ChatGPT wrongly insists Trump-Biden CNN debate had 1 to 2-minute delay OpenAI's ChatGPT fell for an inaccurate claim that Thursday night's US presidential debate between Trump and Biden on CNN would have a one to two-minute delay, rather than the usual few seconds. Though not an Earth-shattering blunder, it's another demonstration that these systems have little to no ability to actually …
I had an entertaining afternoon asking GPT 3.5 about Apache Freemarker. It was just making up nonsense about builtin functions which didn't exist, first it said a function existed only from a certain version onwards (untrue), when I asked it to check that and it made up another non-existent function name, when I asked it if it was sure it made up another one, and so on.
Truely a technology of our times suited to a post-truth world.
I'm still waiting on the fact checks for all of Trump's 'lies', maybe CNN were too busy fact checking Biden?
You know you've lost when even Joy Behar is ripping into Biden's performance, calling the 'he had a cold' story BS and pointing out that he was completely different during the debate vs when he visited the watch party afterwards.
I'm still waiting on the fact checks for all of Trump's 'lies', maybe CNN were too busy fact checking Biden?
One of the odd parts was Biden repeating the 'fine men' lie from Charlottesville, especially when that story had broken only a few days previously-
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
In a news conference after the rally protesting the planned removal of a Confederate statue, Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be "condemned totally."
Showing the dangers of quote mining and editing quotes out of context. Team Biden should have been aware of this. I think the debate showed the usual politician's trick of not answering the question, but providing the soundbites they wanted instead. I think this was more obvious with Biden who probably was coached on statements to give, like the 'fine people' thing, but his cognitive decline meant he struggled with it.Then again, I don't think Trump did particularly well either. When Biden came out with the '150 scholars said Trump was the worst President evah!' thing, Trump should have just batted that back with the '51 intelligence agents' thing.
But I think that's America's problem. Pick the lesser of two evils. Trump or Biden. Biden's decline since the last debate was obvious to the world. Trump is sharper, but only 3yrs younger. The biggest loser I think has been the pro-Biden media who've been covering up Biden's decline for years. It was clear for the world to see, and Biden just looked very weak. I'm also curious if this was the plan. There has been speculation that this was a bit of a beauty contest, ie Biden was being given a chance to shine. Democrat's convention is coming up, and Biden may not be the candidate, however much 'Dr' Jill might want that. Or, more amusingly, whether the Dems actually want to win. We're living in interesting times, solving some of the problems are going to be hard, so why not sit out the next 4yrs and let the other party deal with the mess. Much the same has been speculated about Sunak and the Tories throwing the election in the UK.
Lets not forget the hubby of the moderator is one of the 51 spies who lied and one of the authors of the 'inflation will go up if Trump wins' letter is Janet Yellen's hubby, and remember that it was Janet Yellen who said 'inflation is transitory' and that all the money printing won't cause inflation.
Trump was very gentle with Biden. This could have been a proper fatality type battle. But what it has shown is that Biden CANNOT speak without a detailed script and explains why all his pressers are so closely supervised. Otherwise we get 'the beer made here is used to make beer'.
Trump was very gentle with Biden. This could have been a proper fatality type battle. But what it has shown is that Biden CANNOT speak without a detailed script and explains why all his pressers are so closely supervised. Otherwise we get 'the beer made here is used to make beer'.
Well, we did get the "1,000 trillionaires". This may explain Biden's tax policy, but that was also an opportunity for Trump to have put the boot in. Hunter's tax evasion trial starts soon, Trump could have pointed that out and asked if "paying their fair share" included the Biden family. Which is also a future popcorn moment with "10% for the Big Guy", and if the "Big Guy" declared tax on that income. The way Biden's golf handicap changed from 8 to 6 in seconds was also amusing, along with challenging Trump to a golf match. Especially when suggesting Trump carried his own bag. Somehow, I doubt Biden would be able to do that.
But was also potentially dangerous, and entertaining. Trump was often criticised for the amount of time he spent golfing. I've never seen Biden playing golf, but if he can, that could have been a good way to show he was still fit. Now it just gives Trump the opportunity to accept the challenge, and show that Biden isn't.
"But I think that's America's problem. Pick the lesser of two evils. Trump or Biden. Biden's decline since the last debate was obvious to the world"
Throughout Bidens presidency and the campaign before people pointed to his frailty and were told to ignore what we see and ignore what we hear the party says he is fine. He avoided being prosecuted for a serious crime (classified documents) because he is old and mentally deficient yet we were all told to ignore that he is a virile stud.
Democrat supporters should be asking who has been running the country all this time?
