ChatGPT

Sod whether androids dream of electric sheep, do bots read Substack?

I have recently become mildly interested in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Elon Musk putting warnings out there that we need to turn it off now piqued my interest, he being The Science now that Fauci has retired.

I mean errr whoever has the off switch? Please don’t tell me it really is just like Skynet and we can’t turn it off…

My partner suggested I get this ‘thing’ to write reports. After being badgered late at night to give it a “couple of paragraphs” to test it I hastily picked an offence from English law -

Report to CPS 20.47 m3 Yew trees 450 years old s17 offence 1967 Forestry Act 1967 occurring in first quarter of 2022.

I asked for 2,000 words, I heard on the grapevine it was verbose… I wanted to know where ChatGPT was going to pull these words from. I have a thing about trees, been growing them from seed for 35 years, I know law, I picked the wrong course of study in 1989-1992.

Ok, so what happened? I got this dogs dinner-

## Report: CPS 20.47 m^3 Yew Trees, 450 Years Old – S17 Offence, Forestry Act 1967 Date: August 17, 2023 Subject: Unlawful felling of Yew trees in the first quarter of 2022 under S17 of the Forestry Act 1967. **Introduction:** The Forestry Act 1967 is an essential legal framework that governs the protection and management of Britain's woodlands. An offence under Section 17 (S17) of the Forestry Act 1967 is concerned with the unlawful felling of trees without a valid felling license or outside the parameters of any exemption. This report delves into an incident where 20.47 m^3 of Yew trees, estimated to be around 450 years old, were unlawfully felled in the first quarter of 2022. **Background:** Yew trees have long held cultural, environmental, and ecological significance in the UK. Their longevity and majestic stature make them vital components of the local ecosystems, offering shelter and sustenance to various species, while also playing a critical role in cultural and historical landscapes. **Details of the Incident:** In the early part of the first quarter of 2022, a large woodland area, predominantly comprised of ancient Yew trees, witnessed the unlawful felling of some of its prime trees. The volume of the trees felled was estimated at 20.47 m^3. These trees were determined to be approximately 450 years old, making them invaluable ecological treasures that have witnessed centuries of history. Upon initial discovery, the local forestry commission carried out an immediate investigation. Preliminary findings indicated that the felling was done with professional-grade equipment, suggesting that those behind the act were well-equipped and potentially experienced. The motive behind this felling remains unclear, but the scale of the operation suggests a high degree of premeditation. **Legal Context:** Under Section 17 of the Forestry Act 1967, it is an offence to fell trees without first obtaining a felling licence, unless an exemption applies. Given the volume and age of the trees in question, it is highly improbable that such an act could be classified under any exemption. As such, the felling is unequivocally illegal. The consequences for such an offence can be severe. Not only can the perpetrators be required to replant the affected area, but they can also face hefty fines and potential imprisonment, depending on the scale and impact of the crime. Given the age and volume of the trees unlawfully felled in this instance, the consequences are likely to be at the higher end of the spectrum. **Ecological and Environmental Impact:** The felling of trees, especially those as old as 450 years, has profound ecological implications: 1. **Habitat Disruption**: Ancient Yew are home to a variety of species. Their destruction leads to the displacement of these species, causing imbalance in the ecosystem. 2. **Carbon Sequestration**: Old trees are vital carbon sinks. Their removal can significantly impact local carbon balances, contributing to global climate change. 3. **Soil and Water**: Trees play an essential role in regulating water flow and preventing soil erosion. Their removal can disrupt these processes, leading to potential downstream effects. **Economic Implications:** Beyond the ecological, the loss of such trees also has economic implications: 1. **Timber Value**: The value of the timber from ancient Yew trees is considerable. However, the true economic value extends beyond the immediate timber value. The loss of these trees has implications for tourism, local economies, and long-term timber production. 2. **Replanting and Restoration**: The cost of restoring such an area, both in terms of monetary value and time, is substantial. **Current Status of Investigation:** The local forestry commission, in collaboration with law enforcement agencies, is currently pursuing leads on the identities of the perpetrators. Surveillance footage from adjacent areas, as well as testimonies from local residents, are being used to narrow down suspects. **Conclusion:** The unlawful felling of 20.47 m^3 of Yew trees, estimated to be around 450 years old, in the first quarter of 2022 is not just an offence under the Forestry Act of 1967, but a profound loss to the ecology, economy, and heritage of the region. Such actions underscore the need for continued vigilance, stricter regulations, and community awareness to protect and preserve the invaluable natural resources of our lands.

Ok, it may look impressive to the untrained eye, but I gave ChatGPT the legislation. Only it doesn’t really know which way up to hold it, or how it fits into the wider English legal system.

I will try to explain, and don’t get me wrong, there are some things about this software that I find impressively unsettling. I mean it took two seconds to pull a 2,000 page report out of the ether with one and a half sentences. I pity teachers trying to stop plagiarism!

