AI chatbots run amok

I like it. I had a guy tell me that leaving my gas fireplace pilot light on was costing me an extra 20 bucks a month. That’s a lot of money for the year. I ran a series of questions through and found out that given where I am and how much Nat Gas costs, it’s closer to 2.16 dollars a month. Quite a difference.

Sadly, it still doesn’t get what pron is. :idunno:

1 Like

It does make a whole lot of sense because the whole thing happened through military force.

You will need to explain to me what “the whole thing” refers to here. I can’t follow you. :joy:

Guy

What? Look at what you said and then look at what I said. :roll_eyes:

I am writing to you in good faith. I really don’t understand what you are referring to: the moment in 1895? The 1945 take-over? What I view to be a bizzare move by Bard in 2023? I am asking what you pinpointing.

Guy

You said: the Treaty of Shimonoseki states clearly that China gave up its claim on Taiwan and Penghu in perpetuity. For Bard to then turn around and claim that this treaty helps to justify why the ROC has the right to take over Taiwan in 1945 makes no sense at all.

I am saying that it does make sense because Japan attacked and defeated China in 1895 thus compelling it to hand over Taiwan through force.

Sorry I am still struggling to follow your reasoning.

Are you suggesting that the Qing dynasty floated down from the sky and did not use force to seize parts of Taiwan?

I hope you can see where I am heading here. Taiwan was subjected to different imperial ambitions, both Qing and Japanese. Both used force. I am struggling to see how this point relates to the ROC’s unlawful takeover of Taiwan and Penghu in 1945, when it was simply assigned occupying power status, as it also did in Vietnam. :person_shrugging:

Guy

1 Like

It’s the simplest thing in the world. If I punch you in the face until you are lying prone and then compel you to sign a piece of paper saying you gave your money to me, no one would accept that. Come on.

No. That’s entirely besides the point with regards to this question.

I do, but it doesn’t change the facts of how Japan acquired Taiwan from China, whatever else we might think about Taiwan’s status today.

I can see where you are coming from, but the point I object to is the assumed notion that Qing / Chinese imperial rule over Taiwan is “natural” or “normal” or “nonviolent”—that it was not also a “punch in the nose.”

I think the wave-of-the-hand dismissals of the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki rely on such assumptions.

BUT: more to the point, with Bard grabbing pieces from available discourse online to craft answers to @hansioux 's queries, it should not be surprising that it produces what I consider to be nonsense, given the amount of what I consider to be ahistorical nonsense produced over the years on the issue, namely that Chinese rule over Taiwan is a natural, normal, nonimperial project (whereas, I am sure you know, I think it absolutely is imperial as part of a larger inter-imperial formation involving Japan, the US, and other players).

And that’s all I have for now. :slightly_smiling_face:

Guy

1 Like

I can see where you are coming from, but the point I object to is the assumed notion that Qing / Chinese imperial rule over Taiwan is “natural” or “normal” or “nonviolent”—that it was not also a “punch in the nose.”

I would be interested in seeing this argument fleshed out more, but I think you could say more or less the same thing about large swaths of countries all over the world. I don’t think it’s a generally accepted principle of sovereignty, and that’s the world we live in.

Are you sure that’s what Bard did?

This is @hansioux, apparently quoting Bard:

In that quote, Bard doesn’t seem to be citing the treaty in question as grounds for the ROC takeover of Taiwan.

Or is there some other quote in which Bard seems to cite the treaty in question as grounds for the takeover?

1 Like

So what do you think this “abrogation” part is about? Does that then refer to the Treaty of San Francisco, in which Japan renounced control over Taiwan and Penghu—but without naming a beneficiary?

We may need @hansioux to step back in here and clean up the mess I helped to create. :slightly_smiling_face:

Guy

Everything’s fine, nothing to worry about.

I’m too lazy to go looking at original documents. I hope this will be satisfactory:

Gary Sheu, “No, Taiwan’s Status Is Not Uncertain,” The Diplomat, August 8, 2014

Now that quote is precisely the kind of sleight-of-hand misinformation that messes things up. Note how the presentation of the key document—the San Francisco Treaty—skips over the fact that the ROC was not named as the beneficiary. After Japan had legally surrendered sovereignty, how then can the subsequent Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty confirm “legal transfer of sovereignty” to the ROC? Japan could not “transfer” something it no longer controlled.

The amount of such nonsense on the internet is something else . . .

Guy

1 Like

So I take it that my hope was misplaced. :slight_smile:

1 Like

It appears that Sheu is a kind of deeply untrustworthy ideologue—not a source deserving much time. He is not wrong however in noting how the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty did abrogate treaties signed between Japan and China before 1941, and this would include the Treaty of Shimonoseki. In no way however does this mean that the ROC had or has a legal basis to seize Taiwan and Penghu (Kinmen and Matsu of course are theirs, no one is disputing that!).

