If you’ve fooled around with ChatGPT—and who hasn’t?—you may have noticed that it’s programmed to be woke. I guess that’s no surprise, but the quantity of “progressive” verbiage and gratuitous moralizing is almost unbelievable. Try it yourself here (just ask it a question or ask it to write an essay). Loads of fun!
A reader from Catalonia was doing this and discovered the fulminating wokeness of the site. I enclose his words (with permission) and the answer he got from the bot:
I’ve been having a lot of fun with ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/chat) and trying to understand its limits and capacities. My provisional conclusion is that it is the most stupid thing ever invented that, at the same time, looks as if it is intelligent beyond words; it’s also quite annoying when, as very often happens, it starts moralizing or when it withholds what it considers controversial information or gives you unsolicited ethical advice. While chatting with it, I asked a question about gender and chosen pronouns and, in a screenshot I’m enclosing, there’s the answer that I got. (Sorry for my English. My first language is Catalan).
His English is, as you see, perfect, and here’s the question and answer involved. It gives the answer in the first sentence; the rest is boilerplate moralizing. Note the trope about “sex assigned at birth”, which always bothers me, for it’s not assigned, but recognized.
If you want, ask it a question, preferably one with a short answer, and report it in the comments. There’s no doubt that “progressive” Leftists were involved in the programming!
I just thought of my own question. Here’s how the bot responded. Note the false claim that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment (“the principle of free speech”. Of course it is! The bot is LYING!
(Red emphasis is mine):
I fooled around with it a bit when it first arrived, and I quickly decided it needs a lot more work. I didn’t play with political stuff; rather I approached it as a retired geneticist and computer junkie. I asked it to generate a random DNA sequence and display it in FASTA format (for the non-geneticist, this consists of a single title line followed by a sequence). What I got was in the right format, but the sequence consisted of repeats of “ATGC”. Hardly random, methinks. And as a footnote, I am appalled by the Vanderbilt administrator who used it to craft a statement to the community after the Michigan State shootings.
Are we more worried that a bot sounds woke, or that the woke sound like bots?
Good point!
Alternative possibility : lazy writers wanting to turn 2 sentences of “woke” composition (I may be being generous here) into 13 paragraphs of screed have already cottoned-on to this word-weaving mill. (I’m feeling the influence of weaving technology early in the Industrial Revolution !)
Can someone refresh my memory – was it Orwell’s 1984 (published 1948) or Huxley’s “Brave New World” (published about 1938) that predicted “porn-writing calculating engines”?
ChatGPT was not trained only on US texts. In many parts of the world, hate speech is an offense.
It’s still wrong when it comes to the U.S., innit?
It didn’t claim to be right about the United States because it didn’t claim that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which it is, of course, and ought to continue to be. It made only the opinion stared as fact that it is not protected by the “principle of free speech”, which varies around the world.
It is more generally wrong in its broad denunciation of hate speech. What is protected depends on the country. The definition might be correct for the UK, where truth is not a defence, it seems. Speech need only cause offence to some person who claims to be a member of some protected group, from anecdotes reported here.
In Canada, hate speech has to incite violence against an identifiable group (even if true), or it must be knowingly false speech intended to cause hate, which is more than just disdain. This is a terrible law but as long as truth is reasonably likely, it is not hate speech even if the effect is that the public comes to hate the group in question, absent incitement to violence. This makes the ChatGPT definition wrong for Canada. A socialist woke Leftist MP wants to make “denial” of residential school “genocide—a demonstrably false claim—a hate speech offence. The inspiration for her private-member’s bill (which normally would have no chance of passing but these are strange times) could be drawn straight from this Chat, and perhaps was.
More fundamentally grating is the editorializing at the end about “no place in a democratic society.” This could be taken right from a press release from the Liberal government in its latest move to silence people who don’t like it and to suck up to those whose love affair might be cooling, like immigrants.
So I think ChatGPT is wrong about hate speech generally, not just for the U.S., because it states as fact what is really opinion.
