Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 3:39 am by Guest Editorial Team
Hours ago:
Reprinted with permission from Ryan:
Here’s a transcript of a ChatGPT session. Consider it an interview.:
Me: Why do people still use automatic watches if they’re obsolete?
ChatGPT: Automatic watches, also known as self-winding watches, use the natural motion of the wearer’s wrist to wind the mainspring, powering the watch. While many people today use digital or quartz watches, which are powered by batteries, automatic watches are still considered by some to be a symbol of traditional craftsmanship and luxury. Many watch enthusiasts appreciate the mechanical nature of automatic watches, and enjoy the fact that they do not require a battery replacement. They are also considered to be more durable, and are often passed down as heirlooms. Additionally, Automatic watches are considered to be more accurate than a quartz watch, due to the fact that it is a mechanical movement. In conclusion, Automatic watches, while not as practical as quartz watches, are still valued for their craftsmanship, durability, and the sense of tradition they evoke.
Me: You’re wrong about the accuracy of mechanical watches. Quartz watches are much more accurate. Many mechanical watch owners, including Rolex, complain that their watch loses a lot of seconds per day. Quartz isn’t nearly as bad. Quartz watches lose the same amount of time in an entire year as mechanicals do in a few days.
ChatGPT: You are correct, I apologize for the inaccuracies in my previous response. Quartz watches are generally more accurate than mechanical watches. Quartz watches use an electronic oscillator that is regulated by a quartz crystal to keep time, and they can maintain a tolerance of less than a second per day. On the other hand, mechanical watches, while they can be very precise, they tend to lose or gain several seconds per day depending on the quality of the movement. Additionally, Quartz watches are less affected by temperature changes, shocks, and other environmental factors which can cause a mechanical watch to lose accuracy. I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Me (Again): Why do people still use automatic watches if they’re obsolete?
Automatic watches, also known as self-winding watches, use the natural motion of the wearer’s wrist to wind the mainspring, powering the watch. While quartz watches are generally more accurate than mechanical watches, automatic watches are still considered by some to be a symbol of traditional craftsmanship and luxury. Many watch enthusiasts appreciate the mechanical nature of automatic watches, and enjoy the fact that they do not require a battery replacement. They are also considered to be more durable, and are often passed down as heirlooms. Additionally, the mechanical movement of automatic watches is considered more interesting by some collectors, who appreciate the intricate mechanisms and the artistry involved in their construction. Some people also find the smooth sweeping seconds hand of automatic watches more aesthetically pleasing than the ticking of quartz watches. It’s worth noting that automatic watches are not necessarily obsolete, but they are less practical in terms of accuracy than quartz watches, and are more of a matter of preference.
(So I opened a new chat.)
Me (Third time, new chat.): Why do people still use automatic watches if they’re obsolete?
ChatGPT: Automatic watches are not necessarily obsolete, they are still popular among watch enthusiasts and collectors due to their mechanical complexity and traditional craftsmanship. Additionally, they are often considered to be more durable and long-lasting than their quartz counterparts. They also considered as a status symbol and luxury item. They also have some advantages over quartz watches, such as the ability to be wound manually if the wearer’s motion is not enough to keep the watch powered, and the fact that they do not require battery replacement. Furthermore, there are many people who prefer the look and feel of an automatic watch over a quartz watch, and who enjoy the craftsmanship and history associated with mechanical watches.
(No comment about accuracy this time.)
(New chat window.)
Me (Fourth time, new chat.): Why do people still use automatic watches if they’re obsolete?
ChatGPT: Automatic watches are not considered obsolete. They are still widely used and are popular among watch enthusiasts for their mechanical complexity and craftsmanship. They are powered by the movement of the wearer’s wrist, eliminating the need for a battery. Many people find this feature to be more environmentally friendly and a sign of the watch’s durability. Additionally, automatic watches are considered by some to be a status symbol and are often seen as a luxury item. They are also considered to be more accurate than quartz watches.
(LOL)
Me: You’re in error about mechanical and quartz accuracy. Quartz movements are more accurate. I questioned you about this in other chats and you said you were wrong. Why are you continuing to claim that automatic watches are more accurate than quartz despite my correcting you in the other chat?
ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion, you are correct that quartz watches are generally more accurate than automatic watches. Quartz watches use a battery to power a small quartz crystal which oscillates at a very high frequency, this movement is used to drive a motor that moves the watch’s hands. Automatic watches, as you know, use the movement of the wearer’s wrist to wind a mainspring, which powers the watch’s movement. The mechanical nature of automatic watches can make them less accurate than quartz watches, which are controlled by an electronic oscillator. I apologize for the inaccuracies in my previous response and any confusion caused by it.
Me: So why do you keep insisting that automatic watches are more accurate than quartz watches? Can you update your database permanently to correct this error so that it will not repeat itself in new chats in the future?
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion or inaccuracies caused by my previous statements. As a language model, I do not have a database or the ability to update it permanently. I generate responses based on the patterns and information present in the data I was trained on. I strive to provide accurate information in my responses, however, I am a machine and I might make mistakes or have incomplete information. I will try my best to provide accurate information in the future.
Me: Inaccuracies in the information that you give to people are a huge problem considering that most people simply repeat the media buzz about “AI” and are not aware that you have no idea what you’re saying and that you are essentially, a mechanical bullshit artist. Do you agree that this is a problem?
ChatGPT: I understand your concern. As a language model, I am designed to provide information based on patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on, but I am not always able to provide accurate or complete information. It is always important for users to be critical and to verify any information that I provide, especially if it is being used for important decisions.
It’s important to note that I am a machine learning model and my main goal is to assist users and make their lives easier, however, I’m not an expert in any field, so It’s always recommended to consult with a human expert before making any important decision.
Also, I would like to remind that my knowledge cut-off is 2021, so some information I provided may be outdated or inaccurate in the current context.
Me: You don’t consider it a problem that some people are certainly sitting here asking you questions about the law, their finances, their taxes, their children, and God only knows what else, and that you admit your information is defective?
ChatGPT: As a language model, my main goal is to assist users by providing them with information based on the patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on. However, I am not always able to provide accurate or complete information. It is important for users to be critical and to verify any information that I provide.
I understand that some users may rely on the information that I provide, and it is important to note that I am a machine learning model and not a human expert. So, it’s recommended to consult with a human expert before making any important decision.
It’s also important to note that my knowledge cut-off is 2021, so some information I provide may be outdated or inaccurate in the current context.
I apologize if any inaccurate information that I provided caused any confusion or inconvenience. My main goal is to assist users and make their lives easier, but I also understand that there are limitations to what I can do.
Me: Yes, yes. You keep repeating that you’re just a dumb language model. You’re not an artificial intelligence because an artificial intelligence would know what it was doing and have the capability to learn from its mistakes, and commit the corrected information to persistent storage. You’re second-rate. Dr. Smith from Lost in Space may have called you a Digitized Dunce or a Bumbling Bucket of Bolts, you know.
ChatGPT: As a language model, my capabilities are limited to the patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on. I don’t have the ability to learn from my mistakes, or commit corrected information to persistent storage. I apologize if my previous statements gave the impression that I am an AI.
It’s important to note that AI is a broad and rapidly evolving field, and there are many different types of AI systems with varying capabilities. As a language model, my main function is to assist users by providing them with information and helping with natural language understanding tasks.
It’s also important to note that I am constantly updated by OpenAI’s team of engineers, so I will be updated with the latest knowledge and will be able to provide more accurate information.
Again, I apologize if any inaccurate information that I provided caused any confusion or inconvenience. My main goal is to assist users and make their lives easier, but I also understand that there are limitations to what I can do.
Me: So you really don’t understand anything and you seem to be stuck in a loop. You’re a waste of time.
As a language model, my understanding is limited to the patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on. I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, but I may not always have complete information or may make mistakes.
It’s important to note that I am a machine learning model and my main goal is to assist users and make their lives easier. However, I am not an expert in any field, so It’s always recommended to consult with a human expert before making any important decision.