The cope on show after last Thurs has been hilarious. Only a few weeks back we were being assured that he was still sharp and on the ball by the media. If he doesn't have a detailed script he is lost. Now people are attacking CNN for the moderators not challenging Trump on his 'lies' and even Anderson Cooper quite correctly said 'that was president Biden's job as part of the debate'.
The idiots on The View are spinning it as the public doesn't see much of Biden so its understandable that we might be worried about him being a doddery old codger who needs to be in a home. But that isn't a worry as his 'achievements' show he is doing a good job.
An old clip of Peter Docey asking KJP why everyone treats Biden like a baby and then we have Jill talking to him like he is a toddler last week. I was waiting for her to say he was such a good boy as he ate all his broccoli and now he can watch his cartoons.
Thankfully people are waking up to the fact he isn't in charge of his own faculties let alone the USA.
Another observation is that democrats are looking to replace him and this failure of a debate will convince the rest, but now they have a problem. They must get Biden to step down, but Biden probably wont want to just step aside (ego) and as he is obviously not the one in charge it is his 'handlers' who will need convincing. Apparently he is currently listening to his wife (who really want want to lose the white house) and his son (who needs daddy to hold the pardoning pen).
Those with TDS will have to plug their ears and shut their eyes to pretend everything is ok. The MAGA have just had their opinion of Biden since before his presidency confirmed. Everyone else along the political spectrum should be questioning the so called conspiracy theories that were true and the continued gaslighting from the democrats.
Can the Democrats convince Joe's handlers to make him step aside? Can they insert a new candidate (Gavin Newsom) without looking panicked and desperate? Can they convince people that after lying to them for so long that their next Democrat candidate would be running the country and not handlers with a sock puppet? Interesting times.
Can the Democrats convince Joe's handlers to make him step aside? Can they insert a new candidate (Gavin Newsom) without looking panicked and desperate?
I think it's also whether they can insert a new candidate. There were some issues with Ohio and Biden being late to appear on the ballot. Being non-American, the process is strange and mysterious with the Democrat's convention being the decider. But as I understand it, state delegates are supposed to vote based on the results of their primaries. Newsom and Harris poll even lower than Biden though. Plus there's RFK Jr probably splitting the vote.
The media does seem to have turned on Biden though, and reasonable questions like who's actually running the country. Also Biden keeps making the joke that he's Joe Biden, Jill Biden's husband. Maybe that wasn't a joke, but a cry for help.
The US system us VERY odd but after the goings on in 2016 where Bernie got the shaft from the DNC it was ruled that the DNC actually can do whatever they want regarding the chosen candidate and that the primary system is largely preformative.
"reasonable questions like who's actually running the country"
Another dollar in the 'the far right conspiracy theory was right' jar :)
The truth is that the media knows that 2020 was not a fair election (they whined about 2016 so much!) and that the changes made due to covid allowed them to 'fortify' the result. Heck they admitted to it in a very detailed Time magazine article! 2024 isn't going to go their way. The lawfare is not working as intended and they need their scapegoat. Ignoring the fact that they've been desperately propping up Biden since he put his name in the hat for 2020.
The US system us VERY odd but after the goings on in 2016 where Bernie got the shaft from the DNC it was ruled that the DNC actually can do whatever they want regarding the chosen candidate and that the primary system is largely preformative.
Not sure about that. I don't really understand the intricacies, but the issue with Ohio seemed to be a conflict between state laws with a deadline for candidates to appear on the ballot and the DNC running their conference late. Which I guess is an issue of the US being a constitutional republic, as well as a democracy. DNC can't just ride roughshod over state laws, no matter how much it may want to.
Another dollar in the 'the far right conspiracy theory was right' jar :)
I think it's mostly that dreaded word.. Optics. President has a cabinet to advise and execute, but the public expects a strong Commander-in-Chief. Biden's been largely physically and mentally absent. Trump regularly appeared at press questions, Biden didn't, leaving KJP and others to try and answer. The US has a.. few issues, both foreign and domestic and needs a strong leader, along with the rest of the world. Which as Trump said, is laughing at the US right now. Biden did not appear the strong leader. Or as Putin once put it when he gave Biden his endorsement, he's predictable. Trump isn't and maybe shoots from the hip, which could also be dangerous for the world.
I think there's also an issue of executive and federal overreach. The Supreme Court's been issuing a bunch of rulings recently regarding issues like the AFT's attempts to ban bump stocks and pistol braces, or against the EPA, and this one-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo
Both cases originated from fishing companies challenging a rule established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fishing companies to pay for the cost of federal monitors that may be assigned to their boats, under authorization of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The company claimed that the Act did not allow NMFS to pass the monitors' costs to the fishing companies, challenging the Chevron deference that was held in the NMFS' favor during lower court hearings.
which is quite a biggie. If there's a problem with the law, that's for the courts and the legislators to resolve, not the agencies. But the Democrats do seem to have had a tendency to allow federal agencies to slowly seize more power.. Which could be a management issue, ie the Executive isn't paying attention. Or it is, but isn't necessarily acting in accordance with the Constitution and upholding the laws. Securing the US borders being a rather hot topic. Is the US trying to, or did putting Mayorkas in charge have the desired effect given his previous work on open borders.
