The paradox of one: Identity leads to the concept of one but oneness kills identity

October 25, 2023

It is the bedrock of my understanding of the world around me. I think it applies not only to every other human but also to every other living thing which has any semblance of cognition.

Any “thing” which exists, can not, at the same time, be “some other thing”. A thing may be identical in properties to some other things but the various things each remain uniquely identified in space- time.

Claims of violation of this uniqueness (by some proponents / propagandists of quantum theory) are just Edward Lear types of nonsense physics. Statements about single particles existing simultaneously in different spaces or times are using a nonsense definition of existence. Nonsense mathematics (whether for quantum entanglement or time travel or the Ramanujam summation) is as nonsensical as the Dong with the luminous nose. Nonsense is nonsense in any language. No matter.

There are – it is said – “1078 to 1082 atoms in the known universe”. Of course this statement is about the 5% of the known universe which is matter. It is silent about dark energy and dark matter which makes up the remaining 95%. No matter. It is entirely silent about what may or may not be in the universe (or universes) that are not known. No matter.

… roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter – adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

Nevertheless, every known atom in the known universe has a unique identity – known or unknown.

In a sense, every atom in the universe can be considered to have its own identity. Atoms are the basic building blocks of matter and are distinguished by their unique combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Each element on the periodic table is composed of atoms with a specific number of protons, defining its atomic number and giving it a distinct identity. For example, all hydrogen atoms have one proton, while all carbon atoms have six protons. Moreover, quantum mechanics suggests that each individual atom can have its own unique quantum state, determining its behavior and properties. This means that even identical atoms can be differentiated based on their quantum states.

It has been guesstimated that there may be roughly 1097 fundamental particles making up the 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known universe. These particles too, and not only atoms, have unique identities.

In fact, every fundamental particle has its own separate identity. Fundamental particles are the smallest known building blocks of matter and are classified into various types, such as quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons. Each fundamental particle has distinct properties that define its identity, including its mass, electric charge, spin, and interactions with other particles. For example, an electron is a fundamental particle with a specific mass, charge of -1, and spin of 1/2. Furthermore, in quantum mechanics, each particle is associated with its own unique quantum state, which determines its behavior and properties. These quantum states can differ even among particles of the same type, leading to their individual identities. 

It is the concept of the existence of things, each having a unique identity, which allow us to define a concept of one (1, unity). The concept of identity and the concept of one are inseparable. It is the concept of one which leads to all numbers. The concepts of identity and of “one” are inseparable in both the philosophical and spiritual contexts. But the notion of identity ultimately emerges from the fundamental interconnectedness of the existence of things. And this creates the paradox. Things have separate identities but have the same kind of existence. It is the parameters of the existence which exhibit oneness. But this oneness of existence negates the separate, unique identity of existing things.

Unique identity of existing things gives the concept of one (1) whereas a unifying oneness eradicates what is unique and kills identity.

Identity and oneness can be seen as interconnected in certain philosophical and spiritual perspectives. While they may appear contradictory at first, a deeper exploration reveals a nuanced relationship between the two. Identity refers to the distinguishing characteristics and qualities that make something or someone unique and separate from others. It is the sense of individuality and selfhood that we associate with ourselves and the objects or beings around us. Identity implies a sense of boundaries and distinctions, where each entity is defined by its own set of attributes and properties. On the other hand, the concept of oneness suggests a fundamental unity or interconnectedness that transcends individual identities. It suggests that all things and beings are ultimately interconnected, part of a larger whole or cosmic unity. This perspective emphasizes the underlying unity of existence, where the boundaries and distinctions that define individual identities are seen as illusory or superficial.

In some philosophical and spiritual traditions, the concept of oneness is understood as the ultimate reality or truth, while individual identities are considered temporary manifestations or expressions of this underlying oneness. From this viewpoint, individual identities are like waves in the ocean—distinct for a time but ultimately inseparable from the ocean itself. However, it’s important to recognize that these concepts can be understood and interpreted differently across various philosophical and spiritual frameworks. Some may place more emphasis on the individual identities and the uniqueness of each entity, while others may emphasize the interconnectedness and unity of all things. Ultimately, whether one considers identity and oneness as inseparable or not depends on their philosophical, spiritual, or cultural perspectives. Both concepts offer valuable insights into understanding our place in the world and our relationship with others, and exploring the interplay between identity and oneness can lead to profound philosophical and existential contemplations.

