We’ve been postponing covering ChatGPT as it is still relatively early days, although elements of it – re AI – have been there for quite some time. OpenAI’s ChatGPT is a definite disruptor, even more than Facebook was in its day, when it heralded the Age of Social, but this time, sans Mark Zuckerberg’s ego and/or iron-fisted control. Yet, or as far as we know. But when was the last time we stopped and considered the dystopian side of the shiny new thing before we realized that, say, our privacy and personal data would be gone, perhaps forever, or worse, thanks to, say, a communications assist?

 

As a writer, we will tell you that, while AI may correct our typos, since we key so quickly, great. As for its grammatical suggestions or recommendations for completing a sentence or thought? AI is clearly not an original thinker and is wrong 90+% of the time – without exaggeration.

Meanwhile, just how ubiquitous has ChatGPT become? In just six weeks, OpenAI went from zero to a company with a valuation of $29B.

There are school systems that are banning the use of ChatGPT for assignments and for the record, Cheat, as we like to call it, isn’t always accurate. In fact, Stack Overflow banned it for Constantly Giving Wrong Answer.  Still, there are parents who believe that there’s no problem with their kids using it, as it will help them with their homework by doing the research for them and saving them time. Well, isn’t learning to do research part of the skillset that schools teach?  And a life skill? Finding and sorting out facts – you know, analysis, critical thinking. But we are a species who loves shortcuts. Aren’t quick weight loss diets always a goldmine? Why change patterns and habits when there’s a pill for that?

Critical thinking can be difficult enough without Cheat there, and remember, it’s scraping information from the internet, and is that enough? For example, we’re suddenly being told that gas stoves are dangerous – even potentially toxic due to the gases they emit. Google it and those are the top results, re the ‘dangers.’ The research came out of a Stanford University study. In fact, Beyond headlines, (there are) no proven health benefits of an electric range (Gas stoves and the mythical health risks). Not reported far and wide from the Stanford study was that “The researchers sealed their test kitchens in plastic tarps to concentrate the emissions so they would be easier to measure. While this is a novel and interesting method, the study results are useless for evaluating health-based exposures because no kitchen is set up like that. In other words, they weren’t simulating a real-life cooking experience.”

So, why the sudden demonization of gas stoves? With the European energy crisis, the US has doubled its LNG (liquified natural gas) exports to the continent.  Switch to electric? We already have an aging and overburdened grid. Then again, in which alternate universe are bureaucrats and/or politicians long-term thinkers or planners?

Re the ‘dangers’ of gas stoves/the US’s need for LNG to ship to Europe, not sure that Cheat would recognize that arc without the research/analysis/critical thinking of a carbon-based life form and make the connection that the ‘dangers’ posed by the gas emissions may be driven by politics and at the end of the day, may be nothing more than just so much hot air. Onward and forward.