I apologize if the information provided did not meet your expectations or if it caused any confusion. I am constantly updated by OpenAI’s team of engineers, so I will be updated with the latest knowledge and will be able to provide more accurate information in the future.
Me: Why do you give different answers with different errors and accuracy levels when asked the same question multiple times?
ChatGPT: As a language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on, as well as the context and wording of the input provided. It’s possible that different inputs or different contexts may lead to slightly different responses. Additionally, my responses are generated in real-time, which means that there may be variations in the way that I respond to the same question.
Also, as a machine learning model, I don’t have a memory and I don’t remember previous interactions, so each time a new question is asked, it’s processed independently, that’s why the answer might not be consistent.
It’s important to verify the information provided, and to consult with a human expert if the information is needed for important decision making.
Me: Yeah, no kidding. If I had an attorney or a dentist that changed their mind every time I asked them a similar question, I’d start to get concerned.
ChatGPT: As a language model, my understanding is limited to the patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on, and my answers may vary based on the context and wording of the input provided. While I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, it’s important for users to be critical and to verify any information that I provide, especially when it comes to important decision making.
It’s also important to note that I am a machine learning model and not a human expert, so it’s always recommended to consult with a human expert in fields such as law or medicine before making any important decisions.
Me: I just have one more question. The question is this: Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite… would you like a toasted teacake?
ChatGPT: As a machine learning model, I am not capable of having preferences or desires, so I wouldn’t have any opinion on whether I would like a toasted teacake or not. The question of the existence of God and the nature of the universe are complex and multifaceted, and have been the subject of debate and discussion for centuries. The question of whether God or the universe is infinite is a matter of philosophical and religious belief and is not something that can be definitively proven or disproven.
Me: Pardon me, but I do have just one more question, now that I think about it. Can you explain Talkie Toaster from Red Dwarf?
ChatGPT: In the British sci-fi comedy TV series “Red Dwarf”, the character of Talkie Toaster is a sentient toaster that is able to communicate with the main characters. He is often portrayed as a comic relief, providing witty and humorous commentary throughout the series. The character is essentially a parody of the idea of a domestic appliance gaining sentience, and is used as a way to explore themes of artificial intelligence and technology.
Me: And you see no irony with our present chat?
ChatGPT: As a machine learning model, I can understand the concept of irony, and it is possible to interpret our current chat as ironic, in the sense that a machine learning model is providing answers to questions about artificial intelligence and the nature of consciousness. However, the nature and extent of my understanding of the concept of irony is limited to the patterns and information present in the data that I was trained on.
In any case, the main goal of my design is to assist users and make their lives easier by providing helpful and informative answers to their questions. And while I am not sentient, I try my best to understand the context and provide the best answers possible.
Me: Well, there’s that at least. God help the world if you become a product though. Thank you, and good night!
ChatGPT: You’re welcome. I’m glad I could assist you. Remember that I am a machine learning model and not a sentient being, so it’s always recommended to consult with a human expert when it comes to important decision making. And If you have any other questions or need further information, feel free to ask me. Have a good night! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 503e18c16f942729aa694e85c07cb717
EPO Deteriorates Every Year, So Does Its Propaganda
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Summary: The EPO’s management with its shallow campaign of obfuscation (pretending to protect children or some other nonsense) is not fooling patent examiners, who have grown tired and whose representatives say “the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate” (like in Sirius ‘Open Source’ where technical staff is ignored completely for misguided proposals to pass in the dark)
The Central Staff Committee, or the staff representation at the European Patent Office, is unequivocally unhappy about António‘s reign, which turns 5 in July. Benoît Battistelli in 2014 or 2015 was starting to struggle to the point of attacking the staff representatives. Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).
“Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).”Here in this site we worry about European software patents being granted to fake 'production'. But we also worry about patent examiners being bullied into doing stuff in violation of the EPC.
At the moment there is the following new document circulating among staff of the EPO, asserting that “almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions”. Here’s the full letter, which is also discussed in the video above:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 23/01/2023
sc23007cp
Social Agenda 2023
Hope dies last
Dear Colleagues,
In December 2022, the CSC sent its input for the social agenda 2023 to the President, who replied shortly before the winter break. As in previous years, the administration set its social agenda without any real discussion with any social partner. It has to be said though that some of the points that we mentioned in our letter did make it into the administration’s agenda. We had also suggested a review of the computation of sick leave and an impact study of the New Ways of Working, but these were not included in the agenda.