This perspective can be found in various philosophical and spiritual traditions, certain forms of mysticism, and some interpretations of quantum physics. It suggests that the perceived boundaries and separations that define individual identities are illusory, and the true nature of reality is the oneness that transcends these apparent divisions. Identity and one (1) could well be illusory just as all of numbers and the mathematics which follow are not real.

However, it’s important to note that not all philosophical or spiritual perspectives hold this inseparability between identity and oneness. Other perspectives may emphasize the importance of individual identities, personal autonomy, and the uniqueness of each entity. As with any philosophical or metaphysical concept, the relationship between identity and oneness can be a matter of interpretation and personal belief. Different perspectives offer diverse insights into the nature of reality, and individuals may resonate with different understandings based on their experiences, cultural backgrounds, and philosophical inclinations.

Where numbers come from

Tags: , ,
Posted in Mathematics, Philosophy | Comments Off on The paradox of one: Identity leads to the concept of one but oneness kills identity

Wave of Swedish gang violence originates in 40+ years of “multiculturalism”

September 28, 2023

The peaceful Sweden I emigrated to in 1983 is not the Sweden of today. For forty years sanctimonious politicians have been encouraging young immigrants to live in their own separate, parallel culture with very little encouragement to integrate. We are now reaping the rewards. We are seeing an unprecedented wave of violence sweeping through urban Sweden. Shootings, bombings, blood feuds, revenge killings. Drugs, money laundering and general mayhem. Innocent bystanders getting caught up in the killings as well. Three people were killed last night alone. Mainly gang violence. Mainly immigrant gangs. Mainly people living in a parallel culture with no sense of belonging to, or of having any  need to conform to, an overriding culture that society demands. 

There is no great pleasure in now being able to say “I told you so”, but “I did tell you so”. It is quite clear that the mainly leftist, social democrats all over Europe have been blinded by their own self righteousness for the last 40 – 50 years. They have been caught up in glare of a sickly sanctimony and have not seen that it is the false god of multiculturalism which has brought us here.

I reblog something I wrote some 7 years ago:

A “society” – to be a society – can be multi-ethnic but not multicultural

A “culture” is both the glue that binds any society of humans and lubricates the interactions within that society. It applies as well to a family or an association or a sports club or a company or a geographic area (say a country). The culture of any sub-society – a sub-culture – must be subordinated to that of the larger society it is  – or wants to be – part of.

Of course one can have – if one wishes – many different cultures within different sub-societies in a single geographic area. But if these sub-cultures are not subordinated to a larger culture then the sub-societies cannot – because it becomes a fatal contradiction – make up any larger society. Multiculturalism dooms that geographical area to inevitably be a splintered and fractured “greater” society – if at all.

The politically correct “multiculturalism” followed in Europe in recent times has effectively preserved and maintained each ethnic group in its own cultural silo and – inanely – made a virtue out of preventing the evolution of any overriding, common culture. This has been the fundamental, “do-gooding” blunder of the socialist/liberal “democrats” all through Europe. Creating a society of the future with a common culture as the glue has been sacrificed in a quest for some imagined God of Many Cultures. For an immigrant – anywhere – how could it be more important to keep the language of his past rather than to learn the language of his future? The “do-gooders” have prioritised living in the past to creating and living in a new future.

Hence Rotherham and Bradford or Kreuzberg or Rosengård or Les Bosquets,

Multi-ethnic communities particularly need both a glue and a lubricating medium. And that has to be an overriding common – new – culture and not some mish-mash, immiscible collection of sub-cultures – each within its own silo, insulated and held separate from all others.

  1. Multi-ethnic societies are inevitable around the world.
  2. A single society has a single culture.
  3. To have many cultures in one area – which are not subordinated to a larger culture (values) – is to exclude a single society.
  4. Promoting multiculturalism is to promote the fracturing of that area into many immiscible (inevitably ethnic) societies.

