Latest news with #Turley
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Time of India
ChatGPT 'invented' sexual harassment charges against me, claims law professor at an American university in a viral post: Here's what happened
A prominent law professor has accused OpenAI's ChatGPT of fabricating serious allegations, spotlighting concerns about artificial intelligence spreading disinformation, according to the New York Post. Jonathan Turley, a criminal defense attorney and George Washington University law professor , claims ChatGPT falsely accused him of sexually harassing a former student. In a viral Twitter thread and a column gaining widespread attention, Turley described the accusations as 'chilling,' warning of the broader dangers AI poses to free speech and reputation. 'It invented an allegation where I was on the faculty at a school where I have never taught, went on a trip that I never took, and reported an allegation that was never made,' Turley told the New York Post. 'It is highly ironic because I have been writing about the dangers of AI to free speech.' The issue came to light when UCLA professor Eugene Volokh asked ChatGPT to provide 'five examples' of sexual harassment by law school professors, including quotes from relevant news articles. Among the responses, ChatGPT cited a supposed 2018 incident at 'Georgetown University Law Center,' alleging Turley made 'sexually suggestive comments' and 'attempted to touch [a female student] in a sexual manner' during a law school-sponsored trip to Alaska. The AI attributed the claim to a nonexistent Washington Post article. Turley was quick to debunk the claims, noting 'a number of glaring indicators that the account is false.' He told the Post, 'First, I have never taught at Georgetown University. Second, there is no such Washington Post article. Finally, and most important, I have never taken students on a trip of any kind in 35 years of teaching, never went to Alaska with any student, and I've never been accused of sexual harassment or assault.' OpenAI refused to apologise by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 月 *만원대 "실비보험" 최적가 비교가입! "가성비 굿 맞춤설계+할인혜택"... 굿리치 [등록번호:제2006038313호] 가입하기 Undo Adding to his frustration, Turley said neither OpenAI nor Microsoft, whose AI reportedly repeated the false story, contacted him or issued an apology. 'ChatGPT has not contacted me or apologized. It has declined to say anything at all. That is precisely the problem. There is no there there,' he told the Post. 'When you are defamed by a newspaper, there is a reporter who you can contact. Even when Microsoft's AI system repeated that same false story, it did not contact me and only shrugged that it tries to be accurate.' The New York Post reached out to OpenAI for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication. Turley's experience has amplified concerns about AI's potential to spread falsehoods. 'Yesterday, President Joe Biden declared that 'it remains to be seen' whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) is 'dangerous.' I would beg to differ,' Turley tweeted on Thursday, adding, 'You can be defamed by AI and these companies merely shrug that they try to be accurate. In the meantime, their false accounts metastasize across the Internet.' As AI technologies like ChatGPT become more prevalent, Turley's case underscores growing fears about their role in generating and disseminating disinformation, with little accountability for the harm caused.
Belfast Telegraph
10-07-2025
- Business
- Belfast Telegraph
‘It's tone deaf and lacks foresight': Plan to turn Belfast hotel into care home facing growing opposition
At the most recent meeting of the Belfast City Council Planning Committee, councillors deferred the controversial application for a site examination. The plan is for change of use from hotel, conference centre and offices to a 97-bed care home and 1,559sqm diagnostic medical facility, including associated access, car parking, landscaping and open space works. The site is at the Stormont Hotel, 587 Upper Newtownards Road and adjacent properties at Castleview Road, Summerhill Parade, and Summerhill Park. The applicant's name is not given on the Planning Portal, but they are represented by the planning consultant Turley. The hotel is owned by the Hastings group and the application last year was reported as being from the firm Summerhill Retirement Developments. The Planning Portal has 15 objections dating as far back as May 2024, all from neighbouring residents. Concerns include increased traffic use, car parking, noise pollution, the potential to create flooding and sewage problems and to lower property values. One opponent states that 'if the retirement village development were to proceed, I see no reason why this cannot be within the existing hotel/car park footprint and sympathetic to the existing properties in the area'. 'The loss of 16 affordable houses in a desirable location will not only reduce housing stock for the wider demographic, including much sought-after properties for first-time buyers, but also change the community in the area.' 14 cars damaged in Lisburn during overnight arson attack Another said the area 'has rejuvenated itself and remains a popular area for young families and professionals on an arterial route into the city. I am of the opinion that creating a large retirement housing complex and 100-plus-bed care home is the opposite of what this area needs in terms of development'. 'Several over-55s housing sites have already been built in the past two years within a one- to two-mile radius of the proposed development, such as the new large, sheltered housing built on the former Park Avenue hotel site, which is, of course, great for our ageing demographic. 'The proposed development is not what the area nor province needs. Converting a hotel into a care home is not investing in our future and not forward thinking. Tourism is important for the NI economy; converting a hotel into a nursing home is tone deaf and lacks foresight.'
