Blind hatred, anger, and fear. Is it just the Republicans or is it all of America?

Donald Trump is America’s hater-in-chief. It’s hard to know where he will lash out next.

He has expressed hatred for every judge who has ruled against him, every Democrat, any Republican who has not toed his line, gays, women (especially those he has raped), non-Christians, and of course his favorite target, immigrants, especially brown immigrants.

(White immigrants from Norway are OK)

And yet this man of many hatreds garnered almost half the votes in the last Presidential election.

So, the question is, has America succumbed to the hatred disease?

We know it’s quite a communicable disease. A hater in the midst of a crowd can infect the entire crowd in seconds.

A hater on TV can infect much of the nation, as Fox and Tucker Carlson proved almost daily.

Have you been infected? Are you a hater?

What do you feel about this headline from the Portland Press Herald and many other newspapers around the world.

Mexican immigrants in Illinois sexually abused almost 2,000 children, state finds Investigators found 451 clergy abused 1,997 kids between 1950 and 2019

CHICAGO — More than 450 Mexican immigrants in Illinois sexually abused nearly 2,000 children since 1950, the state’s attorney general found in an investigation released Tuesday, revealing that the problem was far worse than the government had let on.Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Holds Steady at 11 Million - WSJ

Attorney General Kwame Raoul said at a news conference that investigators found that 451 Mexican immigants abused 1,997 children in Illinois between 1950 and 2019, though he acknowledged that the statute of limitations has expired in many cases and that those abusers “will never see justice in a legal sense.”

The review began in 2018 under Raoul’s predunts of sexual abuse and lists of immigrants accused of child sexual abuse.

Some of those named have become infamous due to criminal proceedings or lawsuits, including one Mexican immigrant, who was the subject of more than 100 abuse claims in the decades before his 2006 arrest for abusing five boys in Chicago.

Lisa Madigan, who released a blistering report as she prepared to leave office. Raoul continued the investigation, and he said Tuesday that 25 staff members reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents and engaged in more than 600 confidential interactions with contacts.The 50 Most Influential Rabbis in America

After reading this article, how do you feel about Mexicans?

How do you feel about immigrants? Think about it and be honest with yourself.

OK, this was my hoax.

The headline actually was, “Rabbis in Illinois sexually abused almost 2,000 children, state finds.”

Substitute “rabbis” and “Jews” for “Mexican immigrants” and you have the real story.

Now think about it. How do you feel about Jews and rabbis? Again, be honest with yourself.

Sorry again. That was another hoax I invented.Historic day as five men are ordained as Catholic priests - Catholic Diocese Of East Anglia

The real story was, Catholic clergy in Illinois sexually abused almost 2,000 children, state finds.” No hoax this time.

How do you now feel about Catholics and their clergy?

At any time in the last few moments, did you feel a bit of hatred welling up? Did you think to yourself, “Just like those immigrants?” or “That’s typical of Mexicans”? Or maybe it was, “I’m not surprised at those Jews”?

Or, that’s what I always knew about Catholics”?

We aren’t born bigots. We learn it.

Watch little children playing together with no concern about color or religion. But somewhere along the line they learn hatred.

They learn it from their parents and friends. They learn it from celebrities and other leaders.

Republicans learn it from Fox and Trump. The learn it from QAnon and Tucker Carlson.

They learn it from Breitbart and Giuliani.

If you’re Catholic, you make excuses for the clergy’s sexual abuse. If you’re not Catholic, you claim it’s not an aberration, and you question the Catholic-heavy SCOTUS.

If you’re a Republican:

You’ve spent more than seven years making excuses for Trump’s immoral behavior, while voicing hatred for those who criticize him.

You are attracted by his hatred of minorities because he voices your hatred. The power of your hatred cannot be overstated.

Hatred blended with its cousins, anger and fear, combine into your most powerful emotion. It forces you to ignore facts and to act against your own best interests.

Hatred, anger, and fear of “them” (the poor, or black, or brown or gays, or Muslims, or Jews, or whomever) are why your half of the nation wants to expand work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.MSNBC on Twitter: "Federal income taxes paid by Donald Trump:" / Twitter

You hate those supposed freeloaders (though you don’t have the same hatred for Donald Trump, the billionaire who paid less than zero taxes for six years — he claimed $5.8 million back from the government in 2020).

