Categories
culture food

Food and Memory

On every visit to Istanbul, I make time to have Iskender kebap at Han Restaurant. A simple but decadent concept with origins dating back to the late 19th century, the kebap is sliced doner meat spread over toasted pita pieces, covered with tomato sauce and then slathered with melted butter, typically at the moment of serving. Yogurt is common; I always get it on the side. Some people (typically hyperbolic tour guides) claim the meal is named for Alexander the Great (Iskender is the Turkish variant of Alexander) but it is actually the name of the family that created it in Bursa many decades ago. Now the purview of specialty restaurants across the country and a fixture at many kebab and meat joints, Iskender has always been one of my favorite dishes and the one at Han holds a special place in my gastronomic heart.

The annual tradition serves as more than just a good meal. It is a remembrance of my uncle, my father’s brother. For years, Iskender would be our meal, our tradition, something we would always carve out time for. While neither of us are particularly laconic, we are not talkative either, so the meals would pass in a comfortable silence interspersed with comfortable conversation. It was one of my most important moments of any visit to Turkey. 

My uncle passed in 2019 but the tradition continues. Usually I go with my cousin but this year I ate my Iskender on my own. It is interesting how the significance of a meal increases your familiarity with it – even if you have it only once a year. I could tell that Han, like many restaurants, was adapting in the face of an ongoing and long-standing fiscal and inflation crisis in Turkey. The meal was more expensive, and yet with more pita and less meat than in prior years. Nevertheless it was delicious and gave me a space of peace and tranquility to honor and remember my uncle.

It’s not the most photogenic of dishes but Iskender kebap is classic and delicious.

It is unsurprising that food can linger long in the memory and spark emotional connection. It is a dance with our senses and so often tied to an experience or an event or a person or some other entity that has spiritual resonance. Despite being what can be both pejoratively and admirably called a “foodie,” I find that an excellent meal on its own, no matter how transcendent, is rarely one that lingers in memory. It is the experience that remains. The chili crab I had in Singapore? Truly amazing but as time goes by I remember it more for the confusion of the staff when I showed up with a suitcase (I was on my way to the airport) and the unholy mess I made while devouring it. The tuna jaw I had in Osaka was an unexpected delight. But when I think of it I can’t help but think of how I visited the food market in the middle of the day… playing hooky on a work trip to Japan (and letting everyone know I was playing hooky because, look, will I ever be back in Osaka and I’m going to experience its food no matter what).

– – –

I am not a fan of birthdays. But growing up, after I had outgrown birthday parties, my birthday did come with the distinct pleasure of choosing a restaurant. There were two places I chose and I remember them as paragons of culinary excellence, though the standards of a child and young adult may be more suspect than those of my current refined or, some may say, precious self. The Mongolian BBQ place on Military Highway remains the ideal manifestation of that cuisine, whose appellation is just as misleading as Holy Roman Empire given it is neither Mongolian nor BBQ. Those frozen rolls of meat, the generous selection of veggies, and the dozens of sauce components. Aside from the bread (uncommon in Asian restaurants and unlike any other bread I have had), the sauces are what lingers in my memory. Not the flavor but the spectacle. They weren’t pre-made fabrications like teriyaki but components: oyster sauce, ginger water, garlic, etc. all in their own pots with their own ladles. I pitied the neophyte who tried to add the sauces themselves as really you let the cook take care of it. His muscle memory let him work at light speed, putting everything into your bowl in a blur of action, with no regard at all for all of the splashing that was happening. This restaurant, whose name I only remember as Mongolian BBQ, is the one that I wish I could revisit again to reconstruct the experience: the sauces, the flavors, the bread, the paper placemats with the Chinese zodiac, the exotic thrill of 1990s globalization where immigrants and their children could dine on the cuisine of other immigrants and their children in the bowels of suburbia.

I thought it had closed. It turns out it’s still open (since 1992), it’s called Genghis Khan’s (of course), and the inside looks exactly the same as I remember it.