Gulf Today
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
In a democracy protest is good for the soul
Austin Sarat, Tribune News Service For the last several months, I have organised a weekly 'Stand-Up for Democracy' rally/protest on the busiest street corner in my hometown. On Fridays at 5:30 pm., students, teachers, townspeople, and senior citizens come together, hold signs, and wave at passing drivers, some of whom honk their horns in solidarity. I live in a very progressive town, where last November, Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, beat President Donald Trump by a margin of more than nine to one. Some of my friends ask, 'Why bother?' They think that we are preaching to the choir or that the president and his colleagues are impervious. These are, in a sense, the wrong questions. Protest is a democratic practice, valuable everywhere, regardless of its immediate impact. That is why it was so important that millions of Americans did their own Stand Up for Democracy events on June 14. While liberals took heart at those numbers, some conservative commentators called them 'utter nonsense.' Writing in The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley argued, 'The well-funded protests are being fueled by Democratic leaders, who are resuming their claims that citizens must either protest... or accept tyranny in the U.S. Turley went on to call the No Kings day rallying cry, 'Democracy is dying'... an absurdity...., since every indication is that our constitutional system is operating precisely as designed.' 'Precisely as designed'? While I respect Prof. Turley, who is a well-published legal scholar, I don't share his Panglossian view of our current situation. And neither do millions of other Americans. New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke for many of them when he wrote that 'over the centuries, people built...(c)onstitutions to restrain is threatening all of that. It is primarily about acquiring is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed.' While Brooks admitted that 'I don't naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I'm not covering as a journalist,' he concluded, 'this is what America needs right now.' I agree. Developing a coordinated national movement to preserve democracy is an urgent priority. In the meantime, however, people should not wait to make their voices heard. But they need to be realistic about what protesting can and cannot do. That realism requires that those who protest understand that no matter how many of us hold rallies to express our devotion to democracy, we are unlikely to change the minds of those who support Trump. Some, like Turley, will continue to believe he is operating within the bounds of our constitutional system; others are happy with his autocratic tendencies. Conversion is, however, not the point, at least not at this time. Commentators who urge people 'who are demonstrating to reach out to those who are not yet protesting and persuade them to join local groups that are fighting for our democracy' are offering a limited metric. Protesting is a democratic practice in and of itself. In some ways, it is like voting. It is a way of expressing an opinion, standing up for a point of view, rather than trying to change anyone's mind. Think of protest as a regular form of democratic participation, not an aberration or a departure from the routines of democratic life. Protest, Harvard's Stephen Jones says, 'inform(s) politicians of voters' concerns. Protest is an educational process which combats passivity.' If it is non-violent, Jones argues, 'it can deepen democracy's reach.... (and) at the heart of every democracy there is always a history of protest.' Vanessa Williamson, Senior Fellow at Brookings, puts it this way: 'Protest as an essential part of democracy, and...a critical political tool. So if you're thinking to yourself that in any given political fight, there's maybe a stronger party and a weaker party, for the weaker party, the way for them to win is to get people off the sidelines, right?' That's what protests do, even when they are small and carried out in places like the progressive town in which I live. They are important because they make 'grievances and concerns and problems visible to others.' They are a way of being with others in a public arena. Courts have traditionally recognized that and accorded protests First Amendment protections. Gatherings on public streets, sidewalks, or parks constitute, they say, are a 'traditional public forum' where speech cannot be prohibited, except through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Protests enable members of a democratic community to express their thoughts, cheer on their side, make their voices heard, and combat despair. As the psychologist Radhule Weininger suggests, 'Taking action, especially collectively, can reduce feelings of helplessness....' Weininger notes that 'when joining a rally, participants often report a stronger sense of control over their circumstances and future. Being surrounded by people with shared convictions creates a vital sense of community. Formerly frightened people feel less isolated and cultivate more agency. Moods are elevated and can transform from disheartened to energised and even joyful.' Unlike elections, where votes can be counted and the results known quickly, protests have a long and uncertain time horizon. That is as true for the No Kings protests as it is for any other. That fact is another reason why protesting is so important in a democracy. It helps people practice commitment, discipline, and patience. For those who want more, there is empirical evidence that non-violent protests ultimately yield results. Looking at demonstrations over the last century, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan Chenoweth found that nonviolent protests led to significant 'political change' 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests. But they remind us that it takes 'around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.' Protest works, Professor Zeynep Tufekci explains, 'because they can undermine the most important pillar of power: not repression, is the bedrock of resilient power.' Losing legitimacy, she adds, 'is the most important threat to authorities can do only so much for so long to hold on to power under such conditions.' Protests, on her account, 'are a grab for attention: They are an attempt to force a conversation about the topic they're highlighting.... Successful protests are the ones that win that conversation and in the framing of the issue...' Protests are good for the soul. They can 'change the protesters the cause is so powerful that the protesters don't calculate whether it works or not, but feel morally compelled to show up and be counted.' Showing up and being counted, that's what democracy demands. That's why I'll be back, with whoever shows up, for Friday afternoons Stand Up for Democracy rallies/protests on a street corner in my progressive town.