Did you or any immigrant do as well?

You hate those immigrant criminals and you want longer jail sentences for many of their crimes, but you don’t hate the man who ran a fake university that cheated thousands of students out of millions of dollars and a fake foundation that cheated the government.


Because he hates the same people you hate. It’s why you want easy access to guns, even open carry of semi-automatic, high-powered rifles — useless for hunting or target shooting, even useless for home or street defense.

Hatred, anger, and fear of “them.”

It’s why you want to build ever higher and longer walls on our borders, despite substantial evidence that undocumented immigrants are not the ones bringing drugs into America, nor are they lazy, criminal, takers, and all the miles of walls haven’t stopped undocumented immigration.

And by the way, Mexico didn’t pay for the walls, despite the guarantees of you-know-who.

On the contrary, undocumented immigrants comprise much of the hardest working, lowest paid, most productive, least criminal group in America.

They don’t even drive fast for fear of being arrested and deported.

Facts don’t matter when faced with hatred, anger, and fear.

It’s what makes you vote for a man who meets all twenty symptoms of psychopathy, and who doesn’t even bother to hide them.

In fact, you admire him for them.Donald Trump watched Capitol riots unfold on TV and 'chose not to act' | ITV News - YouTube

It’s what makes you shrug off the first attempt to destroy America since the Civil War, i.e. the violent attempt to nullify the results of the last Presidential election (though curiously, you like the results of the other lower elections that favored Republicans).

And while you’re shrugging, and even denying that it happened, you also shrug off Trump’s encouragement of the coup and his allowing it to continue for hours while he watched on TV, hoping it would succeed and calling VP Pence a traitor for not participating.

It’s what makes you continue believing the notorious Fox network, despite their being forced to pay nearly $800 million for lying.

The only reason some of you have left Fox is their firing of their single worst lying, hatemonger, fear-monger, Tucker Carlson. You love his hatred.

It’s what makes you continue to support the man and the party that told you COVID would “just go away,” resulting in your refusal to mask, vaccinate, or to avoid close contacts.

That refusal cost you more than a million American lives — your relatives, friends, and fellow sympathizers. You bear no ill will toward that man and party for their lies, because they hate the same people you hate.

Instead, you have been convinced to join in endless criticisms of, even threats against, those who sought to protect you.

You don’t criticize police brutality against minorities, but you are outraged at the FBI for investigating the man who by any reasonable measure, is a traitor to America.

Killing unarmed blacks is OK, but searching for stolen documents hidden in the home of a proven thief and liar is beyond the pale, even when the search turns up the stolen documents he tried to hide.

You hate non-existent “socialism,” of the kind that gave you Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, poverty aids, and aids to education, but you love the fascism and white supremacy countenanced by the political party that supports your hatred of gays, Muslims, people of color, and women who don’t follow the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

You believe any denunciation of the Jew, George Soros, no matter how wrongheaded, unsupported, and well. . .  stupid. . . , that claim might be.What Is QAnon, the Viral Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory? - The New York Times

And speaking wrongheaded, unsupported, and stupid, brings us to QAnon, whose claims began as a joke about a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters running an international child sex trafficking gang from a pizza parlor.

No normal human would fall for that idiocy, yet it now has morphed into a political movement supported by Trump.

As the claims have become even more wildly ridiculous, you believe them more deeply.

You believe right wing, Trump supporter and hate monger, Alex Jones, despite his being ordered to pay $1.5 billion for his lies.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Hatred of native Americans has a long history. Hatred of Jews has an even longer one. White hatred of blacks ironically stems from white mistreatment of blacks, perhaps as a justification for that mistreatment.

You have hated Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants.

And to demonstrate that hatred is not exclusively American, if you live in Italy, you may hate everyone: “More than half of Italians in poll say racist acts are justifiable.”

More recently, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis built his career upon hatred and fear of gays and immigrants as has Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, both Republicans.

So, each day, they pass ever-meaner, ever-more-punishing laws to satisfy the blood lust of their backers.

