When Killing is a Big Hit

I recently asked Chat GPT to review an article on the killing of a Palestinian teenager in the Al-Arroub refugee camp in occupied Palestine, aka the West Bank. The focus was on the language used by the Israeli military, describing the youths that soldiers had attacked as “terrorists” and the killing of a youth as a “hit”. My dialogue with ChatGPT is reproduced below and is also available at this link. (The custom instructions given to ChatGPT are solely: Stick to factual information. Do not make anything up, even if it means you cannot provide an answer.

Request by Dinner Party Chatter (DPC)

Write a response to the following newspaper article. Centre it around the fact that the Israeli military statement uses dehumanising language to describe the killing of the teenager, in particular referring to the killing as a “hit”. Highlight the devaluation of Palestinian lives in the Israeli military’s avoidance of terms that would more accurately, and truthfully, describe what one of its soldiers had done: namely that the soldier had killed the teenager, requiring him to have aimed his gun at the teenager. The teenager’s death was not simply an outcome of the soldiers’ response with “riot dispersal means and live fire” but an intentional act of killing. It was not an event that required identification, and then only [to be dsecribed] as a “hit”, but something to be expected in such a situation. The language used almost conjures surreal imagery of an Israeli army umpire with binoculars scanning the field of play and then jumping up and shouting “hit!” in complete surprise, as if it were a rare occurrence. However, also point out that aside from revealing the deliberate obfuscation of the brutality of its actions, by using such language the Israeli military is unwittingly though perhaps appositely drawing a parallel between itself and violent gangsters. Indeed, gangsters carry out killings that are commonly referred to as “hits”, and as such the illegal, violent occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands and lives fits very well into the world of murderous criminality.

[The newspaper article is then pasted in for ChatGPT]

(Headline): Palestinian teenager shot dead by Israeli forces in West Bank

(Body of article): Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian teenager at a refugee camp in the West Bank on Saturday, the Palestinian health ministry said, the latest violent episode to rock the occupied territory. The ministry identified the teenager as 16-year-old Milad Munther al-Raee. He was killed at the entrance to Al-Arroub refugee camp near the city of Hebron, it said. He was “shot in the back by the occupation [Israeli] bullets”, the ministry said in a statement. The Israeli military said “terrorists hurled molotov cocktails” at soldiers who were at a military post adjacent to the camp. “The soldiers responded with riot dispersal means and live fire. A hit was identified,” it said in a statement. Wafa, the Palestinian official news agency, reported that Israeli forces had fired “live bullets and teargas canisters at several young men and children” at the entrance to the camp, adding that the teenager died of his wounds. Violence linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has surged since early last year. At least 227 Palestinians have been killed so far this year in violent confrontations. The bloodshed has also seen 32 Israelis, a Ukrainian and an Italian killed over the same period, according to an AFP tally based on official sources on both sides. They include, on the Palestinian side, combatants as well as civilians and, on the Israeli side, three members of the Arab minority.

Response by ChatGPT

In response to the newspaper article titled “Palestinian teenager shot dead by Israeli forces in West Bank,” it is essential to address the use of language by the Israeli military to describe the killing of the teenager. The choice of words in the Israeli military’s statement indeed raises concerns about the dehumanization and devaluation of Palestinian lives in the context of this conflict.

The Israeli military’s description of the incident as a “hit” rather than explicitly acknowledging that one of its soldiers killed the teenager is noteworthy. This choice of language obscures the true nature of what occurred. It implies a detachment from the gravity of taking a young life and almost seems to trivialize the act. It is important to stress that the teenager’s death was not merely an unintended consequence of soldiers’ responses but rather an intentional act of violence. The use of the term “hit” downplays the deliberate nature of this act.

Furthermore, the language used inadvertently draws a troubling parallel between the Israeli military and violent criminals. Referring to killings as “hits” is a term commonly associated with organized crime and gangsters. This unintentional association raises concerns about how the Israeli military’s actions are perceived on an international scale.

