Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I'm using this post to illustrate the problem of not providing full disclosure when using AI.

And Brown was filed as a class action suit

“The case that eventually ended segregation in American public schools was Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Brown claimed that in 1951, his daughter, Linda, was denied access to a white elementary school in Topeka.”

Brown v. Board of Education - Moton Museum​

Brown vs. Board of Education was a landmark ruling in 1954 to end segregation in public schools. Moton High School played an important role.

motonmuseum.org


From Chief Justice Warren

“Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. ”

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled...

www.archives.gov

CLASS ACTION

Using GPT-4o mini, I gave it this prompt:

Prove that the following quote is factually wrong and makes the wrong legal conclusions (then I pasted Sendai's entire post quoted above.)

GPT-4o mini gave me exactly what I asked for with this:

​

"The assertion that "Brown v. Board of Education" was filed as a class action suit is factually incorrect. Here are the key points that clarify this misunderstanding:​

1. Nature of the Case: "Brown v. Board of Education" was not originally filed as a class action suit. The case was initiated by Oliver Brown on behalf of his daughter, Linda Brown, who was denied admission to a white elementary school in Topeka, Kansas. It was one of several cases combined for the Supreme Court's consideration, but it was not a class action in the legal sense at the time of filing.
2. Legal Definition of Class Action: A class action lawsuit is a type of legal action where a group of people collectively bring a claim to court. In "Brown," while multiple cases were consolidated, the original suit was an individual claim brought by Brown, not a representative action for a class of individuals.
3. Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court's decision in 1954 did address the broader implications of segregation in public schools, which affected many students across the country. However, the ruling itself was based on the specific circumstances of the Brown case and the other cases it was consolidated with, rather than a class action framework.
4. Chief Justice Warren's Statement: The quote from Chief Justice Warren regarding the complexity of formulating decrees in class actions reflects the Court's awareness of the broader implications of its ruling. However, it does not imply that "Brown" was a class action suit. The reference to "class actions" in the context of the ruling pertains to the implications of the decision on various local school systems, not the legal status of the case itself.

In summary, while "Brown v. Board of Education" had significant implications for public education and civil rights, it was not filed as a class action suit, and the legal conclusions drawn from this misunderstanding misrepresent the nature of the case and its historical context."​

Now imagine if I had just posted the result that GPT-4o mini gave without disclosing the prompt that I gave it and the AI app I used. Especially, imagine if I posted the AI response in quotation marks as if I got it from a valid source. AI makes it too easy for people to be deceiving and dishonest if they don't provide full disclosure.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The AI finds reports for me, afterall an AI is basically a search engine which can chat.

Once the AI has done it's work I check it's sources and evaluate it's report. I find the AI's I use are correct only about 60% of the time.

When we do searches, we don't quote the search results. We read the articles in the search results and then quote from those articles. Best practices is to do the same thing with AI results. Read what articles it cites and quote directly from those articles instead of from the AI itself.

They're getting better as time goes on because people like me are training them. I tell it when it has made a mistake. They need that kind of feedback to learn.

My daughter is a cognitive scientist, she writes learning code for AI's.

You vastly overestimate how AI actually works and what it actually trains on. AI is being trained by a lot more people that aren't like you than it is by people who are like you. Garbage in garbage out has never been more appropriate than it is for AI.

I have several friends who once worked developing AI and computer neural networks who are now fighting to shut down all further research and development until we get legal and cyber safeguards in place to protect against intentional harm and unintentional harm. They aren't alone. A lot of the pioneers and top developers are all calling for the same pause.

 

[SamAndreas]

I'm using this post to illustrate the problem of not providing full disclosure when using AI.

Using GPT-4o mini, I gave it this prompt:



GPT-4o mini gave me exactly what I asked for with this:



Now imagine if I had just posted the result that GPT-4o mini gave without disclosing the prompt that I gave it and the AI app I used. Especially, imagine if I posted the AI response in quotation marks as if I got it from a valid source. AI makes it too easy for people to be deceiving and dishonest if they don't provide full disclosure.

When I quote one I say which one I used, and I check its results carefully before posting. When I post it i include my question with its quoted response because without that context is lost. If I just use the information it looked up for me and I do the write up myself I relax about that some.

I'm not one to throw a baby out with the bathwater. Just because someone can misuse and abuse it, is no reason to be against new technology.

Do you remember how folks behaved when Wikipedia first started up?

On a forum like this one, one could not quote a Wikipedia article without someone getting on your back about it. Conservatives were especially likely to call foul over it. I'm talking about 20 years ago.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I'm not one to throw a baby out with the bathwater. Just because someone can misuse and abuse it, is no reason to be against new technology.

If you're saying that's what I'm calling for, then you are greatly misunderstanding and mischaracterizing what I'm actually saying.

 

[SamAndreas]

When we do searches, we don't quote the search results. We read the articles in the search results and then quote from those articles. Best practices is to do the same thing with AI results. Read what articles it cites and quote directly from those articles instead of from the AI itself.


