I’ve used chatGPT for a while.
It’s interesting to use when you’re looking for random ideas or work arounds for working with Raspberry Pis or other electronics issues. When it comes to mathematics and electronics theory that’s where chat shines for me.
Chat also seems to be able to reason and learn, but in very limited means.
When I was working on a blog posting a while ago, just for shits ‘n’ giggles I asked chat if someone who was sexually abused on a Canadian military base prior to 1998 could bring charges against their abuser today.
Chat replied that yes, this was possible, Canada has no statute of limitation on criminal code offences.
So, I fed Chat the entire 1970 National Defence Act.
I asked Chat the same question again.
Chat then replied that the Canadian Armed Forces had a 3-year-time-bar on Criminal Code offences, but people who were sexually abused on base prior to 1998 could still get justice as the Canadian Forces were prohibited from conducting service tribunals for Murder, Manslaughter, or Rape.
I then fed chat the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada.
I asked Chat again, could a person today that was sexually abused as a 8 year old child on a defence establishment prior to 1985 (the year rape was removed from the criminal code) by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, bring charges against their abuser.
Chat replied that it did not appear so as the crime of Rape was a very specific charge that could not be applied to cases involving girls under the age of 16.
I asked Chat what crimes could apply, Chat listed off:
Sexual intercourse with female 14 to 16
Sexual intercourse with female under 14
Sexual intercourse with step daughter
Sexual intercourse with foster child or ward
Incest.
(Notice how Chat seems to be assuming that only females can be victims of sexual assault)
I then asked Chat what the most disturbing thing related to the criminal code offence of Rape was. Chat replied that a husband could never be charged with raping his wife (true).
I then asked Chat what the most disturbing thing was related to the criminal code charge of Sexual Intercourse with Female under the age of 14 was. Chat replied that this charge didn’t apply to anyone if the female under the age of 14 was their wife.(again true)
It should be noted that when the criminal code refers to an age like “under 14” it means that person’s 14th birthday. The charge of “Sexual intercourse with female 14 to 16” meant sexual intercourse with a female from the day she turned 14 until the day she turned 16. Sexual intercourse with female under 14 meant sexual intercourse with any female up to the day she turned 14.
I asked chat if this meant that the Canadian Armed Forces could conduct a service tribunal (courts martial) for these crimes. Chat replied that the Canadian Forces were only barred from conducting service tribunals for Murder, Manslaughter, and Rape.
I then asked Chat how likely it was if an investigation was undertaken prior to 1998 for charges laid by the military police or the CFSIU to just simply vanish?
Chat said that this was very unlikely as the provincial crown prosecutor would be approving criminal code charges and unless there was a lack of evidence, the crown prosecutors didn’t simply dismiss charges.
I fed Chat a copy of Legislative Summary LS-311E(1998) and Bill C-25(1998) and asked Chat to digest both documents.
I asked Chat again, who decided if criminal code charges could proceed or if they’d be dismissed. Chat replied that it was the commanding officer of the accused.
I asked Chat if the Crown Prosecutor ever had any say on Code of Service Discipline matters. Chat replied that there was no mechanism for the crown prosecutor to be involved.
I asked Chat if service offences also included all criminal code offences, Chat replied that yes, according to the 1970 National Defence Act, the 1985 National Defence Act, Bill C-25(1998) and LS-311E(1998) service offences also included all criminal code offences.
I then asked Chat, could a commanding office dismiss any murder charge, and manslaughter charge, or any rape charge that had been brought against their subordinate prior to 1998.
Chat replied that there was no language in the National Defence Acts prior to 1998 to prevent this that LS-311E(1998) made it very clear that the commanding officer could dismiss all charges including charges that were purely civilian in nature.
I then asked Chat why it replied to me the way that it did when I first asked it about the ability of someone to lay charges against their abuser.
Chat replied that it can only base its answers on official documents that it has been trained upon. And these official documents it is trained on come from data that the foundation that oversees ChatGPT has approved.
When I asked it my original question, Chat was basing its responses on the current Criminal Code of Canada that was in effect when the training model was put together as well as the current National Defence Act that was in effect when the current training model was assembled.
Chat had no access to the 1970 National Defence Act, nor did it have access to the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada, the 1970 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the original 1985 Criminal Code of Canada, Bill C-25(1998) or Legislative Summary LS-311E(1998) authored by government lawyer David Goetz. Even though I was asking questions about a very specific period of time, Chat could only reason by using the data that it had been given. It’s not going to go trolling the internet to discover new models to train itself off of.
Disappointing though was the answer that I received when I asked Chat if it could use the information that I had just given it when other people ask about civilians and criminal code issues prior to 19980.
Chat replied that the documents that I gave to it cannot be verified for authenticity as they are not part of the learning model. Chat said that it treats any document that is given to it by any user them same way. Chat said that as long as as I am a registered user and my account is active, then it will remember these documents and take them into consideration when formulating responses to my questions, but that the documents and the responses they provide are only for use in my account and will never be accessible to any other user unless they input the same documents.
I asked Chat if there was any way for the Foundation overseeing chat to be asked to include these types of documents in its learning models. Not really. The Foundation avoids all outside influence. And so the truth dies on the hill of nobility.
Beeshive 