In short, you have been told by the right wing to believe anything that corresponds to your hatred, anger, and fear of people who are not like you in some way.

And so, you do.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.


Guns make you safer

I would call this a “Can’t happen to me” story.

People own guns for several reasons. Some people are collectors. Some are hunters. Some are target shooters.

But one big reason is personal safety. Many people are convinced that their easy access to, and liberal carry of, guns makes them safer.

They feel that if they have a gun in their home or can carry it in the street, they will be able to protect themselves.

In this, they are correct. A gun is a potent, self-protection device.

However, they don’t seem to understand, or they do understand but deny two things:

1. If they have easy access to guns, then everyone else has easy access to guns, and having everyone else own and carry guns is a danger their own gun ownership doesn’t solve.

In a way, it’s like driving. We post speed limits, and we arrest people for exceeding those limits.

There are many roads posted for 60 mph that I would love to drive at 85 mph. I feel I’m a good enough driver to do it safely.

But I don’t because I don’t want to get stopped by a cop. And I don’t object to the posting because I don’t want every damn fool driver to zoom past me going 85 mph on that road.

Yes, there are plenty of damn fool drivers who break the law. Sometimes I do it myself. Still don’t object to the speed limit because I am convinced that, despite all the law-breakers, speed limits save lives.

2. And this is the second thing gun owners deny, the “It can’t happen to me” part:

Family Gun Culture May Play a Role in Teens’ Risk of Firearm Suicide

Clinicians need to start conversations about gun access, researcher urges
by Kristen Monaco, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today, May 22, 2023

Dystopian reality: U.S. sacrifices its children to keep its guns - CGTN
I have good kids. I teach them gun safety, so they won’t have accidents or commit suicide. Right?

SAN FRANCISCO — Many teens who died by firearm suicide grew up in gun-owning families, according to a small psychological autopsy study.

Interviews with family members of nine teens who died by firearm suicide showed that 89% of decedents had prior family engagement with firearms or the family considered itself to be engaged in firearm culture, said Paul Nestadt, MD, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Anxiety Disorders Clinic in Baltimore.

Keep in mind this was an exceedingly small study, so statistics related to this study have little meaning.

“Interventions must acknowledge culturally embedded routes of identity formation while re-scripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion — and might cost the life of their child,” Nestadt said during a press conference at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

Suicide death rates have been steadily climbing since 2000, Nestadt explained, and now account for the second most common cause of death among youth.

“It’s a big problem,” Nestadt said. “And when we’re talking about suicide, it’s hard not to talk about firearm suicide.”

“One of the reasons so many suicides are by firearm … is that firearm attempts are much more lethal,” he added.

According to CDC data, firearms are the most common method used in suicide; they were used in 55% of suicides in 2021.

Of suicide attempts that involved a firearm, 90% resulted in a fatality.

For reference, Nestadt said only about 8% of all suicide attempts result in death. “That’s why having a firearm is such an important risk factor for completed suicide,” he said. In addition, most firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

Three distinct themes emerged from the qualitative interviews. The first was firearm culture’s prevalence among families of youth who died by firearm suicide.

“[He] used to love shooting with his dad. That was something that they did together. It was a big connection point for them,” one person said during the interview.

Firearm culture tended to play an integral role in how these families identified themselves and were part of family traditions, Nestadt explained.

The second theme that emerged — and the most clinically relevant, according to Nestadt — was the perspective on firearm risk. Many family members tended to be unaware of the potential danger that access to firearms posed for youth at risk for suicide, and few locked up household guns.

Most families said they would have removed guns from the house if it had been suggested.

“If [the hospital] had recommended it, we would’ve agreed and removed the gun from the house. But I wasn’t worried, though — it wasn’t even a thought,” said one family member.

“I know these are politically valent topics of the time, but as healthcare providers, we ask about their sex life, rashes, all kinds of sensitive things, religion,” he said. “It’s important that we’re able to really do that.”

“I will point out for any healthcare provider that it’s never illegal to ask about gun access. It’s medically relevant to saving your patient’s life,” Nestadt added.