You vastly overestimate how AI actually works and what it actually trains on. AI is being trained by a lot more people that aren't like you than it is by people who are like you. Garbage in garbage out has never been more appropriate than it is for AI.

I have several friends who once worked developing AI and computer neural networks who are now fighting to shut down all further research and development until we get legal and cyber safeguards in place to protect against intentional harm and unintentional harm. They aren't alone. A lot of the pioneers and top developers are all calling for the same pause.

I'm not on that path.

I would think I have more experience about it than you do. I have a degree in Physics, and I raised a cognitive scientist in my home. During my working life I designed control systems for supermarket refrigeration systems as well as the HVAC control systems in high rise office buildings. I was using computer well before DOS and Windows came out. My first system was a CPM back in 1982.

I was also an original Well member, that's where many of the Internet details of coding was hashed out in various computer conferences, and was then created by its members.

The Well was a place on the Internet before there was an Internet. It's a San Francisco thing. As I recall I joined in 1983 and was a member for about 20 years. My wife is still a member and a conference host.

Home < The WELL

www.well.com

 

[SamAndreas]

If you're saying that's what I'm calling for, then you are greatly misunderstanding and mischaracterizing what I'm actually saying.

LA, I Didn't say you would throw out the baby with the bath water, I said I don't do that.

It's a commonly used metaphor to express folks common tendency to overreact to rhetoric.

 

[Lapaz]

Then none of us have birthright citizenship, because none of our ancestors were here "legally" which means we are all illegals. That's the rabbit hole you're digging with your suggestion.


It was fine for your ancestors, so why not for people today?


I am sincerely shocked to hear you say something so callous. You are not how I thought you were as a person.

You don’t know my family history, and it doesn’t matter with respect to expressing opinions. As to your points about the past, I think the past is irrelevant. Anyone born in the US is currently a citizen. That doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be in the future. People that arrived in the US when the nation was forming weren’t gaming the system to become citizens. I think it is wrong for people to enter illegally and then get citizenship for their kids. However, I also think if you’re here legally, whether by asylum or any other way, then your kids should get the benefit, but if you’re illegal, you shouldn’t.

 

[SamAndreas]

You don’t know my family history, and it doesn’t matter with respect to expressing opinions. As to your points about the past, I think the past is irrelevant. Anyone born in the US is currently a citizen. That doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be in the future. People that arrived in the US when the nation was forming weren’t gaming the system to become citizens. I think it is wrong for people to enter illegally and then get citizenship for their kids. However, I also think if you’re here legally, whether by asylum or any other way, then your kids should get the benefit, but if you’re illegal, you shouldn’t.

Lapaz has it crossed your mind that people who are not citizens cannot be illegal because to be illegal one would need to be a citizen to be responsible for those citizenship laws?

I call most of them Native Americans, the ones who are real native Americans. Other, say from Europe perhaps, I call them immigrants. I don't call any person illegals, nor do I call them aliens.

I don't call ICE for any reason.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

When we do searches, we don't quote the search results. We read the articles in the search results and then quote from those articles. Best practices is to do the same thing with AI results. Read what articles it cites and quote directly from those articles instead of from the AI itself.


You vastly overestimate how AI actually works and what it actually trains on. AI is being trained by a lot more people that aren't like you than it is by people who are like you. Garbage in garbage out has never been more appropriate than it is for AI.

I have several friends who once worked developing AI and computer neural networks who are now fighting to shut down all further research and development until we get legal and cyber safeguards in place to protect against intentional harm and unintentional harm. They aren't alone. A lot of the pioneers and top developers are all calling for the same pause.

GIGO was the exact thing going through my head when I saw all of the sneaky AI use yesterday.

 

[Sendai]

Are you saying you just took AI's word as gospel, even though you know AI makes lots of factual errors as is even known to cite sources and cases that don't exist, and to take them completely out of context?

AI is starting to empower and turbo charge the Dunning–Kruger effect.

I knew they were class action suits. I remembered reading Warrens opinion when it happened.

 

[SamAndreas]

I knew they were class action suits. I remembered reading Warrens opinion when it happened.

Sendai I would suggest that Warren in his opinion viewed the plaintiffs as being a class, and spoke of it that way, that doesn't mean the suit itself was actually a class action suit.

It would have been very difficult filing it as a class action because it would be impossible to contact all the members in that class when that class was all people other than white people. I can not see it being possible to bring a class action suit when that class numbers in the many of millions.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I would think I have more experience about it than you do.

It's obvious you think that.

I have a degree in Physics, and I raised a cognitive scientist in my home.

And what do you know about my first and second hand experience with AI, artificial neural networks, computer programming, control systems, or the internet?

You are factually wrong about who and what publicly accessible AI's are learning from and what they are learning. It's very much GIGO, but don't take my word for it. Listen to what the folks at MIT have to say about it:

AI models work by training on huge swaths of data from the internet. But as AI is increasingly being used to pump out web pages filled with junk content, that process is in danger of being undermined.