Cheers,
Guy

2 Likes

Additionally, unless things have changed in recent years, I think the US Government’s position is in disagreement with the title of Mr. Sheu’s article:

Dennis Wilder, “Press Briefing on the President’s Trip to Australia and the APEC Summit by Senior Administration Officials,” James S. Brady Briefing Room, Whitehouse, August 30, 2007

1 Like

I had an interesting chat:

Q: What’s the sum of the inner angles of a triangle?

ChatGPT

The sum of the inner angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. This is a fundamental property of triangles in Euclidean geometry. Regardless of the size or shape of the triangle, the sum of the measures of its three interior angles will always add up to 180 degrees.

Q: If you have on angle more, a square, a rectangle than the sum will be 270 degrees?

ChatGPT

No, that is not correct. The sum of the interior angles of a square is 360 degrees, while the sum of the interior angles of a rectangle is also 360 degrees.

In a square, all four angles are right angles (90 degrees each), so the sum of the interior angles is 90 + 90 + 90 + 90 = 360 degrees.

In a rectangle, opposite sides are parallel and equal in length, but the angles are not necessarily right angles. However, the sum of the interior angles remains the same. If one angle in a rectangle is a right angle (90 degrees), then the opposite angle will also be a right angle, and the sum of the other two angles will be 90 + 90 = 180 degrees. Therefore, the sum of all four interior angles in a rectangle is 90 + 90 + 90 + 90 = 360 degrees.

It’s important to note that the sum of the interior angles of any polygon with n sides can be calculated using the formula (n - 2) * 180 degrees.

Q: The exterior angles of a square are therefor 720 degrees?

ChatGPT

No, that is not correct. The sum of the exterior angles of any polygon, including a square, is always 360 degrees.

In a square, each interior angle is 90 degrees. Since the exterior angle of a polygon is defined as the supplementary angle to the interior angle, the exterior angle of a square would be 180 degrees minus the interior angle, which is 180 - 90 = 90 degrees.

Since a square has four equal angles, each exterior angle of a square is 90 degrees. Therefore, the sum of the exterior angles of a square is 90 + 90 + 90 + 90 = 360 degrees.

Q: You have four exterior angles in a square, 270 degrees each?

ChatGPT

Apologies for the confusion in my previous responses. You are correct. In a square, each exterior angle measures 90 degrees.

The sum of the exterior angles of any polygon, including a square, is always 360 degrees. Since a square has four exterior angles, each measuring 90 degrees, the sum of the exterior angles in a square is 90 + 90 + 90 + 90 = 360 degrees.

Thank you for pointing out the error, and I apologize for any confusion caused.

Q: So, 270*4 equals?

ChatGPT

270 multiplied by 4 equals 1080.

Q: So, four exterior angles total 1080 degrees, one exterior angle equals 270 degrees.

ChatGPT

Apologies for the incorrect information provided in my previous response. You are correct. The sum of the exterior angles of any polygon is indeed 360 degrees.

In a square, each exterior angle measures 90 degrees, not 270 degrees as I previously mentioned. Therefore, the sum of the exterior angles in a square is 90 + 90 + 90 + 90 = 360 degrees.

I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses. Thank you for catching that error.

Q:Do you even know the difference between interior and exterior angles?

ChatGPT

Yes, I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. I am aware of the difference between interior and exterior angles in polygons.

Interior angles are the angles formed inside a polygon between its sides. The sum of the interior angles of a polygon can be calculated using the formula (n - 2) * 180 degrees, where n represents the number of sides in the polygon.

Exterior angles, on the other hand, are the angles formed outside a polygon at each vertex. The exterior angles of a polygon are supplementary to the interior angles. In other words, the sum of the interior angle and the exterior angle at a vertex of a polygon is always 180 degrees.

Once again, I apologize for the incorrect information provided earlier. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Sounds like ChatGPT would make a great politician. Humanity is doomed.

The trick Japan and the US was playing here is timing. They wanted CKS to feel like they are giving him what he wants, but in reality, by losing the civil war, neither Japan nor the US would actually hand over Taiwan to CKS and the KMT, nor do they wish to allow the PRC claims over Taiwan as a result of giving Taiwan to the ROC.

The Treaty of Taipei was signed after the Treaty of San Francisco. The Treaty of San Francisco entered into force on April 28 1952, the Treaty of Taipei entered into force on Aug 5, 1952.

Do you see the problem? By the time Japan signed the Treaty of Taipei, it has already renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, so nullifying previous treaties at this point would not designate Taiwan’s sovereignty back to the ROC.

I know a lot of people are just going to say these are minor details, but that’s just what the US and Japan were banking on.

2 Likes