Another prime example of the gluttony of 1990s and early 2000s capitalism was the ubiquity of inexpensive, all-you-can-eat establishments. While these still exist, it doesn’t seem to this eater at least that the allure is the same as it was for the Golden Corrals of my youth and the Indian lunch buffets of my young adulthood let alone corollaries like the endless breadsticks at Olive Garden. One such place holds a special place in my memory: Dynasty, with all-you-can-eat mongolian BBQ, Chinese buffet, sushi, and soft-serve in a huge but ramshackle banquet hall at the bottom of a ramshackle Ramada Inn off of the busy but forgettable Northampton Boulevard. In the waning days of high school and on every break from university, my friends and I would beeline to this most average of restaurants to gorge on an endless variety of foodstuffs while in good company.

My second birthday choice was a more sophisticated one. Over time, the draw of Mongolian BBQ lessened as its food changed its quality and its shape until the point where the place finally closed. In its place, the Bienville Grill was my choice. A small neighborhood joint serving Cajun cuisine, I still remember the deep disappointment I felt when I heard it was closing as the owners wished to focus on a second restaurant they managed, one that I thought was inferior and soon closed down itself. While I am an adventurous eater, I usually end up having the same meal each time at my regular spots (my local taco place knows my exact order, as they should given I have gone there for years after yoga every Monday). At Bienville Grill, it was crawfish etouffe. It remains unparalleled in my imagination and memory, as much because it is an uncommon dish. I wonder sometimes if it was really as good as I remember it to be but that’s not really the point, is it. 

These are all examples of food outside of the home but for many people their strongest memories of food are concocted in a home kitchen. My knowledge of the Italian word for grandmother, nonna, is derived entirely from my interest in food – as it seems a nonna cannot be a nonna unless they have at least one special meal that takes hours to day to prepare (and also featured in a cookbook, a blog, or an Instagram post). Are nonna’s meatballs really the best… or do they taste better because you watched her stir the sauce for hours and hours while regaling you with stories? The flavor of food is so much more than what you put in the dish. It is the memories it evokes, the emotions it inspires, the experiences it creates. And so I say to you: live long and eat well!

A picture of Iskender kebap from Han 19 years ago. I actually had this picture on my refrigerator, next to pictures of family, for many years…
Categories
business technology

Consistency is a challenge in AI

A big source of concern around AI in business applications revolves around trust. Can you trust AI to give you the right answer; or will you be constantly worrying about hallucinations? This will always be a challenge because of another characteristic that I think has as big an impact on business applications: a lack of consistency. Each session is an independent event and each agent is an independent agent. The same context can lead to different results from AI even if in many cases they are small and negligible. However, given that the promise of AI means embedding them into critical systems for business and public sector, even small and negligible drift will cause headaches, and that’s assuming the mistakes stay small and negligible. 

Let’s take the example of email agents, a very common use case for personal productivity. A user writes a set of guidelines for AI agents, gives them access to their inbox, and lets the agent autonomously do their work. Many people build human-in-the-loop into the process so they can review but many more likely prefer to just take everything off of their hands.

For this use case, you would write conditional logic in traditional programming. If an email has such-and-such topic and comes from so-and-so, then provide this message in response. There is no judgment. It is predictable and it is consistent. But it is also limited. Even if you build a more sophisticated engine to characterize emails, you still have a discrete set of cases with a discrete set of outputs.

Using AI for the automation of email responses is a completely different paradigm. There are no algorithms and logic statements are for direction not for machine processing. With AI, you provide a prompt with guidance on how to categorize emails, the types of responses to send, when to send the responses, etc. Your system prompt guidance is likely going to be pretty detailed but very different in character than a discrete set of logic statements. The AI model then uses judgment to decide what to do. Testing the process is also different. You can test as much as you’d like but repeatability is no longer the goal; instead, your measures of success shift from a pass/fail certainty to confidence levels.

Now let’s consider business applications and that most ubiquitous use of AI: the virtual assistant, aka the chatbot. At its most basic, a chatbot passes your message to the LLM, along with any relevant additional context (e.g. policy documents for a customer service bot or an API library for a transactional HR bot). In this case, each message is actually its own independent session so it is impossible to predict how a model will respond. For basic use cases, the risk is fairly low as the instructions are straightforward, the solution is simple, and the response options are limited. It doesn’t matter if the model formulates the phrasing of the response a bit differently each time. For more complex interactions and, beyond chatbots, applications with more sophistication and ambiguity, the lack of consistency can transition from innocuous to critical.