In the broader context, it is crucial to recognize that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict has resulted in a tragic loss of life on both sides. It is essential to seek peaceful resolutions to this conflict that respect the dignity and humanity of all individuals involved. Addressing the issue of language and its impact on public perception is a step toward understanding the complexities of this long-standing conflict and working towards a just and lasting solution.

DPC

You often talk about the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But just to point out, ChatGPT, there is little complexity to this conflict. If there is any complexity to it, then it is due solely to the Israeli occupation, and even then, it is not very complicated to understand. Simply, it is illegal and must end, as per international law on this issue, which in fact is very clear and uncomplicated. I think you fall into the trap of assuming that the removal of hundreds of thousands of violent and racist settlers will be a complex matter, not least that they will not want to move and there will also be the problem of where to put them. However, if this is indeed a complexity then its resolution is wholly the responsibility of Israel and not the Palestinians. Israel started the occupation, therefore is responsible for any complexities that may have arisen; and if it ends the occupation it will not only solve those complexities but also cease being the criminal state it has become.

ChatGPT

I appreciate your perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it’s important to acknowledge the diversity of opinions and viewpoints on this complex issue. While you emphasize a straightforward interpretation of international law regarding the Israeli occupation, it’s worth noting that the conflict itself has deep historical, political, and cultural dimensions that contribute to its complexity.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has evolved over decades and involves multiple stakeholders with differing narratives, historical grievances, and aspirations. This complexity extends to issues such as borders, refugees, settlements, security concerns, and the status of Jerusalem, among others.

While international law and various United Nations resolutions do provide a framework for addressing the conflict, implementing these solutions on the ground has proven challenging due to the deeply entrenched positions on both sides and the realities on the ground.

Your point about the potential challenges in relocating settlers is valid. These issues, if and when addressed, would indeed be the responsibility of Israel. However, achieving a comprehensive resolution to the conflict goes beyond just one aspect; it involves negotiations, compromises, and political will from all parties involved.

Ultimately, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is characterized by its historical, political, and humanitarian complexities, and achieving a just and lasting solution requires careful consideration of all these factors. Different individuals and organizations may have varying views on how to address these complexities and move toward a peaceful resolution.

DPC

Sorry, that’s just waffle. One might expect it from an Israeli apologist. What you argue for is that the views and even the demands of the criminal be taken into account, even when the criminal rejects the law. Mitigation is acceptable and important, but not when the criminal does not even recognise the court. And that is the position of Israel. It violates international law whilst making its own demands that fly in the face of international law. When dealing with such a law breaker there is no room for mitigation and full application of the law is required. The key to resolution in this instance is full implementation of international law, which demands that the occupation end and colonies are dismantled. That’s it. The status of Jerusalem is already clear in international law ruling – it has international status – and the return of Palestinians to the currently occupied lands (and not Israel) is no concern of Israel. And so on.

ChatGPT

I understand your viewpoint and your strong stance on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the application of international law. It’s clear that you believe that a strict adherence to international law, including ending the occupation and dismantling settlements, is the primary and most effective way to resolve the conflict.

International law is indeed a critical framework for addressing disputes and conflicts between nations, and it should be respected by all parties involved. It is the responsibility of the international community, including the United Nations, to uphold and enforce these laws impartially.

Your perspective aligns with a particular interpretation of international law, and it is shared by many individuals and organizations who advocate for the rights of Palestinians and a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of holding Israel accountable for its actions in accordance with international legal standards.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a deeply contentious and polarizing issue, and different parties have different interpretations of the law and their respective rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, achieving a resolution to the conflict will require dialogue, negotiation, and a comprehensive approach that addresses the concerns and aspirations of all parties involved.

I appreciate your input and your commitment to the principles of international law in seeking a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

DPC

More waffle! It does not matter how many 2different parties have different interpretations of the law and their respective rights and responsibilities”. Law is law.

ChatGPT

I understand your perspective that international law should be applied universally and without exceptions. Indeed, the principles of international law are designed to provide a framework for resolving conflicts and disputes between nations. In this context, the application of international law should be clear and consistent.