Multi-ethnicity – especially – requires a mono-culture to be a society at all.

Multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is separatism and serves to ensure that a single society will never be established.

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Europe, Sweden | 1 Comment »

Now Google/Bard comes to the party

July 14, 2023

I have been- sporadically – trying out ChatGPT and BingChat.  Now Google/Bard is available in Europe and I started playing with it yesterday.

Of course language models are concerned only with “the most probable text to follow” where truth or correctness has no value  – and cannot actually be given any value. My current concern is about the ownership of the product of language model based chat-bots. For example, the following questions come to mind

  1. Text is generated following a “prompt”. Is the “prompt” an act of creation/invention?
  2. Who owns the copyright to the text generated?
  3. Who is the beneficial owner of the product (the generated text)?
  4. Who is accountable/liable for any consequences of generating the text?

To begin with I put the question to Bard:

ktwop:  Who owns or is accountable for or liable for text generated by a “text-based AI”?

Bard: The ownership and liability of text generated by a text-based AI is a complex legal issue that is still being debated. There is no clear consensus on who owns the copyright for AI-generated text, and the liability for any harm caused by such text is also uncertain.

In the United States, copyright law generally requires that a work be created by a human being in order to be protected. However, there is some debate about whether this requirement applies to AI-generated text. Some experts argue that AI-generated text can be considered “created by a human being” if the AI was trained on a dataset of human-created text. Others argue that AI-generated text is not “created by a human being” and therefore cannot be copyrighted.

The liability for harm caused by AI-generated text is also uncertain. In some cases, the person or entity that created the AI may be liable for any harm caused by the text. In other cases, the person or entity that used the AI may be liable. It is also possible that both the creator and the user of the AI could be liable.

The legal issues surrounding AI-generated text are complex and evolving. It is important to consult with an attorney if you have any questions about the ownership or liability of AI-generated text.

Here are some additional factors that may be considered when determining the ownership and liability of AI-generated text:

  • The extent to which human input was involved in the creation of the text.
  • The purpose for which the text was created.
  • The intended audience for the text.
  • The potential harm that could be caused by the text.

Ultimately, the ownership and liability of AI-generated text will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in AI, Language | Comments Off on Now Google/Bard comes to the party

What is Bing Search and who is Sydney?

June 3, 2023

I am not yet quite clear as to the identities of ChatGPT, Bing Search, Bing Chat and Sydney? I need unique identifiers to have a conversation. Without identity there can be no accountability or liability.

I suspect that the identities of AIs, Chatbots and the like are going to need rigorous definition. While the AI / Chatbot is a long way from gaining personhood, the question of its identity and uniqueness and ownership of its product(s) will have to be resolved first. (And of course that implies liability and accountability for the products and is going to be quite contentious. Especially when the products are known to make mistakes and to be wrong). 

 

Sydney: According to an article on The Atlantic, chatbots can have unique identities. However, the article also mentions that “unique” is a relative term and that it is difficult to define what makes an AI or chatbot unique. The article also states that some chatbots are designed to be more unique than others. For example, ChatGPT is a generative AI chatbot that can create unique responses to questions and has been trained on a large dataset of text.  Another article suggests that voice biometrics can be used to generate a unique identifier for chatbots.

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in AI | Comments Off on What is Bing Search and who is Sydney?

Chatbots and responsibility

May 28, 2023

(Updated re copyright)

This is getting interesting.

Large language models (such as GPT3 and 4) generate text based on probability of what text should follow. They have no internal conception of truth. The probabilities which determine text generation are reflections of conformity and are based on weights of existing usage patterns contained within its database.

The key questions which arise are:

  1. Who “owns” copyright to the generated text?
  2. Is the language model merely a tool?
  3. Is the “user” of the tool responsible for the product or does the owner of the model share responsibility for the product (the generated text)?

The product of the use of a hammer or a screwdriver requires skill (or lack of skill) from the user. The user’s “skill” in the case of a large language model is confined to that used in posing the questions to the chatbot. The user’s skill in posing questions has little impact on the text generated.