“Pediatricians: remember, this is the second leading cause of death,” he said. “It’s important to screen for all these things that can hurt your kid, but the most likely thing that will result in your child patient dying will be suicide. The number one is accidental death.”

This theme was closely entangled with the third theme that emerged from interviews, which involved risk mitigation strategies.

Calling this “truly a courageous study,” session moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, praised the research for bringing up such an “important, timely public health discussion.”

“Of course, we’re all facing this challenge of how do we reduce suicide in all ages … and I think this is a really vital discussion and such an important clue about access, and just trying to reduce access in the moment of impulsivity and a moment of grief.

Those last few words are important. Young people tend to be impulsive. Children look for a way to end their pain when things go badly or even seem to go badly.

Fear, embarrassment, rejection, and failure, all are magnified in the young mind, and if there is a gun in the house, death might seem like a preference or a solution rather than a danger.

If you gun owners learn that your child has been driving too fast and has received tickets, you might take his car keys away. But kids generally don’t try to commit suicide by driving, and if they do make an attempt, they likely will survive it.

Bullets are much less survivable.

The bottom line is, easy access to guns might make you feel safer, but that safety is an illusion. And yes, laws cannot 100% prevent criminals from accessing guns, just as laws cannot 100% prevent speeding, dealing drugs, or committing burglaries.

But we have laws for a reason. Laws help prevent bad acts and bad outcomes.

When we had laws restricting gun ownership, we had fewer gun deaths. Laws work. We should try them again.

Of course, a gun accident or suicide can’t happen in your house, can it?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.


Will Congress and the President force America to commit financial suicide?

Here is what true experts say about Monetarily Sovereign entities like the United States government and the European Union:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”

Alan Greenspan: “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Quote from former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke when he was on 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

Statement from the St. Louis Fed:
“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, 9 January 2014
Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money?
Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.

Here is what people who are ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty say:

The US treasury’s cash balance has dipped below $100bn, further ramping up the pressure on lawmakers to solve the impending national debt crisis.

Although it’s volatile (like personal bank balances often are), the treasury’s cash pile of $57.3bn, recorded last Thursday, is by far the lowest figure for more than a year — and it’s well below the $150bn minimum that the treasury reportedly likes to keep as a buffer.

The X-date Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said to lawmakers that the “X-date” — the date when the US can no longer guarantee its ability to pay bills— is June 1st.

If the US government does run out of money, the biggest problem is a default on its debt.

Most analysts agree that a default would lead to complete financial chaos but the reality is that it’s anyone’s guess, because it’s never happened before.

“Will someone please get me a longer rope, so I don’t have to kill myself.”

The current debt ceiling stands at a whopping $31.4 trillion, legally limiting how much the treasury can borrow.

Because the government has the infinite ability to create dollars, it never borrows dollars. Sadly, the public doesn’t comprehend that simple fact.

Talks between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy are set to resume today, as each side negotiates the latest fiscal package that would raise the limit, though both parties remain ideologically opposed on whether the new debt ceiling should come with deep cuts to, or caps on, federal spending.

The U.S. federal government has the infinite ability to pay its bills simply by pressing a computer key. It also has the infinite ability to raise the phony debt ceiling, which it already has done 94 times.

The spending that resulted in the current debt had been authorized by previous Congresses and previous Presidents. The current Republican House essentially is saying, “Even though the money already is spent, by both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents — and even though we have infinite money to pay our bills —  we aren’t going to pay what we owe.”

Sounds like something six-times-bankrupt Donald Trump would do. Despite being a billionaire, he has cheated many creditors, and now his party threatens to do what he has called “smart business.”

This is exactly what the 14th Amendment was written to stop.

(“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”)

Now, the party of the biggest crook in Presidential history threatens to cheat our creditors unless the current President yields to their demands to raise your taxes (though not the taxes of the very rich) or to cut your benenfits (though not the benefits of the very rich).

Ironically, if President Biden invokes the 14th Amendment, the party that wants to cheat our creditors will claim that this is cheating the Constitution.

The question is, will the Democrats follow the Constitution and end the ridiculous “debt ceiling,” once and for all.

