The Anything Thread that is Never off subject.

[Tony1951]

An interesting way of using AI to carry out focus group analysis.

I was watching a video yesterday when someone suggested that the days of expensive focus group, opinion analysis might be over.

Typically, political parties spend a lot of money trying to work out how ordinary people react to their policies and what their views are about what politics should change on their behalf.

This person dropped a 'seed':

Why not use AI instead of doing all that cumbersome, expensive analysis.

Big AI, already knows from its vast training data sets what people are talking about and what they think and what their problems are. It usually has vast datasets of online discussion on a vast range of subjects.

So I asked chat GPT to reflect what it though two different demographics would be concerned about and want politicians to change.

If you click the link, you will need to scroll back up to the top of the page. For some reason these chat gpt links always place you at the end of the page.

I was surprised how closely the virtual consultation seemed to reflect what I might have expected for the two groups I specified. Take a look -

ChatGPT - Synthetic focus group concerns

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

The great weakness of this approach of using AI to test what people think is that to some extent, all the AI models have what are called guard rails so they have been pre-programmed to steer away from certain kinds of discussion which were deemed, 'harmful' by their creators. So they will all actively steer away from some kinds of views.

I don't have much of a problem with that except that if you were really going to use big AI models to test opinion, it would automatically screen out and refuse to represent views which were deemed by its creators as unacceptable - so those kinds of views would be hidden from the enquirer. This means the analysis would not truly represent such minority opinions and it would appear that they didn't exist.

If the enquirer was really seeking to know what the population think, the omission of these fringe concerns would mean the analysis was incomplete.

 

[Woosh]

Law must remain the same as it was ......

I never said that. We have parliament to look after laws.

 

[Tony1951]

You misunderstood what democracy is. It's just a system of law.
The overarching concept is to live in a society, you must accept and obey its laws.
If you don't, emigrate or leave and live alone.
Imagine some immigrant (like me) pick and choose what laws I like to respect and which I don't. What would you think?
Being given a mandate does not equate that our PM can ride roughshot over our laws. He/she must obey the same laws like the rest of us and should be even more severely punished when not. Especially judges. When a high ranking politician like a minister breaks law (eg rape an underling or insider trading on the stock market), there usually be additional charges like abuse of power, corruption on top of the main charge.

This post is so stupid that I have to react to it.

1. Democracy is NOT just a system of law.

It is a system in which the people - all of them - have their interests and opinions considered by people who REPRESENT them in making the laws.

You can't just suddenly re-define terms that have been well understood since the time of Ancient Athens 2500 years ago. Democracy is about THE PEOPLE having a say in what laws bind them.

2. Of course people must be bound by the laws and that rule must apply to all.

That does not mean that laws are immutable and are never to change. You seem to be advancing this as a core part of what democracy is - a concept you are clearly unable to understand.

Your problem seems to be you don't like the way the tide is turning about some laws which may perhaps change before long. TOUGH. The law at some particular time is what the majority of Parliament wants it to be. It can be changed at ANY time, if there is a will in Parliament to change it.

Earlier, I pointed out examples of laws which were changed in the past. The laws which enabled slavery and the slave trade to be carried on. Laws which disenfranchised non property owning men, and later which disenfranchised women. Later still, laws which forbade in all circumstances abortion - changed. Legalising homosexual acts in private - changed. Criminal penalties which had enabled capital punishment - changed.

Law changes all the time in response to changes in circumstances and the needs and views of the people as a whole. This means all of the people. Not just teh ones who think like you do.

So before you put into print ridiculous falsehood like this here :

You misunderstood what democracy is. It's just a system of law.
The overarching concept is to live in a society, you must accept and obey its laws.
If you don't, emigrate or leave and live alone.

Have a think about the concepts you are writing about as they are understood in the real world. You don't get to re-define a concept like 'democracy', totally changing it in the process. The absolute core of that concept, is representing the will of the people. Not turning them into disgruntled, ignored surfs, because an empowered elite wants things a certain way.

I would put money on the idea that in the next five years - certainly ten - the UK will resile from the jurisdiction of the ECHR and reform the Human Rights Act to re-establish the supremacy of our own government and to restore the ability of the government to decide who lives here - particularly in terms of illegal migration, deportation of foreign born criminals, and whatever other matters are seen to be important for the well being of society at large. If so - so much the better - and I think I am safe in saying that is probably the view of the majority of the people who live in the UK.

In the last couple of day you have made several statements which are flatly untrue and wrong. You also stated that it was not a crime to enter the UK without a right to do so. The right to enter the Uk is defined in the Immigration Act 1971 and as amended by an act in 2023. In both of these it is explicitly stated that it is an offence to enter the UK by irregular means in contravention of the acts of parliament which cover this issue.

Immigration Act 1971

An Act to amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for purposes connected therewith.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Illegal Migration Act 2023.

"A Bill to Make provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes;' - etc

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

 

[Woosh]

Let's just address a few points you made.

1. Immigration Act 1971.
This Act has been revised a few times over the year but the essence remains the same. Essentially, illegal migrants entering the UK without valid visa and overstayers are in covered by this Act. I think we can agree on that.
There have been millions of migrants but let's see how many rubber boat migrants have been prosecuted under this Act?

Year	Section 25	Section 25A	Section 25B
2018	309	8	1
2019	291	5	0
2020	139	2	0
2021	249	134	5
2022	155	6	0

Section 25 deals essentially with those criminals involved in people smuggling.

Illegal Migration Act 2023.

"A Bill to Make provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes;' - etc
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

Legislation	Does it criminalise small-boat arrival?	Prosecutions/Convictions (small boat)
Illegal Migration Act 2023	No (focuses on removal, detention, etc.)	No tracked data available
Nationality and Borders Act 2022	Yes (‘illegal arrival’ offence)	556 charged, 455 convicted (June 2022–2024)

You can see that hardly anybody got put in jail just because they arrived by boat. That's why the Act can be easily disputed because our government already knew that it is incompatible with core elements of the ECHR.

2.

1. Democracy is NOT just a system of law.

I said a system of laws. The indefinite article is important here.
I am pretty sure you have noticed it but you chose not to understandwhat I meant.

The word systems of laws is more general than the word democracy, simply because monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship etc all can have laws. Laws is always a core element of any democracy.

Have a think about the concepts you are writing about as they are understood in the real world. You don't get to re-define a concept like 'democracy', totally changing it in the process. The absolute core of that concept, is representing the will of the people. Not turning them into disgruntled, ignored surfs, because an empowered elite wants things a certain way.

This is the point that I find most interesting. Both you and I are of similar age, with similar education albeit from different countries. Yet, our understanding of the basic role of our votes differ significantly.
For me, votes confer only a limited mandate. I voted for local councillors and local MP for a term.
Most of the times, the number of votes garnered by the winning side is around 30%. There is no logical reason to equate 30% or even 45% with the will of gthe people. Even with 50%+, no mandate implies that the elected person can trespass laws.