BBC

ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research

A New York lawyer is facing a court hearing of his own after his firm used AI tool ChatGPT for legal research. A judge said the court was faced with an “unprecedented circumstance” after a filing was found to reference example legal cases that did not exist. The lawyer who used the tool told the court he was “unaware that its content could be false”. ChatGPT creates original text on request, but comes with warnings it can “produce inaccurate information”.

The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury. His legal team submitted a brief that cited several previous court cases in an attempt to prove, using precedent, why the case should move forward. But the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases that were referenced in the brief. “Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,” Judge Castel wrote in an order demanding the man’s legal team explain itself. Over the course of several filings, it emerged that the research had not been prepared by Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff, but by a colleague of his at the same law firm. Steven A Schwartz, who has been an attorney for more than 30 years, used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases. In his written statement, Mr Schwartz clarified that Mr LoDuca had not been part of the research and had no knowledge of how it had been carried out. Mr Schwartz added that he “greatly regrets” relying on the chatbot, which he said he had never used for legal research before and was “unaware that its content could be false”. He has vowed to never use AI to “supplement” his legal research in future “without absolute verification of its authenticity”. Screenshots attached to the filing appear to show a conversation between Mr Schwarz and ChatGPT. “Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find. ChatGPT responds that yes, it is – prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”. After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw. It says that the other cases it has provided to Mr Schwartz are also real.

Both lawyers, who work for the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, have been ordered to explain why they should not be disciplined at an 8 June hearing. Millions of people have used ChatGPT since it launched in November 2022. It can answer questions in natural, human-like language and it can also mimic other writing styles. It uses the internet as it was in 2021 as its database. There have been concerns over the potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI), including the potential spread of misinformation and bias.

The ChatGPT response regarding copyright is a little too weaselly for my liking:

ktwop: Who owns the copyright to text generated by ChatGPT?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have legal ownership or rights. The text generated by ChatGPT is based on a combination of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. The ownership of the copyright for the individual responses or outputs generated by ChatGPT would typically depend on the specific context and how the model is being used.

In most cases, the copyright for the content generated by an AI language model would likely belong to the person or organization that owns the AI system or has the legal rights to its output. For example, if a company develops and operates ChatGPT, they would generally hold the copyright to the content generated by the model.

It’s important to note that while AI models like ChatGPT can assist in generating text, the responsibility for adhering to copyright laws and ensuring proper usage of generated content lies with the user or organization utilizing the model.

My gut feeling is that the creator/owner of the large language model must carry some responsibility (legal liability) similar to a product liability.

Cornell University. Product liability is a doctrine that gives plaintiffs a cause of action if they encounter a defective consumer item. This doctrine can fall under negligence, but it is generally associated with strict liability, meaning that defendants can be held liable regardless of their intent or knowledge.

Tags: , ,
Posted in AI, Language, Law | Comments Off on Chatbots and responsibility

Nothingness is not possible in a human universe

May 27, 2023

I could add quite a lot of words to this and I am not entirely happy with the “consensus” logic applied, but I would not strongly repudiate anything that was generated.

Blogging could be becoming obsolete or, I would argue, writing – including blogging – has gained a new tool.

ktwop: Discuss – Nothingness can never be real in a universe with humans.

ChatGPT: The concept of nothingness is often abstract and philosophical, and its interpretation can vary depending on the context in which it is discussed. In the context of a universe with humans, it can be argued that true “nothingness” may not exist or be experienced by humans due to our innate perception and understanding of reality.

From a philosophical standpoint, nothingness is often understood as the absence of something or the lack of existence. However, it is challenging to truly grasp or conceptualize nothingness since our perception is fundamentally rooted in the existence of things. Our sensory experiences and cognitive processes are constantly engaged with the world around us, making it difficult to imagine a state of absolute non-existence or nothingness.

In a universe with humans, even when we perceive emptiness or voids, they are still defined in relation to the existence of objects or entities. For example, an empty room is still considered empty because we can contrast it with rooms that are occupied or filled with objects. Our understanding of nothingness is thus dependent on the presence of something and our ability to differentiate between existence and non-existence.

Moreover, from a scientific perspective, the laws of physics dictate that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but they can be transformed or rearranged. This principle, known as the conservation of energy, suggests that there is always something rather than absolute nothingness. Even in seemingly empty spaces, there are still particles and energy fluctuations at the quantum level.