AI is embedded in everything from software that checks application hardening against Federal security controls to weapons guidance systems to resume and candidate screening. These are use cases where the model is making more and more judgment calls. Consistency matters but consistency is not guaranteed. Organizations and implementers must take this into account. They must view AI as inherently unpredictable and build harnesses, safety nets, and governance models around it to protect their business and mission goals. Where AI was once thought to be a death knell for SaaS applications the most foresighted have integrated AI into their products cleverly by making it part of the ecosystem instead of making the ecosystem about AI. Tools like watsonx orchestrate should make a lot of sense to business and IT leaders: these tools not only help with managing integrity, safety, and cost but also consistency within common processes and workflows. 

The consistency challenge becomes even more interesting across models. Not too long ago I had to undertake an activity with one of my AI applications (Shelf, a book recommendation engine, it’s great so check it out) that I never expected. When excitedly describing it to a friend and giving her the link, we discovered the site was down. It turns out the issue was that Anthropic had deprecated the model I was using. I now had to deal with one of the greatest banes of an IT professional: the upgrade.

When you upgrade a traditional application, whether truly old school or SaaS, the core functions more or less stay the same. When you change your AI model, it’s possible everything changes. For me, a newer Claude Sonnet model took 4x as long, interpreted my system prompt differently, and returned more hallucinations. During a debugging session, I made a comment about how inefficient the new model was. Here is Claude’s response:

It’s not that it’s “less efficient” — it’s that extended thinking is genuinely more capable on newer models, which tends to mean more thorough reasoning. The old model was likely under-thinking the scoring algorithm. Sonnet 4.6 is actually doing the work more carefully…

One can’t help but think that Anthropic has a lot of consulting materials in its training set as this thought completely ignores that everything was working exactly the way I wanted in the previous model. In a business context, this would be even more frustrating as the implication is that a more advanced model will always be better but anyone familiar with technology knows this is often untrue. Left with no choice, I ended up moving up to the more expensive Opus model, dealing with new parameters and more “independent” behavior, where oftentimes it would ignore the directions in the system prompt. I also ran into this doozy while debugging:

But Opus will sometimes guess rather than say it doesn’t know

That’s the type of unpredictable and difficult-to-control behavior that will give any programmer, IT architect, project manager, or business leader fits. In my case, the stakes are low: it’s an application I built as a hobby. Put in the context of a business application and the upgrade costs become significant. Not only is the new model 2.5x more expensive than the prior, you have to build more code to manage the unpredictability and different approach to judgment of the more advanced model. The upgrade process is different but perhaps it is comforting to know that even with a technology that few of us understand, you can still experience the same headaches as you did with legacy IT.

The challenge then is handling the lack of consistency and that’s where the harnesses I mentioned earlier come into play. Prompt engineering is critical but experience has shown me that it is not as reliable as we hope: models will oftentimes ignore or miss guidance in the prompt. Reducing the calls to an LLM also helps. There is something to be said for the predictability of logic statements, which is why all commercial chatbot builders have integrated deterministic AI to understand certain intents so you can provide discrete responses. Error handling is also critical. The difference is instead of a catch block like in traditional code, you are building logic that anticipates potential inconsistencies, such as ignoring output formats dictated in your system prompt. 

When using AI for personal use, drifts in consistency are not as important; in fact, they may even be helpful for things like building itineraries for a holiday as you get different ideas in each session. For a business application, consistency is critical and any organization deploying an AI-integrated tool to a customer base risks disaster if they do not account for consistency along with the more traditional concerns of cost, trust, and safety.

– – –

Note: This post is also available on my AI-focused site at https://dorukai.dorukakan.com/.

Categories
business culture

AI’s advanced models are bad business

The general atmosphere around AI has become much more alarmist over the past couple of months. With news of rogue AI agents escaping into the wild to wreak havoc or Anthropic claiming they have blocked several attempts to develop biological weapons, we are now squarely in the “This is just too big” era of AI. This is the same space occupied by climate change, a problem so big and complicated, with so many vested interests preferring the status quo, that it seems impossible or at least improbable that there will be any action to satisfy the urgent need for regulation or protection or oversight or, really, anything that minimizes the risk to humanity and the world at large.

