{"id":91142,"date":"2023-03-24T00:10:52","date_gmt":"2023-03-24T05:10:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91142"},"modified":"2023-03-24T00:10:52","modified_gmt":"2023-03-24T05:10:52","slug":"91142","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91142","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

ChatGPT a Perfect Example of Garbage In, Garbage Out on Guns<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe owner of\u00a0Insider<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Politico<\/em>\u00a0tells journalists: AI is coming for your jobs,\u201d\u00a0CNN Business<\/em>\u00a0reported Wednesday<\/a>. Mathias D\u00f6pfner, CEO of publisher Axel Springer, \u201cpredicts that AI will soon be able to aggregate information much better than humans.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cD\u00f6pfner\u2019s warnings come three months after Open AI opened up access to ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot,\u201d the report notes. \u201cThe bot is capable of providing lengthy, thoughtful responses to questions, and can write full essays, responses in job applications and journalistic articles.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMicrosoft co-founder Bill Gates believes ChatGPT, a chatbot that gives strikingly human-like responses to user queries, is as significant as the invention of the internet,\u201d\u00a0Reuters<\/em>\u00a0reported in February<\/a>. \u201cUntil now, artificial intelligence could read and write, but could not understand the content,\u201d Gates told\u00a0Handelsblatt<\/em>, a German business newspaper. \u201cThis will change our world.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That seems to be a thing with him. With the environment, with Covid,\u00a0 with\u00a0guns<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n

\n
\n
It may change the elites\u2019 world in terms of employment costs. But doing that may also increase pressure for another hot topic among billionaires wishing to avoid a reserved spot<\/a>\u00a0in a new Reign of Terror by offering up sops like the unsustainable \u201cguaranteed universal income\u201d pipedream. As for changing the world in terms of journalistic content, ChatGPT is only as objective as the content it accesses, and a \u201ctest drive\u201d of the bot shows all the old biases and assumptions made by legacy media \u201creal reporters\u201d drive the machine\u2019s \u201cunderstanding\u201d of politically weighted issues.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

That\u2019s evident after asking it some unequivocal questions about the right to keep and bear arms and getting back answers that, instead of just being direct, included no small amount of \u201cjustifications\u201d that could have been written by any human \u201cjournalist\u201d relying on the gun prohibitionists\u2019 playbook to make the case for infringements.<\/p>\n

I started out by\u00a0creating an account at OpenAI<\/a>\u00a0to allow access to the bot. \u00a0Then I asked some questions.<\/p>\n

Are gun control laws infringements of the Second Amendment?<\/h3>\n

\u201cThe Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that \u201cA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\u201d The interpretation of the Second Amendment is a subject of much debate, and the Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions over the years that have helped to clarify its meaning.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s a political response that doesn\u2019t answer what I asked. But ChatGPT elaborates:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn general, the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, but that this right is not unlimited. The Court has also held that the government can regulate firearms in the interest of public safety.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThis means that while the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms, it is not an absolute right, and the government can enact gun control laws to regulate firearms, so long as those laws do not infringe on the core of the Second Amendment right. Whether a particular gun control law is an infringement of the Second Amendment depends on the specific facts of the law and how it is applied.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIn conclusion, it is possible for gun control laws to be constitutional and not infringe on the Second Amendment, but it depends on the specific law and how it is applied.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s almost like ChatGPT got its\u00a0talking points from the Giffords Law Center<\/a>. What they, and it, are doing is relying on\u00a0stare decisis<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0\u201cthat courts and judges should honor \u2018precedent\u2019\u2014or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Plenty of corruptions of Founding intent resulting in unconstitutional rulings have been made in the past that are ripe for being overturned. It\u2019s like ChatGPT\u2019s programming doesn\u2019t allow it to consider the implications of\u00a0the Supreme Court\u2019s\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision<\/a>, which, unsurprisingly, the gun prohibitionists are champing at the bit to overturn.<\/p>\n

Give an example of a constitutional gun control law.<\/h3>\n

An example of a constitutional gun control law is a background check requirement for firearm purchases. The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the constitutionality of background check requirements, but in the case of United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibited the possession of a firearm in a school zone. In so doing, the Court recognized that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of its citizens, including schoolchildren.<\/em><\/p>\n

Background check requirements for firearm purchases serve the same purpose. By requiring a background check to determine whether a person is eligible to purchase a firearm, the government is able to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of those who are prohibited by law from possessing them, such as convicted felons, individuals with a history of domestic violence, and others who pose a threat to public safety.<\/em><\/p>\n

As a result, background check requirements for firearm purchases are widely considered to be a reasonable and constitutional means of regulating firearms in the interest of public safety, and have been enacted into law by many states.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If \u201cgun-free zones\u201d protected schoolchildren, we\u2019d have no school shootings. A better case could be made that such mandated defenselessness zones invite and empower predators, who feel assured by reported past experiences of others that they\u2019ll be able to rack up headline-making body counts.<\/p>\n

And again, there is no supporting text, history, or tradition to indicate the Founders would have supported background checks. ChatGPT also ignores the\u00a0analysis from the National Institute of Justice<\/a>\u00a0where the cards of those demanding such prior restraints are shown:<\/p>\n

\u201cEffectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration\u2026\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is also the subjective and unsupportable assertion that there is an actual public safety interest because \u201cmany states\u201d have enacted citizen disarmament edicts (and you\u2019ll note that ChatGPT painted those with the broad brush of \u201creasonable and constitutional means of regulating firearms\u201d instead of saying what they are.<\/p>\n

Also, note the presumption that \u201cthe government is able to prevent firearms from falling into the hands\u201d of \u00a0those \u201cwho pose a threat to public safety.\u201d Hoggwash.<\/p>\n

The bot ignores the demonstrable realities that such \u201claws\u201d are only observed by the \u201claw-abiding.\u201d Were that not the case, we wouldn\u2019t see daily headlines about bloody murders committed in\u00a0concentrated urban areas<\/a>\u00a0by sociopathic criminal misfits who aren\u2019t slowed down one bit by foolish prohibitions.<\/p>\n

What is an infringement?<\/h3>\n

An infringement is a violation or encroachment of a right, rule, or law. In the context of the Second Amendment, an infringement would refer to a law or regulation that unjustifiably restricts or limits a person\u2019s right to keep and bear arms.<\/em><\/p>\n

For example, if a law prohibited all private ownership of firearms, it would likely be considered an infringement of the Second Amendment, because it would go beyond reasonable regulation and effectively abolish the right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, a law requiring background checks for all firearm purchases might not be considered an infringement, because it is a reasonable and relatively minor restriction that serves the important purpose of preventing firearms from falling into the hands of dangerous individuals.<\/em><\/p>\n

In general, the question of whether a particular law is an infringement of the Second Amendment is a legal question that depends on the specific facts of the law and how it is applied. The interpretation of the Second Amendment is the subject of much debate and has been the subject of numerous court cases, many of which have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Once more ChatGPT makes an assertion but fails to demonstrate that text, history, and tradition exist to indicate the Founders would have supported background checks. This has been reminiscent of nothing so much as\u00a0a challenge I issued<\/a>\u00a0almost 25 years ago to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to provide evidence that is based on writings from America\u2019s founding era to substantiate its claim that the Framers of the Constitution never intended for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals.<\/p>\n

They redirected, they weasel-worded, they ignored, and they lied, but what they didn\u2019t do was come up with any proof for the contentions they were promulgating as authoritative.<\/p>\n

The takeaway from this is ChatGPT may put some anti-gun narrative-parroting \u201cjournalists\u201d out of work, but the tone and the proffered ideology will stay the same. In computer science terms, the quality of output will match the quality of input, and by accessing what\u2019s been written by its human predecessors, the bot provides a textbook example of\u00a0the acronym GIGO<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Garbage In, Garbage Out.<\/h3>\n

Afterword<\/strong><\/p>\n

The following<\/a>\u00a0came across the transom after this article had been written:<\/p>\n

\u201cSchool Apologizes After Using ChatGPT to Write Email About Mass-Shooting\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At least their talking points were consistent.<\/p>\n

And\u00a0from\u00a0PJMedia<\/em><\/a>, we see ChatGPT writing an \u201cOde to Joe Biden\u201d and a poem against guns.<\/p>\n

\"ChatGPT<\/a>
ChatGPT Ode to Donald Trump vs Ode to Joe Biden 3-22-2023<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ChatGPT a Perfect Example of Garbage In, Garbage Out on Guns \u201cThe owner of\u00a0Insider\u00a0and\u00a0Politico\u00a0tells journalists: AI is coming for your jobs,\u201d\u00a0CNN Business\u00a0reported Wednesday. Mathias D\u00f6pfner, CEO of publisher Axel Springer, \u201cpredicts that AI will soon be able to aggregate information much better than humans.\u201d \u201cD\u00f6pfner\u2019s warnings come three months after Open AI opened up access … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,87],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-crap-for-brains","category-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=91142"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":91143,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91142\/revisions\/91143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=91142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=91142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=91142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}