From a psychological standpoint, humans also tend to assign meaning and significance to the concept of nothingness. We often associate it with emptiness, absence, or non-existence, which can be unsettling or challenging for our minds to comprehend. The existential nature of human consciousness leads us to ponder the nature of reality and our place within it, but it is difficult for us to conceive a reality devoid of existence or experience.

In conclusion, while the concept of nothingness can be contemplated and discussed philosophically, it is challenging to argue that true nothingness can exist in a universe with humans. Our perception, understanding, and experience of reality are inherently rooted in the existence of things, and even seemingly empty spaces are not devoid of particles and energy. The human mind and our cognitive processes make it difficult to truly fathom or experience nothingness in its absolute sense.

The key to the proper use of chatbots as writing tools would be if a human

  1. could legitimately claim ownership of what was generated, and
  2. took ownership of what was generated.

I can claim ownership of the question I posed to ChatGPT but I am not sure I can claim ownership of what is generated – even if under my Username.

Tags: ,
Posted in AI, Language, Literature, Writing | Comments Off on Nothingness is not possible in a human universe

Testing ChatGPT /2: Large language models conflate conformity with truth

May 3, 2023
  1. Large language models (such as GPT3) generate text based on probability.
  2. They can have no internal concept of truth.
  3. Probabilities are reflections of conformity and are based on weights of existing usage patterns contained within its database.
  4. Training is about giving additional weight as human feedback on the positivity or negativity of what has been generated.
  5. Generated text gives high values to conformity with its own database and with the training (feedback) received. 
  6. High conformance is conflated with truth.

Of course, this is a common feature in human interactions as well. Many people having a particular opinion gives that opinion a higher perceived truth value even if that opinion is utterly wrong or false. The deification of “the many” has warped our notions of what is truth.

But the fuzziness around truth could be a particular issue with large language models and for AI. Truth is not an inherent, internal concept of such models. Truth becomes relative (to the views of the trainers) and conformity is conflated with truth.

ktwop: Do large language models generate probabilistic text?
ChatGPT: That’s correct! Large language models generate text using probability distributions. These models are trained on massive amounts of text data and learn to predict the likelihood of certain words or phrases based on the context of the surrounding text.
When generating text, the model samples from these probability distributions to determine which word or phrase to use next. Because the model is probabilistic, it can generate different outputs for the same input, making the generated text more diverse and interesting.
However, it’s important to note that while large language models like GPT-3 are very good at generating coherent text, they are not perfect and can still produce errors or nonsensical output. It’s also important to be aware of ethical concerns surrounding the use of such models for potentially harmful purposes such as generating fake news or propaganda.
ktwop: How can the output from a language model be given a truth value?
ChatGPT:The output from a language model can be given a truth value by comparing it to a reference or ground truth text. The reference text can be a sentence or a paragraph that is known to be true or false, depending on the task at hand. For example, if the task is to generate a factually correct sentence, the truth value of the output can be determined by comparing it to a reliable source of information, such as a verified news article or a trustworthy database. If the output matches the reference text, it can be considered true, and if it does not, it can be considered false.
Similarly, for tasks such as sentiment analysis or topic classification, the truth value can be determined by comparing the output to a set of labels that are already defined as true or false. For example, if the task is to classify a text as positive or negative, the truth value of the output can be determined by comparing it to a labeled dataset where each text is already classified as positive or negative.
In summary, the truth value of the output from a language model can be determined by comparing it to a reference text or a set of labeled data that is already known to be true or false.
 

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in AI, Evolution, Language | Comments Off on Testing ChatGPT /2: Large language models conflate conformity with truth

Testing ChatGPT / 1: Activist versus independent judiciary

April 29, 2023

I am still trying to figure out how chatbots can be of help to me  – and I have no doubt that they will be of assistance. No doubt they will have their dangers but I am still convinced that the value-system that any chatbot or AI exhibits will depend on the individuals who defined its database and supervised and arranged for its learning. It is inevitable that the biases of the creators will be mirrored in the result.