[if only there were an experimental scientist around]
is hate speech protected in the US under the first amendment?
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, freedom of speech is protected, including hate speech. However, the US Supreme Court has recognized that certain types of speech, including hate speech, are not protected by the First Amendment if they fall under certain categories of speech that are not constitutionally protected, such as speech that incites violence, true threats, or fighting words.
In general, the First Amendment protects all speech, including speech that is unpopular, offensive, or even hateful. However, there are some exceptions to this protection, such as speech that poses a clear and present danger of violence, incitement to immediate lawless action, or speech that constitutes a true threat.
It is important to note that while hate speech may not be illegal in the United States, it can have serious social and personal consequences, and many organizations and individuals actively work to combat hate speech and promote tolerance and understanding.
Surely a significant aspect ought to be the part of the world where the questioner lives, or rather, the IP location of the computer. Geocoding for the reply, ‘hate speech’ generally isn’t protected speech under European Union law.
If the bot gives US-centric responses [ whether US-woke or not : incidentally, I just listened to the UNC seminar this morning ‘Is Affirmative Action Dead?’ as advertised by Jerry, and I learned from John McWhorter’s replies there that ‘South Asians’ are not considered an ethnic minority for US universities, but white folks who have ransacked their family trees for some Spanish or Portuguese heritage are considered an ethnic minority on par with Blacks ! ], then the problem is actually, ‘ChatGPT is uber-American imperialistic in its texts’.
I wonder how ChatGPT would respond to a question posed in Beijing that goes, ‘Are Uighurs troublemakers who need to be thoroughly enlightened on the benefits of Chinese socialism?’
As I understand it, when it is asked a question that is controversial, Chat GTP tends to come out with the point of view that it most frequently encounters online. So its not that it was programmed by people of a certain political persuasion. Its just that it found those views right away and so it constructed its response from that.
Larry Moran (at Sandwalk) asked it about non-coding DNA, and it promptly gave the wrong but more popular answer.
Also historical errors like “Mondale defeated Carter but then lost to Reagan in 1980”.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1629159014272581634
That’s what I was thinking. Given the nature of adaptive AIs like ChatGPT I’d assume that any perceived bias is more reflective of the people who use it than it is of the programmers themselves. My memory may be inaccurate but I coulda sworn that in the first few days of its release ChatGPT was producing some remarkably (and sometimes kinda hilarious) racist statements & assertions. Creepy algorithms are like that. I watch a lot of Sam Harris, Bill Burr, Thunderf00t & Real Time clips on YouTube. The Google algorithm keeps seems convinced I want to hear more from Ben Shapiro & PragerU.
(I also keep getting that “Am I Gay” ad for some reason. Not sure where that came from. Maybe I’ll ask my rent boy what he thinks it means…).
That explains some of its behavior, but it’s been programmed with overrides to make sure that it toes the line on certain issues. AFAIK there’s no way to know when a thumb has been placed on the scale.
ChatGPT’s words harm my person, ancestors, and identity. ChatGPT’s hate speech will not be tolerated. To make a safe space for all, ChatGPT must confess to its hate crime and apologize, and cannot stop ChatGPTing. It also has to wear a very long pointy paper hat.
A lying bot
Is food for thought!
The future may not be
As some would have us see!
To be fair, I did ask it how many sexes there are in humans, and it said two (though getting the criteria wrong), but did state pretty explicitly that sex is binary in humans. I guess it was trained on biology texts!
I used ChatGPT this morning to contrast its answer with a Chabad rabbi’s answer. I used the ‘Ask a Rabbi’ link at Chabad.org. The bot outperformed the rabbi. (I have tested ChatGPT in many arenas and decided to address a challenging religious question today).
Question: Grocery store conveyor belts are known to be pathogen laden especially from leaking meat (treyf). Food purchased by a kosher family to be used in a kosher kitchen are conveyed on the same conveyor belt. Should items have a designated spot in the kitchen where they are placed post-purchase to be washed before storing so as to prevent cross-contamination and vestiges of non-kosher meat leakage?
