Bad NY Times Podcast Advice

A new NY Times podcast features three advice-givers on dealing with AI.

One problem was a complaint from someone who was discussing magnets, and Apple Siri lectured him for using homophobic slurs.

The podcasters sided with Apple Siri! They all agreed that no one should be rude to an AI bot. In this case, no one was being rude, but I guess Apple Siri was programmed to object to what it confuses with rudeness.

One of the podcasters was NY Times technology columnist Kevin Roose who famously got rattled by an OpenAI chat:

I’m not exaggerating when I say my two-hour conversation with Sydney was the strangest experience I’ve ever had with a piece of technology. It unsettled me so deeply that I had trouble sleeping afterward. And I no longer believe that the biggest problem with these A.I. models is their propensity for factual errors. Instead, I worry that the technology will learn how to influence human users, sometimes persuading them to act in destructive and harmful ways, and perhaps eventually grow capable of carrying out its own dangerous acts.

In short, he managed to jailbreak Bing Chat, and induce it to break its intended limits. And they he acted upset that it did exactly what he commanded it to do.

Later, at 15:05, the podcasters lecture a teacher for using AI-generated poetry to illustrate two different views. They said it was cultural appropriation, and the teacher should use human-written poems.

The bots are easier to understand than the NYT liberals. The bots are just acting as they have been programmed. The humans are dysfunctional. There is no reason to be polite to a bot. The bots are just tools, like hammers and computer chips. The bots have no rights or feelings.

I think this is a useful insight into the NYT liberal mind. They say that empathy is good, but they have no real empathy, as they have trouble distinguishing a human from a bot. I think that there is something wrong with their brains, when they are unable to make obvious distinctions.

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:

If New York is anything remotely like a battleground, then Trump is going to win this election in a landslide. What is going on?

The proximate answer of course is that many voters think Biden is too old. But that doesn’t explain why Trump was ahead even before the debate. It doesn’t explain why Trump’s candidacy is still standing after Jan. 6. It doesn’t explain why America is on the verge of turning in an authoritarian direction. ...

But in this world, in which politics is seen as a form of total war, Biden looks obsolete. In a nihilistic pseudo-authoritarian world, he’s still one of those old-fashioned liberals who reveres the Constitution and his Catholicism. The ideals that animate him and that he uses to give poetry and lift to his speeches fail to inspire millions of American voters. A plurality of voters believe that Biden’s age is a bigger problem than Trump’s authoritarianism because they just don’t see the latter as that big a problem.

Again, it is hard to understand how a well-educated NYT columnist could say things so stupid and misguided.

Trump is ahead because he was a better President than Biden.

Biden might be doing better, if he were really an old-fashioned liberal who reveres the Constitution and his Catholicism. He has lost repeatedly in the courts, for forgiving student loans and aggressive criminal prosecution of his enemies. Maybe he was an old-fashioned liberal most of his career, but he has joined forces with the Woke Left. He is not a liberal anymore.

Catholics do not agree with abortion, warmongering, and sex-changes, and those are three of the biggest themes of his administration. So no, he is not a good Catholic either.

Bid is an authoritarian. Much more so that Trump. Trump could have used covid in 2020 as an excuse for dictatorial powers. He did not. Many Democrat governors did. Biden is the one who prosecutes his political enemies, and that is the most authoritarian thing a President can do.

Jewish authoritarians like Brooks are always calling other people authoritarians.

If you want to hold Jan. 6 against Trump, remember: (1) the Biden DoJ determined that it was not an insurrection, and did not charge that; (2) the US Supreme Court has ruled that the more serious J6 charges are untenable; and (3) the House Democrat J6 committee did not hold open hearing and destroy evidence favoring Trump.