One should be able to opt-out for training AI, but then testing AI should also become impossible. Else you are freeloading just as much as you accuse the AI companies of.
That there are lots of people who believe in 5G Bill Gates vax chips is itself fake news. It is well poisoning to pre-empt criticism of billionaires with too much power and free time to meddle in African population growth and pandemic response. Supported by "smart" people who want to feel good and trust the science on 5G safety.
There are Microsoft patents for microchips to track body activity to reward in cryptocurrency and subsidiaries who wanted to microchip vaccine passports into the hands of immigrants.
Yes, real or invented conspiracy theories are routinely amplified and exaggerated by the powerful in order to link critics of $THING to undesirable people.
Mention the word "elites" and you are a Nazi by association. Works every time.
What happened was either the teacher is severely biased against ChatGPT and fabricated the fact to fit their narrative. Or ChatGPT gave the correct answer, but the student interpreted it wrong.
I do believe the students keep coming up with weird (correct) facts, and that this can be scary for a teacher who is stuck at a search bar.
You can just ask it "What scholars or source material books could I check out to verify these linguistics facts?".
Many facts and answers are gathered/aggregated from many different (sometimes conflicting) sources. It won't link the internet page where it found the information, because it didn't find the information on a single internet page.
This is a problem for this particular teacher (who sees their students surpassing them in understanding and using AI), but of course it is projected to be a problem for the student.
No student is ever hurt by the introduction of a more advanced knowledge system. We heard similar laments decades ago, with: Students just believe the first 10 search results of Google. Those students are now the teachers of today, starting at the search bar.
I'd go so far as saying (if version other than 3.5 was used) that ChatGPT was correct and has far more linguistics knowledge than this teacher ever will. "Greek is actually a combination of four other languages" is not an answer that ChatGPT will ever give, but something a teacher makes up to claim Ch*tGPT is a Nonsense Machine.
ChatGPT: Greek has evolved in stages from Mycenaean Greek (Linear B script) through Classical Greek, Hellenistic (Koine) Greek, Byzantine Greek, and Modern Greek. It has been influenced by ancient Near Eastern languages, Latin, Turkish, Italian, and French.
If there really is an epistemic crisis, then it already existed and ChatGPT merely reflects it, not caused or contributed to it.
> who sees their students surpassing them in understanding and using AI
This would be the equivalent of my saying that a basketball coach is obsolete because NBA 2K is available.
ChatGPT output some garbage, and the student doesn't understand why or how it can be wrong. Presumably this is where a professor would attempt to help the student develop some critical thinking skills.
His death was consistent with both suicide and accident. He left no note, so the reasons for why he likely committed suicide are not clear. His nephew suggests it was "boyfriend trouble" and his friend said he had underwent the "treatment" in good spirits. Turing, on the advice of his lawyer, plead guilty and opted for chemical castration himself.
Of all the men in history charged with "gross indecency", Turing was the only one to receive a pardon. He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.
> He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. His chemical castration was a condition of his probation following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.
I'm fine with Turing being a hero or a role model. But people are now writing that Turing was castrated for being gay.
> following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.
It had nothing directly to do with his being gay. You can be gay without starting relationships with homeless boys and getting your house broken into, exposing yourself to blackmail or coercion.
> It had nothing directly to do with his being gay.
Do you really (personally) believe that? You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?
Seeing the way he was treated by law enforcement, particularly after the facts started coming to light, I can't believe it wasn't a factor. His final charge may have been more for the classified info risk as you say (I honestly don't know enough about the details to have an opinion there), but many parts of the process I think would have gone a lot more differently had he not been gay. Without a doubt in my mind, they would not have treated him so disrespectfully and cavalierly.
> You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?
It was a factor, but not directly. I believe Turing's gayness is being pink washed. The way I see it, the UK was not castrating people for being gay, but gave this option after breaking indecency laws and being convicted for it.
> particularly after the facts started coming to light
Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.
> Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.
Yes I agree, but (and I'm honestly asking because I don't know) was it one of those laws that nobody really took seriously or that was still on the books even though it was never enforced? Or was it a crime that was enforced at the time?
Edit: Unrelated to above, but from parent comment, I hadn't heard of "pink washing" before so just dropping a link for others who might not have heard of it either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkwashing_(LGBT)
The law was enforced, but it seems Turing did not take it seriously. He was openly gay since university, complained the law was stupid, was unapologetic in court, and sought out "sex vacations" after his conviction.
You say (correctly) that there was a law against gay sex, and that this law was enforced, but also that Turing's prosecution and punishment under this law (after admitting to a police officer that he'd had gay sex) somehow had nothing directly to do with his being gay. I'm not quite sure how you square that circle.