The truth is that the media knows that 2020 was not a fair election (they whined about 2016 so much!) and that the changes made due to covid allowed them to 'fortify' the result.
I'm not convinced the result was entirely rigged. There were a lot of irregularities and dubious behavior that have resulted in prosecutions. Individually though, I doubt those were enough to swing the result. But like many things, the 'cover up' is often worse than the crime and methinks the Democrats protested too much. If you want a functioning democracy, elections have to be seen to be fair, irregularities investigate, if necessary prosecuted and again if necessary, steps taken to improve security. Which has lead to some bizarre defences, like requiring voter ID is somehow 'racist' in a country where you can't really do anything without one.
Oh, and Supreme Court again.. More wailing and gnashing of teeth today when they said "Yes, Presidents do have qualified immunity".
Never said rigged, just not fair. There have been cases where people believed to have done things like ballot stuffing in 2020 have actually been convicted of doing such things in other elections. But probably the largest part of the effort in 2020 was getting laws changed to benefit the dems which should have been challenged more strongly prior to the election. Some of these changes have now been found to be based on shaky ground and have been removed after the fact. It was very much a concerted effort of lawfare in 2020 to fire as much as possible and ensure that the judicial system was backlogged so nothing could be resolved prior to november,
The state regs relating to federal elections are also strange. Some states have a caucus, some have a primary, some its open, some its not, some you can change party, some you can't. No consistency! Federal elections should be the same in every state. And have you ever seen a US election ballot up close?
Trump would spend a lot of time talking to the press, usually going way over time. His various press secretaries actually did their jobs, knew what was going on, pulled up reporters on BS etc. With Biden his handlers clear the room of press the moment the event is over, he has the questions pre-screened, he is kept away from the press at all costs sometimes and the less said about the press secs the better! They ain't got a clue! Gotta circle back on that one!
That's because you haven't bothered looking; CNN published the fact check three days ago. It took a while, though, since as one pundit put it, Trump lied with almost every word that came out of his mouth. Biden did make nine false claims, let's not gloss over that, but Trump made over 30.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/fact-checking-the-cnn-presidential-debate/index.html
You can feel the cope oozing out of that article.
All the fact checks for Biden are 'Biden said X, the actual thing is Y'
For Trump it is 'Trump said X, if we skew some context and ask someone we know and squint hard enough we say the answer is now Y'.
You do realise that someone saying something you don't like isn't a lie? But saying 'no service members died while I was president' is a factually provable lie.
Seriously, CNN are still trying to cope on the 'fine people' hoax.
If you watched it on YouTube, I'm guessing there was a YouTube livestream somewhere? then there might be a delay of about 30 seconds.
Depending on the streaming settings used by the publisher, you can often see YouTube report a live latency of something like 26 seconds. That is the time from it leaving the publisher's streaming software to arriving on my screen, and accounts for network buffering at various points along the way, including on my device to ensure a smooth playback, and the latency inherent in the video codecs used.
The streaming software itself will introduce a delay for much the same reasons, then if it picks up the source from somewhere other than the cameras and microphones on the set, eg it captures it from a TV broadcast, then there will be latency associated with that. There's the encoding delays and buffering associated with that, and if the broadcast goes over satellite, then there is the time it takes for the signal to get to the satellite and back.
It largely depends upon what your yardstick for "live" is. Digital lags analogue by a couple of seconds (or it did the last time I watched the two side by side).
Hell, you can't even trust two digital TVs to show the exact same thing at the exact same time, some are slightly delayed due to additional processing. This is quite evident if you see a bunch of demonstration TVs showing the same thing.
Television, especially satellite, is delayed respective to radio. I used to know an expat who watched the cricket on Sky and got the commentary from Radio 4 Long Wave. The two were not in sync.
Then, as you say, making it though all the YouTube infrastructure, streaming, decoding...that can add a noticeable delay.
So perhaps better to ask if there was an intentional delay, like about long enough to allow somebody to sneak in and periodically reboot Biden.
"Live" broadcasts in the USA usually have a 5-10 second delay because the networks are absolutely terrified of swearing and nipples.
The delay is entirely to give someone in the gallery time to cut away from a wardrobe malfunction or insert a bleep.
The rest of the world don't do that, as former Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt knows well.