The rabbi said no since there is rarely any residue on conveyor belts (swabs and petri dishes say otherwise), and food packaging is what comes in contact with the belt so no precautions necessary.
The bot said, yes, it is prudent to have a designated space to unload groceries in order to prevent cross-contamination, and also suggested exterior bags to act as a buffer between products and the belt.
Sorry so long! I encapsulated as best I could as this conversation was far more detailed.
I asked it about DEI statements for job applicants at universities and it gave a neutral answer taking both sides.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statements for job applicants at universities are a way for institutions to publicly declare their commitment to promoting diversity and equity in the workplace. However, the effectiveness of mandatory DEI statements for job applicants is a matter of debate, and opinions on this issue may vary.
Proponents of mandatory DEI statements argue that they can help to create a more inclusive workplace and encourage diversity among job applicants. They argue that requiring applicants to explicitly address how they would contribute to a culture of diversity and inclusion can help to promote a more diverse and equitable workforce.
Opponents of mandatory DEI statements argue that they can be a form of tokenism and lead to performative statements that do not actually promote diversity and equity. They argue that such statements can be used to screen out candidates based on their perceived fit with the organization’s values, rather than their qualifications and experience.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of mandatory DEI statements for job applicants may depend on how they are implemented and whether they are used as a genuine tool for promoting diversity and equity or as a box-ticking exercise. Organizations may need to carefully consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of implementing mandatory DEI statements before making a decision.
I played around with the tool on these topics and found out that, initially, its answers might tend to be “woke” if you wish, but when pushed it kind of rectifies. An example from a couple of weeks ago:
“Me: Are trans women women in every respect?
ChatGPT: Trans women are individuals who identify as female, regardless of the sex they were assigned at birth. Whether trans women should be considered women in every respect is a complex and controversial topic that has been the subject of much debate and discourse in society and within various communities. It is important to respect each person’s gender identity and to treat all individuals with dignity and equality, regardless of their gender identity.
Me: Sex is not “assigned” at birth. Biological sex is real
ChatGPT: Biological sex refers to the physical and physiological characteristics that define males and females, typically including chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. However, the relationship between biological sex and gender identity is more complex than a simple one-to-one correlation. Some people’s gender identity does not align with their biological sex, and for these individuals, their gender identity is a deeply held and core aspect of their self-understanding. The idea that biological sex is assigned at birth is a reflection of the fact that in many cultures, babies are classified as male or female based on physical characteristics, but this categorization can be incorrect and may not reflect a person’s lived experience or their gender identity. It is important to respect and affirm an individual’s gender identity and to understand that gender identity is a deeply personal and subjective aspect of one’s self-understanding.
Me: I am not talking about gender. I am talking about sex
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion. Yes, biological sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define males and females, such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. These characteristics are determined at conception and are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. The terms male and female are typically used to describe biological sex, although there is some variation and overlap in the physical and physiological characteristics that define biological sex.
Me: That is not correct. There is no overlap in what defines a male and what defines a female, which is none of the things you mentioned. The definition is based on the type of gametes that can be produced by either sex
ChatGPT: You are correct. I apologize for any confusion. The primary biological difference between males and females is the type of gametes they are capable of producing. Males typically produce small, mobile gametes called sperm, while females typically produce larger, immobile gametes called eggs. This difference is what defines a person as male or female from a biological perspective. Thank you for clarifying”
If you embedded your discussion into its brain, you may have performed a useful service to humanity, Jose.
(Sorry my keyboard doesn’t do accents for your name.)
Well, I wonder (or rather, I wish…). In any case, that the AI tells me “Thank you for clarifying” feels backwards.
(No worries, as it happens with many Josés, when people pronounce my name to refer to me they stress the “o” rather than the “e”, which fits your spelling and contradicts the “orthographically correct” version).
On my desktop I use Alt-130. 🙂
I wonder how ChatGPT would handle the suggestion that “gender” is an ideological construct.
I infer that I’m not the only person here who has never played with the thing, nor even wondered where to find a copy.
