...That answer showed Chat understands the basics of MMT. I asked why it didn’t mention MMT until I did, and was it promoting artificial ignorance.
The answer came back: “I apologize if it seemed that I was promoting artificial ignorance or neglecting the mention of modern monetary theory. As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide information and answer questions to the best of my abilities based on the knowledge I have been trained on. However, due to the limitations of text-based communication, I might not always cover every specific topic or perspective unless prompted.”
Note its point about “knowledge I have been trained on.” My impression is that Chat was trained on conventional economic theory and more on the criticisms of MMT than on MMT itself.
It may have been trained not to volunteer anything about MMT. It keeps saying that it does not have ideas of its own or biases. But it seems to have been fed with predominantly conservative, libertarian views that oppose government actions and interventions into the economy.….
You probably knew this already from criticism of ChatGPT about other subjects.
Daily New Record [Harrisonburg, VA]
'TRUTH, TRUST AND HOPE" Targeting Disinformation Part Three: ChatGPT Is Not Reliable
Thornton Parker
35 comments:
ChatGPT has hired counsel and is pursuing a defamation suit against Mr. Parker.
GIGO
“ ChatGPT Is Not Reliable”
It’s reliable… what’s not reliable about it?
That’s like saying “monetarists are not reliable”… they are completely reliable you know what they are going to say before they even say it,,,
Maybe inaccurate… can produce false output… can output only the popular thesis..
Mr. Parker is looking for a reliable method to target disinformation.
The old method of free speech doesn't meet his sensibilities.
"The old method of free speech doesn't meet his sensibilities."
He is using his free speech to point out that framing matters, which a lot of people seem to miss.
George Lakoff has written extensively about it and has a Substack devoted to this.
FrameLab
Parker is not the only one that has pointed out that CPT Chat is not neutral, which is not surprising since it is created by humans and humans view the world through the frame of their worldview and ideology.
Worldviews and ideologies differ, so there often appear to be "alternative facts" depending on the framing. Partisans of different perspectives then accuse those disagreeing of making up "fake news" and "conspiracy theory."
Not that there isn't any fake news or conspiracy theory, but all of it is intentional but rather are the result of looking at data through different lenses. Some of those lenses are shaped by assumptions that can be checked against evidence, while some are based on differences in values and beliefs.
These cognitive-affective biases shape the data in several ways that involve collection, processing, and interpetation.
The "new" method of targeting disinformation through censorship doesn't work.
The use of the term 'disinformation' all but places him in the censorship camp.
Not only has he framed himself, he is seeing issues where none exist.
Btw Tom,
You're not doing anyone favors by linking to someone who would pen an article like this:
"Why it's silly to debate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Joe Rogan about vaccines"
"The "new" method of targeting disinformation through censorship doesn't work."
Not necessarily. I believe in free speech and admit that there is rampant disinformation in some venues. I call for education and debate of issues rather than censorship, which history shows is generally abused by power.
""Why it's silly to debate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Joe Rogan about vaccines"
I don't think that Lakoff is arguing for censorship in this position that only qualified people are serious contenders in open debate on technical issues and that qualified people should avoid debating with the unqualified to obviate confusion by elevating their position.
This position involves an assumption that is part of a frame, for example, one that Matt espouses.
While the assumption has some merit, I don't think it can be adopted as a blanket rule, since what qualifies a "qualified" is a matter of debate itself.
The important point that I am emphasizing is that everyone sees the world through a frame, e.g., cultural worldview, ideological preferences, personal disposition, experience, etc.
Banning other views using censorship is illiberal. However, illiberalism taken to an extreme advocates banning "illiberal" views. The problem here is not only different worldviews and ideologies but also differences within a worldview and its ideologies.
There are different views of liberalism that are in conflict over some issues, such as censorship and disinformation.
The fact is that humans are necessarily confined within boundaries and those boundaries are indicative of different value systems and belief systems that are foundational in the construction of a "lens."
A practical example of this is Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. Contrast this with the position of conventional economics that the methodological debate is settled and heterodox views are therefore rightly excluded from debate. This relates wot Lakoff's post above about only the qualified debating with the qualified.
There is also the issue of the unqualified debating with the unqualified. And there seems to be plenty of that too. Should that be censored? I would say not in a free society.
In the case of the proposed Rogan debate, you have RFK Jr. who has done his homework on the issue, and Dr. Hotez, who spent the pandemic contradicting himself and lying to the American public. His pronouncements are on video. His lack of integrity is plain to see.
There are scientists with the requisite qualifications willing to debate Dr. Hotez.
Either Lakoff is unaware of these facts, or he is trying to deceive his readership.
When we allow free speech, there will be multiple perspectives, along with multiple framing. That is a healthy state of affairs. Censorship erodes this and sets the conditions for distrust, extremism, and violence.
That there can be no debate between experts, heralds the death of the scientific method. Lack of debate between non-experts, is the death of all forms of inquiry. I would view that as a prelude to another dark age.
“ There is also the issue of the unqualified debating with the unqualified.”
That generally should be pointed out a lot more imo…
What are RFKs qualifications?
Former heroin addict? Coerced thru addiction recovery into a general disdain for hypodermic needles?
Dr. Peter Hotez's qualifications:
https://rumble.com/v2v1qsk-big-pharmas-pro-vaccine-champion-dr.-peter-hotez.html
"I've always said..."
Peter Hotez and the failure of the experts - The Grayzone
https://youtu.be/xYrOfpA5Oa4
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate cover pediatrician Peter Hotez's refusal to debate Robert F. Kennedy Jr and what it says about the expert class that provides political cover to official imperatives from jab mandates to regime change wars.
