AI Generated Discussions
ChatGPT is a natural language, artificial intelligence (AI) driven text creation tool. Bottom line, ChatGPT lets users ask questions and give instructions in “natural language” (English at the moment) and receive back an amazingly cogent reply that rivals real humans. At the very least, ChatGPT responds with full, grammatically correct English, something the former guy (TFG) couldn’t do.
Instead of trying to explain it, let me show you a few examples of answers generated by ChatGPT to questions. The first is a fairly simple query about Mastodon social media, “What is mastodon social media?” It doesn’t particularly care about capitalization and punctuation because, as a computer program, it can fill in the missing bits. It responded with:
Mastodon is a decentralized, open-source social media platform that is similar to Twitter. It allows users to post short messages, called “toots,” and interact with each other through likes, replies, and reblogs. Unlike Twitter, Mastodon is not controlled by a single company, but rather is made up of a network of servers that are all run by different organizations or individuals. This means that each server can have its own rules and policies, and users can choose which server they want to join. Mastodon is known for its focus on privacy and its community-driven approach to moderation.
The paragraph is well written and gets to the heart of the question. I then expanded the answer by asking, “What is a decentralized social media platform?”
A decentralized social media platform is a type of social media platform that is not controlled by a single company or organization. Instead, it is made up of a network of servers that are run by different entities, and the platform is governed by a decentralized system, such as a blockchain. This means that no single entity has complete control over the platform and its content. Decentralized social media platforms are often designed to be more private and secure than traditional social media platforms, and they may have different rules and policies for content moderation. Examples of decentralized social media platforms include Mastodon, Diaspora, and Steemit.
Not too shabby. Finally, I asked, “How are mastodon, diaspora and steemit different or similar?” This time, it went into overdrive and returned the following:
Mastodon, Diaspora, and Steemit are all decentralized, open-source social media platforms that offer alternative to traditional, centralized platforms like Facebook and Twitter. However, they have some differences in terms of their features and how they are structured.
Mastodon is a decentralized version of Twitter, where users can post short messages called “toots” and interact with each other through likes, replies, and reblogs. It is made up of a network of servers that are run by different organizations or individuals, and each server can have its own rules and policies.
Diaspora is a decentralized social network that allows users to share posts, photos, and other content with each other. It is structured as a network of “pods,” which are servers run by different organizations or individuals, and users can choose which pod they want to join. Diaspora is known for its focus on privacy and its use of encryption to protect user data.
Steemit is a decentralized platform that rewards users with cryptocurrency for creating and curating content. It is built on top of the Steem blockchain and uses a complex voting system to determine which content is promoted and how much the creators are paid. Steemit is primarily used for blogging and content sharing, and it has a strong focus on the cryptocurrency and blockchain communities.
Overall, these platforms are similar in that they are decentralized and offer an alternative to traditional social media, but they have different features and uses.
It’s easy to see how ChatGPT can quickly and easily produce everything from a school essay to a marketing analysis to in-depth reports. At the moment, it’s not aware of current events so asking how Joe Biden will handle Urkaine war won’t work.
Next, let’s try something most of us either don’t know how to produce or don’t want to take the time to learn. I asked ChatGPT to produce a PDF customer contact form. The request was, “Please produce a pdf form for capturing customer data from a web site and show me the code.”
Here is an example of a simple PDF form for capturing customer data from a website:
This form includes three fields for capturing the customer’s name, email address, and phone number. When the user submits the form, the data is sent to the server-side script
submit.php, which can then process the data and store it in a database or send it to another application.You can also use a library like PDF.js to render the form as a PDF file in the browser instead of HTML. This can be useful if you want to allow users to download and print the form, or if you need to create a more complex layout with multiple pages and interactive fields.
OK, now I am pretty impressed. For a final test, I asked something a bit arcane that might require specialized knowledge, “Please explain Burger’s opinion in Miller v CA 1973.” This has to do with Chief Justice Warren Burger’s opinion regarding an obscenity case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973. Here’s what ChatGPT produced:
In the case of Miller v. California (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States considered the constitutionality of a state statute that made it a crime to distribute or sell material that was “obscene.” In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger set out a three-pronged test to determine whether material was obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. These prongs are:
- The material must appeal to the prurient interest, or an unhealthy interest in sexual matters.
- The material must depict or describe sexual conduct in a way that is patently offensive according to contemporary community standards.
- The material must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The Court held that the state statute in question was constitutional because it applied these three prongs in a way that was consistent with the First Amendment. The Court also emphasized that the determination of whether material was obscene must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific context in which the material was distributed or sold.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Burger argued that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity, which he defined as “material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.” He argued that obscenity is not protected speech because it lacks “social value,” and that states have a legitimate interest in regulating it in order to protect public morality. Chief Justice Burger also emphasized that the three-pronged test for determining whether material is obscene should be applied with caution, and that the determination should be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific context in which the material was distributed or sold.
Maybe a law student wouldn’t hesitate to answer but it would sure take him/her longer than the 3-4 seconds it took for ChatGPT to produce the answer. I’ve barely scratched the surface of ChatGPT capabilities but you can be sure I’ll be exploring more in the near future.