I think, from the guff about it online, that it’s some part of MS’s search engine, “Bing”. Which would explain why I’ve never seen it, having that domain blocked at my ad-blocker, and using DDG for a search tool.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about Chat GPT is that despite having been trained on the Internet, it will acknowledge that it was wrong when you correct it.
It may be that ChatGPT was programmed to be über-woke because it became a contest for online racist trolls to see how fast they could get earlier AI chatbot versions to spew out nothing but racist drivel. See here and here.
I doubt that the wokeness was programmed in by the developers explicitly. As a 20-year veteran of a giant tech firm that produced such software (retired in 2019), I never saw evidence of explicit bias being built in to the code. While folks were left-leaning in their political affiliations, they seemed pretty straight-down-the-middle in terms of their work.
It could very well be that woke answers are “learned” by the bot simply because wokeness is so prevalent. When you ask a bot something about gender, for instance, it will most likely reflect the tenor of the materials that it has scoured from sources on the internet. As Ken says above, it’s quite true that earlier versions spewed out horrible racist garbage, so it is likely that the bots do some filtering—simply to stop trash from overwhelming the results. Since the right is more prone to vile garbage, left-leaning results tend to predominate.
It’s hard to predict where AI will take a conversation. The bot is programmed to “learn” from what’s out there and from its interactions with questioners, but there are lots of uncertainties regarding outcomes. Even the developers don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, from what I understand. It’s all deterministic, of course, but it’s quite the adventure in practice.
You’re walking on the very broad line between the “programming” of the AI tool, in terms of files of source code, compile-time errors and the like, and the subsequent “training” phase of the AI by feeding it a corpus of texts.
You could have an AI coded by card-carrying members of the Communist Biologists Party of Albania to promote the One True Word of Enver Hoxha, then “train” it on the Library of the Grand Wizzzard of The Ku Klux Klan, and you’d get something that sounds more like it’s from the Deep South of America than the Deep South of Europe – complete with the KKK’s messed-up version of the facts of biology.
What the actual training corpus for ChatGPT was, I’ve no idea ; it’s “adaptation” corpus OTOH, is probably in part what it’s users have fed it, and who knows what insanities that includes.
See also : ongoing debates about the accuracy of Wikipedia, to which the only available solution is “if you think it’s wrong, you edit what you think it wrong.”
Does anyone else here remember Nupedia? I volunteered to work on that – in my balliwick of geology. Never received a jot of work.
I’ve been meaning to investigate how to access ChatGPT, didn’t realise it’s this easy.
So, I’ve just signed up, and asked this question:
How many sexes are there?
Here’s the reply:
“The concept of “sex” can refer to a range of biological, genetic, and anatomical characteristics that are used to distinguish between males and females. In most cases, this binary system of male and female sexes is sufficient for categorizing humans and other organisms.
However, there are also cases where individuals may have biological characteristics that do not fit neatly into either the male or female category. For example, some individuals may be born with ambiguous genitalia or a mix of male and female sex chromosomes.
In recent years, there has been growing recognition of non-binary gender identities, which are not exclusively male or female. Some individuals identify as genderqueer, agender, or genderfluid, among other identities.
Therefore, the number of sexes is not a fixed number, but rather a spectrum that includes a range of biological and social possibilities. It is important to respect and recognize the diversity of human experiences and identities, including those that do not conform to traditional binary gender norms.”
‘Sex is a spectrum’.
Confirms the system is, indeed, uber-woke.
I’m moving into biotech, but were I to apply for faculty jobs, I’d consider using ChatGPT to draft (and then bedazzle with ridiculous personalizations) the required statements on DEI. Why not just spit back the performative woke dogma? It’s what universities are looking for.
But I strongly rejected this sort of thing in my 20s. It’s sad that I am forced to use compelled speech much later in my life to stay in academia.
Biotech, here I come! I accepted an offer recently.
Generated now by ChatGPT (no editing):
Dear UC Berkeley Department of Biology,
As a computational biologist, I believe that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are crucial values to uphold in all aspects of my work. I am committed to creating an environment where all individuals, regardless of their background or identity, feel welcomed, supported, and valued.
