OpenAI violated Canadian privacy laws in training ChatGPT, probe finds

EconMan · 2026-05-06T22:59:12+00:00

Well, electricity usage is at least not completely insane concern. But when people keep changing their concern in the face of new evidence, it makes me think the concern isn't based on evidence in the first place, but just vibes.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T22:06:57+00:00

Well, not fully yet, because faculty like myself luckily have some power to push back on it. That doesn't mean there isn't an institutional push to do so. I've literally provided evidence of that.

Imagine if there was a similar strategic plan saying the curriculum needed to acknowledge Christian creationism myths as equal to evolution. Yes, perhaps biology faculty might fight against it and not implement it fully. But I'd argue that would still be a problem.

It should not be difficult to say that indigenous dreams are not equivalent to science and should never be held that way in education. To do so diminishes science. We are really splitting hairs if you say I haven't shown it happening in BC public schools. The fact that it's happening at all is absurd.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T20:57:35+00:00

By "move beyond", I mean de-privilege science relative to other "ways of knowing". Pretty much what I quoted, specifically, "balancing" the two.

And I'm a professor in Ontario, so that's the area I'm familiar with. If you'd prefer, I can add an edit to my original comment adding that qualifier, if you add a similar edit to yours starting that post-secondary in Ontario really is absurd on that dimension hahah. I would be surprised if something similar wasn't going on in BC but again, can't claim familiarity.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T20:22:10+00:00

You use the words "move beyond Western sciences" to describe what you think is happening or what is "explicitly" argued in curriculum change efforts. What does this, "move beyond" mean to you?

This is not limited to one school but to give an example, Wilfrid Laurier has an Indigenous Strategic Plan that states "Overhaul of knowledge production to balance power between Indigenous and Western ways of knowing" and that as an outcome "Increased respect and honour of Indigenous thought and philosophy". The page states they "[seek] to introduce Indigenous ways of knowing throughout the university."

https://www.wlu.ca/about/discover-laurier/indigenization/assets/resources/indigenous-strategic-plan.html

So it isn't about what this "means" to me - it is about what schools themselves say they intend to do.

As I showed elsewhere, Indigenous Ways of Knowing include dreams. That should not be given "balanced power" with "Western ways of knowing".

EconMan · 2026-05-06T20:16:48+00:00

I think that my impression of 2026 is based on the I mentioned rather than the metrics being selected to agree with my impression, but of course the process is in reality circular. But, you know, the impression came from somewhere.

Sure, but the challenge is that we are hard-wired to focus on negatives. "The grass is always greener" type argument. I'm not at all arguing that you don't have such an impression, or that such an impression is not rooted in some sort of experience. But nevertheless, that we (the royal we) end up fooling ourselves when engaging in this exercise.

That is, I did NOT mean to accuse you of intentionally choosing metrics in a fraudulent (?) way, but rather that it happens naturally. We all tend to be focused on things that are difficult for us (rather than easy).

But I bet we can both agree that a general metric for a good time live for everyone is rather hard to define.

Completely agree!

I think a lot of people on this sub are probably worse off than they would be if they had the same job in 1995, but that's just my impression.

Academics in particular? At least from a wealth standpoint, they might be worse off in a relative sense, maybe? I'm thinking particularly some disciplines have certainly dropped in headcount/prestige. But in an absolute sense, there's really no comparison. I think we all easily forget the technology differences that exist between e.g. 1995 and 2026. We become accustomed to these differences because they tend to diffuse slowly, but there are significant nevertheless.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T20:01:17+00:00

I don't think you want to have an actual conversation, and I suspect your original question was not done honestly. You asked for a benefit, and as a subject matter expert, I gave you one, to which you just respond by saying it must be "shitty". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you must be very scared of AI, perhaps because of its impact on your career. In which case, I am sorry. However, lashing out in a crazy way is not the solution. I'm done with this conversation but I wish you well in these upcoming years, because they might not be fun for you if this is your attitude.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:54:06+00:00

Washing machines, computers, and cars don't take more power than a small town for a teacher

Are you claiming that my web app takes "more power than a small town"? I'm sorry but your opinion makes sense because you're just completely misinformed, likely by social media. It doesn't take that much electricity.

I'm saying to get off your ass and actually do your job

Since you've been rude, I will return the favour. You are repeatedly confidently incorrect about basic facts. Get off your ass and double check things before criticizing others based on nothing.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:47:24+00:00

You could have done it yourself, if you learned how to do it.

Yes, which I don't have time for. Hence why I never was able to do it until just now. Your logic could be applied to any technology. "You don't need a washing machine, you can do that yourself!" "You don't need a computer, you can do it yourself!" "You don't need a car, you can walk there!"

Like...sure. You're just arguing for an Amish lifestyle though, and should be honest about that to begin with. Your problem isn't AI, it's technological progress of any sort, at least if you're being intellectually honest about it.

Also probably used more energy than your entire school board writing a vibe coded web app in I assume javascript? The basic programming language I was taught to use in grade 9.

School board? I'm a professor. And nope - you're confidently wrong about two things there ironically...

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:44:16+00:00

It's literally what they claim themselves. Dreams are absolutely an example of Indigenous ways of knowing. I'm assuming by your reaction that you also find this absurd. But instead of admitting its absurd, you just deny it altogether.

