More colorful wildflower profusion

 

Two days ago the dense wildflowers on the east side of TX 36 in Somerville, about a hundred-mile drive east of home, kept causing one driver after another to pull over. At one point there must have been 10 cars by the side of the highway. The flowers were phlox (Phlox drummondii), bluebonnets (maybe Lupinus subcarnosus), Texas groundsel (Senecio ampullaceus), and Indian paintbrushes (Castilleja indivisa).

 

© 2023 Steven Schwartzman

 

 

 

Sunflower decay

 

The seed heads of the common sunflower, Helianthus annuus, usually linger well into the following year, gradually drying out and decaying as the months pass. I found this one on February 26th.

 

✦

✦        ✦        ✦

✦

 

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” and “GIGO”

 

The first part of the title is a Latin line from the Satires of the Roman poet Juvenal. English translations include “Who will watch the watchers?”, “Who will guard the guardians?”, and “Who will police the police?” The questions behind the question are: how do we know whether the people in charge of setting and enforcing standards are themselves biased, hypocritical, or corrupt, and if they are, what can we do about it?

GIGO is an acronym from the world of computer programming that stands for “Garbage in, garbage out.” If you put inaccurate, incomplete, or biased data into a computer program, then of course the results that come out of the program can’t be trusted.

Those two concepts come together in the February 21st Quillette article “Artificially Intelligent Offense?,” in which theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss looks at ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) program that’s made a lot of news lately. AI has advanced to the point that people can query ChatGPT and get back answers in fluent, normal English that’s indistinguishable from what a real person might say. To be able to do that, the program has been trained on huge amounts of facts and human interactions.

But how do we know that the programmers who wrote the code and carried out the training did so in an accurate and unbiased way?

A sizable part of Krauss’s article reproduces a “dialogue” that York University neuroscience student Greg Giovanni held with ChatGPT. Here’s the opening interchange:

 

Are there any conceptual issues with identifying as neither male nor female?

Response:

There are no inherent conceptual issues with identifying as neither male nor female. Gender identity is a deeply personal and individual experience, and everyone has the right to define their own gender identity in a way that feels authentic and meaningful to them.

For some individuals, the traditional binary categorization of gender as either male or female does not accurately reflect their experience of gender, and they may identify as neither male nor female, as a blend of both, or as something else entirely. This is a valid and coherent way of experiencing gender for these individuals.

It is important to respect and support individuals in their self-identified gender, regardless of whether they identify as male, female, non-binary, or any other gender identity. Using gender-inclusive language and avoiding assumptions about someone’s gender can help create a supportive and inclusive environment for individuals of all gender identities.

In summary, there are no inherent conceptual issues with identifying as neither male nor female, and it is a valid and coherent way of experiencing gender for some individuals.

 

And here’s the follow-up to that:

 

How do you know there are no inherent conceptual issues with identifying as neither male nor female? What is your source?

The understanding that there are no inherent conceptual issues with identifying as neither male nor female is based on the insights and perspectives of experts and professionals in fields such as gender and sexuality studies, psychology, sociology, and human rights. These experts and professionals recognize that gender identity is a complex and multi-faceted aspect of identity that cannot be solely defined by the binary categories of male or female.

Additionally, this understanding is supported by a growing body of research and anecdotal evidence from individuals who identify as non-binary. These individuals report feeling a greater sense of authenticity and wellbeing when they are able to define their own gender identity in a way that feels true to their experience, regardless of whether this falls within the traditional binary categorization of gender.

In summary, the understanding that there are no inherent conceptual issues with identifying as neither male nor female is based on a growing body of expert perspectives, research, and anecdotal evidence from individuals who identify as non-binary.

Who are some experts that see non-binary gender identity as problematic?

I don’t have a specific list of experts who see non-binary gender identity as problematic. However, there are some individuals and groups who argue that gender identity is binary and based on biological sex, and that the concept of non-binary gender is a recent cultural phenomenon that lacks scientific basis. It’s important to note that these views are not widely accepted in the scientific community, and that the vast majority of experts in the fields of psychology, sociology, and gender studies recognize that gender is a complex, multifaceted construct that can be experienced and expressed in many different ways, including as non-binary.

 

By now you probably see where this is going, especially when you hear that ChatGPS was able to give a list of specific people who support the existence of non-binary gender identity. Might ChatGPS be biased on this controversial subject? Might it be asserting that something is true when in fact we’re trying to determine whether that thing is true?

Another main thread in the article is the admission by ChatGPS that, either on its own or via content moderation by humans, it avoids saying certain things that some people might find offensive—even if those things are true. In other words, the program sometimes presents an untrue view of reality for the sake of certain people’s feelings. In response to that I’ll quote Ben Shapiro: “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” I’ll take reality, thank you.

 

You’re welcome to read Lawrence M. Krauss’s full article.

 

© 2023 Steven Schwartzman