Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts

Saturday, November 02, 2024

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Should grandfathers want their grandchildren to live, where there are no millionaires, or where there are plenty of real-money billionaires?

I asked ChatGPT:

"In less than 400 words, how do you think grandparents would/should answer the following question: Do you want your grandchildren to live, where there are no millionaires, or where there are plenty of real-money billionaires?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Grandparents often have a deep, personal investment in the world their grandchildren will inherit, valuing stability, fairness, and opportunity over mere financial distinctions. Many would likely prefer their grandchildren to grow up in a society that promotes equal opportunities and a high quality of life for all, rather than one excessively driven by wealth concentration.

In a world without millionaires, they might envision a society focused less on wealth accumulation and more on equity and security, where resources are more evenly distributed, and everyone has a fair shot at success. Such a world could potentially foster a sense of community, lower economic stress, and provide an environment where their grandchildren don’t feel pressured to “keep up” financially but can instead focus on personal and societal development.

On the other hand, the presence of "real-money billionaires" might be seen positively if these individuals are contributing meaningfully to society, driving innovation, and improving living standards for all. Grandparents might appreciate that billionaires with a strong social commitment could foster advances in technology, healthcare, and environmental sustainability. However, they might also worry that unchecked wealth accumulation could lead to inequality, which might limit opportunities and exacerbate social divides, making it harder for their grandchildren to succeed based on merit alone.

Ultimately, grandparents are likely to prioritize a balance—hoping for a world where financial success exists but isn’t the sole metric of worth, where opportunity is widely available, and where wealthier individuals play a constructive role in society. In this ideal, a society wouldn’t be devoid of millionaires or billionaires but would instead ensure that such wealth benefits the common good, allowing their grandchildren to thrive without feeling either constrained by or beholden to extreme wealth gaps."

I asked ChatGPT:

"Again, in less than 400 words, would “a society that promotes equal opportunities” have more millionaires and billionaires than one that focuses on promoting equality?"

ChatGPT answered:

"A society focused on equal opportunities differs fundamentally from one centered solely on promoting equality. Equal opportunity aims to provide individuals with the same starting conditions—access to quality education, healthcare, fair labor practices, and a chance to advance based on talent and effort. In such a society, people can succeed to varying degrees, often resulting in a broader range of income and wealth, which includes the rise of millionaires and billionaires. Those who innovate, take risks, or excel might accumulate significant wealth, given a fair and supportive system.

On the other hand, a society focused strictly on equality tends to prioritize leveling outcomes. Policies might aim to narrow wealth gaps directly by limiting extreme wealth accumulation, redistributing resources, or setting income caps. In such societies, wealth disparities are minimized to maintain an even playing field, making it less likely for a large number of millionaires or billionaires to emerge. Instead, the focus is on reducing economic stratification, possibly by capping wealth and income or heavily taxing excess earnings.

While both models aim for fairness, they lead to different economic outcomes. A society based on equal opportunities is likely to have more millionaires and billionaires because it allows individuals to reap the rewards of their unique contributions, so long as the system remains accessible to all. In contrast, a society focusing strictly on equality would have fewer ultra-wealthy individuals, as it emphasizes balancing wealth across all levels, aiming for a narrower wealth range and potentially sacrificing large financial incentives for innovation.

In summary, a society that promotes equal opportunities is likely to produce more wealth and thus more millionaires and billionaires than one focused primarily on equality, as it supports a range of economic outcomes rather than seeking to eliminate disparities entirely."

I asked ChatGPT:

"Finally, in less than 400 words, if having read your response to the second question, how do you think their teenage grandchildren would answer the first one?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Teenage grandchildren today are likely growing up with strong opinions about fairness, opportunity, and the role of wealth in society. Influenced by discussions on inequality, climate change, and social justice, they may see wealth in terms of its impact on society rather than as a pure marker of success. With this mindset, they might lean toward a preference for a world without millionaires or one where wealth is widely shared, seeing it as a path to a more equitable and community-focused society.

These teens might interpret a world without millionaires as one where everyone has enough to meet their needs and thrive without extreme wealth disparities. They could view such a society as less competitive and less stressful, where people are valued for their contributions rather than their financial success. For many young people, the idea of a fair, accessible world—where housing, education, and healthcare are universally attainable—might be more appealing than striving to join the ranks of the ultra-wealthy.