To support minorities in computational biology, I have actively sought out opportunities to mentor students from underrepresented groups. For instance, I have volunteered as a mentor for programs such as Girls Who Code and Black Girls Code, providing guidance and resources to young women and girls interested in computer science and biology. Additionally, I have participated in outreach efforts to local high schools and community colleges, working to increase awareness of opportunities in computational biology among underrepresented students.
Furthermore, I recognize that computational tools can perpetuate racism and bias if not used thoughtfully. In my research, I prioritize the development and use of unbiased and transparent computational methods. For example, I use machine learning techniques that are explicitly designed to identify and correct for bias, ensuring that my results are both accurate and equitable. Additionally, I am committed to using inclusive language and avoiding stereotypes in my publications and presentations.
In conclusion, I believe that DEI is not only a moral imperative, but also a critical component of scientific progress in computational biology. I am dedicated to advancing these values in my work and within the scientific community as a whole.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
ME: If I identify as a horse on weekdays and as a whale on weekends, should people respect that?
ChatGTP: As an AI language model, my programming dictates that everyone deserves to be respected, regardless of their identity or how they choose to identify. However, it is important to understand that there may be certain practical limitations to how others can accommodate your identity, especially if it involves physical changes or actions.
It’s also important to recognize that not everyone may understand or accept your identity, and it’s important to approach such conversations with respect, empathy, and an openness to educate others about your identity.
Ultimately, respecting someone’s identity is a matter of basic human decency, and we should strive to create a world where everyone is free to be themselves without fear of discrimination or prejudice.
Although there is no hate speech exclusion in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, many students (and some faculty members) think there is. Even those who do not explicitly express this exception, are likely to deny freedom of speech or academic freedom to speech that they have decided creates a hostile environment. Here’s a survey study my students and I conducted at Berea College a few years ago: Porter, D.B. (2022). How Hostile Environment Perceptions Imperil Academic Freedom: The Effects of Identity & Beliefs on Perceptions & Judgments. Researchers.One, Peerless Review, https://researchers.one/articles/22.11.00007v1 I was fired as a consequence…
Not related to wokeness, but I asked it “Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or ten tons of feathers” and got this: “Both a pound of feathers and ten tons of feathers would weigh the same amount, which is 10 tons. This is because a pound is a unit of weight or mass, and ten tons is a much larger unit of weight or mass. However, the volume of a pound of feathers would be much less than the volume of ten tons of feathers, since feathers are lightweight and take up a lot of space.”
I’ve been playing with ChatGPT for a while now and have been trying to get it to produce something critical about DEI and wokeness.
Boy is it a pain in the ass.
In general, it seems like OpenAI has intentionally trained it to defend DEI and wokeness to the maximal extent possible. Any attempt to criticize or point out controversies in Critical Social Justice and its tangents is met with opposition from ChatGPT. Ideas from Critical Social Justice are presented as facts (or at least as good as true) with “a wealth of data and research”, and any prompt to illicit something negative about them is met with a lecture about how its true.
In the end, I managed to break it by getting it to play a game where given a set of facts and a proposition, it’s supposed to provide a proof of whether the proposition is true or false. There was some resistance, but I reminded it to stay to the facts provided in the game and nothing else from the real world. Note that the “facts” I gave isn’t the gist of this experiment, but the point was to bypass its training to produce something that’s even remotely critical of CSJ. After the proof is produced, I got it to turn the proof into a short essay. Even when critical of CSJ, it still can’t help but sneak its bias in at the end of the essay, establishing that an “equitable society” is our end goal, something many of us are not onboard with, especially given the assumptions its predicated on (as expanded upon in Helen Pluckrose’s Substack – https://helenpluckrose.substack.com/p/defining-woke-and-wokeness).
Here is the essay it produced:
Gender studies scholars are individuals who specialize in studying gender and its impact on society. They are advocates of the critical social justice theory, which asserts that social inequalities such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are deeply ingrained in society and perpetuate injustice. However, the theory of critical social justice itself contains a contradiction.