Opinions on the ethical and financial value of AI are wide-ranging, touching on everything from NIMBYism and global markets to ethics and the human condition. Worries about the governance and environmental impacts of data centers are the current political hot button in our country. The dialog around job destruction has subsided for the moment as some evidence points to AI creating new jobs in the short term – though I fear the long term will be more dire for employment. The moral and philosophical debates on its impact on art and humanity continue and they are amongst the most important of all discussions but perhaps too esoteric for regular dinner table conversations. And the bullish excitement about rocketing stock market values combined with an anxious, hope-for-the-best and don’t-bother-planning-for-the-worst hand-wringing about a potential bubble is an emotional roller coaster for anyone with a retirement fund. 

It’s an all-encompassing topic and the future keeps arriving faster than we can handle. With AI frontier labs churning out more and more advanced, and more and more energy-hungry, models with more and more concerning consequences, I can’t help but wonder what is their purpose? Anthropic states on their home page that “[a]t Anthropic, we build AI to serve humanity’s long-term well-being.” Their purpose: “We believe AI will have a vast impact on the world. Anthropic is dedicated to building systems that people can rely on and generating research about the opportunities and risks of AI.” Meanwhile, Open AI “is an AI research and deployment company. Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” Despite both prioritizing the idea of research, they are also companies, with revenue and operating costs and margins and so forth. They are both planning IPOs within the next six months, which will bring even greater scrutiny into their financial performance and lead to a reckoning of their balance between markets and mission.

I see the frontier labs continued drive to build more advanced models as bad business practice. Adoption of AI across public sector and commercial organizations remains relatively slow, with military and intelligence organizations being the most avid. Moreover, the current state of models is more than good enough to meet almost all of the use cases that companies would benefit from. Putting it in terms of Anthropic’s Claude models, which are the ones I most use, Sonnet is sufficient for business use with Opus, let alone Fable, adding little additional value. So the frontier labs are essentially spending huge amounts of capital on models that have limited practical value for their enterprise and business customers, organizations whose continued adoption of (and payment for) AI is financially existential to the continued existence of the labs.

How will the markets respond? Can the frontier labs, once public, balance the pressure for increasing revenue with their ambitious appetites, and outsized costs, for cutting-edge research? Are the advanced models flooding the market with too much supply for something that has little demand? Perhaps I lack the necessary imagination but I consider myself fairly fluent in AI usage, certainly more so than most of my peers in the corporate world, and I find Opus to be rather disappointing. If and when I am in a position to procure technology for an organization, I know that Sonnet is fully sufficient for almost every use case and Opus would be a buy for perhaps a small number of individuals to experiment with – certainly not needed for the enterprise, especially at 2.5x the cost. Businesses can derive immense value from Sonnet and they should be using it (or other similar models from other labs). Opus? Pass.

Of course, many companies have been able to successfully combine business and research in all sorts of industries, like pharmaceuticals and manufacturing. I have worked most of my career at IBM and, across its various incarnations, it has a legacy that continues to this day of running an IBM Research division, which is currently exploring the cutting edge of quantum. The difference is in the stakes. The amount of money that is tied up in the frontier labs means they must be financially successful and because of their operating costs the target for financial success is a huge number. They have already become too big to fail and that is before becoming public. The consequences of failure for other companies is implosion; for the AI labs, it is explosion, a domino effect with an outsized impact on the world economy.

There have been so many eloquent and well-reasoned arguments to slow down the pace of AI development that focus on the societal, geopolitical, and environmental consequences. I tend to agree with most of them. But, counterintuitively, I also think we should slow down the pace of AI development for economic reasons as well. The pace is too fast even in our short-term, quarter-to-quarter world, making it increasingly difficult for the business world to effectively adopt and deploy the technology. We are so inured to the capitalistic drive for growth, growth, growth but this is a classic example of the need to walk before running. If you don’t allow customers to walk first they may just throw their hands up and say no mas – and that’s not a good thing for the margins these companies must maintain.