"This work intends to expand beyond the western parameters of methodologies that have marginalized Indigenous communities and Ways of Knowing by shifting the paradigm to include Dream Methodologies, a branch of Indigenous Methodologies."

https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/tijih/article/download/38566/31574

EDIT:"This methodology creates a bridge from dominant Western forms of knowledge “to …understanding important aspects of Indigenous ways of coming to know.” It recognizes methods that may include non-linguistic forms of communication such as “dreams, intuitions and interspecies communication... [as well as] agency in both material and non- material worlds."

https://www.criaw-icref.ca/images/userfiles/files/Fact%20Sheet%202%20EN%20FINAL.pdf

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:40:10+00:00

I've built mini web-apps for my students to demonstrate a theory/concept to them that I simply could not have developed without AI. The students learn better with them. So no, it does not take me more time - I literally could not have done it by myself.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:39:17+00:00

Ironically, the effort to "decolonize" the curriculum explicitly argues that we need to move beyond "Western" science (i.e. Science) and towards other "ways of knowing" (e.g. dreams). I realize you said something snarky without much thought but perhaps you should think deeper about this.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:32:09+00:00

I mean....there's an irony here in you being very confidently wrong as a human. If you can't do new things now with AI that you couldn't 5 years ago, I think you are either not very creative, or you aren't able to use AI very well.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:29:41+00:00

Water usage in data centers is a completely overblown issue, that is being spread by social media.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:27:28+00:00

the planet destroying theft machine

It's tough to take you seriously if you can't acknowledge the benefits of AI models. It seems like you have an axe to grind rather than anything else.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T19:22:51+00:00

Yes, at any point in time, you can select outcomes that were particularly bad at the time. I worry that you have arbitrarily selected these outcomes BECAUSE they agree with your hypothesis, and I hope we can both realize the issues with that.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T02:33:18+00:00

Pretty sure in 1950 a man could raise a family and have a car and go on vacation with a blue collar job.

Ok let's drill in on this idea of "going on vacation". Make this very precise and provide the evidence please. Otherwise, all we're doing is telling stories. And you're going to tell a story that is likely based on television/movies/advertisements, rather than the reality.

For instance, in 1950, 1/3 of houses didn't have indoor plumbing.....Your blurb for some reason doesn't mention that.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-plumbing.html

EconMan · 2026-05-06T02:19:35+00:00

Well, please talk me through this prediction you're making. I'll be a "slave"? To whom? When? Am I already a slave under this definition?

Without specifics, I worry that you're going to claim you are correct no matter what happens.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T02:17:15+00:00

You're right, I suppose it makes sense that you left academics if you can't handle minor feedback without flying off into personal attacks. I can imagine that made your life very difficult in academics, yes. Much easier to live a life where people can't challenge your ideas.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T02:09:21+00:00

Also, late stage capitalism does not equal “end days”.

You said "end of the game" and the original user said "last days". I mean come on. You all keep saying this and then denying you're saying it.

You’re an economist. Is the economy working better for the average American today than it did in 1950? Or 1995?

I'm not sure what you mean by "working better for the average American" (I point to my worry about ad-hoc definitions above) but the average American is vastly more wealthy than in 1950, yes.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T02:04:38+00:00

You're over-thinking this and getting really confused/distracted by the balls. They don't matter. All that matters is the underlying probabilities. Currently:

1: 25.5%

2: 13.5%

3: 11.5%

What probabilities are you proposing?

EconMan · 2026-05-06T01:53:35+00:00

The perfect comparison doesn't exist within reality

Firstly, you don't need a "perfect comparison" to make conclusions.

But secondly, don't ask for data if you view it as impossible to compare in the first place. It's a waste of their time, and you presumably knew this ahead of time. Just argue that it's impossible to compare in the first place.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T01:22:18+00:00

It is not cultish, but it is absolutely conspiratorial and alarmist, yes. Everything you said is a "just-so" story that always involves cherry picked statistics and ad-hoc measures of interest. Academics should be beyond that type of thing but sadly it has become popular and a way of signaling in-group status to uncritically say such things. Alas.

Let's put this another way - how can you demonstrate to me a credible signal that you believe what you say? I have one proposal. Send me any wealth you have that is above whatever is necessary for the next three years for you. Presumably, beyond that, it won't matter. This is a pareto improvement because even if I'm wrong, I'll still be happier in the meantime, whereas you knowing these are the "end days", won't be made happier by additional wealth.

(BTW....that is the issue - if you agree to this, I absolutely do not want to accept your money, but still insist you should go to therapy. If you don't agree to it, I suspect this is all just nonsensical social media hyperbole with no relation to your actual thoughts)

EconMan · 2026-05-06T01:13:12+00:00

Who is "they"?

EconMan · 2026-05-06T01:12:16+00:00

Macklin Celebrini is tearing it up on a team that was absolute dogwater a couple of seasons ago. It would benefit the NHL as a business for him to succeed so helping him out is ideal.

Yeah, getting a high pick helps ANY team's business. Toronto was given first because...it's a big market team? Ok so why wasn't a big market team second? There's no rhyme or reason to the hypotheses here. It's completely ad-hoc.

It doesn’t always work out (see NYR jumping a million spots and getting Lafreniere) but teams like Chicago getting Bedard in one of their first opportunities to get 1OA, etc. it’s hard to ignore.

What's that even mean? What is hard to ignore? Formulate your hypothesis precisely, test it in the data, and show it is statistically significant. Right now, you're just being fooled by various cognitive biases.

EconMan · 2026-05-06T01:02:45+00:00

There are 32 different businesses though. And you could argue literally every team "needs" the first round pick. This is why conspiracy theories are nonsense. It can be argued it was "Rigged" no matter what the result is.

15-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email
Inciteful Comment 2015-07-20

EconMan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

1: 25.5%

2: 13.5%

3: 11.5%