This prompted me, as an experiment, to ask ChatCPT "why did Putin invade Ukraine?" Response:

"Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was driven by a mix of strategic, political, and ideological motives. Analysts often highlight several overlapping factors:

"1. Stopping NATO and Western Alignment

"Security concerns (stated reason): The Kremlin claimed that Ukraine’s growing ties with NATO and the European Union threatened Russia’s security.

"Reality: NATO posed no imminent military threat, but Ukraine’s shift toward the West undermined Moscow’s long-standing goal of keeping Ukraine in its sphere of influence. [... several paragraphs omitted ...]

"In short: Putin framed the invasion as defensive, but most scholars see it as a war of choice aimed at subjugating Ukraine, reversing its westward drift, and reinforcing Russia’s great-power status."

[End of ChatGPT response.]
I consider this heavily biased and misleadingly narrow. Note the language used: "imminent military threat". That's tactical, not strategic, language. What about longer-term considerations? [Off topic. Don't think about that.] "Stated reason" and "claimed" (implying deception) as opposed to "reality" (because "reality" is objective and can't be questioned).

There's no mention of the deal made in 1989 with Mikhail Gorbachev: If Gorbachev wouldn't oppose the reunification of Germany, then NATO would "move not one inch eastward", a promise obviously not kept. It also doesn't compare the US to Russia: how would the US react if Mexico tried to make an alliance with Russia? That wouldn't pose any "immediate military threat", but it's obvious from history that this wouldn't be tolerated. (Though that's probably asking too much of an LLM.)

Also note the summary: "most scholars". Which scholars? Evidently a relatively select group of scholars. This may be a kind of tyranny of the majority: if "most scholars" (from some selected group) agree, then they must be right, and anyone who disagrees must be wrong, even if the minority would actually add critical nuance.

ChatGPT does correctly capture the attitude of the US mainstream news media, so I'll give it credit for that.

This fits well with the "propaganda frame" described by Herman and Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent, as well as the maxim of Robert Heinlein's fictional Lazarus Long: "the best way to lie is to tell the right amount of truth, then stop."

Ah, but are there cute cat videos?

Meanings can change ... Wikipedia: "Since most Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to developing countries as 'third-world countries'. In political discourse, the term Third World was often associated with being underdeveloped."

So there's the original Cold War definition, and there's what most people think the term means. Another conflict between linguistic descriptionism and prescriptionism.

1. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law by releasing the Pentagon Papers and was prosecuted for it. That case was eventually dismissed. Was what Ellsberg did morally wrong? (He also photocopied several thousand pages of plans for nuclear war, as described in detail in his book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, but these weren't publicly released, because he was kind of busy with the Pentagon Papers thing.)

2. Who decides what constitutes a national security risk? Is it possible they could be wrong or have ulterior, self-serving motives? Does the public's right to know ever override the government's interest in keeping secrets? (Or the self-interest of individuals in the government?)

3. Is obeying the law always obligatory? Including, say, the Fugitive Slave Act?

That's why this sort of thing is controversial.

If somebody is far enough to the right, everybody else will be to their left, and vice-versa. That isn't necessarily bias, it's just the way reality works.

Yes, I've heard actual professional journalists say the same thing, about others or even about themselves. They're concerned that if they're too negative, they'll lose "access" to the Important People. Being present at press conferences could be valuable, if they'd actually ask difficult questions. (Or if someone would occasionally throw a shoe at the speaker.) If they're only there to report what was said, then you're right, there's little value in it.

On a related note, it can be enlightening to pay attention to the sources of news items, phrases like "according to sources", or "The Department of Whatever announced". It turns out that a lot of the news comes from press conferences or press releases, which gives the news-makers a lot of power, in particular the ability to decide when to release selected news items. This is a common way either to distract from bad news or to prioritize good news.

It's well-known that unpopular government announcements are commonly made in the news lull after 5 p.m. on Fridays.

Most excellent quotation. Thanks for that.

If you go to Walmart, you can also pick up some radioactive shrimp.

Maybe stick some magnets on the back of a tablet?

Thanks for the resource. That's interesting. I buy the little tomatoes, and they last over a week in a cabinet at room temperature with no air conditioning (in the northern temperate zone). By two weeks, they're starting to look wrinkly. Just a data point.

The Verge: Do you intend to put advertising on the screens on your smart fridges?

Samsung: We have no plans to do so ... but ... now that you mention it ....

I took mine out, because if I get up during the night, I don't want a bright light glaring in my eyes.

More than that: "Gemini managed to get correct answers for 10 of the 12 problems, which earned it a gold medal. Only four of 139 human teams managed the same feat." So it didn't beat 139 teams, it beat 135 of 139 teams.

Or we could send robots, which could potentially have very long life-spans. Either big ones or maybe wee tiny ones.

This approach also addresses the problem of fuel.

Maybe so, but the problem is the network effect: "the phenomenon by which the value or utility a user derives from a good or service depends on the number of users of compatible products." Like it or not, Python has become ubiquitous, particularly in AI (which, I hasten to point out, is more than LLMs and GPTs). If all the other tailors are using sewing machines, and someone insists on sewing by hand, they may produce better products, but they're relegated to a niche market.

What about the use case "a language that's already preinstalled on nearly every Unix system"?