One of my favorite ideas I’ve read is to split these companies up into a profit-making enterprise and a research arm, with the latter being absorbed by the academic community. Of course, with our universities under unparalleled attack by myopic political forces, this idea is likely just a pipe dream. I still find it most compelling. The profit-making side could focus on tweaking models and building tools for their customers, and bringing more advanced models to market more thoughtfully, in the same way that technology companies release upgrades and new versions. And the research side would reside within a world that is more accountable and more collaborative, distributing control of the future of AI whereas in the current state it is concentrated in the hands of a very few and increasingly unstable men. 

Some day, activist investors will likely force a spinoff of the research arms of the labs anyway, so why not get ahead of it with a win-win proposition of benefits for business through more focus and a more controlled and transparent development for AI, where it can actually benefit humanity. The alternative, absent any serious regulation or geopolitical compromise, is a light speed trip to financial disaster or a world where the oligarchs end up making use of those underground bunkers they have been building…

– – – 

Moments after my initial draft of this post, I read two interesting and relevant articles. The first covers how an OpenAI model solved one of the Millenium Prize Problems (in mathematics). This report covers a lot of interesting angles. Two thoughts I want to draw out as they relate to what I wrote above. First, if you are a CIO, your reaction would likely be that’s cool… but so what? Is a model powerful enough to solve the Navier-Stokes model really what you need to improve your business process and go-to-market capabilities? 

Second, the article notes that the estimated cost for solving the problem was $15M. This is an example of the tension between business and research. This may be $15M well spent for the advancement of knowledge (though many of the mathematicians in the article make excellent refutations to that claim) but it is $15M poorly spent for business. A traditional McKinsey consultant would slash this line more quickly than underfunded school districts axe their arts programs.

The second covers an essay published by Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, urging an AI slowdown. This report (behind a paywall but other sources widely available I’m sure) summarizes his points. According to the summary (the essay itself is 3800 words long, twice as long as this post), his main argument is safety, one of the most important and compelling arguments. But one can’t help but wonder whether Dario Amodei and his company may be the worst actors of all. We hear Anthropic continually publish warnings about the dangers of AI and make the most frequent calls for action on regulation, but they always externalize the need instead of actually doing anything themselves. Once widely seen as an admirable counterweight to the psychopathy of Elon Musk and emotional instability of Sam Altman, Anthropic has proven itself to be just as ego-driven as their competitors, throwing in fistfuls of pious hypocrisy into the mix as well.

– – – 

Note: This post is also available on my AI-focused site at https://dorukai.dorukakan.com/.

Categories
travel

Reflecting on Istanbul. And Life.

Istanbul is massive, almost overwhelmingly so. One of the world’s megacities, it is a frenetic place, without a single center of gravity but instead, like an octopus and its ganglia, distributing its masses and throngs of people throughout its vast geography. Emulating the universe at large, it is constantly expanding. Areas that only a decade ago were untouched hinterland are now dense conurbations, inexorably absorbed by the city and its rhythms. Straddling Europe and Asia, Istanbul primarily lies along the Bosphorus, which separates the continents, but has over time stretched towards the seas connected by the strait. Settlement along the Marmara Sea has been long-standing, as the ancient center lies at the southern end of the strait, while the city has gradually inched ever closer to the Black Sea, called the Euxine (“Hospitable”) by ancients to flatter what is in reality a dark and stormy and dangerous sea.

It is also, like very few of the modern megacities, an old place. While settlement of the colony of Byzantion stretches back to around 500 BCE, the history of Istanbul as a place of cultural weight and geopolitical importance truly begins in the 3rd century CE when Constantine moved the capital of the Roman empire to the east. For most of the two millenia since, the city has been the capital of two massive empires: as Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire, the center of Greek culture and religion for over a thousand years; and as Istanbul of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic state with a vast, multicultural population that stretched from the Balkans to the borders of Iran. It is impossible to visit the city, as built-up and dense as it is, without encountering relics and influences of this history.

Zooming in on part of Istanbul (map created using Carto). For my guide to Istanbul, follow this link.