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Time of India
How ChatGPT got its name: The ‘late-night discussion' and what it means
ChatGPT , now widely recognised by many as the chatbot that kicked off the generative AI boom, almost had a very different name. According to executives, it was a 'late-night decision' just before its viral 2022 launch that led the Microsoft-backed company to simplify its chatbot's moniker from the difficult 'Chat with GPT-3.5' to the now-iconic 'ChatGPT.' Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On a recent OpenAI podcast, Nick Turley, head of ChatGPT, and Mark Chen, research chief, shared insights into the crucial days leading up to the chatbot's public launch. Turley revealed that the decision to rename the product was made just the day before its late 2022 launch. 'It was going to be Chat with GPT-3.5 , and we had a late-night decision to simplify' the name, he stated on the podcast. 'We realised that that would be hard to pronounce and came up with a great name instead,' Turley explained. They ultimately settled on ChatGPT, an abbreviation for 'generative pre-trained transformer.' Two things that OpenAI executives focused before launching ChatGPT Before ChatGPT's launch, few within OpenAI anticipated the impact the name would have. Andrew Mayne, the podcast host and OpenAI's former science communicator, noted that the chatbot's core capabilities were largely similar to its predecessors. The key differentiators were primarily a more user-friendly interface and, critically, its new, memorable name. 'It's the same thing, but we just put the interface in here and made it so you didn't have to prompt as much,' Mayne noted. Soon after its launch, ChatGPT rapidly gained traction attracting millions of users worldwide. 'We've had so many launches, so many previews over time, and this one really was something else,' Chen added. For Chen, ChatGPT's success marked a personal milestone: 'My parents just stopped asking me to go work for Google,' he said. ChatGPT's success has spurred a wave of competition, with numerous rivals, including Meta AI , Google's Gemini and DeepSeek, emerging in the expanding AI landscape.
Business Insider
03-07-2025
- Business Insider
The 'late-night decision' that led to ChatGPT's name
ChatGPT almost had a different name. OpenAI changed the chatbot's name in a "late-night decision," ChatGPT head Nick Turley said. The 2022 launch made ChatGPT a viral hit and helped push OpenAI's valuation higher. On the latest episode of the OpenAI podcast, two leadersinvolved with the chatbot's development, research chief Mark Chen and head of ChatGPT Nick Turley, spoke about the days leading up to the launch that made the tool go viral. "It was going to be Chat with GPT-3.5, and we had a late-night decision to simplify" the name, Turley said on the podcast published July 1. The team made the name change the day before the version's late 2022 launch, he said. "We realized that that would be hard to pronounce and came up with a great name instead," Turley said. They settled on ChatGPT, short for "generative pre-trained transformer." Since then, ChatGPT has gained millions of users who turn to the chatbot for everything from routine web searches to guidance on how to give a friend career advice. Rivals, including Meta AI, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek, have also sprung up. Before ChatGPT's launch, few within OpenAI expected the name to be so consequential, said Andrew Mayne, the podcast host and OpenAI's former science communicator. He said the chatbot's capabilities were largely similar to those of previous versions. The main differences included a more user-friendly interface and, of course, the name. "It's the same thing, but we just put the interface in here and made it so you didn't have to prompt as much," Mayne said on the podcast. After OpenAI launched ChatGPT, though, the chatbot took off, with Reddit users as far away as Japan experimenting with it, Turley said. It soon became clear that ChatGPT's popularity wasn't going to fade quickly and that the tool was "going to change the world," he said. "We've had so many launches, so many previews over time, and this one really was something else," Chen said on the podcast.