New research published in Nature shows that the quality of the model’s output gradually degrades when AI trains on AI-generated data. As subsequent models produce output that is then used as training data for future models, the effect gets worse.

AI trained on AI garbage spits out AI garbage

As junk web pages written by AI proliferate, the models that rely on that data will suffer.

www.technologyreview.com

And this Forbes article points out that even restricted access AI has a garbage in garbage out issues:

What’s going on?

Industry observers agree that data poses a problematic issue for AI initiatives of all kinds. Executives understand “how subpar their data collection, cleansing, and curation process that is fed into AI to create a decision engine," said industry analyst Andy Thurai. "They know it is garbage in, garbage out. So, knowing they are feeding garbage in, would you feel comfortable using the decision?"

Complicating the situation is the fact that many enterprises now use synthetic data to train their AI models when not enough data is available, or to maintain security. The problem is that "executives’ confidence that the models are trained on real-world data is not there,” Thurai added.

Garbage In, Garbage Out? Trust In The Data Behind AI Is Vanishing

Trust in the data needed for data-driven decisions is falling — precipitously.

www.forbes.com

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

You don’t know my family history, and it doesn’t matter with respect to expressing opinions. As to your points about the past, I think the past is irrelevant. Anyone born in the US is currently a citizen. That doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be in the future.

You said that you in your opinion you don't think people born in the US should be citizens unless their parents were "legal" citizens. I don't need to know your family history to know that none of us were born to ancestors who were here "legally."

That means that the result of your opinion would be that none of us should be US citizens, because if the generation of our families that first arrived in the US weren't here "legally," then none of their descendants born here were born of "legal" us citizens, including all of us.

People that arrived in the US when the nation was forming weren’t gaming the system to become citizens.

You don't think mass murder and eradication of the people who were already here is gaming the system?

I think it is wrong for people to enter illegally and then get citizenship for their kids.

Just like all of our ancestors did unless we are 100% Native American?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I knew they were class action suits. I remembered reading Warrens opinion when it happened.

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between a judge talking about a class of people, as in a category of people, or a class action lawsuit.

Warren was not talking about a class action lawsuit, he was clearly talking about a certain class of people.

More deceptive partial truths. The propaganda parade just keeps rolling along.

 

[SamAndreas]

It's obvious you think that.


And what do you know about my first and second hand experience with AI, artificial neural networks, computer programming, control systems, or the internet?

You are factually wrong about who and what publicly accessible AI's are learning from and what they are learning. It's very much GIGO, but don't take my word for it. Listen to what the folks at MIT have to say about it:

AI trained on AI garbage spits out AI garbage

As junk web pages written by AI proliferate, the models that rely on that data will suffer.

www.technologyreview.com

And this Forbes article points out that even restricted access AI has a garbage in garbage out issues:

Garbage In, Garbage Out? Trust In The Data Behind AI Is Vanishing

Trust in the data needed for data-driven decisions is falling — precipitously.

www.forbes.com

LA you have further convinced me that I know more about this topic than you do.

Google's AI gave me this to give to you:

The "fallacy of distraction" refers to a rhetorical tactic where someone introduces irrelevant information to divert attention from the main topic of discussion. This is often achieved by shifting the focus to a different, often emotionally charged or attention-grabbing, subject. A common example is the red herring fallacy, where an irrelevant topic is introduced to derail the conversation.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
What it is:

• The fallacy of distraction involves diverting attention away from the core issue of an argument or discussion by introducing irrelevant or misleading information.
• This tactic can be used intentionally to avoid addressing a difficult point or to manipulate the conversation in one's favor.
• The introduced information might be related to the main topic on the surface, but it ultimately doesn't contribute to the central argument

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

LA you have further convinced me that I know more about this topic than you do.

Of course that's how you choose to respond. That was expected and predictable at this point. It's also expected and predicted that you would ignore the experts I quoted that disagree with your opinion.

Google's AI gave me this to give to you:

I'm completely on the core issue that people should not cite AI results, because of the Garbage In Garbage Out problem with AI. I provided two highly credible and knowledgeable sources on the subject that support and confirm that it's a problem and why it's a problem. I'm staying very on the core issue.

On the other hand, your responses have been "I know more than you" and now you're falsely implying that I'm trying to distract from the subject. That's obviously a bullshirt move on your part. I'm sincerely disappointed you chose to go down this path. I thought you were above this.

Just yesterday you were preaching to people about "playing a game a telephone" for discussing unconfirmed information. Today you are advocating for playing the biggest "telephone game" known to mankind, the AI "telephone game."

 

[J-DONK]

I knew they were class action suits. I remembered reading Warrens opinion when it happened.

You read a majority opinion of a SC case at the age of 3?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

You read a majority opinion of a SC case at the age of 3?

Great catch and he was 3 only assuming he's actually 74. Undeniable dishonesty right there.