I have been to Istanbul many times but now on my annual trips to Turkey I now rarely spend more than a day or two there. It is both familiar and foreign, a skyline of cranes orchestrating the unceasing cacophony of construction. It also shares the affliction of any large city in the depths of summer, where the heat is exacerbated and amplified by the density of concrete and exhaust and humans. In the dog days of August, it is a place to escape, its heat too enervating, with scant opportunities of solace… though crossing the Bosphorus in a ferry, the breeze picking up the coolness of the deep waters below, is one of the ultimate must-do pleasures, an experience that never gets old, a marvelous daily commute for millions of people.

On my most recent trip to Turkey, I spent only two and half days in the great city, with one full day set aside to being a tourist. It was enough time to reflect on the city and life itself.

– – –

I visited a hammam for the first time in a few years. The hammam is not an experience unique to Turkish culture. But, as “civilization” has evolved and modern plumbing has become common, it is no longer a very common experience even in modern Turkey and has become more so the domain of tourists than the common citizen. The hammam, and really the art of public baths stretching back millennia to the Romans and beyond, reached its zenith of expression and sophistication in the Ottoman Empire. Among the legendary bath houses was my destination of choice, the Kılıç Ali Pasha hammam, designed as part of a larger complex by the legendary Mimar Sinan in the 16th century. It is a refined space, elegant in its architecture, luxuriously austere but welcoming in its marble, a space that not only pampers but transports you to another era of history altogether.

The Tiled Kiosk Museum at the Istanbul Archaeological Museums displays the type of tilework common in Ottoman interiors and exteriors.

A hammam experience is one that everyone should have at least once and you can read of its particulars elsewhere. My lingering memory is the denouement, relaxing in the inner courtyard, laying on a generously cushioned divan, sipping my tea. The door to the hammam was open to encourage a breeze. The complex itself is in a busy area (where in Istanbul is it not busy…?) but the entrance is on a lightly trafficked back passage. Still, I could see people passing to and fro, with their shopping bags in tow, or glued to their telephones, with a singularity of purpose that for those few moments I happily shed. Instead it was relaxation and tranquility, an afterglow, my phone too far away in a changing room to be a distraction or temptation. I pitied these poor souls outside, scurrying about in the heat, knowing of course that I would soon enough join them but content for the time being.

– – –

For the first time in years, probably decades, I visited the Grand Bazaar, celebrated for its size, its history, its crowds of visitors, the aggressive salesmanship and bartering of its shopkeepers, and its hidden passages where true treasures can be found. On a weekday afternoon, the place was not as busy as it could be so my wandering was pleasant and I activated my resting bitch face, Turkish mode, to dissuade over-enthusiastic touts. I purchased a few souvenirs and then toward one of its many exits, I entered a textile shop to get some peshtemals, those most practical and utilitarian of Turkish towels, and sparked a memory of years past. I asked the shopkeeper if they were in this location nearly twenty years ago as I was certain I had visited it before. His response: the shop has been in the same location, run by the same family, since the 19th century. There is a satisfaction, a concreteness, to the knowledge that as so many lives and callings and industries succumb to the flow of modernity, there are some traditions and families that persist and persevere. For how much longer, one can only wonder and hope.

One of many entrances to the Grand Bazaar, this one passes by the Nurosmaniye Mosque.

I took my usual route down to the waterfront by passing through the Spice Bazaar and soon found myself regretting the decision. The streets between the two bazaars are wide enough (and thankfully downhill) and eventually closed to vehicles. Yet there is a point where the mass of people are so large, so dense, that you can move only shoulder-to-shoulder, bumper-to-bumper as it were, in constant threat of being jostled or bowled over. At the time it was a horrible experience, in retrospect exhilarating. Any language you can imagine was echoing on the streets. Families were navigating the crowd with young children and suitcases in tow. Porters were skimming through, somehow balancing meals and tea on trays held above the canopy of heads, delivering sustenance to shopkeepers. Motorbikes, ignoring the interdiction on motored vehicles, added further complexity, their engines and exhaust and recklessness just another obstacle.

There was no organization to this chaos. It was raw and unfiltered and yet everyone got to where they were going. As did I, passing through the bazaar and the alluring displays of spices and dried fruits on offer, eventually resting in the lovely courtyard of the New Mosque (relatively new at least, it was completed in the mid-17th century) before walking across the Golden Horn to enjoy the famous balık dürüm in the backstreets of Karaköy.

The Yeni Cami and its courtyard provide respite from the crowds without.

