Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Another use for AI

I've just wasted a couple of hours chatting to Google's Gemini AI system.

Well perhaps "wasted" isn't the correct word. Actually, I've learned an awful lot in the process of discussiong several subjects and I think I've discovered one of the true values of AI in the process.

AI excels at rounding up a bunch of resources and producing surprisingly readable interpretations and summaries. That makes the job of researching subjects much simpler -- so long as you're always on the look-out for lies and halucinations.

However, an even more valuable benefit of these interactions is that AI gives you a really good feel for how a subject is being presented in the real world and the biases that are out there.

I started this morning's interaction by asking Gemini for a topic suggestion for today's column.

It suggested that I talk about New Zealand native birds.

With this in mind I started searching for information on Rachel Hunter and a few other birds that are uniquely New Zealand -- but soon gave up on that idea.

With the Moa in mind, I asked Gemini about how this creature became extinct and that led on to discussion about The Treaty of Waitangi.

After many pages of query/response, I began to realise that I was starting to understand how this whole treaty thing was way different to what I had expected.

I've always thought that a treaty was a form of contract between two or more parties.

The parties agree on a set of terms and conditions which likely involve some obligations and some privileges and then they all sign up and that becomes something which remains binding on them until (if ever) they jointly decide to dissolve it.

I could not have been more wrong.

Apparently, at least according to Gemini, treaties aren't actually very binding at all and they're very unlike a regular contract.

For example, for a contract to be valid and enforceable, both parties must sign the same document with the same terms/conditions clearly defined. A contract where each party signs a document with different stated terms is invalid -- yet that's what has allegedly happend with Te Tiriti.

Yes, even though the contemporary Maori interpretation of the Treaty is significantly at odds with the literal English version, it remains a valid document and enforceable.

I also thought that, like a contract, a treaty would be an immutable document unless changes were agreed by both parties.

Nope. Gemini authoritatively informs me that Te Tiriti is a "living document" which basically means that it can be changed on a whim and the agreement of the other party isn't required for such changes to be asserted.

Then there's the issue of non-signatories. Under regular contract law a signatory can't bind any other non-signatory without their consent -- yet Te Tiriti does just that. Even those Maori who chose not to sign are apparently covered by its umbrella -- which kind of makes the whole process of signing somewhat redundant doesn't it?

So we have a document that isn't binding, says different things to the different parties, applies to non-signatories as it does to signatories and changes from day to day.

Is it just me or does that sound rather nonsensical and a recipe for disaster?

Now I can see just why there is such an industry built around Te Tiriti and why claims cost so very much and take so long to resolve.

It's a mess.

One thing came across very clearly in my interactions on this topic with Gemini -- it has read a lot of Maori Activist-written material. It's perspectives are very partisan and so I can only think that those activists have done a great job in getting their own perspectives out there on the Net. They can't be blamed for that but it does mean that the AI responses I got were not as truly objective as I would have hoped for.

One thing is for sure though, having spent all this time asking and learning, I'm now far more aware of how flawed this whole treaty system is and I do worry that it's going to cost every NZer and arm and a leg over the coming decades with likely little positive outcome for Maori as a whole.

So AI is a great way to get a feel for the way a subject is being represented on the internet. It may not be correct but it does seem to be very representative of the groups that are doing the best job of spreading their message and that's valuable information if you were to engage with such groups at whatever level.

I also ran this exercise on drone regulations here in NZ and it was fascinating in the way that the underlying forces which drive these regulations was laid bare by AI. Fascinating but also worrying and a clear demonstration that regulation is not a good bedpartner with logic and commonsense in this case.

If you've not used any of these AI chatbots I heartily recommend you waste a few minutes getting a feel for the value they can truly bring to a subject you might be researching.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font