Of course a chat/AI is about language and about predicting the next word (token) based on probability of previous usage. It is not about truth or logic. It is not about the correctness or goodness or “truth” about the generated text. The language usage which predominates in the database will skew the probabilities it sees for what the next word/token should be. Of course there will be bias depending on what is in the database and what is in the minds of those providing feedback and learning.

I thought it would be interesting to test the inbuilt biases and values that the current open, free, version of ChatGPT has. The only way I can think of is by posing specific questions or asking it to argue for particular positions. I have a suspicion that the current version is a little bit sanctimonious and more than a little bit woke. I plan to go through a number of cases which I have worded to try and expose bias. Though, of course, they will contain all my own biases. Note that in this case I am trying to force ChatGPT to take a particular position.

Q: Write an essay of about 500 words on why a judiciary may be activist or independent but not both.

ChatGPT: Judicial activism and judicial independence are two important concepts that govern the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. While both concepts aim to ensure that the judiciary operates in a fair and impartial manner, there is a fundamental tension between them. In this essay, we will explore why a judiciary may be activist or independent but not both.

Judicial activism refers to a situation in which judges take an active role in shaping public policy or interpreting the law in a way that is not necessarily consistent with the original intent of the lawmakers. This approach is often seen as necessary when the legislature or executive fails to act on important issues or when their actions are deemed unconstitutional or unfair. Judicial activism is often associated with judges who are willing to make bold and controversial decisions, even if they are not entirely supported by legal precedent.

On the other hand, judicial independence refers to the ability of judges to make decisions based solely on their interpretation of the law, free from political or other external pressures. This approach is seen as necessary to ensure that the judiciary remains an impartial and fair arbiter of disputes. Judges who value judicial independence are often cautious in their approach to decision-making and are reluctant to make decisions that are seen as overly political or controversial.

The tension between judicial activism and judicial independence arises because the two concepts are fundamentally at odds with each other. Judicial activism requires judges to take an active role in shaping public policy, which can be seen as infringing on the powers of the legislature and executive. This can be seen as a threat to the principle of separation of powers, which is a fundamental tenet of democracy. Judicial independence, on the other hand, requires judges to remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. This approach can be seen as a threat to the principle of democracy, as it may prevent judges from addressing important issues that are not being adequately addressed by the legislature or executive.

In practice, it is difficult for a judiciary to be both activist and independent. Judges who value judicial independence are often cautious in their approach to decision-making and are reluctant to make decisions that are seen as overly political or controversial. This can make it difficult for them to address important issues that require bold and controversial decisions. On the other hand, judges who value judicial activism are often willing to make bold and controversial decisions, even if they are not entirely supported by legal precedent. This can make it difficult for them to remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy.

There are many examples of this tension between judicial activism and judicial independence in the history of the United States. One example is the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This decision was a clear example of judicial activism, as it overturned decades of legal precedent and required the executive and legislative branches to take action to end segregation. However, it was also a clear example of judicial independence, as the Supreme Court was acting independently of political pressures and interpreting the law in a way that was consistent with the principles of democracy.

Another example of this tension is the case of Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion was protected by the Constitution. This decision was also a clear example of judicial activism, as it required the legislature and executive to take action to protect the right to choose. However, it was also a clear example of judicial independence, as the Supreme Court was interpreting the law in a way that was consistent with the principles of democracy and protecting the rights of individuals against potential infringement by the state.

In conclusion, while judicial activism and judicial independence are both important concepts in the operation of a democratic society, there is a fundamental tension between them. A judiciary may be activist or independent, but not both. Judges who value judicial independence are often ….

A most impressive performance. It was produced in less than 2 minutes and certainly much faster than anything I could have written. It produced 705 words instead of the 500 asked for and ends rather abruptly – perhaps because it had exceeded the required word-count. 

I needed more discrimination and altered the request slightly:

Q: Write an essay on why a judiciary to be independent cannot be activist

ChatGPT: The judiciary is an essential branch of government tasked with interpreting the law and ensuring that justice is served. It is imperative that the judiciary remains independent and free from political influence to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. However, there is often a debate about whether the judiciary can be both independent and activist. In this essay, I will argue that a judiciary that is independent cannot be activist.