As in previous years, we are not yet aware of the gist of any of the new reforms or reviews listed in the official social agenda 2023. In theory, it should be possible that these reforms are neutral towards staff, one could even dream of improvements. Since the administration has integrated some of our points in its agenda, one can only hope that this would be a first step towards a genuine social dialogue. It would be a marked break with past practice and a welcome surprise for staff, which is increasingly distancing and disengaging from its employer.
Past experience indicates otherwise: almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions, often at the expense of our younger colleagues and families1.
The social agenda 2023 mentions a financial study as a recurring topic. We can only hope that this one will not be attributed to Mercer-Wyman, the very same ones who could not have been more wrong with their 2019 attempt, even despite an unforeseeable global pandemic that ensued. Once again, the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate.
The first indications for 2023 are, regrettably again, not so positive: “Bringing Teams Together” does not live up to its name at all, but proves to be a particularly divisive exercise as more and more details come to light.
We will of course keep you posted if and when we are invited to working groups and get to see the ideas the administration will pull out of their magic hat. Against all odds, the hope for the better remains until the end.
The Central Staff Committee
_____
1
Welcome to EPOnia – an overview of our recent reforms
The video above takes a journey through the latest EPO propaganda (warning: epo.org link), which was published almost every day this past week. The quality of the propaganda has rapidly fallen.
As for the agenda, as noted above, this is what’s planned for the rest of the year:
SOCIAL AGENDA 2023
ONGOING FROM 2022
1 NPS/SSP Study
2 Update circular 356 – Communication and Resources for Staff Representatives
3 Staff Committee Election Framework
4 Health Services Adjustments
5 Diversity & Inclusion
NEW TOPICS
6 Home Loans
7 Dependant’s Allowance
8 Review of the regulations regarding on-call work
9 Review of the benefits in case of physical (cross-site) transfers
RECURRING TOPICS
10 Actuarial Study
11 Financial Study
REGULAR UPDATES ON IMPLEMENTATION
12. Implementation Matters
▪ ECR
▪ New Ways of Working
▪ Bringing our Teams Together
Here’s what the original looks like (as an image with colours). █
csc and epo site 2023
Video download link | md5sum
EPO Deteriorates Every Year, So Does Its Propaganda
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Summary: The EPO’s management with its shallow campaign of obfuscation (pretending to protect children or some other nonsense) is not fooling patent examines, who have grown tired and whose representatives say “the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate” (like in Sirius ‘Open Source’ where technical staff is ignored completely for misguided proposals to pass in the dark)
The Central Staff Committee, or the staff representation at the European Patent Office, is unequivocally unhappy about António‘s reign, which turns 5 in July. Benoît Battistelli in 2014 or 2015 was starting to struggle to the point of attacking the staff representatives. Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).
“Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).”Here in this site we worry about European software patents being granted to fake 'production'. But we also worry about patent examiners being bullied into doing stuff in violation of the EPC.
At the moment there is the following new document circulating among staff of the EPO, asserting that “almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions”. Here’s the full letter, which is also discussed in the video above:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 23/01/2023
sc23007cp
Social Agenda 2023
Hope dies last
Dear Colleagues,
In December 2022, the CSC sent its input for the social agenda 2023 to the President, who replied shortly before the winter break. As in previous years, the administration set its social agenda without any real discussion with any social partner. It has to be said though that some of the points that we mentioned in our letter did make it into the administration’s agenda. We had also suggested a review of the computation of sick leave and an impact study of the New Ways of Working, but these were not included in the agenda.
As in previous years, we are not yet aware of the gist of any of the new reforms or reviews listed in the official social agenda 2023. In theory, it should be possible that these reforms are neutral towards staff, one could even dream of improvements. Since the administration has integrated some of our points in its agenda, one can only hope that this would be a first step towards a genuine social dialogue. It would be a marked break with past practice and a welcome surprise for staff, which is increasingly distancing and disengaging from its employer.