There is your issue.
“Growing up in West Hartford, Hotez graduated from Hall High School.[3] He earned a Bachelor of Arts in molecular biophysics and biochemistry magna cum laude (Phi Beta Kappa) from Yale University in 1980, a Doctor of Philosophy from Rockefeller University in 1986,”
Art degree… Philosophy… Similar to Fauci…
Then comes his paradox and hypocrisy, etc…
No bueno…
Pete, yo, the dude is A (former) HERION ADDICT… why would you listen to him on ANYTHING?
https://www.openmicuk.co.uk/advice/how-much-can-recreational-drugs-affect-singing/
“What street drug causes hoarseness? Heroin is a prime cause of drug-related hoarseness and a very dangerous drug.”
Tell Rogan if he wants him on to not call it a “debate” call it a “dialogue “ with RFK… Then he’ll probably sign right up.,,
https://dysphonia.org/what-is-wrong-with-rfkjr-voice/
People listen to RFK Jr. on vaccines because of the books he has written.
https://www.amazon.ca/Vax-Unvax-Robert-F-Kennedy-Jr/dp/1510766960
Hotez doesn't have to debate or have a dialogue with RFK Jr. Actual scientists in the field have offered to take RFK Jr's place. Last time I checked, a million dollar donation to the charity of his choice was on the table. But he won't do it.
He earned a Bachelor of Arts in molecular biophysics and biochemistry magna cum laude (Phi Beta Kappa) from Yale University in 1980
Wait, how can this be an art degree?
Molecular physics and biochemistry are expressions of art?
His doctoral dissertation and postdoctoral training were in the areas of hookworm molecular pathogenesis and vaccine development. — Wikipedia
Hotez isn't perfect, who is? But maybe he doesn't want to debate RFK because RFK's medical beliefs are insane, disowned by his own family. The old saw about mud wrestling with a pig.
There's really, really bad, stupid medical fake "science" that kills millions every year, but infectious diseases and vaccines are not that. Like most but not all medicine, it is a more or less healthy area, scientifically.
Everybody talking about some self-styled "skeptical" position - is a pretty sure sign that TPTB WANT such "skepticism", which is actually extreme credulity. The drug companies love RFK's anti-vaxxism. Makes them $ - they say so. While the really, obviously bad stuff is completely ignored and unknown.
Sad to see foolishness (mostly) from Grayzone, Blumenthal and Mate have done better. It's a real trap to see one massive propaganda effort like Russiagate - and then leap to the conclusion that received opinion is always wrong. (Even if it usually is). There is no substitute for studying each thing thoroughly and carefully, down the line.
Hotez is a shill with zero integrity - who doesn't want to debate anyone.
Which makes him perfect for the products he shills for.
Lakoff is too lazy or disingenuous to provide the facts of the matter to his readership.
Which only contributes to an ongoing effort to censor everything that doesn't concur with approved narratives.
“ Wait, how can this be an art degree?
Molecular physics and biochemistry are expressions of art?”
You can educate practically any subject matter under either of the two methodologies…
The student’s cognitive function is then established under which one of the two methods that was imposed on them…
The Art degree people then employ paradox, hypocrisy, figurative language, rhetoric, synthesis, etc… whatever concepts the Art degree methodology employs.. I don’t know what they all are I wasn’t educated under that…
But Testing? No… adjustment? No… correction? No… functional equations? No… discrimination? No… etc…
We can see this going on every day..,
Fauci: “masks help!” then.., “masks don’t help!”
That’s simply paradox…
Art degree in Classics from Jesuit school Holy Cross…
“ Dr. Hotez, who spent the pandemic contradicting himself and lying to the American public.”
Employing paradox is NOT “lying”….
What are you the thought police?
LOL maybe tell him he’s going to hell for lying!
Threaten him!
😂😂😂😂
Asserting that it's a 1, then 2, then 3 shot vaccine is not a paradox.
If you were a judge Matt, would every criminal with an art degree be set free?
~
Teaching LISP programming under an art degree methodology might have interesting results.
Vaccine efficacy or epidemiological prophylaxis isn’t matters of law…
Those are technical matters…
You don’t use the Art degree method to solve technical problems …
Qualified technical people are educated via the Science degree methodology …
False claims are a matter of law.
Read Law for Dummies 101...
Free speech is guaranteed by 1st amendment …
Fraud takes place under contract law…
None of these people mad these statements in contractual discussions…
Same constitutional guarantees allow you to question the veracity of their public statements that guarantees their right to make them…
It’s textbook art degree 101.. the dialogic method.,, right out of Socrates and Plato…
Look at masks I’ll analyze it via science degree…
If airborne transmission without mask is measured at 100 thrn if you put a N95 mask on and it drops to 95 you can say the mask decreases transmission by 5%…
Some people may think that is substantial and decide to wear a mask maybe some would look at 5% and thunk that was not significant and avoid the masks..,
When the rhetoric , figures of speech and paradox then shows up that is Art degree morons now getting involved.., not ideal..,
You can't make false claims that harm people. For example, advising the public to take an experimental vaccine whose efficacy and safety are unknown.
Since this is medicine, full disclosure of the risks is required.
Hotez ought to end up in civil or criminal court.
“ You can't make false claims that harm people.”
The speech doesn’t harm anybody…
Whoever manufactured that virus and then was negligent in its safe keeping should end up in court..,
The speech doesn’t harm anybody…
The spiel he gave may have caused someone to get the vaccine when it was unnecessary, and to suffer injury.
Whoever manufactured that virus and then was negligent in its safe keeping should end up in court..
In this case, manufacturers are exempt from liability.
Post a Comment