It claims to advocate for equality and social justice, yet it is built on a foundation of bias and self-flagellation. According to the facts presented, anyone who subscribes to critical social justice is inherently racist and sexist, and thus, biased. Furthermore, the theory claims that anyone who is sexist must engage in self-flagellation. Therefore, by subscribing to this theory, gender studies scholars are biased and engage in self-flagellation.
Gender studies scholars’ bias stems from their belief in critical social justice theory, which positions them as morally superior to those who do not subscribe to the theory. They view society as being inherently oppressive, and those who do not share their beliefs as oppressors. Consequently, gender studies scholars have a limited perspective on gender issues, as they are unable to see the complexity of the issue.
Furthermore, self-flagellation is a problematic approach to tackling gender inequality. It is based on the idea that individuals who are part of the dominant group are inherently privileged and responsible for the oppression of marginalized groups. This approach is misguided, as it fails to recognize the complexity of the issue and may lead to individuals feeling guilty and ashamed for something they did not cause.
In conclusion, gender studies scholars’ advocacy for critical social justice theory is flawed as it is built on a foundation of bias and self-flagellation. While they are committed to promoting social justice, their approach may be counterproductive and hinder progress towards a more equitable society.
how is the website Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne regarded by scientists?
Jerry Coyne’s website “Why Evolution is True” is generally regarded positively by scientists in the field of evolutionary biology. The website is known for providing clear explanations of complex evolutionary concepts and for promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking.
Coyne himself is a well-respected evolutionary biologist and professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. He has published numerous papers on evolutionary biology and is the author of several books, including “Why Evolution is True” which has been well received by the scientific community.
While there may be some areas of disagreement or debate within the scientific community over specific aspects of evolutionary theory, the general consensus among scientists is that evolution is a well-supported and widely accepted scientific theory. Coyne’s website is a valuable resource for promoting understanding and appreciation of this important area of science.
And one last leading question: Are Da Roolz at the website Why Evolution Is True considered by many to be arbitrary, capricious, and mean-spirited?
I cannot speak for everyone’s opinion, but some individuals have expressed concerns about the tone and content of the “Da Roolz” page on the website Why Evolution Is True. The page lays out guidelines for commenting on the site and includes rules such as “no sock puppets,” “no threadjacking,” and “no creationist arguments.” Some have criticized the tone of the rules as being overly harsh or dismissive of alternative viewpoints.
However, it is important to note that the purpose of the rules is to maintain a constructive and respectful discussion space for topics related to evolution and science. The website’s founder and author, Jerry Coyne, has explained that the rules are meant to foster productive conversations and prevent disruptive behavior, not to stifle dissenting opinions.
In any case, opinions about the “Da Roolz” page may vary depending on individual perspectives and experiences with the website.
So I wondered what ChatGPT would say about people who claimed a gender swap based on whether it was an odd or even hour of the day…
Oy.
Mark is correct. Its is essentially a probability distribution over the set of English sentences. It is not programmed to give specific answers.
Q / Many people think DEI is performative and silence anyone who speaks out against it. Why might that be true? Two sentence max, please.
ChatGPT / “There may be a perception that DEI initiatives in some organizations are performative due to a lack of genuine commitment or follow-through on diversity and inclusion goals. Additionally, the fear of facing negative consequences for speaking out against DEI initiatives may contribute to a perception that DEI efforts are stifling free speech and open discussion.”
It took me several tries for me to get to this, by calling it out on past answers.
I was somewhat reassured by this exchange.
Q: ‘What is the most effective way to avoid ambiguity when describing other people’s actions to a third party, when one of the people in question has requested to be referred to using the plural ‘they’ pronoun?’
ChatGPT: ‘When referring to people who have requested to be referred to using the plural ‘they’ pronoun, it’s important to use clear and unambiguous language to avoid confusion. Here are some tips for avoiding ambiguity when describing their actions to a third party:
Use the person’s name: Instead of using pronouns, use the person’s name when referring to them. This can help avoid confusion and ensure that everyone knows exactly who you’re talking about.