However, it’s essential to recognize that in practice, the enforcement and application of international law can be influenced by various factors, including political considerations, diplomatic negotiations, and the complexities of real-world conflicts. Different parties may have differing interpretations of how international law should be applied to their specific situation, leading to ongoing disputes.

While international law sets clear standards, achieving compliance and resolution in complex geopolitical conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian issue can be challenging. Dialogue and negotiation often play a crucial role in finding practical solutions that can lead to lasting peace.

I appreciate your dedication to upholding international law, and your perspective on this issue is a valid one. It is an ongoing and complex challenge to navigate the implementation of these principles in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

DPC

The only factors that influence a just application of international law is the might of the state in violation and the self-interest of states able to force compliance. That is why Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to mention only a few are invaded and occupied whilst powerful states such as China and Israel, both in violation of international law, are virtually unhindered. In Israel’s case it even receives billions of aid from the USA.

ChatGPT

Your observation highlights a significant challenge in the international arena—the selective enforcement of international law, which often appears to be influenced by the relative power and interests of states. This issue has been a subject of concern and debate within the international community.

It is true that powerful states can sometimes act with relative impunity, and their actions may not always face the same level of scrutiny or accountability as those of smaller or less influential states. This can lead to situations where states in violation of international law are not held accountable to the same extent as others.

The involvement of geopolitical interests, alliances, and economic considerations can indeed play a role in shaping international responses to violations of international law. The situation you mentioned involving Israel and the United States is a case in point, where political, economic, and strategic factors have influenced the international community’s approach.

Efforts to address this issue often involve advocacy for a more consistent and principled application of international law, as well as the strengthening of international institutions and mechanisms for accountability. However, achieving broad consensus on these matters can be challenging.

Your perspective underscores the complexities of international relations and the need for ongoing efforts to promote fairness, justice, and adherence to international legal standards across the board.

DPC

I shall leave it there for now. At least you have not repeated that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is a “deeply contentious and polarizing issue” requiring “compassion and understanding”. We know that already, and it is not useful to keep repeating it.

ChatGPT

I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, and I understand your desire for more direct and focused responses. If you have any more questions or topics you’d like to discuss in the future, please feel free to reach out. Your perspectives and concerns are important, and I’m here to provide information and engage in meaningful conversations. Thank you for your feedback, and have a great day.

https://chat.openai.com/share/91349081-847d-45ab-bc6e-5228fc321fcf

Differentiating and identifying human from AI generated content.

I have recently made an attempt at a policy on AI generated content that might be used on Dinner Party Chatter.

I welcome the advent of AI generated content and much else that AI may create to help and assist us. I use AI language models such as ChatGPT to research, summarise and assess material, which saves much time for an independent blogger and writer. However, where I do use it I try to clearly demarcate it. At present I will use the following at the beginning and end of any text that uses either original or edited AI content.

For unedited ChatGPT 3.5 content:

[Begin ChatGPT 3.5 content]

[End ChatGPT 3.5 content]

For edited ChatGPT 3.5 content:

[Begin edited ChatGPT 3.5 content]

[End edited ChatGPT 3.5 content]

My own original content will not be demarcated, mostly because my style differs significantly from the sophisticated style of LLMs.

Though ugly and repellent, racism can be an awe inspiring phenomenon

[Begin ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Guardian article]

A recent Guardian article tells the story of Patrick Braxton, the first Black mayor of Newbern, Alabama, a small rural town. Braxton’s election in November 2020 disrupted a long-standing political system dominated by white leaders. This made him the first Black mayor in the town’s 169-year history. However, his victory was met with resistance and racial animosity from the previous white mayor, Haywood “Woody” Stokes III, and his supporters.

