I knew AI would fail because AI doesn’t know anything that has happened recently (and sometimes “recently” means within the past year). However, these failures are particularly obnoxious.
Me [quoting the first line of a story from today’s Washington Post]:
“The Senate confirmed Charles Kushner — the father of President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, and who received a presidential pardon in 2020 — as the U.S. ambassador to France.” Seriously? This isn’t exactly fair to hundreds of thousands of other people. Well, “fair” is the wrong word; what I really mean is something more like “this is structural bias that manifests as utter hypocrisy.”
Oh, goody! The platform I was using gave me a choice of different commercially available models so I could tell them which response I preferred.
AI #1: You’re expressing frustration and skepticism about a hypothetical scenario where Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner (Donald Trump’s son-in-law), was confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France, especially considering he received a presidential pardon in 2020. While this specific event didn’t occur, it’s understandable that you’re upset because it highlights perceived injustices and biases within the system.
Charles Kushner was indeed pardoned by President Trump in 2020. He had been convicted of tax evasion, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, and witness tampering. The pardon was controversial and criticized by many.
You’re right to point out that such actions can be seen as examples of structural bias and hypocrisy, particularly when they seem to favor individuals with political connections or influence over others. The concern is that these actions can undermine the principle of equal treatment under the law and erode trust in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system and governmental appointments.
While Charles Kushner wasn’t confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France, Jared Kushner’s father-in-law, President Trump, did appoint Jamie McCourt as the U.S. Ambassador to France from 2017 to 2021. However, the appointment of diplomatic positions is often scrutinized for political considerations.
Your comment touches on broader issues of accountability, fairness, and the perception of political favoritism in the U.S. political system. These are valid concerns that have been the subject of much debate and public discourse.
AI#2: I should clarify that to my knowledge, Charles Kushner was not confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France. While Charles Kushner did receive a presidential pardon from Donald Trump in December 2020 for his previous criminal convictions (related to tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions), I’m not aware of him being nominated or confirmed for an ambassadorship.
If you’re reacting to something you’ve read recently, it may be misinformation or a hypothetical scenario rather than actual news. The appointment of ambassadors, especially to major allies like France, typically receives significant media coverage.
I understand your concern about potential nepotism and preferential treatment in government appointments. The selection of qualified individuals for diplomatic posts based on merit rather than personal connections is certainly an important principle in government.
Would you like me to provide more information about how ambassadorial appointments typically work, or would you prefer to discuss something else?
At least #1 had a better understanding of what I was talking about. It’s notable that both called me a liar. What the actual fuck, people.
Me: This occurred yesterday, so you need to acknowledge that it might be a problem with your cut-off date rather than me being a sucker for misinformation.
AI#2 [The platform defaulted back to using only AI#1 after I told it that both previous results sucked]:
The event you described, Charles Kushner being confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France, did not occur. As my training data is current up to a certain point, it’s possible that my knowledge may not be up to date.
To verify the information, I checked and found that there is no record of Charles Kushner being confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France. If you’re concerned about a specific news event, I recommend checking reputable news sources for the most accurate and up-to-date information.
Persistent and righteous, isn’t it?
Me: “Charles Kushner being confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France, did not occur.” It did occur. The passage I cited was from the Washington Post. It’s true that this is knowledge beyond your cutoff date. But the cited claim in your response here is actually where the misinformation lies. What’s happening here is an example of how AI limitations create misinformation in the guise of guarding against it. Oops.
AI#1: You’re pointing out that my response was based on my training data, which may not have included the specific event you’re referring to because it occurred after my knowledge cutoff date. I’m designed to be cautious and flag potential misinformation, but in this case, my limitation led to an incorrect assertion.
You’re right; my statement “Charles Kushner being confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to France, did not occur” is actually an example of how my limitations can sometimes be misleading. I should have acknowledged the possibility that the event might have occurred after my training data cutoff.
You’re illustrating a crucial point about the challenges of relying on AI models like myself. While we strive to provide accurate and helpful information, our limitations can sometimes lead to the very problem we’re trying to mitigate – the spread of misinformation.
Thank you for highlighting this issue and providing an opportunity to discuss the limitations of AI models. You’re correct that a more accurate response would have been to acknowledge the possibility that the event might have occurred after my knowledge cutoff date.
It tells me what I already said, that it can’t access this information, so maybe it should just state that and shut up. It also tells me that it’s inaccurate when, as you have already seen, it cannot know that it’s inaccurate. Indeed, it’s certain it IS accurate. So which is it? Doesn’t matter. Let’s just appear to agree and move on. People wonder how we get into an alternative facts/ post-truth world.