He was not charged with being burgled (which is obviously not a crime!) or for exposing himself to blackmail (which is also not a crime). He was charged for having sex with another man, and his punishment was a result of that conviction. So his conviction and punishment were absolutely directly to do with his being gay. The very fact that chemical castration was considered as a 'treatment' shows that everyone involved regarded the problem as being 'gay sex', not 'exposing oneself to blackmail'.
Al Capone was also charged with tax evasion to the fullest extent of the law, even though the gov was rarely if ever that aggressive with tax evaders. Prosecutors/law enforcement go for the charge that stands the best chance of conviction, not necessarily the one that is most accurate.
Personally given how society was at that point in time, I think his gayness was a big factor in how he was treated, but there are better arguments than pointing to what he was charged with as that is easily refuted.
But this is nonsense in the case of Turing. He was simply charged because he admitted to the police officer investigating the burglary that he'd had gay sex. His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything). What evidence do you have that there was more to the case than this? I have seen no indication that security concerns entered into the prosecution or sentencing.
Beware that OP's post is full of random nonsense, such as the claim that the younger man in question was 'Eastern European'. (His name was Arnold Murray and he was born in the UK, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain.)
I don't have "evidence" at all, other than that when the subject comes up most people say that it was kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing. I.e. if you were doing it in public there could be issues, but there was a pretty good gay community where it was kind of an open secret[1]. If you don't believe that to be accurate, please let me know!
> His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything).
Not challenging you, but do you or anybody have some numbers on how often this was prosecuted? It's probably impossible to say since by definition much of the activity was underground, but that doesn't match my current understanding of the environment.
[1]: as is always a risk when stating facts, there's a risk of is/ought fallacy here with people interpreting my statement of facts with what I think should be the case. I'm not saying it ought to be this way, merely that it was. I think we've made great progress in this area and I'm glad for it.
There’s nothing complicated about the Turing case. It was a crime at the time to have gay sex. He admitted to a police office that he’d had gay sex. This led to him being prosecuted.
I’d urge you to spend more time looking at the facts of the case and less time questioning the universally accepted narrative on the basis of what you admit is no evidence.
You seem insistent that there's no nuance whatsoever involved in this, yet I find this hard to accept.
Just in the article you linked to, it says that 49,000 gay men were pardoned. It also says the law against "gross indecency with a man" was passed in 1885 and was only repealed in 1967. The law against "buggery" was first used in 1533 and was in place until the 19th century!
If we assume that 100 million people lived through those times, and that the conservative estimate of approximately 3% gay population held, then there would have been 3,000,000 gay people during that time. That means that 1.6% of gay people ended up prosecuted. If we only consider men, then 3.2% ended up prosecuted. This seems to me to be a little more nuanced than you are suggesting, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge inconsistency in enforcement.
Since we're urging each other now, I’d urge you to spend more time thinking about how perception can differ from reality, what the pitfalls are of binary thinking and blind acceptance, and why Socrates encouraged people to have humility about what they think they know.
Most people didn’t tell a policeman that they were having gay sex. Turing did, so he was prosecuted. The police officer who initially arrested Turing would have had no idea about his security clearance or role in the war effort (which did not begin to be declassified until the 1970s). So what exactly is this “nuance” that you think needs to be added here? Could you at least be specific?
I’d also add that your hypothetical conviction rate of 3.2% is pretty high, considering that people generally have sex in private. As a point of comparison drawn at random, the current conviction rate for car thefts in England and Wales is 2.12%.
> He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.
Assuming this is true (I don't know), would a heterosexual man have received the same punishment? In any case, it seems pretty cruel and unusual to me.
A heterosexual 40-year-old man with top-level security clearance, access to sensitive information, and the skill set of Turing, getting involved with Eastern European strays, at the start of the Cold War, possibly compromising himself, would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time.
Cruel? From the lens of modern times, certainly. But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders?
> A heterosexual ... would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time.
I don't know if we can make the assumption that it was his being gay that spared him the jail time, or if other considerations were at play; and if another man benefiting from the same considerations but with different preferences would have been treated (edit: clarifying) more leniently, i.e. no chemical castration, as you say. And together with the following:
> But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders?
This goes back to the view back then of homosexuality as sexual (and criminal?) deviance. I feel like we're pretty much back at the point of his sexuality being the reason for the chemical castration.
All these journalists only now saying OpenAI stole a voice, and how Sam is so sneaky, when we only heard a PR release of someone sue-happy.
Look, I'd have respected it if you reported the voice sounded like Her by doing your own investigative research. To now pile on just shows you were sleeping at the wheel before, so be objective, don't pretend to know that it is a done deal only now.