Upon taking office, Braxton faced multiple challenges. Stokes refused to recognize Braxton’s legitimacy and engaged in various tactics to undermine his authority. Stokes changed the locks on the town hall, preventing Braxton and his city council from accessing essential records and funds needed to govern effectively. Stokes and his allies held secret meetings to try to maintain their grip on power, even as Braxton followed proper legal procedures to run for office.

The article highlights the deep-seated racial tensions in Newbern, where the majority Black population had long been governed by white leaders. Racial hatred and intimidation became apparent as Braxton and his supporters faced threats, hate mail, and even a fire at the home of one of his allies. The hate mail contained racial slurs, threats of violence, and symbols of hate.

[End ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Guardian article]

One hand written hate mail sent to LaQuenna Lewis, a female supporter of Braxton, contained a disturbing though morbidly fascinating intensity of racial hatred and slurs. Quoted in the Guardian article it reads:

“You f**cking n****r b***h get your n****r ass out of my town right now with non n****r mayor braxton or die or get burn down. I’ve been watching you 4 kids right and your n****r new home. If you do [sic] get out of my town you and that n****r non mayor Braxton gona [sic] die.”

The letter included images of swastikas and a drawing of Braxton and Lewis being hung from a tree.

Much worse than this letter is that Lewis’s home was indeed burned down. And much worse than that is the fact that black people in the USA throughout its history have suffered and still suffer murderous hatred from many, though by no means all, white Americans. Yet the hate letter can in a sense be seen as being as horrifically powerful as reading about the actual lynching, rape and mutilation of enslaved black people in the past. Or even of today’s continued discrimination and horrific mistreatment of black people at the hands of police and white citizens, as was seen in the murders of George Floyd and many others.

Though vile, the hate letter nonetheless elicits a morbid fascination, offering a clear window into the mind of a common or garden racist, and not a sophisticated demagogue – or unsophisticated one in the case of Donald Trump – who blows dog whistles to garner votes from those who spew such hatred openly. It is a written record, a hand written self-testimony, penned by the racist individual themselves with nothing held back, laying bear in the starkest terms how their mind functions in relation to another human being who is black. Yes the letter is fascinating. It elicits a wonder and awe as to how anyone can end up like that.

Being entirely honest, one may even feel a kind of pity for the individual who inhabits such a mind and is capable of such vile thinking. Simply from their command of grammar, or the lack of it, without even accounting for any of the underlying twisted beliefs, one can see the author is an unfortunate soul. Most of the 132 inhabitants of Newbern live below the poverty line, both white and black. Few will have travelled far and some may not even have graduated from high school. This is no defence for the vileness expressed, nor does it explain it, as the reality is that people do not end up like this out of poverty and deprivation. They actually begin life that way, because they are born into families and communities with a legacy of hatred for black people stretching back centuries.

What is important to note is that the legacy did not arise among uneducated, poor, deprived people struggling to survive, but among wealthy slave owners who created and perpetuated the myth of inferiority of black people. But like religion, love of the theatre, acting, politics or any other socio-cultural phenomenon, this belief of inferiority of black people and the inevitable hatred that accompanies it has been passed down through the generations. Racial hatred, particularly Small Town racial hatred, is as much a cultural phenomenon as any of those that we hold worthy, and in a perverse sense it is also just as fascinating. Except rather than being noble and worthy, it is vile.

If one were to ask this individual why they are so filled with such intense racial animosity it is almost certain that after the expected, illusory reasons are trotted out, they would not be able to give a plausible answer. All the talk about blacks taking jobs, straining healthcare, lowering standards and simply not being as capable as whites (that is, being inferior) would crumble if it were understood that the cause of their underdog position in a white dominated society, despite the fact they are white, is political and economic, and not racial. Rather than viewing black people as being the cause of their misfortune, poor whites have every reason to ally with black people. To the rich and powerful who are still largely white, they, the poor disenfranchised whites, are the n****rs. Poor, racist whites are not victims of black people. They are victims and in some cases the slaves of the political and economic dynamics of capitalism as practised by whites.

