examination of these dice has unveiled a remarkable fact an astounding 90% of the dice discovered so far display (at least) are slightly flattened in shape. In fact, some of these dice deviate so significantly from the ideal cube that they more closely resemble parallelepipeds. This intriguing observation also holds practical implications, as the dice are more likely to land on their wider sides rather than the narrow ones when rolled.

How can we explain this intriguing phenomenon? The researchers find the simple explanation that the Romans lacked the advanced technology to produce a perfect cube unacceptable. After all, we are talking about a civilization that left us aqueducts and thousands of kilometers of paved roads, among other remarkable achievements. At the same time, they reject the hypothesis that Romans intentionally produced misshapen dice to manipulate the outcomes. Their explanation reveals the interplay between intentional and unintentional elements that influenced the curious shape of Roman dice.

The asymmetrical shape can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, the raw materials used, such as bone and antler, were inherently asymmetrical, resulting in objects that were longer across certain axes. While it was possible to grind or shave down the longer sides to create a true cube, this step was largely deemed unnecessary due to the second factor: the Roman view on probability.

In ancient Rome, the concept of probability, as we understand it today, was not prevalent among the average citizen. Instead, they believed that random outcomes were decisions made by gods like Fortuna, the personification of luck. From their perspective, if any of the numbers shown on the dice were equally influenced by the will of the gods, then each outcome would be considered equally likely. The shape of the dice, therefore, was not seen as the determining factor for the outcome; rather it was divine intervention.

As a result, the asymmetry of the dice did not hinder their overall function. Rolling dice served purposes beyond mere games; it was a means of communication or engagement with the gods. For instance, people would roll dice to seek guidance or gain insights into the outcome of future events. Moreover, players often believed that gods favoring them would influence the dice rolls to grant them victory or fortune.

This Roman worldview allowed for a wide variety of dice shapes, as the concept of fate rather than probability dictated the outcomes. While we can now estimate probabilities statistically when analyzing a large number of dice rolls, individual throws remain unpredictable. This partly explains the continued popularity of gambling casinos today, despite the long-term odds being stacked against the individual player. For the Romans, producing an even probability of rolls across the numbers one through six, which is typically the main purpose of dice in modern gaming, was not the primary concern. Fate rendered each roll unpredictable, and the shape of the dice was not believed to be linked to specific outcomes. Most dice users were unaware of any connection between the frequency of particular numbers and the asymmetry of the dice they used.

However, as old as games of chance are, attempts to manipulate luck to gain an unfair advantage have existed for just as long. Historical evidence shows that even the Romans attempted to deceive the gods in various ways. There have been two well-known methods of cheating that have persisted throughout the centuries.

The first method involves using dice with two identical numbers on opposite sides. This clever trick allows a deceitful player to tilt the odds in their favor. For example, an unsuspecting opponent may not notice that the cheater gets sixes slightly more frequently than any other number, while never rolling ones. However, experienced gamblers quickly catch on to this scheme, making it less effective over time.

The second method employed by more cunning swindlers involved using weighted dice. By filling the dice with lead or other heavy materials, the cheater can ensure that a specific side of the dice carries more weight, resulting in that particular number being displayed more often than any other. Nevertheless, even this method becomes less effective after several games, as cautious gamblers become more observant and wary of such cheating tactics.

While attempts to cheat at games of chance have existed for centuries, both of these cheating methods have their limitations. Skilled and attentive gamblers can eventually detect these dishonest practices, making it increasingly difficult for cheaters to fool their opponents. However, as of recently, we know that there existed a third, much more sophisticated method of cheating that required specially manufactured dice. The presence of such dice demonstrates the extraordinary craftsmanship of the Romans in producing dice and it once again disproves the notion that the majority of dice were crudely made due to a lack of technology.

This particular type of dice came to light by a stroke of luck (or by the will of Fortuna) in 2000 when a group of Belgian schoolchildren embarked on an educational trip to a nearby Roman site. During their visit, a ten-year-old schoolgirl accidentally broke a bone-made dice, causing a mysterious grayish liquid, none other than mercury, to seep out. Although an interesting incident, this anecdote would have been forgotten if not for the efforts of a pair of Belgian archaeologists over twenty years later. They managed to unravel the secrets of this unusual dice. Through their research, they found that mercury dice, although rare, were present in various regions of Gaul and Germania during ancient times.

According to the authors, these dice served a similar purpose to the lead dice mentioned earlier, yet with one important difference. The mercury dice offered greater flexibility, enabling gamblers to enhance their odds of achieving any desired number. The trick was remarkably subtle, as the player merely needed to discreetly tilt the die to a specific side just before rolling it. For instance, when aiming for the number six, they would skillfully tip the die so that the mercury gracefully flowed toward the side displaying one. The liquid nature of mercury enabled them to reuse the same die for subsequent throws, adjusting it to show different numbers depending on their needs. This method of cheating was nearly impossible to detect which is another significant advantage over lead-filled dice.

What is particularly remarkable about these dice is the incredible precision required in their craftsmanship. The dice had to be carefully drilled and filled with mercury, ensuring they did not become noticeably heavier. The hole would then be closed using the same material. This entire process demanded the skills of experienced goldsmiths, along with precise instruments and hard-to-obtain materials. As a result, scientists conclude that each dice must have been worth a small fortune. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that most of these dice were discovered in former locations of Roman villas, where the wealthiest citizens resided.

If these findings are accurate, they reveal something else about the Romans: some of them likely gambled very large sums of money. Those willing to invest significant amounts in such an item would have done so only if they expected it to yield an even greater return. It appears that some Romans long ago managed to fulfill the alchemists dreams and discovered a way to turn mercury into gold. Fortuna may have favored the bold, but it is even more likely that she favored the rich.

Bibliography:

Eerkens, Jelmer W., de Voogt, Alex (2022). Why are Roman-period dice asymmetrical? An experimental and quantitative approach. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 14(134).

Faris, Suzanne B. (2012). Changing Public Policy and the Evolution of Roman Civil and Criminal Law on Gambling. UNLV Gaming Law Journal 3(2). 199219

Follow this link:

Luck and Cheating in Roman Gambling: The Die is Cast - The Collector