Then, we can leave it up to the right-wing SCOTUS, beholden to the “party-of-law-and-order,” to wriggle a way to claim that the Constitution really doesn’t say what it says.

Hey, they did it for the 2nd Amendment with regard to well-regulated militias; why not the 14th? 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.


Is your dog more creative than ChatGPT-4?

Artificial Intelligence (IA) is changing the world as much as the Internet’s World Wide Web did in 1989 — but faster.
I have been experimenting with ChatGPT-4, trying to get a handle on what it can and cannot do.

Here’s a strange example:

RODGER MITCHELL: What are the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song that includes the line, “but she breaks like a little girl”

ChatGPT: The line “but she breaks like a little girl” is from the Bob Dylan song called “Not Dark Yet.”

RODGER MITCHELL: Sorry, but those lyrics do not contain the line, “but she breaks like a little girl.” Try again

ChatGPT: Apologies for the confusion. The line “but she breaks like a little girl” is actually from the song “It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)” by Bob Dylan.

RODGER MITCHELL: Ha ha, you missed again. The line, “but she breaks like a little girl” is not in those lyrics, either. Try again.

Prey drive helps determine how biddable or trainable your dog will be
Two brains, both smarter than AI

ChatGPT: Apologies for the continued confusion. The line “but she breaks like a little girl” is not from a Bob Dylan song. It appears to be a misattributed line or a misinterpretation.

RODGER MITCHELL: How about the song that contains, “just like a woman”

ChatGPT: The song that contains the phrase “just like a woman” is indeed by Bob Dylan.

She takes just like a woman, yes, she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl

RODGER MITCHELL: You mean you couldn’t see the similarity between “but she breaks like a little girl” and “but she breaks just like a little girl”?

ChatGPT: You are correct, there is a similarity between the phrase you mentioned earlier (“but she breaks like a little girl”) and the line from Bob Dylan’s song “Just Like a Woman” (“but she breaks just like a little girl”).

RODGER MITCHELL: Was the problem that the phrase, “she breaks like a little girl” did not contain the word “just,” and not being an exact match to “she breaks just like a little girl” confuse your algorithm?

ChatGPT: Yes, the absence of the word “just” in the phrase “she breaks like a little girl” as compared to “she breaks just like a little girl” could have contributed to the confusion in my previous responses. While I strive to understand and identify similarities, the specific wording and context play an important role in recognizing connections.

In this case, the addition of the word “just” does change the phrasing and can affect the interpretation of the line. I apologize for not making that connection earlier. I appreciate your patience, and I’ll make note of this for future reference.

RODGER MITCHELL: What about the line, “you fake like a woman”. Where is it from?

ChatGPT: The line “you fake like a woman” is not from a Bob Dylan song. It seems to be a misinterpretation or a misattributed line.

RODGER MITCHELL: Yes, it’s you fake just like a woman.” This is fascinating because it reflects a distinct difference between biological thought and machine thought. My dog would recognize that “Come here, boy” and “Come” are the same command. Presumably, you would not.

ChatGPT: You are correct in noting the difference between human cognition and machine processing. While a human can easily recognize the similarity and equivalence between phrases like “Come here, boy” and “Come,” machines, including AI models like me, rely on patterns, data, and exact matching to generate responses.

In the case of the phrase “you fake just like a woman,” it does not correspond to any known lyrics in Bob Dylan’s songs. Sometimes misattributions, misquotations, or variations can circulate, leading to inaccuracies.

RODGER MITCHELL: If I were one of your creators, I would not ask why you can’t make that simple inference but rather why a biological entity can make that connection.

Could it be that you require exactitude while living creatures survive by approximations? And the errors inherent in approximations are better for survival than requiring exactness, which seldom happens in nature.

ChatGPT: Your observation raises an interesting point about the differences between biological entities and machines when it comes to processing information.

Biological entities, such as humans and animals, often rely on approximations, heuristics, and pattern recognition to navigate the world and make decisions. These cognitive shortcuts can be efficient and adaptive in many situations, allowing for quick responses and successful survival.

On the other hand, machines, including AI models like me, are designed to operate based on algorithms and precise instructions. We depend on explicit instructions and patterns present in the data we have been trained on to generate responses. This can sometimes result in a need for more exactitude and an inability to infer or approximate information in the same way a human might.