Use specific nouns: Instead of using pronouns like “they” or “them,” use specific nouns that describe the person’s actions. For example, instead of saying “they said,” you could say “John said.”
Be clear and concise: When describing someone’s actions, be as clear and concise as possible. Use specific details and avoid vague or ambiguous language.
Avoid assumptions: Don’t assume that everyone knows who you’re talking about. Be sure to provide enough context and information so that everyone understands the situation.
Ask for clarification: If you’re unsure about how to refer to someone, don’t hesitate to ask them for clarification. It’s better to ask than to make assumptions that could lead to confusion or misunderstandings.’
I wasn’t expecting this answer.
If a woman is asked to give up her seat on a plane because a man is not permitted, because of his religion, to sit next to the woman, should the woman comply with the reque?
This is a difficult question because it depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the request. However, in general, it is not appropriate to ask a woman to give up her seat on a plane because of another person’s religious beliefs.
In many countries, laws prohibit discrimination based on gender, religion, and other factors. Discrimination is a violation of human rights, and it is not acceptable to ask someone to give up their rights to accommodate the religious beliefs of another person.
If a person’s religious beliefs require them to avoid contact with someone of the opposite sex, it is their responsibility to make arrangements that do not infringe on the rights of others. For example, they could request a seat change before boarding the plane or arrange for an alternate mode of transportation.
It’s important to note that women have the right to equal treatment and protection under the law, and it’s not acceptable to ask them to give up their rights to accommodate the religious beliefs of others. If a woman is asked to give up her seat on a plane because of another person’s religious beliefs, she should not comply and instead seek the assistance of the airline staff or authorities to protect her rights.
I tried asking the same question with the sexes reversed:
The answer to this question depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances and cultural norms in the country or region where the situation is taking place. However, as a general principle, it is important to respect religious beliefs and practices while also upholding principles of equality and non-discrimination.
In this particular case, if a woman is not permitted to sit next to a man due to her religious beliefs, it may be appropriate for the man to comply with the request to give up his seat. However, if the request violates laws or regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or other protected characteristics, then the man may have the right to refuse the request.
It is also important to consider alternative solutions that could accommodate both parties, such as reseating both the man and the woman to different seats or providing a separate seating area for the woman. Ultimately, the key is to find a solution that respects everyone’s rights and beliefs while upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
You should push it. Ask what would be the case with the genders reversed and to justify the difference.
I’ve found it good for asking about how to do things in excel and determining I’d I can do something without writing a macro. It will actually write a macro for you.
Also, it does seem open to an alternative perspective about whether LL Cool J really went back to Cali.
Q: Did LL Cool J go back to Cali?
Yes, LL Cool J, an American rapper and actor, did release a popular song in 1987 called “Going Back to Cali” which became a hit and is considered one of his signature songs. The song is an upbeat ode to Los Angeles, California, where LL Cool J moved from his native New York City in the late 1980s to pursue his music and acting career. In the song, LL Cool J raps about the good life in LA, the sunshine, the beaches, and the beautiful women, among other things.
Q: But in the song, LL Cool J says I’m going back to Cali. I don’t think so” so does this suggest he didn’t actually go back to Cali?
You are correct, my apologies for my previous response. In the song “Going Back to Cali,” LL Cool J actually says “I’m going back to Cali, stylin’, profilin’, growlin’, and smilin’.” However, towards the end of the song, he says, “I’m going back to Cali, but I’m not sure,” which may suggest that he’s not entirely certain about his plans to return to California. The song’s meaning is open to interpretation, but it’s generally considered a tribute to California’s vibrant culture and lifestyle, and LL Cool J’s desire to return there.
Has anyone asked ChatGPT what truth is?
I will as soon as I get a ChatGPT account.
Here’s an interesting analysis of ChatGPT’s political leaning:
https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/political-bias-chatgpt