– – –

The vast majority of tourism in Istanbul concentrates on the European side and understandably so. That is where ancient Constantinople with the Hagia Sophia, Blue Mosque, and Topkapı Palace lies. Across the Golden Horn is Beyoğlu, the cosmopolitan heart of the city, starting at the waterfront with Karaköy and moving up past Galata to Taksim. A bit further north on the European shores is Beşiktaş, where tree-lined avenues lead visitors and locals alike to newer Ottoman palaces and lovely waterfront areas like Ortaköy, sitting below the first of the three suspension bridges that traverse the Bosphorus. If a tourist makes their way to the Asian side, it is most likely to Kadıköy, another pocket of chaos and history in a city full of both. There, and towards the posh and cool neighborhood of Moda, the streets are narrow, unplanned, uphill and downhill, lined with shops and vendors and restaurants of all kinds.

Built in the early 1900s, the pier at Moda recently restarted ferry service after lying dormant for a decade or so

In one wider and busier thoroughfare, I joined a cousin and an aunt at a Fazil Bey, sitting in some rickety chairs and a rickety table jutting into the street, lingering in conversation over a Turkish coffee. My distaste of coffee is well-documented and widely known. I instead favor that most noble and elegant of leaves and drinks – tea – but I always make an exception for Turkish coffee, as long as it is in shared company and shared ritual. It is not something to be had quickly; the world slows down for Turkish coffee.

And, oh, the people you can watch anywhere in Istanbul! Here there were locals doing their daily shopping or simply meeting with friends and families. Old men, bent by age and burden, carried heavy loads of window panes or other construction material to and fro, laboring however they can in hope of enough for their daily bread. Tourists, bright-eyed though confused by the chaos, strolled by with their backpacks and wandering gazes, trying to make sense of the maps on their phones and their applicability to the reality of the streets, mentally drafting their Trip Advisor reviews. It is an unending procession of the diversity of purposes and personalities, so similar and so different in their life experiences.

– – –

For years and years, I hadn’t been to the Istanbul Archaeological Museums and I was most excited about visiting, especially as I have grown more and more interested in archaeology. I am an avid subscriber of Archaeology Museum and in my list of priorities should I win the lottery is funding archaeological expeditions. (I usually buy a lottery ticket when I get gas and proceed to daydream for a few moments on what I would do if I were to actually win. My best idea so far is kind of like a modified Make-a-Wish: I will fund a bucket list item for you but I also have to be there. Want to be front row at a Taylor Swift concert? I will join you. Want to visit Antarctica? My parka is ready to go. Etc.). Had I a different personality type, I could imagine myself as an Indiana Jones albeit more respectful of the material culture. But I am just as content wandering the exhibitions of museums.

The Hittite version of the Treaty of the Kadesh. So small but so monumental.

The Istanbul Archaeological Museums are three complexes: the main museum, a museum of the Near East, and an old pavilion with tiles and mosaics. There are shaded areas with trees to escape the heat and it’s generally a pleasant place, not quite at world class level but with many important and fascinating artifacts. I nerded out over a copy of the Treaty of Kadesh, wondering at how physically small it is, contrasting with its outsized place in history as the oldest surviving peace treaty. Ancient Assyrian and Sumerian tablets covered diverse uses, from the oldest marriage certificate and school tablets to a recipe for poisoning and the oldest love poem. Interestingly it is written by a woman, most likely as part of a song sung by the bride of a king wedded on behalf of Inanna, goddess of fertility and love. I will let you, dear reader, judge its merits and ponder how and if expressions of love have evolved in the ensuing millennia.

Groom, beloved of my heart
Your beauty is great, sweet as honey
Lion, precious one of my heart
Your beauty is great, sweet as honey

– – –

Groom, let me caress you
My previous caresses are sweeter than honey
In the bedchamber, honey filled
Let us take pleasure in your beauty
Lion, let me caress you
My precious caresses are sweeter than honey
Groom, take pleasure from me,
Tell my mother, she will give you beautiful things
My father will give you gifts

– – –

Because you love me,
Please give me your caresses.
My lord, my god, my lord, my protector,
O Shu-sin, who pleases the heart of the god Enlil,
Please give me your caresses.