Northern District of Texas: ChatGPT use for generation of legal briefings banned

“While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). “

Link

AI Safety switches to highly-effective tactic of Black Lives Matter, Feminism. Receives signatures from hundreds of top scientists.

(1) Start with a simple core statement, beyond reproach, and whose naive negation sounds terrible, implying that this core belief is what distinguishes your group from the rest.

Black lives matter.
Equality for women.
Avert mankind extiction.

(2) Paint opposition to core statement as horrible people, who obviously must support the naive negation of the core statement.

Are you saying black lives don’t matter? Are you saying women don’t deserve equality? Are you saying that preventing extinction of mankind shouldn’t be a priority?

(3) Then claim that accepting first statement must automatically, logically, imply supporting a mountain of whatever other nonsense your movement later dictates.

Because these top scientists agree with X, that means they’re X-ists, and everyone knows all X-ists also believe Y, so all of these people must believe Y.

(4) Sit back and enjoy watching nearly all being too stupid to even pinpoint where the flaw in the argument began, which was right at the start.

From vacuousness, nothing follows.

Safe.AI Website

New AI “Safety” movements gathering signatures of top scientists left and right

But has there ever been a single case of such a thing not eventually turning out badly?

Manifesto of the Ninety-Three

come up with a name for a guy who is jewish but also chinese