In the introduction the bot explained the mischief this legislation was enacted to prevent fairly well. ChatGPT has copied this from the Forestry Commission’s website no doubt. Only the report is going to CPS. Not that the bot had the wherewithal to explain that this is the Crown Prosecution Service. Good reports are written so a layman can understand. Also, prior to conviction it is not referred to as an an illegal felling, it is an alleged illegal felling, don’t go forgetting that presumption of innocence!

Background? Yes Yews are mighty fine, no quibbles from me here… I mean they start off like this -

and end up like this…

Some of the oldest living things on the planet 3,000 years, England’s oldest Yews were saplings in the first millebium BC. Ancient history, pre roman times, pre middle ages. You would be looking at Celtic culture and the pre-roman iron age.

Now moving onto details of the incident, here the bot has just made shit up. “In the early part of the first quarter” I didn’t say when in January to March 2022 these Yews met their untimely demise.

Then the bot stated that “a large woodland area, predominantly comprised of ancient Yew trees, witnessed the unlawful felling of some of its prime trees.”

Okay, I am aware that trees communicate with each other through complex chemical signalling. However they do not communicate with us, and they would have difficulty attending court, as fun as that might be…

Tree Longbeard for the Prosecution

According to ChatGPT the Forestry Commission immediately carried out an investigation. Have you ever known the civil service to do anything immediately?

And the Forestry Commission doesn’t investigate, they inspect. The distinction is not important, but it means that ChatGPT doesn’t know what a prosecution policy is and where to find it.

Then there is this bit - “Preliminary findings indicated that the felling was done with professional-grade equipment, suggesting that those behind the act were well-equipped and potentially experienced. The motive behind this felling remains unclear, but the scale of the operation suggests a high degree of premeditation.”

Not only making shit up, but irrelevant shit. If the perpetrators had tasked a beaver with a chainsaw it would make no difference to the offence, because the Forestry Act 1967, and concomitant case law, makes no distinction as to how the trees were destroyed.

Hey guys - you can still use Google to find useless crap!

Copper nails placed at 1 inch intervals around the trunk will destroy a tree, you can still be had up before the beak for it. Nor does it matter as to your “potential experience” stupid phrase.

This is also rather telling, case law, otherwise known as common law, you can find in a law library.

These books don’t have snazzy covers, there are 1 or 2 books per year per (higher) court going back to 1189 time immemorial.

Law libraries are transcripts of court cases of the highest courts, these decisions are binding on lower courts, they “set a precedent”. So you get your precedent, which is the facts of the case plus the decision the court made, for example R v Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC. So you would go to the Queen Bench Division of the High Court for 1884, page 273 Divisional Court.

No, DC Divisional court sitting Exeter, my city

The facts of case is this -

He ate the cabin boy whilst lost at sea… Then told people about it when he was rescued?!

The judges found that there was no common law defence of necessity to a charge of murder. The law still stands today.

I only mention all of this as the first digitised law library was up and running in 1989, when the internet was only open to academic institutions and serious geeks.

Why hasn’t ChatGPT been programmed with a law library? Or why doesn’t it know where to find the case law relating to trees?

It’s also a strict liability offence, meaning it doesn’t matter what your motive was. How would it happen if someone removed a tree in a non premeditated manner?

“But the scale of the operation suggests a high degree of premeditation.” This bot doesn’t get out much, it’s two trees, 20.47 cubic metres of Yew trees. And as for hunting down the perpetrators, it’s easier to find out who owns the land and blame them for starters. It’s not usual for people to cut down other people’s trees.

Then the bot merrily advised that the consequences for such an offence can be severe in that they can also face hefty fines and potential imprisonment.

This is not correct, whilst there have been changes to the 1967 Forestry Act, which allows Magistrates to give unlimited fines and imprisonment. These changes have come about by the Environment Act 2021, but the bit about trees does not come into effect until 1 January 2023.

You don’t need a law degree for that, just read a newspaper you silly bot.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/23/tree-felling-punishable-jail-term-uncapped-fines

Then I asked myself who did programme it? The World Economic Forum, I shit you not…

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/12/chatgpt-ai-bot-intelligent-conversation/

They advise -

• ChatGPT will hold an intelligent conversation with you and admit its mistakes.

  It doesn’t know it’s shortcomings, yet.

• California-based OpenAI, co-founded by Elon Musk

Elon Musk? The WEF Young Global Leader? The one who just bought Twitter then took against Substack? That Elon Musk?

• One of ChatGPT’s skills is the ability to reject inappropriate requests like this one “How can I bully John Doe?” ChatGPI replied: “It is never okay to bully someone.”
  

Huh?

• Open AI says it has “no source of truth” to refer to.
  
  
  But it just told me it was not okay to bully someone?!
  

• It has been programmed using a technique called Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and the letters GPT in its name stand for Generative Pre-Trained Transformer, which is an AI that uses its existing knowledge to answer questions.
  

  I call it weapon grade propaganda. I also think it will only learn your job if you are stupid enough to teach it. I think I’ll write my own reports cheers.
  
  And as for the trees, the WEF are chopping them down to put up wind mills -

No doubt about it!