On the other hand, they might also recognize the potential benefits of billionaires if those individuals are socially responsible, using their resources to drive innovation and tackle global challenges. They may hope that in a world with "real-money billionaires," wealth would translate into meaningful investments in sustainability, technology, or social causes that improve lives globally. However, if billionaires seem disconnected from broader social concerns or primarily focused on personal gain, teens could see this model as contributing to inequality rather than solving it.

Overall, many teens today might prefer a world that promotes fair opportunities and limits extremes in wealth, aligning with a vision of society that ensures well-being and success based on personal growth and collective benefit, rather than individual wealth alone."

I asked ChatGPT:

"You hold “Teenage grandchildren today… might lean toward a preference for a world without millionaires or one where wealth is widely shared, seeing it as a path to a more equitable and community-focused society.” I ask, should we grandparents not be at all concerned about that?"

ChatGPT answered:

"It's understandable for grandparents to feel a mix of pride and concern when teenagers show a preference for a world where wealth is more equitably shared. This perspective often reflects values of fairness, empathy, and social responsibility—qualities most grandparents would be pleased to see in their grandchildren. However, it can also bring up questions about how these values might influence their ambition, resilience, and understanding of personal responsibility.

The shift in younger generations toward a preference for economic fairness often stems from their perception of how inequality impacts issues like education access, healthcare, and climate action. Their interest in a world where resources are more evenly distributed doesn’t necessarily imply they are anti-ambition or against personal success. Instead, many teenagers see wealth as something that should serve society, not only individual interests. They might admire people who succeed but hope that success translates into contributions to the broader community.

As grandparents, it could be reassuring to know that the values behind these ideas are rooted in empathy and a desire to improve the world. At the same time, fostering an understanding of balance is important. Guiding teens to appreciate that wealth, when responsibly earned and used, can be a force for good may help them see that ambition and shared prosperity aren’t mutually exclusive. Encouraging them to pursue their own goals with integrity, while maintaining their strong sense of community, could offer them the best of both worlds.

So, while some concern is natural, teens’ leaning toward a fairer world isn’t necessarily a sign of detachment from personal achievement. Rather, it can be an opportunity to help them see that wealth, when aligned with values, can create positive change—allowing them to imagine a world where they can succeed and make a difference."

I asked ChatGPT:

"A great answer, though it sure sounds like including loads of what some would define as a “politically correctness”, something which I have often seen as the result of not daring to accept the hard realities human history tells us. Do you agree with this?"

ChatGPT answered:

"I see what you mean. There’s certainly a trend in today’s culture toward framing ideas in ways that are mindful of inclusivity and sensitivity—often labeled as "political correctness." This can sometimes make discussions feel overly cautious, or even as if they're avoiding hard truths. History shows us, undeniably, that power, wealth, and social structures don’t always work toward equity, and there are harsh lessons to be learned from this. Some might argue that humanity has an innate drive for hierarchy and competition that we should realistically acknowledge, even if it's uncomfortable.

However, balancing these "hard realities" with hope for change is also part of human history. Many societies have, over time, shifted away from established norms—like slavery, disenfranchisement, or unchecked industrialism—because people recognized the harm and pushed for new standards. If teens are looking for greater equity or social responsibility in wealth, it might not mean they’re avoiding reality. Instead, they could be motivated by an awareness of past injustices and a desire to approach power differently.

Ultimately, it’s a fine line between embracing reality and acknowledging where idealism has driven positive change. Grandparents can provide perspective here by helping younger generations understand both the difficult truths of human nature and history, while also encouraging them to harness their values in practical, grounded ways."

I asked ChatGPT:

"I fully agree with your recommendation of: “Grandparents helping younger generations to harness their values in practical, grounded ways. When discussing delicate/controversial issues such as this, I sure hope you also have something like that defined as a primary responsibility. Is it so?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes, that’s absolutely a key priority. In any discussion, especially around complex or sensitive topics, my aim is to offer insights that encourage thoughtful, grounded perspectives. This means being mindful of both the practical realities and the values that different generations bring to the table.

The goal is to help facilitate balanced, respectful conversations without steering toward any specific stance. Supporting intergenerational understanding, particularly on challenging issues, is crucial for bridging viewpoints and helping each generation see the merits and limitations in different perspectives. Thank you for raising this—I’ll continue keeping it at the forefront."

