The previous post, and I may do more of them as an ongoing experiment, looks at whether ChatGPT news gives us quite what we want. Today I read an ESPN account of Boise State women's volleyball team withdrawing from the conference tournament rather than play San Jose State, which has a transgender female. I draw your attention to the paragraph about the legal challenge.
U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews in Denver ruled Monday that the player is allowed to play, and a federal appeals court upheld the decision the following day.
The statement is true, but I thought at first that the larger issue had been adjudicated, and the general right of transgender athletes to play had already made it through a federal appeals court. Does that paragraph seem to say that to you? If you follow the links, you find that the court decisions are basically "The policy has been in place since 2022. If you are going to contest it you don't do it as an emergency injunction basis right before the tournament. You should have done this long ago." That seems a fair ruling on the part of the courts, which did not rule on the general safety or fairness issues at all, intentionally.
I think that was a bit sly on the part of ESPN. But my opposition to transgender women playing against original females may be coloring that judgement.
Now ChatGPT would report this as a source and report it at face value, perpetuating the false impression unless it had been instructed a little more specifically to look for other things. It might also pick up information from another source which brings that issue up and follow that. It has plenty of time and energy for that, because it moves much faster than you.
To use metaphors (probably a bad thing to do with AI at this point), rabbit trails are not a problem. You can let it go down all the rabbit trails. But it is susceptible to red herrings.
No comments:
Post a Comment