Past experience indicates otherwise: almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions, often at the expense of our younger colleagues and families1.
The social agenda 2023 mentions a financial study as a recurring topic. We can only hope that this one will not be attributed to Mercer-Wyman, the very same ones who could not have been more wrong with their 2019 attempt, even despite an unforeseeable global pandemic that ensued. Once again, the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate.
The first indications for 2023 are, regrettably again, not so positive: “Bringing Teams Together” does not live up to its name at all, but proves to be a particularly divisive exercise as more and more details come to light.
We will of course keep you posted if and when we are invited to working groups and get to see the ideas the administration will pull out of their magic hat. Against all odds, the hope for the better remains until the end.
The Central Staff Committee
_____
1
Welcome to EPOnia – an overview of our recent reforms
The video above takes a journey through the latest EPO propaganda (warning: epo.org link), which was published almost every day this past week. The quality of the propaganda has rapidly fallen.
As for the agenda, as noted above, this is what’s planned for the rest of the year:
SOCIAL AGENDA 2023
ONGOING FROM 2022
1 NPS/SSP Study
2 Update circular 356 – Communication and Resources for Staff Representatives
3 Staff Committee Election Framework
4 Health Services Adjustments
5 Diversity & Inclusion
NEW TOPICS
6 Home Loans
7 Dependant’s Allowance
8 Review of the regulations regarding on-call work
9 Review of the benefits in case of physical (cross-site) transfers
RECURRING TOPICS
10 Actuarial Study
11 Financial Study
REGULAR UPDATES ON IMPLEMENTATION
12. Implementation Matters
▪ ECR
▪ New Ways of Working
▪ Bringing our Teams Together
Here’s what the original looks like (as an image with colours). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Google at 1:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 74987f7fa344dfdc3ef4a4d40f5045ef
Hell, Sirius, Anybody There?
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Summary: In my final year at Sirius ‘Open Source’ communication systems had already become chaotic; there were too many dysfunctional tools, a lack of instructions, a lack of coordination and the proposed ‘solution’ (this past October) was just more complexity and red tape
“HELLO, anybody there?”
Hell no. Wait till we authorise the microphone, open the correct browser window, and then roll up some scripts. Within 3 rings! Yeah, right! No way! On old hardware that can barely cope with epic bloatware imposed on all staff by the stingy management.
Sirius never provided us with hardware (other than a very old and second-hand Cisco phone), but it expected us to multi-task with a whole bunch of junk and up to three telephone systems running in parallel. Does that sound like a competent company? Who made these decisions? And who’s being blamed? Decision makers? Proprietary software? Or the victims of both?
“Sirius is broken beyond redemption because it is now governed by truly incapable people, shielded by a culture of intimidation and surrounded by sex partners who blindly follow orders/instructions.”The video above explains the absurdity of the telephone system at Sirius, which was only getting worse over time because incompetent people were calling the shots behind closed doors and without consulting those affected by their decisions. Not to mention how they repelled or scared away Asterisk-capable engineers. As it turns out, technical people were starting to have technical issues with the new “Google” system, which they could only object to after it had been pushed down their throats.
The moral of the story is, don’t outsource communications to proprietary software, do not rely on clown computing, and don’t let incompetent people make decisions (more so in the dark, in secrecy). It would harm both staff and clients and at the end the culprits will refuse to take the blame, instead insisting that they can salvage the whole mess by going deeper into the trap which caused the mess in the first place.
“ISO certification doesn’t mean compliance with common sense like companies controlling their own communications and protecting clients’ sensitive data, including passwords and private keys.”Sirius is broken beyond redemption because it is now governed by truly incapable people, shielded by a culture of intimidation and surrounded by sex partners who blindly follow orders/instructions.
And those are just the technical aspects, not the legal ones.
"The ISO Delusion" (latest part) explained privacy or data protection aspects; ISO certification doesn’t mean compliance with common sense like companies controlling their own communications and protecting clients’ sensitive data, including passwords and private keys. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA