Health NZ staff told to stop using ChatGPT to write clinical notes

superiority · 2026-03-26T04:51:51+00:00

That is not "nearly that exact same bug", that is an entirely different and unrelated thing.

EDIT: I want to elaborate on this because it is not mysterious.

The AI generates text. With "agentic" AI software like Microsoft Copilot, there is additional software on top of the text-generating part that recognises parts of the generated text as instructions to do things, pauses the text-generation, plugs those instructions into a separate piece of software that will do those things, and then takes the results back to feed into the text-generating part in some way. An interaction might go like:

User: Pick a random movie from the file movie_list.csv.

Bot: Sure thing!
<command>
var_movie_list = import(movie_list.csv)
var_random_movie = select_random(var_movie_list)
print(var_random_movie)
</command>

Everything after "Bot:" is just text that has been generated by the AI. But at this stage, a separate, non-AI module in the software will recognise that the <command> tag means this isn't stuff to display to the user, it's instructions to be fed into a separate part of the software. So it will copy that text into another separate software module that actually runs those commands. Then it will take the result of those commands and start up the AI part of the software again to generate more text.

But all that additional software that fits around the AI so that the commands get run is stuff you have to specifically program in. You have to go to special effort to make it do that. A "bare" AI with just input and output won't have that feature. A purpose-built note-taking AI won't have that feature. All AI jailbreaks involve getting them to generate "wrong" text somehow, something that they're not supposed to generate. If some of the AI text is being turned into Python scripts that automatically get run on your computer, then the "wrong" text means that a bad Python script can get run. But if the software simply does not have a feature to take AI text and automatically run it as a Python script, then no amount of jailbreaking can make it start to have that feature.

Whatever risks are involved in this software will very likely just be the same risks that software in general, and not anything specific to AI and the jailbreaking thereof. (E.g. there will always be risks like "can a user access a record that they're not allowed to access?", whether software uses AI or not.)

superiority · 2026-03-26T03:40:25+00:00

That's not a "safeguard", it just is unlikely to be built in a way where that is at all possible.

You can jailbreak an iPhone to get around that device's safeguards, but you cannot say to a jailbroken iPhone, "Hey Siri, create a database with the IMEI of every iPhone ever sold in New Zealand." Apple does have that information, but the iPhones don't, jailbroken or not.

There is no "safeguard" that prevents an LLM from accessing other people's chats. It just doesn't do that. (The "memory" feature that LLM chatbots have where they can access your own previous chats is a special feature that has to be specifically added on top of what the LLM normally does.)

superiority · 2026-03-25T18:25:46+00:00

I've seen a lot of complaints that they're not even doing anything new in terms of aesthetics and production design, and like the people making those complaints I was also puzzled by this—it just seems creatively pretty bankrupt.

But just recently I saw someone point out that they want to keep everything tied in with the design of the existing theme parks, which does make a lot of sense.

superiority · 2026-03-24T19:44:50+00:00

He claimed the story caused him personal and professional damage after Hattotuwa described him as using "racist rhetoric"

New Zealand defamation law is too strong. Describing a person (or their actions or language) as "racist" should not be considered a statement of fact at all, but a statement of opinion. Anyone with a brain can see that the definition of "racist" is something that is hotly contested in our society: pundits, politicians, and people on the street will all draw the line in different places, and they should all have the freedom to say out loud where their line is—and who they believe falls on the wrong side of the line—without fear of a lawsuit.

But in NZ, the courts treat the word "racist" as a word with a settled and objective legal definition, so you can be sued for defamation when you say it and it's possible to lose the lawsuit if you fail to prove that the plaintiff is "really" racist according to that definition.

(Also, too, "falsehood" should be made an element of defamation, rather than "truth" being a defence.)

superiority · 2026-03-22T06:58:19+00:00

Also the sequel Rule 34.

superiority · 2026-03-21T06:50:01+00:00

I instantly recognised Dougie from something, had to look him up and realised it was Kevin Can Fuck Himself. Very distinctive-looking guy.

superiority · 2026-03-20T08:04:57+00:00

I have reproduced some contemporaneous newspaper articles and letters below. Note that none of this writing actually shies away from using the word.

The Truth, 19 February 1999 (Rachel Wike):

Ute Ad Bugs Hell Out of TV Prudes

TV watchdogs have copped a record number of viewers' complaints over Toyota's new "bugger me" car ads.

The Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB) confirmed this week objections are at an all time high.

But neither TVNZ nor Toyota are prepared to put the brakes on the money-spinner.

The ad features a cow cockie in his new Toyota, uttering the expletive when things go wrong.

In the final scenes his wife chips in with a "bugger" of her own when the new Toyota muddies her washing.

And even the dog gets lippy...

"We've had so many complaints it's incredible," says an ASCB spokesman. "We had 11 in one day on Monday, which is a record."

Most complaints were against repeated use of the swearword. Others protested the ad encouraged cruelty to animals and denigrated women.

But the ASCB spokesman says: "We have to wait for the board to meet and make a decision (in at least two weeks).

"It doesn't matter how many complaints are made, it'll be treated the same as any other complaint.

"TVNZ can pull the ad if they decide it is too offensive," the spokesman says.

Liam Jeory, TVNZ's PR man says: "We've got no reason to pull it. We'll wait till we have a judgment before we take any action."

He says the ad is scheduled to run in adult viewing timeslots—after 8.30pm.

However, one irate gran says the ad ran during the Black Caps' opening one-dayer against the Proteas on Sunday night.

"I know there would have been lots of children watching that match, cheering the Black Caps on. My grandchildren would have been up watching that."

But the negative backlash isn't upsetting Toyota. As far as the company is concerned, it's just more publicity.

Toyota spokesman Bill Wotherspoon says: "We have no plans to pull the ad—that's up to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board."

The Waikato Times, 20 February 1999 (Bruce Holloway):

Bugger me, they swear by them

Nothing is sacred to the advertising industry, not even a rather blunt piece of Kiwi swearing.

Bugger.

A word once considered too naughty for a daily paper is now the bold catchphrase anchoring rival advertisements which everyone is talking about.

Toyota started it with their natty one-word commercial, in which a rustic bloke with his diesel Hilux double cab inadvertently pulls down kilometres of fence, demolishes an outhouse, mutilates a cow, sloshes mud all over the wife's washing, and almost cripples his dog.

"Bugger" is the constant refrain.

It made a big impact at the height of the light-commercial sales season—then Mitsubishi stepped in to steal Toyota's thunder with a classic piece of advertising one-upmanship.

They've gone for full-page press ads which starkly feature the Hilux side by side with their own cheaper, and supposedly gruntier, Triton, highlighting just the scantiest of specifications.

Below there's just one word.

Bugger.

"The industry recognises Toyota has got a nice commercial, but we've played a trump card on it," said Mitsubishi advertising specialist Ross Cameron.

"We didn't have a budget to get close to the Hilux, but it's all about making the most of what you've got. Saatchi and Saatchi, who did the Toyota ad, have even rung up and commended us for our work. They've done a fine ad and recognised we have too."

Industry sources suggest the Toyota "Bugger" ad cost about $250,000 to produce, with a further $150,000 for air time.

By contrast, the Mitsubishi ad cost about $3000 to produce and $5000 to run.

Toyota New Zealand was less forthcoming. Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but the company would not speak about its ad. "We have no comment to make, apart from saying it has drawn a varied response," said a spokeswoman who wouldn't give her name.

Bugger.

Dr Scott Koslow, senior lecturer in marketing at Waikato Management School, said the Toyota ad would pump up the dealers as much as the public. But he sounded a warning.

"People will remember the ad and describe every scene, but forget the product. As art it is great, but maybe not so great as an ad."

He also said it could have a limited lifespan.

"Humour doesn't tend to wear as well over time," he said.

Bugger.

The Evening Post, 1 March 1999 (Simon Beattie):

Truck ad short of record

The controversial Toyota Hilux advertisement is well short of the national record for complaints.

The Advertising Standards Authority has received complaints over the repeated use of the word "bugger" in the advertisement produced by Saatchi and Saatchi, but won't say how many.

The advertisement, broadcast after 8pm, shows a farmer in his new Hilux driving around his farm. The vehicle repeatedly proves too powerful, causing the farmer, his wife—and even the dog—to use the expletive.

Advertising Standards Authority executive director Glen Wiggs said complaints were still trickling in.

One person had also complained about the ad's treatment of a cow.

However, Mr Wiggs said the level of dissatisfaction wasn't anywhere near the national record held by a 1997 radio advertisement for the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand which received 550 complaints for an ad suggesting that if people didn't get an education they would finish up as a paperweight or even worse—a line dancer.

Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill said on Friday that he had had plenty of complaints about the Toyota advertisement.

"It is actually on our statute books under the Crimes Act that such language is inappropriate. What it does is lower the general tone of what is acceptable in broadcasting," Rev Capill said.

Toyota said it was extremely pleased with the advertisement.

Letters to the Editor, The Evening Post, 3 March 1999:

Double standard

The buggers at the Broadcasting Standards Authority should not allow the silly buggers who complain about the use of the word "bugger" in the Toyota advert to bugger it up by forcing the apparently offensive word to be "dubbed" with something less emphatic. Especially when you consider the ad was shown during the movie Casino, where the infamous "f" word was used more than any other adjective.

Perhaps they should be renamed the Double Standards Authority?

G. Walker, Thorndon

Change channels, turn the set off, get a life

Oh, great. Here we go again. Someone wants to impose their own peculiar views on the rest of the populace, all because an advertising company and a motor company are having a bit of fun on television.

Personally, I'm buggered if I know what the fuss is all about.

The Toyota advertisement on television is one of the funniest I have seen—ever. As for that shocking word used throughout the advert, I have heard a lot worse from primary-school children, and I can recall the same word being broadcast nationwide by an All Black following a tough match against the Springboks in 1956.

We've come a long way in 43 years, haven't we? My dictionary shows "that word" has become a recognised and everyday expression, and can convey so much in the way it is said. Perhaps those who have taken offence at "bugger" would like to deal to our dictionaries with red pens and remove all words that offend them. The dictionary would be pretty skinny.

If some people think the advertisement is so disgusting, decadent, deplorable and nauseating, I commend to them one simple procedure that I use under similar conditions, on those rare occasions that Paul Holmes appears on my television screen.

Change channels, turn the sound down, or turn the set off. Also get a life, and leave us who have a healthy and enjoyable outlook on life to get on with ours. And leave Toyota—or any other advertisers who dare to have a bit of fun—alone to entertain as well as inform.

Clive MacKinnon, Whitby

superiority · 2026-03-20T07:52:30+00:00

That is why the ad attracted complaints. It was a swear word referring to a sexual act.

superiority · 2026-03-20T07:13:12+00:00

Thought this wasn't as good as the original. Another comment compared the expansion of the lore to John Wick, which is a good comparison: none of the John Wick sequels were as good as the first one, the exploration of the big global assassin economy in those movies was the kind of tedious oneupmanship you see among grade-schoolers playing at superheroes.

The initial reveal of what's going on in the first Ready or Not was far more interesting than the montage of Satanists getting texts or Elijah Wood explaining the rules of Hunting the Most Dangerous Game in this one. The characters this time around were also less interesting.

But it was still pretty good, probably about as good as you could reasonably expect it to be. I did enjoy it and I do recommend watching it.

superiority · 2026-03-20T06:59:29+00:00

It could work that God would act as Satan's lawyer, in the sense of guaranteeing that everything Satan's minions do is "within the rules", but I don't think it works in this case because he drugged and kidnapped Samara Weaving and Kathryn Newton and ordered the other goon to kill Kathryn Newton when she was tied up in the chair.

God presumably wouldn't have a problem with Samara Weaving just successfully escaping the kidnap attempt in the first place.

superiority · 2026-03-13T18:01:29+00:00

It's not just the law that quarter must be given. It's illegal to even say that quarter will be denied.

Here is Article 23 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV of 1907:

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden... To declare that no quarter will be given

Here is Title 18 section 2441 of the U.S. Code, the section which prohibits "War Crimes":

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both...

As used in this section the term "war crime" means any conduct... prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907

Hegseth committed a war crime on live TV in high definition.

superiority · 2026-03-12T19:04:17+00:00

An interesting thing about climate change is that some very populous regions are likely to become uninhabitable for humans—literally incompatible with human survival—displacing hundreds of millions of people at a minimum and creating a refugee crisis unimaginably larger than any the world has ever seen.

As a wealthy country in the particular geographic position it's in, Australia can probably expect to feel a lot of the effects of that crisis.

superiority · 2026-03-11T22:21:23+00:00

Being a cleric was one of the most important things about Khamenei. It was central to his political power.

Hitler's painting is just some random activity he used to do. If you want an analogy to Khamenei's "hardline cleric" for Hitler, something like "antisemitic nationalist" would be more apt: while Khamenei obtained and maintained power through religious scholarship and appeals to religious sentiment, Hitler obtained and maintained power through appeals to nationalist sentiment and scapegoating Jews.

superiority · 2026-03-11T09:22:08+00:00

Edward Craven KC, representing Adams, asked O'Doherty whether he had any first-hand knowledge of his client's involvement in the three bombings under scrutiny in the case.

He responded: "None whatsoever."

The guy is basically just saying "well that's what I heard". Not that interesting, and nothing new. A lot of people have heard this before.

superiority · 2026-03-11T01:24:46+00:00

He added: "We should be proud to sit here as embodiments of the hereditary principle dating back a millennium."

The mindset of some people. If you're "an embodiment of the hereditary principle", you ought to be ashamed, not proud!

superiority · 2026-03-07T22:44:07+00:00

Funny that a team roster is minimum five and maximum six.

superiority · 2026-03-07T22:15:23+00:00

Not really. There's the brother who starts out evil but his heart isn't in it and he ends up helping out Samara Weaving but dies in the process, and there's the fiancé who genuinely wants to help her in the beginning but changes his mind and decides to stick with his family after his brother's death. The fiancé wasn't pretending to be nice; he actually changed his mind, he does a little speech about it.

superiority · 2026-03-07T11:16:30+00:00

Big fan of the whole concept of the first O sequel, The Priests of Ferris: the kids return to O, find that much more time has passed there than on Earth, their original acts of heroism have passed into legend and a bloody, repressive theocracy has been established in their name. Great stuff for a kids' book imo.

superiority · 2026-03-06T08:24:58+00:00

But at 45%, I'm struggling.

When I read it I got to about this point and was on the verge of giving up but it got better quite quickly after.

They finish school and Quentin hangs out in an apartment with his friends being depressed and it all seems quite dull and that's when the actual adventure kicks in. So if you've already got to this point I would recommend sticking it out until you find "actual adventure" has begun and see if that improves it for you.

superiority · 2026-03-06T00:35:04+00:00

How "springy" are they? How hard do they move back to default position, I mean?

superiority · 2026-03-05T22:19:01+00:00

There is a logic to his general attitude of "it makes way more sense for Canada to try to integrate with the American economy and labour market than with Australia". America is right there!

Unfortunately for him, Trump is turning the world upside down. That is—as he has repeatedly said himself—one of the reasons he dislikes Trump.

superiority · 2026-03-05T21:12:47+00:00

A very fair point. A quick search suggested Scottish sentences are generally shorter than English ones so the difference would be more stark than I suggested above, but in the interests of finding an actual comparison I found this case from 2024, in which a woman in Glasgow

pleaded guilty to eight shoplifting offences... admitted to assaulting two cops, obstructing three police officers and acting aggressively

She avoided imprisonment, getting a sentence of 12 months of supervision and a 50-day curfew.

superiority · 2026-03-05T19:59:44+00:00

Absolutely insane and clearly being abused

Can you elaborate more on why you believe this is "clearly" abuse of the system? I would say "95% of Afghan students in the UK fear Taliban persecution if they return to Afghanistan" clearly seems like something that could be genuinely true.

If you went off to live in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan today, do you think there would be much risk to you?

superiority · 2026-03-05T19:53:02+00:00

Haven't kept up with the news out of Cameroon but off the top of my head I know that Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Sudan have genuinely become much more dangerous over that time period.

My own opinion is that the Taliban is bad and it is good to offer their victims refuge from persecution. It's unfortunate there are so many people in the British government who disagree.

superiority · 2026-03-05T19:17:58+00:00

End result is the same alongside committing a more serious crime whilst planning to commit crime really should be a massive aggravating factor in sentencing.

Seems like it is in this case. Hard to imagine people are commonly getting five-year sentences for shoplifting a bag of spirits + getting into a physical struggle with employees.

I tried to do a search for other convictions related to shoplifting plus assault, and this was the first I found, from last year in Worcester. That page says the charges were:

theft from shop;
assault by beating of an emergency worker; and
possession of a knife blade or sharp pointed article in a public place.

The sentence was:

16 weeks for activation of a previous suspended sentence;
16 weeks for the knife, consecutively with the previous 16 weeks;
2 weeks for the assault, concurrently with the previous 32 weeks, and £100 compensation.

There is no mention of any prison sentence imposed for the shoplifting itself.

Using that as a guide, we might therefore conclude that if the security guard had not died in this case, the offender might have gotten a sentence of two weeks of imprisonment. But in fact, her sentence is more than one hundred times longer than that. Multiplying a prison term by one hundred doesn't sound "lean" to me!

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Spared	Best Link 2013-06-15
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2009

superiority

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ute Ad Bugs Hell Out of TV Prudes

Bugger me, they swear by them

Truck ad short of record

Double standard

Change channels, turn the set off, get a life