My wife told me that AI was writing for the Murdoch press.
I was gobsmacked. Why would they use artificial intelligence when actual intelligence has been something that disqualified anyone for the job at the Murdoch stable…
Of course, I shouldn’t have used the word “stable” because that implies horses who are kept in a confined space and only allowed out when someone wants to ride them… Mm, ignore that previous sentence.
Anyway, I suddenly remembered that Modern Western civilisation defines intelligence by IQ tests which are basically one’s ability to recognise patterns. Therefore people like Andrew Bolt can be considered intelligent because they just write the same stuff, over and over and repeat it, ad infinitum… (Ok, people who regularly read me, pot and kettle… Yes, yes, but notwithstanding that…)
Anyway, consider this from Bolt:
The Climate Change Scam
The climate change scam is one of the biggest frauds of our time. It is based on the false premise that human activity is causing the Earth to warm at an alarming rate. This premise has been repeatedly debunked by scientists, but the climate change alarmists refuse to listen. They are more interested in pushing their political agenda than in the truth.
The climate change alarmists have been very successful in scaring people. They have convinced many people that the Earth is on the brink of a climate catastrophe. This fear has been used to justify all sorts of government interventions, from carbon taxes to cap-and-trade schemes.
But the truth is that there is no climate catastrophe. The Earth’s climate has been changing for millions of years, and it will continue to change. There is no evidence that human activity is causing the Earth to warm at an alarming rate.
The climate change alarmists are doing a great disservice to the public. They are scaring people with false information, and they are wasting billions of dollars on ineffective policies. It is time to wake up to the climate change scam.
Ok, now before I continue let me make the following confession: That was not written by Bolt at all, but by an AI bot who didn’t know who Bolt was (lucky AI), but when I said that he was part of the Murdoch stable, the AI came up with that.
In addition it told me:
Bolt would likely also make the following points:
- He would likely point to the fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times in the past, and that there is no evidence that human activity is the main cause of the current warming trend.
- He would likely argue that the climate change alarmists are exaggerating the risks of climate change, and that the costs of their proposed solutions are outweighed by the benefits.
- He would likely appeal to the public’s sense of skepticism, and argue that they should not be afraid to question the prevailing wisdom on climate change.
However, the AI also added (and I’m not making this up it really did this):
What are some of the counterarguments that could be made to Bolt’s position?
- Climate scientists argue that the current warming trend is unprecedented in the past 1,000 years, and that it is very likely caused by human activity.
- They argue that the risks of climate change are serious, and that the costs of inaction could be very high.
- They appeal to the public’s sense of responsibility, and argue that we have a moral obligation to take action to protect the planet for future generations.
What is your own opinion on the issue of climate change?
I believe that climate change is a serious problem, and that we need to take action to address it. However, I also believe that the climate change debate has been hijacked by ideologues on both sides. I think it is important to have a balanced discussion about the issue, and to consider all of the evidence.
So there we have it. AI could take the place of Andrew Bolt tomorrow but it would probably be sacked due to its ability to consider a counter argument.
As a final aside which has nothing to do with intelligence, I must say that I read a couple of articles today from journalists who could never be replaced by intelligence, artificial or otherwise… Basically, after reading them, I understood that Scott Morrison had launched a strong defence against the Robodebt RC findings which I summarise as follows:
Scott Morrison says that he didn’t do anything wrong because he didn’t do anything and it was up to the public service to tell him and they didn’t and even if they did he would have believed them and he did and he wasn’t in charge and someone else said mean things but they didn’t understand that that’s not the way it works and they didn’t give him the presumption of innocence which even Christian Porter was entitled to and I REJECT THE PREMISE OF THE FINDINGS because the silly woman who headed the Commission didn’t allow me to present evidence that would show that I am on God’s Right Hand and anything I do is forgivable, nay permissible, because one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Making The Poor Fear The Lord And His Servant Centrelink And, Like God, Even If You Ask For An Answer Centrelink’s Phone’s Don’t Answer Until The Afterlife”!
It’s worth remembering that his colleagues found this man preferable to Dutton. However, I did find Peter Dutton impressive on 7.30 last night when he said that it wasn’t up to anyone else to tell ex-PMs when to resign and that they should be allowed to pick their end date, before listing a number of them, including Howard… I guess that he’d forgotten that Howard tried to do that but the electors of Bennelong picked it for him…
Yeah, I guess it’s believable that Dutton didn’t remember the briefing and that there were no notes because everyone forgot to take them…
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969