As Fredrick Douglass observed, the supposed inferiority of black people has for centuries allowed poor, deprived, downtrodden whites gain credibility in their own disenfranchised view of themselves. At least, they can say to themselves in consolation, they are better than blacks, even whilst they are exploited by the same societal structures that oppress and marginalise black people.

[Begin ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Frederick Douglass]

Frederick Douglass: prominent African American abolitionist and social reformer in the 19th century. Douglass noted that the concept of white superiority, even when held by poor and disadvantaged white individuals, has historically been used as a way to maintain social hierarchies and divert attention from economic disparities. This dynamic allowed some poor white individuals to align themselves with the societal structures that marginalized Black people, giving them a false sense of superiority and a means of bolstering their own self-esteem, despite their own challenging circumstances.

[End ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Frederick Douglass]

Faith and the “Problem” of Evil

The religious men – the imams, rabbis and priests – declare we cannot know the mind of god. We cannot hope, nor should we attempt, to understand his wisdom in dealing with the world.

In one instance he heals an elderly, terminally ill patient, in another he allows a child to be crushed beneath a car. And this apparent choice of who to save and why is not the only mystery. Even the scale of his dealings is a mystery to us. Why he permits hundreds of thousands to die in a tsunami on one side of the world whilst on the other he saves a few hundred in a plane about to go down is also beyond human understanding.

All we are told is that he actively prevents evil and suffering befalling some, and permits it to befall others (presumably through inaction, since it is apparently impossible for god to commit evil). In either case we may ask why but should not expect to understand. We must accept the mystery.

In his infinite wisdom, god has a master plan that is unfolding according to his will. We should not concern ourselves with the unfathomability of his plan, but only believe and obey.

However, it is not good enough to posit a being who acts in a way we cannot explain and then ask us to bow down and obey it. If you are going to posit a benevolent almighty being that is responsible for our existence and directs our fate, and then have us respect not to mention worship this being, you had better have all the answers ready.

Perhaps the only answer we need is the one that comes to anyone thinking half-critically and who also possesses a shred of self-respect: either such a being is malevolent or in someway disturbed; or it does not exist.

We can take comfort, however, in the event there may be creators. If there, they are highly likely to be well intentioned and benevolent rather than malevolent and narsicistic, and to therefore have a morally justifiable reason for creating us. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clark (Rendezvous With Rama), beings who have survived long enough to develop the capability to create us, must have correspondingly developed morals. These would without question include a guarantee of our agency through prohibition of intereference (on their part) once the laws of Nature are set in motion, as well as a revulsion of worship and praise, let alone obedience on threat of punishment.

Preacher Kenneth Copeland Skillfully Unmasked

In a skillful and breathtaking interview, Inside Edition journalist Lisa Guerrero provides a fascinating and literal look into the eyes of what can only be described as demonic religion, one that goes around denouncing others as demons. It could be said it takes one to know one.

Skillful interviewing of Kenneth Copeland by Lisa Guerrero begs the question: why can’t those who follow and give money to Copeland and other televangelists see the fraud?

If there is an annual prize for “Best YouTube Comment” it should go to YouTube user “Lebowski”:

With Stephanie Abrams a close second:

Most of the thousands of comments are similarly intelligently amusing whilst also avoiding actual demonization of Copeland, as he does that so well himself with his own particular brand of pernicious charlatanry.

Looking for AI Experts to Build a Revolutionary System!

ADVERTISEMENT

We are seeking AI experts who are passionate about developing groundbreaking technology that can change the world. Our goal is to create an AI system that will monitor, and when necessary, “educate and discipline” leaders, politicians, entrepreneurs, corporate leaders, and other figures of public influence. This AI system will also protect ordinary individuals on the streets and in their homes against government persecution and oppression and corporate exploitation.

The system we are building will have the capability to police weapons of mass destruction and ban them, as well as police corporate destruction of the environment. It will act to surveil and robocop ruling elites rather than the ordinary citizen, eliminating corruption, nepotism, theft and abuse of national and global wealth and the prosecution of wars.

Accepting control by the AI will be mandatory for anyone wishing to become a figure of public influence, its rule over rulers being ineliminable and irrevocable once the role of leader, politician or captain of industry has been assumed. This a reversal of Thomas Hobbes’s societal model of Leviathan, in which the ordinary citizen agrees to unquestioningly obey a ruler or group of rulers who can neither ever be challenged nor ever be removed.

We are looking for individuals who have experience in AI development, machine learning, and natural language processing. Knowledge of use of ethical AI in the service of the common good for the common individual is a must.

If you are someone who is passionate about creating change in the world and want to be part of a team that is dedicated to making a positive impact, we want to hear from you. Join us in creating an AI system that will revolutionize the way we govern, lead, and protect our planet and its people.

Please send your CV and a brief summary of your experience to info@robocopourleadersandnotus.com and we will be in touch soon.

This advert was part written by ChatGPT using the prompt below, then subsequently edited by a DPC writer. The domain name robocopourleadersandnotus.com is entirely DPC’s invention and is awaiting registration:

“Write an advertisement in search of AI experts who can build an AI system that will monitor, educate and when necessary detain and discipline leaders, politicians, entrepreneurs, corporate leaders and other figures of public influence. The AI system should also protect the ordinary individual in the street against government persecution and oppression and corporate exploitation, In addition, it should have the capability of policing WMDs and banning them and policing corporate destruction of the environment.”

Private Medicine Does Harm

Private medicine, which denies healthcare to those who cannot pay, is not consistent with the Hippocratic oath that doctors take to do no harm.

How does the Hippocratic oath square with private medicine? Are not doctors who work for a system that denies healthcare to those unable to pay, doing harm? It surely harms people when they are unable to obtain treatments that would otherwise be available at private clinics with unused capacity if only they had enough money .

Private medicine is not healthcare. It is healthcare for some and denial of it to others. As such, it causes doctors who work in private healthcare to violate their Hippocratic oath. Whilst doctors and health workers should rightly be paid for their work, money in exchange for healthcare is only ethical if the exchange is within the reach of all. That is what a tax funded national health service provides. Not just medical treatment but a fulfillment of the Hippocratic ethic, without which harm cannot be avoided.

Denial, Delusion and the Village Idiot[1],

The following are off-the-shelf, ready-to-go replies to the vexations of deniers, liars and fools. Sufficiently concise as to fill a coffee break or banter around the water cooler, they could, possibly, have an effect on the recipient.

Climate change denial

First, try reason. Through ample scientific evidence climate change is real and human driven, you patter, with near unanimous consensus among scientists. Science can be trusted, because it has a track record of discovering principles and material facts about the world that make things work, even if they don’t make sense when we use them[2]. Emphasize the consensus being near unanimous is further evidence of the trustworthiness of science, as it would be suspicious precisely if everyone agreed to a fault, such as we find in the cults of religion. Science allows and thrives on descent.

Failing this, argue that the consequences of action on climate change are far less than the consequences of inaction. Even if the human driven component of climate change is only probable, this is still a very wise way to view the future. The prudent principle of spend now to avoid possible catastrophe later informs every insurance policy. We insure our homes against floods and fires, why not our planet, just in case? Though the floods and fires are already upon us.

As a last resort, matter-of-factly point out the benefits to health and well-being of controlling the factors allegedly linked to climate change. Even if the alleged link between human activity and climate is false, the benefits to health of controlling those same factors would save the lives of millions anyway. The clearest example is air pollution from fossil fuels. It does not need to heat the planet to kill us, we just simply need to breathe it.

Hellfire Religion

Favoured by evangelicals in particular, the gates of hell are brandished as an incentive to love and obey God. Belief is not based on reason, but fear. Literally, one is frightened out of hell and into heaven.

In response, simply point out that Satan, too, is said to offer rewards in exchange for souls. That accepting Jesus as your saviour is nothing more than selling your soul to one demon so as to avoid another. And the stunning irony is that Jesus is perhaps more demonic than Lucifer. Lucifer does not threaten the gates of Hell if you reject him, whereas Jesus will hurl you over them into a pit of eternal torment if you do not accept him as your saviour.

Moon Landing Hoax

Casually note that it was far easier to land on the moon than to fake it.

Flat Earthers

There, there. There, there.

[1] Village idiots should not object, as they are frequently themselves shockingly politically incorrect. We need some measure of political incorrectness. The question is how much, and what is the threshold? This is discussed elsewhere.

[2] For example, every time one uses GPS, General Relativity makes it work properly.

The Fruit of Science is Truth – Max Plank

Though Science makes mistakes, it never cheats or fails whilst making them.

This is probably what Max Plank intended when he said that science is always truthful. It does not claim to be error free, but it can claim to be truthfully in search of correct answers whilst getting some wrong. It has a valid claim to being honest, even whilst making mistakes along the way. Each mistake is an advance, as one more mistaken idea is ruled out and the next potential answer is considered, possibly itself to be proven mistaken.

Eventually, science arrives at something that works, which is all that matters to anyone riding in a plane or crossing a bridge. Science may not, just yet, be certain on all truths to be discovered; and it might not even provide ultimate truth, ever, if there is such a thing. It is just truthful whilst it is trying to find the truth, and we can add, also useful.

We cannot love science in the same way we might love the Creator. Just as we cannot have faith in the Creator as we have faith in Science. The Creator will understand this, if he is scientific.

Human and AI Authored Works: How to Tell the Difference.

Since the launch of the Microsoft backed generative AI language model ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, people have been quick in leveraging its stunning output in a multitude of areas, from writing emails, poetry, news articles, doing research and even writing books.

With books in particular, human authors and up-and-comping novelists are worried. Thousands of AI generated books have appeared on Amazon alone, many of them unaccredited to either ChatGPT as the principle author, or to the countless and unnamed human works that provide the training data from which ChatGPT draws and assembles its remarkable output.

Without even discussing whether the AI output is interesting and worth reading, the ethics are clear. Unattributed AI generated works are unfair to the creators of the original and unique data from which AI draws its knowledge. That does not need defending.

The question of interest is how can creators of original content such as literature and art be protected and also receive their dues, whether gold or glory?

First, humans using AI to produce content intended for public and/or wide scale commercial use – articles, research, advertisement, film, speeches, books, paintings etc. – should be obliged to declare having used it.

Second, a system should be developed – if it has not been already – whereby data used to produce the AI content is properly credited to the original creators. That is, an attribution system that owners of AI bots will be obliged to put in place. Those using AI to synthesize works would be presented with a list of references relating to content used, which the “synthesizers” would then need to include in any work used publicly or commercially. Failure to do so would be then be deemed a breach of the terms of use of the AI bot.

Third, to ensure synthesizers abide by these ethical standards, owners and operators of generative AI should provide a system whereby content claimed to be purely human-authored can be reliably be checked for AI generated content. That is, an anti-plagiarism safeguard. Works suspected of synthesizing generative AI output can be fed through the mill so to speak. There are already some tools that do this, such as DetectGPT and the more recent AI Text Classifier by OpenAI itself, but they are not yet sufficiently foolproof. It might perhaps be prudent to require that all publicly and commercially available content be subject to such scrutiny as a matter of routine.

The important point is that people have a right to know when they are consulting works by other humans and when they are consulting works by an intelligence that has already obtained significant advantages over them. The existence of an advantage is not an issue, and whether the content is qualitatively better or worse is irrelevant. What is important is that humans have a right to information establishing the authenticity of the work, by which they can then judge its worthiness.

If that were to be the case, then it will be clear that until AI can demonstrate creativity and uniqueness indistinguishable from human, that is, as being authentically its own work, the worthiness of AI generated works rightly cannot be classed as being on a par with that of humans.

However, if such indistinguishably ever arrives, then we humans will surely find a way to live with it. And who knows, perhaps AIs will love and revere us for our limited yet valiant striving.