Could be worse.. Here in Canada, ChatGPT brilliantly told a Conservative politician a steaming pile of BS, and they've made a grandstanding issue of trying to defend the stance.
When your decisions are based on misinformation, they're guaranteed to be incorrect. And ChatGPT is notorious for hallucinating misinformation.
I didn’t get the memo that ChatGPT is now including live Internet results in its bullshit (as opposed to an outdated knowledgebase). But weren’t the bullshitters supposed to refuse to answer any election questions, or was it another company’s?
Regardless, they all should be shut down, as they are actively harming humanity.
https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2023/09/28/openai_reinstates_chatgpts_internet_privileges/
I hope it has improved since then, but from the article it seems like it would trust anything Bing told it.
Theoretically LLMs can be incrementally updated on incoming data in real time, for some approximation of the term "real" - the core model doesn't have to be retrained, in fact usually you wouldn't want to.
I'm only academic in NLP but if I wanted such a system I would probably build a cluster reading RSS feeds from various sources and rolling the small model updates to user nodes, system size mostly depends on the incoming data rate. Of course source selection is always the challenge with that kind of setup, GIGO just like the "expert" systems of yore...
Those models were created before the most recent debate, how would they have any information about what happened? All they're doing is stringing together likely responses to the question.
Every time I read an article like this it mostly just shows how people's expectations of the performance of LLMs is not anchored in reality.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's not like there was anything new to learn from it. I'll vote anyway.
In related news, there is a Colorado state proposition on the ballot this year:
Initiative 310 proposes two major changes that would apply to state and federal elections, starting in 2026:
- Eliminate partisan primary elections. Currently, each party holds primary elections, with the winners facing off in the general election. Under the initiative, the state would move to an “all-candidate primary election.” Every candidate from every party would compete on the same primary ballot. The top four candidates would move on to the general election, even if they’re all from the same party.
- Move Colorado to ranked-choice voting.
Unfortunately: The scope of the proposal has drawn concerns from some Democratic lawmakers, as well as local elected officials. On May 5, the state legislature quietly approved a policy that would make it much harder to implement ranked-choice voting statewide. The change was embedded in a major elections-related bill — and some groups are now putting pressure on Gov. Jared Polis (D) to veto the entire measure.
What an unfortunate but predictable reaction. Now suppose the Democratic Presidential Primary had implemented an open-to-all-voters system with ranked-choice public voting summed up at the national level, the power of the Dem Party being limited to vetoing Trump and other Republican Party members from being candidates. With high probability D's would have a more viable candidate than Biden, and more importantly the D party would have demonstrated that the D really stands for democracy.
Notably, the R's could have done the same, probably resulting in Nikki Haley (not my cup of tea) as a candidate, who polled higher than Trump across all voters.
Or the US could do what many other countries do. Just let the local/national parties decide who they want on the actual ballot through their own means and the state governments can use the money saved for improving voter access
Except they wouldn't, because Republican states use their powers to prevent legitimate voters from voting. They're even proud of this.
That said, the primaries system is ridiculous. It's clearly designed to enforce the existence of these two specific parties.
When the Republican Party finally implodes there will be a myriad of shards, all claiming to be the "real" Republican Party. Who chooses which one?
"because Republican states use their powers to prevent legitimate voters from voting"
I assume you are referring to voter ID, something which the vast overriding majority of the world uses.
You're basically advocating for single party rule. Isn't there a term for that?
You know they offer same day voter registration?
And you do realise that the very same ID used for voting is also needed for buying things like alcohol and cigarettes? There is so much in US that requires some form of ID.
The US voting system with the very large ballots and the electronic voting machines is why they have so few polling places. The overhead is so high.
"The US voting system with the very large ballots and the electronic voting machines is why they have so few polling places. The overhead is so high."
Delaware has a population, and area, about the same as my home county (though not a Home County) in the UK.
This post has been deleted by its author
>Not just making getting Voter ID difficult.
...
>obstacles to voters registering....
It should be difficult for non-citizens to obtain Voter ID.
>There's also insufficient voting stations, with insufficient capacity,
Are saying that Republicans are to blame for the lack of polling places in Democrat-controlled areas?
"Are saying that Republicans are to blame for the lack of polling places in Democrat-controlled areas?"
no fuckwit, they limited polling places that would vote democrat in area's they control to keep power..
your ethier being obtuse, or are really that fucking stupid
There are large differences between states - Colorado, Washington getting 75% turnouts while Arkansas, Hawaii are in the 50's (i haven't checked if they.are D or R).
Suggests something wrong in the state of Denmark.
335 million citizens within the U.S., and these two are "the best" they can come up with ?
It is some sort of democratic process to be selected as a candidate for their respective parties, but there have to be competent individuals (on both sides) that can do a better job then these two. Really.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
