Can GPT be Reliable?

[JimFoxvog]

Read the indictments:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... ctment.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Tr ... -80101.pdf

The legal analysts I've read declared these to be very strong cases. Only a die-hard Trump supporter on the jury who failed to make that known to the judge during jury selection would have prevented conviction.

… yet he wasn’t convicted. An indictment is not a conviction.

I was responding to the question of what the crimes were. Trials were avoided through money and political influence. The trials may happen when the felon no longer occupies high office. Attorney General Garland should have pushed for a speedy trial years before the indictments. The Democrats feared the charge of political prosecution, but the defendant claimed that anyway.

[JohnH]

Read the indictments:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... ctment.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Tr ... -80101.pdf

The legal analysts I've read declared these to be very strong cases. Only a die-hard Trump supporter on the jury who failed to make that known to the judge during jury selection would have prevented conviction.

… yet he wasn’t convicted. An indictment is not a conviction.

I was responding to the question of what the crimes were. Trials were avoided through money and political influence. The trials may happen when the felon no longer occupies high office. Attorney General Garland should have pushed for a speedy trial years before the indictments. The Democrats feared the charge of political prosecution, but the defendant claimed that anyway.

In other words, he actually is eligible to be President because he hasn’t been convicted of “insurrection”.

[JimFoxvog]

In other words, he actually is eligible to be President because he hasn’t been convicted of “insurrection”.

The Constitution says nothing about being convicted. The precedent is that after the Civil War, those who were ineligible for federal and state office had not been convicted.

[JohnH]

In other words, he actually is eligible to be President because he hasn’t been convicted of “insurrection”.

The Constitution says nothing about being convicted. The precedent is that after the Civil War, those who were ineligible for federal and state office had not been convicted.

The President isn't an insurrectionist, though, and isn't "guilty" of it. Therefore he can hold office, and indeed he does.

[Robert]

In other words, he actually is eligible to be President because he hasn’t been convicted of “insurrection”.

The Constitution says nothing about being convicted. The precedent is that after the Civil War, those who were ineligible for federal and state office had not been convicted.

Barnhart, do you have a warning to others about being radicalized?

[Robert]

I asked Grok to write an extension for phpbb (the software we use for the forum here) to allow us to call up Grok with a question and have Grok respond. It did it.

Not sure we want to add AI to the forum presently, so I just glanced over the code and moved on.

[JimFoxvog]

I asked Grok to write an extension for phpbb (the software we use for the forum here) to allow us to call up Grok with a question and have Grok respond. It did it.

Not sure we want to add AI to the forum presently, so I just glanced over the code and moved on.

Good call. Let's don't have that as part of this site. Thanks.

[Bootstrap]

I asked Grok to write an extension for phpbb (the software we use for the forum here) to allow us to call up Grok with a question and have Grok respond. It did it.

Not sure we want to add AI to the forum presently, so I just glanced over the code and moved on.

Most of the programmers I know use AI to help with some of their programming. It can't do everything, it makes mistakes, but it often does quite well. Best used by someone who already knows what good code looks like and where errors may occur. Kind of like a lot of other things AI does.

Glad you didn't add it to the forum, though.

[Robert]

Good call. Let's don't have that as part of this site. Thanks.

Glad you didn't add it to the forum, though.

I just did it to see if it could figure out how to add itself. Had no plans of actually doing it. Just a fun thought experiment.

[Neto]

Those who rebelled against the US in the 1860s who were disqualified by the 14th Amendment had not been convicted....

For historical reference:
My understanding is that the 14th amendment was ratified (or whatever the correct term is) AFTER the end of the War Between the States. And also, from my public school education, my understanding is that the actions of the Confederacy in seeking to leave the Union were not against the constitution at that time (circa 1860). If that is true, then it was the Federalists who were in violation of the constitution, not the Confederates. Of course they could not be tried, because they made it a military event, invading the sovereign nation to their south, and won the resulting war. That is, they won not by legal right, but by military might.

(I realize that the comment quoted above was made in reference to a current political dispute, but I am only referencing a historical event that actually predates the arrival of any of my ancestors on this continent.)