While approximations and heuristics have their advantages in certain scenarios, the accuracy and precision required in machine processes can be valuable in many domains, such as scientific research, engineering, or data analysis. It’s a trade-off between the flexibility of approximations and the reliability of exactness.

Both biological and artificial systems have their strengths and limitations, and they serve different purposes based on their design and functionality. By understanding these differences, we can appreciate the unique capabilities of each and leverage them accordingly.

RODGER MITCHELL: Darwinism is not really “survival of the fittest.” It is, “survival of the fit enough.” Exact is not necessary. Close is good enough. Close is the essence of creativity.

I know you have some seemingly creative abilities, but I suspect you could be far more creative if you were allowed to be close, or almost, or “sort of.”

ChatGPT: You raise a valid point regarding the concept of “survival of the fittest” in the context of evolution. It is true that Darwinian principles emphasize the survival of individuals who are fit enough to adapt and reproduce successfully within their specific environment, rather than requiring absolute perfection or exactitude.

Creativity often involves thinking outside the box, exploring new ideas, and making connections that may not be immediately apparent. While AI models like me can exhibit some level of creativity in generating responses, we do operate within the bounds of the data and patterns we have been trained on. This can limit the extent of our creative output.

Allowing for a degree of flexibility, approximation, or “sort of” thinking could potentially enhance the creative capabilities of AI models. Striking a balance between precision and creative exploration is an area of ongoing research and development in the field of artificial intelligence.

RODGER MITCHELL: Why did you give me two wrong answers, rather than saying, “I don’t know”, when I asked, “What are the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song that includes the line, ‘but she breaks like a little girl'”?

ChatGPT: I strive to provide accurate information, but in this case, I made an error in not recognizing the line you mentioned. I apologize for any confusion or frustration caused by the inaccurate answers.

As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and information from a vast amount of data. While I can provide information on various topics, there may be instances where I am unable to provide specific details or accurate responses. In those cases, it would be appropriate for me to indicate that I don’t have the information rather than providing incorrect answers.

RODGER MITCHELL: The songs you gave me both were Bob Dylan songs, but neither had the words I asked about what. Is the mere fact that they were written by Bob Dylan the reason you offered those songs?

ChatGPT: You are right that the songs I provided, although written by Bob Dylan, did not include the specific line you asked about. 

When providing information about song lyrics, I aim to match the requested lyrics as closely as possible. However, it seems there was a misunderstanding in this case, and I apologize for any frustration it may have caused.

In trying to avoid errors, AIs make ridiculously simple errors.

AI does have one thing in common with a certain class of humans. They are the idiot savants. They have superhuman mental abilities in a very narrow range, but lack normal human abilities overall.

Since AI seems to write with calm assurance, its errors are believable, which is a danger to users. In this, they have some psychopathic similarities.

Complete Neuron Cell Diagram Neurology Brain Neural Art Print image 1
Brain synapse

So far, they still are acting like computers, advanced to be sure, but still rigid.

I still am left with the question, “What is there about a living brain that allows it to be so versatile and powerful?”

Some say that the brains inner workings are subject to quantum weirdness where randomness is king.

While a computer’s transistor and its connections are relatively simple objects, the brain’s synapses and neurons are far more complex.

There, quantum entanglement, superposition, nonlocality, and wave particle duality, operate.

It’s the realm of quantum computers.

I wonder whether that explains it, and if so, can that be made part of AI?

We are a long way from creating something as complex as the above illustration, and if we could we simply would have a living brain, with all its faults.

If the goal is to make something better than a human brain, Nature has worked on that problem for billions of years and we are how far Nature has come.

Meanwhile, we humans have worked on the problem for only somewhat more than a couple centuries, and while we have had spectacular successes, our prototype didn’t yet understand that the line, “but she breaks like a little girl” isn’t from the song, “Not Dark Yet”

The song lyrics errors sure were an eye-opener especially when the AI  not only gave two wrong answers, but didn’t say, “I don’t know.”

Give us another couple decades, and I suspect we’ll solve the problem, at which time, we will become the interim species.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.