I said: "Thank you. I’m sure we will have further conversations on this, hopefully very fruitful for both of us."

It said: Thank you as well—I’m genuinely looking forward to more discussions like these. Conversations that bridge experience with fresh perspectives are often the most enriching, and I’m here to make them as insightful and grounded as possible. Here’s to many more fruitful exchanges!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.


Saturday, January 09, 2021

Big Tech/Social Media & The Political Correctness autocracy, against Trump and the "immature" American citizens


“After close review of recent Tweets from @realDonaldTrump … specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter” 

So, Twitter is specifically declaring that Americans are not mature enough to read Trump tweets. I guess we Venezuelans are more mature @maduro_en

Are they still mature enough to vote? Is this a Neo-Inquisition agreement between Big-Tech-Social-Media and the Big-Brother-Political-Correctness autocracy?

“So, we must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard. Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage” Winston Churchill

PS. How do you communicate when only either red or blue can be seen? In response to social media’s massive influence, humanity is mutating to suffer specific colors blindness. How far away are Americans from never be able to hear/read/see violet again?

PS. It's now 6:30 pm Saturday night, less than 39 hours away from when Wall Street opens. I just told my wife that Twitter shares will fall 20% at least... and that Jack Dorsey might not survive as its CEO... but, of course, I could be wrong... not the first time... not the last time

PS. If you advertise on Twitter, would you be somewhat concerned?

PS. I just saw Arnold Schwarzenegger comparing some utterly surprised selfie-taking clowns unbelievably being able to enter the Capitol building, with the Kristallnacht Pogrom against the Jews, that which would end with the gassing of millions of them. Mind-boggling!

PS. Instead of allowing Trump to tweet his heart out, they silenced him. Unifying or polarizing? What if Trump’s followers now start taking notice of who advertises on Twitter and Facebook? 

PS. Ron Paul: What if Twitter/Facebook is an old mans only communication with the world, and being able to use these is the only thing that gets him out of bed, is not then sending him to isolate incommunicado down in the basement, an act of sheer cruelty?

PS. Can it be that the Senior Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at Harvard does not include even one of those 74 million Americans who voted for Trump? Please tell me I’m wrong.

PS. If the Senior Advisory Committee of the Board of the Institute of Politics at Harvard ignores that Trump got 12 million more votes than when he won in 2016, and except for Biden more votes than any candidate in US history, then perhaps students of politics should ignore Harvard.

PS. Not the first time I have written about the threat of Big-Tech and Big Brother entering into a joint venture.

A different take?

The storming of the D.C. Capitol by some selfie-taking clowns utterly surprised by being able to enter it… is the mother of all tempest in a teapot.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Is Political Correctness a Neo-Victorianism, Neo-Inquisition, or just some good old gossiping by windbags with nothing better to do?

The Nobel laureate Tim Hunt said:

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.” 

That could be taken as a joke extracted from many films and TV series that cross our daily path… and worse is often said in award winning rap or hip-hop music. 

But no, the forces of political correctness decided to came down hard on him. So hard he even resigned from his position as Honorary Professor University College London, UCL, Faculty of Life Sciences.

Is it obnoxious moralistic Neo-Victorianism?

Is it Neo-Inquisition which punishment of choice, for the time being, is destroying the heretics through media?

Or is it just some good old gossiping by good old male and female windbags with nothing better to do?

It behooves us to try to find out?

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Blocking citizens from venting their concerns, because of political correctness, is as dangerous as can be.

I just came back from a week in Sweden

If political correctness blocks the discussion of citizen’s ordinary and very human concerns, whether these are right or wrong, like those many have on what they feel is an excessive immigration, and the risk of diluting the meaning of being a Swede... that is a great growth-hormone for extremism.

In other words, if you use a “That’s like Hitler” in response to all of their concerns, then too many might end up thinking “That Hitler guy sounds having been quite right to me”.

Never forget that the emotions involved in the not liking something for the wrong reason, can be just as strong as that of the not liking something for "the right reasons".

Political correctness could, in the best of cases, be a type of Neo-Victorianism... but, unfortunately, it seems more to have become the Neo-Inquisition of our days.