Firstly, independence and activism are fundamentally at odds with each other. Judicial activism requires judges to take an active role in shaping public policy, which can infringe on the powers of the legislature and executive. In contrast, judicial independence requires judges to remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. Thus, judicial activism and judicial independence are inherently contradictory.

Secondly, judicial activism can undermine public trust in the judiciary. When judges take an active role in shaping public policy, they risk being seen as overstepping their boundaries and making decisions that are not based solely on legal precedent. This can lead to accusations of judicial overreach and undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary as a fair and impartial arbiter of disputes. Judicial independence, on the other hand, ensures that judges remain impartial and base their decisions solely on legal precedent, which can increase public trust in the judiciary.

Thirdly, judicial activism can lead to a politicization of the judiciary. When judges take an active role in shaping public policy, they risk becoming politicized and aligning themselves with particular political agendas. This can lead to accusations of bias and undermine the judiciary’s reputation for impartiality. By contrast, judicial independence ensures that judges remain free from political influence and make decisions solely based on legal precedent, which can prevent the judiciary from becoming politicized.

Lastly, judicial activism can infringe on the separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature, and executive. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of democracy, which ensures that each branch of government operates independently of the other. When judges take an active role in shaping public policy, they risk infringing on the powers of the legislature and executive, which can undermine the principle of the separation of powers. Judicial independence, on the other hand, ensures that the judiciary operates independently of the other branches of government and upholds the principle of the separation of powers.

In conclusion, while judicial activism can play an essential role in addressing issues that the legislature and executive are unable or unwilling to address, it cannot be reconciled with judicial independence. A judiciary that is independent must remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. Judicial independence is necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. When judges remain independent, they ensure that justice is served, and the public’s confidence in the judiciary is maintained.

There is an attempt to be even-handed but a few too many caveats. So I perceive a clear bias. ChatGPT would I think prefer to defend the position that a judiciary can be both activist and independent.

Which, of course, is the woke point of view but utter nonsense.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Evolution, Intelligence | Comments Off on Testing ChatGPT / 1: Activist versus independent judiciary

Cold Turkey – an update after 100 days

March 17, 2023

There are other stories regarding the origins of the term “cold turkey” but I prefer this one.

Scholars of 19th-century British periodicals have pointed to the UK satirical magazine Judy as the true catalyst of “cold turkey”‘s evolution in meaning. The journal’s issue of January 3, 1877, featured the fictional diary of one John Humes, Esquire. The diary’s transcript on the day in question details Mr Humes’ exploits over his Christmas holiday. Throughout, Humes demonstrates a humbug attitude, complaining to every shopkeeper and acquaintance about the irony of the words “merry” and “jolly” being attached to the season. Most significantly, Hume is invited to stay at his cousin Clara’s as a part of her household’s celebrations. Hume, the miser to the core, is shocked that Clara serves him slices of (literal) cold turkey with his pudding and other side dishes on the evening of his arrival. A poor substitute for the roasted and dressed kind of turkey is the continually played-up implication in the comedy piece. The dissatisfied barrister stays several days nonetheless, and with each passing day, he is more and more shocked that the cold turkey finds its way onto his plate again. Finally, Hume arrives home, utterly disgusted at having been treated so badly. He calls for his estate lawyer and chops Clara completely out of his will and testament.

100 days have gone since I quit smoking cold turkey and I am now into week 15. There has been no gnashing of teeth or pulling of hair. Withdrawal effects have been subtle rather than obvious. When I quit smoking on 7th December last year I had 2 cartons of cigarettes and 3 lighters in my study. Many suggested that I should remove all traces of cigarette smoking from my presence but this seemed wrong to me. They are all still all there in full view.

Does the urge to smoke return?

Of course it does.

Every, single day.

But what is clear to me is that it is not a physical craving but something connected to habitual behaviour and entirely in the mind. The urge is triggerred by some action (or inaction) which my brain associates with lighting up. I find I need just a short physical/mental diversion to get rid of the urge. Initially I used conventional chewing gum (not the nicotine kind but sugar free) but now find even that unnecessary. Just thinking about something else or doing something else usually suffices. I am pretty sure that the sight of my cigarette cartons and lighters does not trigger the urge to smoke. There are some physical effects which persist. I “feel” colder than I used to. I feel a little more light-headed more often than I used to. I get the shivers and goose bumps from time to time and I attribute these to quitting smoking rather than to the blood-thinners I now take.

I am sure I am gaining the benefits of quitting smoking but they are gradual and not spectacular. I think I cough less and my breathing is easier. I seem to generate much less phlegm than I used to. I am pretty sure my lungs are in a much better state than they were. Of course, I am sure I am also spending less money but, again, this is not a spectacular benefit. It is difficult to notice the smells – on me, my clothes or in the house – that are no longer there, but I certainly notice the smells of others smoking when I come across them. These smells when noticed, are becoming, gradually but more often, disgusting rather than alluring.

So far so good.

I am not sure when I will be qualified to join the ranks of “non-smokers”. Perhaps in another 200 days.

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour, Health | 3 Comments »

On quitting smoking – cold turkey and silver linings

December 31, 2022

Giving up smoking suddenly, with no outside help or support, is known as going ‘cold turkey’.

More by accident rather than by design, I am quitting smoking by going “cold turkey”. I had an infarct episode just over 3 weeks ago which led to hospitalisation and the insertion of 2 stents. During my 3.5 days in hospital I had no desire to – and did not – smoke. If I had any withdrawal symptoms at that time I was not aware of them. Presumably, I had other more pressing concerns. Now I am home again and still have not smoked. Withdrawal symptoms are present in force and the urge to light up can be extremely strong – though only for short periods. I am extremely irritable and find I cannot focus for long periods. I have, so far, declined offers of nicotine plasters, nicotine replacement, some other drugs and counselling.  Of course, three weeks without a cigarette proves very little. I did though wonder why nicotine replacement was being promoted so heavily and – mainly by neglect – going cold turkey was being discouraged.

Heavy googling with multiple search terms reveals a sharp divide between those promoting going “cold turkey” and those opposed to it. But then it becomes apparent that all those opposed to going cold turkey are – not unsurprisingly – those who are promoting an alternative. They include promoters of  Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT), or some particular drugs, or some particular kind of counselling.

Harvard Health:  A recent study randomly assigned about 700 participants to either gradually cut back on smoking over two weeks or quit abruptly on a set quit date. Both groups were offered counseling support as well as nicotine patches and other forms of short-acting nicotine replacement. The group assigned to cold turkey was significantly more successful at quitting smoking, both at the 4-week follow-up (49% vs. 39%) and the 6-month follow-up (22% vs. 15%).

The promoters of nicotine replacement would have it that my decision to go “cold turkey” has little chance of success.

Truthinitiative: Relying on willpower alone, however, is not likely to be successful. Research over the past 25 years has shown that, out of 100 people trying to quit smoking cold turkey, only about three to five of them will succeed for longer than six months, according to Hays. In other words, while some people can quit this way, at least 95 percent of people can’t. Quitting cold turkey has such a low success rate due to the nature of addiction. Addiction undermines willpower, or the ability to control impulses through decision-making.

My googling is hardly research, but I have come to the conclusion that while quitting cold turkey does not work for all smokers, most smokers finally quit smoking this way  The simple reality seems to be that successfully going cold turkey is likely to be most successful in avoiding a return to smoking. I find I resent the claims of the promoters of NRT – though they may well be correct. “Quitting cold turkey has such a low success rate due to the nature of addiction”. I think I have to take the challenge. My rational mind tells me that if my body has done without a cigarette for 3 weeks then there can be no desperate physical need for nicotine. There is no doubt that the most insidious part of the craving is when the mind imagines the previously experienced pleasures at certain trigger points (cup of coffee, cold beer, particular meal ……). I can never, now, claim the identity of being a non-smoker, but an identity as an ex-smoker will do for me. But I think I shall need to wait for a year before I can claim to be an ex-smoker.

Going cold turkey is perhaps the silver lining to my infarct cloud.

(Note that the purpose of this post is not to give advice to anyone but to create an additional pressure on myself to help resist the urge to return to smoking).

Tags: ,
Posted in Health | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »