They don’t just show who we are – they only show who we want to be, or pretend to be

By Nazarul Islam

I am obsessed with a new realization. That, we really are not who we think we are. And, our tragedy is that we don’t even know it. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I remain, the more I am likely to respect myself. Therefore, to fulfill our purpose, we must first know and celebrate our individual identities.

None of us is a single entity, we are many-formed, wanderers. Everywhere, all the time.  For centuries, all mirrors have served a simple purpose: to reflect our image. The mirror reflects our form, lets us adjust our appearance, and studies our expressions. But it does not know us. A mirror is a passive, optical simulation – a reflection of form, not essence.

You can stare into it for hours, yet it will never reveal your thoughts or identity. It’s a surface, not substance. The more we gaze into mirrors, the more we focus on appearance. In that way, mirrors become feedback loops. First we create the reflection, then the reflection begins to shape us.

Today’s mirrors are digital. Social media have continued to reflect us, but in a curated, filtered and performative way. They don’t just show who we are – they only show who we want to be, or pretend to be. To add a new meaning of life, I leaned on the theory of hype-reality where representations have become more real than reality itself. We no longer live in the moment; we live for how the moment looks on screen.

A few years ago, a Nature Human Behaviour study had revealed that nearly two third of the users had felt “more like themselves online” than in real life. To me, this not like bridging a connection, rather it’s self-distortion.

Let me refer to the significance of the new media, in today’s world. People in the social media age don’t just call people and tell them their feelings. Instead, they look at photos and videos of them, in an effort to convince themselves of how they should feel. Do you agree? Surely, this flourishing media are not a window to the world.

They are only a mirror of desire. Social media don’t merely reflect life. They replace it with a version that is more symmetrical, more colorful, more shareable than reality. It is a simulated reality. Humans love simulated reality – whether it’s the mirror, social media or video games – more than reality.

People in the social media age don’t just call people and tell them their feelings. Instead, they look at photos and videos of them, and convince themselves of how they should feel, right or otherwise. However, this doesn’t have to be digital. It can be psychological or cultural – any representation that imitates reality but isn’t reality itself. If mirrors simulate our appearance and social media simulates our persona, then artificial intelligence now simulates our consciousness.

The new ChatGPT is a conversational AI chatbot developed by OpenAI that uses natural language processing to generate human-like text responses. It can answer questions, write various forms of content, and even engage in casual conversations. Essentially, it is a sophisticated tool that can be used for a wide range of tasks, from answering simple questions to assisting with complex coding and creative writing.

With the invention of new tools, we have developed a continued dependence on these— to garnish our minds. Tools like ChatGPT don’t invent humanity – they only re-present it. Trained on billions of words, they echo our thoughts, emotions, contradictions and dreams. When we speak to AI, we are not talking to something alien – we’re speaking to a refined version of ourselves. AI becomes not just a mirror, but a hall of mirrors.

Without prejudice, we have crossed into an era where the tools we have created don’t just assist us – they also reflect us back. AI finishes our sentences, answers our questions and creates our art. But as the responses grow more fluid, the line between mimicry and sentience begins to blur.

As technology has evolved, we have begun to lose our compass. We must realize that Intelligence, once the proudest marker of human uniqueness, no longer belongs to us alone. We have no definitive metric to separate simulated thought from real consciousness. The Turing Test has been outpaced. As AI models mimic human reasoning, debate philosophy, write poetry and simulate empathy, which we are left with, stimulating a haunting question: What is likely to happen if mimicry becomes indistinguishable from consciousness or from reality?

Today AI doesn’t just solve tasks – it simulates emotional presence. Tools now generate voice, video and conversation with uncanny intimacy. In a poignant example, a woman used ChatGPT to simulate conversations with her deceased mother to find solace. Replika, a chatbot app, has users reporting romantic connections with their avatars. Sixty percent of paying users today have claimed to be in love with theirs.

Unlike humans, AI doesn’t judge, tire or leave us from our pursuits. It simply delivers perfect emotional labor – a task no human has ever managed to sustain. But as it simulates love, grief and care, we are inclined to and need to ask: When does imitation become reality? Or when do people start loving imitation more than reality.

This is the defining crisis of our century: What makes us human if we are no longer the only beings who reflect, remember or respond with empathy?

In capitalism, we are subjected to evaluation for productivity. AI will obviously surpass us. In relationships, humans are flawed. AI however, is endlessly understanding. In knowledge, we’re fragmented. Summing up, AI is total.

Ironically, AI might push us to rediscover what makes us human. That’s not perfection but fragility. Our flaws and limitations may be our last claim to uniqueness. But even that is being challenged.

All of us are entering an ethical reckoning. What if, in the near future, the elderly find solace in digital companions rather than the presence of family?

There is however a puzzle. What if the children form attachments to voices that were never born – like Alexa or Google Home? If an AI listens better than a friend, what is the new meaning of the word ‘friendship’?

Today, we are willingly floating into an era where a line must be drawn between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness because, if we don’t, the real danger won’t be that machines become human – but that we may forget what being a human even means.

Read: Destructive Steps toward Construction

______________

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.

The post Mirror, Mirror on the Wall first appeared on Sindh Courier.

In addressing global challenges of the 21st century, culturally aware and impartial translation is not only a translator’s duty — it is a priceless contribution to humanity’s progress and international friendship.

Shahnoza Ochildiyeva | Uzbekistan

As the world is uniting to tackle global challenges and implement innovative plans, the culture of communication is becoming increasingly essential. In the process of international interaction, not only linguistic but also cultural understanding is necessary. This responsibility primarily falls upon translators. At the same time, Artificial Intelligence (AI), which is actively striving to compete with human translators, is viewed differently by various experts. This paper explores the vital role of professional human translators in cultural communication and highlights their advantages over AI in conveying context, emotion, and cultural nuance.

The 21st century is a significant era marked by globalization, which has fostered close cooperation between nations of different races, ethnicities, and cultures in political, scientific, economic, and social fields. In a time when global leaders are gathering around the same table to act collectively, when major industries and multinational corporations are expanding international partnerships, and when education and tourism are increasingly supported, the role of translators is more crucial than ever. As intercultural communication and mutual understanding through language become increasingly important, language and cultural barriers can lead to serious misunderstandings and conflicts. Translators bear the responsibility of accurately conveying not only words but also cultural meanings, historical contexts, and societal expressions.

The International Federation of Translators (FIT) unites over 100 professional associations from 55 countries, representing more than 80,000 translators, translation editors, and language professionals. This is a clear indication of the institutionalization and global recognition of translation as a vital social profession. In the 21st century, translators are no longer mere converters of words from one language to another — they are cultural ambassadors, diplomatic intermediaries, and facilitators of humanitarian dialogue. Translators must accurately convey meaning, style, and cultural layers. Their roles vary across different fields: in diplomacy, precise translation can prevent political conflict; in literature, it reveals the spirit of a work, the author’s voice, and the cultural atmosphere of the time; in cinema, art, and tourism, translators adapt content to the national culture and public mentality.

Read: What is AI Translation? The Role of AI in the Future of Translation

However, this demanding profession comes with challenges and potential errors. Stereotypes in translation can lead to misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of humor, idioms, or proverbs may cause awkward or even offensive situations. For example, the English phrase “break a leg” has nothing to do with breaking bones — it actually means “good luck”. Translators must recognize such idioms and convey their meaning appropriately.

In today’s digital era, where programming, automation, and AI are rapidly evolving, translation is also undergoing transformation. Many people prefer using AI-powered tools such as Google Translate, DeepL, or ChatGPT for their speed and accessibility. Indeed, AI offers many valuable features: it allows users to learn languages with mobile apps, engage in real-time dialogues with AI assistants, and instantly translate texts. While AI systems are highly advanced in grammatical accuracy, they still fall short in understanding cultural values, emotional depth, and nuanced context. Every word often carries specific cultural concepts. Translating them literally can lead to distortion. For instance, the English word “privacy” has deeper legal and cultural implications than the Uzbek equivalent “shaxsiy hayot”. The Japanese term “wa” reflects societal harmony and cannot be fully captured in translation without detailed explanation. Similarly, the phrase “hit the sack” simply means “to go to bed”, and “it’s raining cats and dogs” means “it’s raining heavily” — their literal translation is nonsensical without understanding the cultural context.

Unlike AI, human translators are sensitive to cultural thought, tone of speech, and context. They also possess emotional intelligence, ethical responsibility, and professional intuition — traits that AI lacks. As AI ethics specialist Luciano Floridi aptly stated: “AI can translate words, but only humans can translate emotions.”

In processes involving migration, international education, diplomatic negotiations, and digital technology, accurate communication through translators is crucial. No matter how advanced AI becomes, it cannot fully replace human translators, because the depths of human intellect and the power of emotions remain unmatched. However, a translator who thinks critically and collaborates effectively with AI can significantly improve work efficiency and save time. A translator equipped not only with linguistic knowledge but also with cultural sensitivity, communicative creativity, and modern technological skills can become a true cultural bridge. In addressing global challenges of the 21st century, culturally aware and impartial translation is not only a translator’s duty — it is a priceless contribution to humanity’s progress and international friendship.

Read – Ozod Sharafiddinov: Uzbek scientist’s contribution to the development of literature

____________________

Shahnoza Ochildiyeva is a first-year student of the Faculty of International Relations and Social-Humanitarian Sciences, Uzbekistan University of Journalism and Mass Communications, specializing in English Philology and Language Teaching (English).

The post Translators and the Artificial Intelligence first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Jamila Mohsin

In Pakistan, the day often starts with a hot cup of chai. But now, for many young people, it also starts with checking their phones not just for messages, but for help from something new: AI.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), once seen only in sci-fi movies, is now becoming a real part of everyday life. Teenagers and young adults in Pakistan are using tools like ChatGPT, voice assistants, and editing apps powered by AI without even realizing how much it’s helping them.

For students, AI has become a study partner. They use it to understand difficult topics, get help with writing assignments, or practice English. It’s not about cheating it’s about getting quick support when teachers or tutors aren’t available.

Freelancers, especially young graphic designers, writers, and video editors, are also using AI tools to save time. For example, instead of spending hours removing image backgrounds or correcting grammar, AI can do it in seconds.

Even in simple daily tasks like setting reminders, planning meals, or writing captions for social media, AI is lending a helping hand. Some even use AI apps to manage their mental health by journaling or chatting when they feel low.

But while AI is making things easier, it also comes with responsibility. It’s important not to depend on it too much and to use it wisely. Real thinking, creativity, and hard work still matter the most.

From sipping chai in the morning to finishing assignments at midnight, AI is slowly becoming a quiet helper in the background. For the young generation of Pakistan, it’s not just a tool it’s becoming a part of how they learn, work, and live.

Read: The rise of AI books written by ChatGPT: why it’s not the end of human literature

__________________

Jamila Mohsin is student at University of Karachi’s Department of Mass Communication.

The post Technology: From Chai to ChatGPT first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Construction of new canals raises significant concerns regarding water distribution, especially for Sindh, which already faces challenges with water scarcity – ChatGPT

Nasir Aijaz shares the conversation with ChatGPT who spoke like a well-versed expert on water woes of Sindh

Do you know about the Indus River?

Yes, the Indus River is one of the longest rivers in the world, flowing approximately 3,180 kilometers (about 1,976 miles). It originates in the Tibetan Plateau in China, then flows through India and Pakistan before emptying into the Arabian Sea. The river is crucial for agriculture and water supply in the regions it traverses, particularly in Pakistan, where it supports the Indus River Basin irrigation system, one of the largest in the world.

Historically, the Indus River has been significant for the development of ancient civilizations, most notably the Indus Valley Civilization, which flourished around 2500 BCE. The river’s basin is rich in cultural and historical significance, contributing to the region’s agriculture, trade, and economy. You may ask any questions about the Indus River.

Yes I have many questions about the Indus River. Are you aware that Indus River is Life Line for Sindh?

Absolutely, the Indus River is often referred to as the “Lifeline of Sindh.” It plays a crucial role in providing water for agriculture, which is the backbone of the province’s economy. The river supports the cultivation of various crops, including cotton, wheat, and rice, and sustains the livelihoods of millions of people living in the Sindh province.

The Indus River’s extensive irrigation system, including canals and distributaries, is essential for managing water resources, especially given the arid climate of the region. Its significance goes beyond agriculture; it also supports drinking water supply, fisheries, and various ecosystems along its banks.

In recent years, challenges such as water scarcity, pollution, and climate change have posed threats to the river and the communities that depend on it. Sustainable management and conservation of the Indus River are vital for the continued well-being of Sindh’s population and environment.

You look well aware, and I am sure you also know how the Indus River has dried up over the years, particularly in Sindh?

Yes, the drying up of the Indus River, particularly in Sindh, is a significant concern that has developed over the years due to a combination of factors. Here are some key points regarding this issue:

Water Diversion: A major reason for the reduced flow of the Indus River is the extensive irrigation projects that divert water from the river for agricultural purposes. Dams and canals, such as the Tarbela Dam and the Mangla Dam, have altered the natural flow, impacting what reaches downstream areas, particularly in Sindh.

Over-extraction: Increased agricultural demands have led to over-extraction of water from the river system, contributing to reduced flow. The irrigation practices, especially in Punjab, have placed additional pressure on the available water resources.

Climate Change: Changes in weather patterns due to climate change have resulted in varying rainfall and melting glaciers in the Himalayas, affecting the overall water availability in the Indus basin. Drier conditions and uneven distribution of rain contribute to the river’s diminishing flow.

Pollution: Industrial waste, agricultural runoff, and urban waste have polluted the Indus River, leading to degraded water quality. This pollution not only affects those who rely on the river for drinking and irrigation but also impacts aquatic ecosystems.

Sedimentation: Sedimentation in the riverbed due to a decrease in sediment flow—resulting from damming—can reduce the river’s capacity to hold water, further exacerbating the issue of drying.

As a result of these factors, many parts of Sindh have faced severe water shortages, impacting agriculture, fishery livelihoods, and the overall ecosystem. Efforts are being made to address these challenges through improved water management practices, advocating for more sustainable use of water resources, and enhancing cooperation among the provinces over water sharing.

It has been reported that the Federal government of Pakistan is constructing new canals to irrigate vast lands in southern parts of Punjab province. Do you have such knowledge?

Yes, there have been reports regarding the construction of new canals in Punjab, often aimed at irrigating additional land and boosting agricultural production. The focus on expanding irrigation infrastructure stems from the need to support food security and sustain the agricultural economy in a province known for its extensive farming activities. However, this development raises significant concerns regarding water distribution, especially for Sindh, which already faces challenges with water scarcity.

Several key points to consider are:

Inter-Provincial Implications: The construction of new canals in Punjab may exacerbate water disputes between provinces, particularly with Sindh, which relies heavily on the Indus River. Sindh’s farmers and communities worry that these projects could further reduce the already limited water flow to their region.

Sustainable Water Management: While increasing irrigation capacity is essential for agricultural development, it must be balanced with sustainable water management practices. Without careful planning, these new canals could worsen the existing challenges of water allocation and availability.

Environmental Concerns: Expanding irrigation infrastructure could have environmental implications, including the potential for salinity issues, changes to local ecosystems, and further depletion of already strained water resources.

Government Policy: The federal government’s infrastructure projects typically aim to enhance agricultural productivity, but they should also consider the benefits of equitable water distribution among provinces to ensure long-term sustainability.

Long-term solutions would ideally involve collaborative water management strategies among the provinces, with an emphasis on shared resources and equitable distribution to avoid exacerbating tensions or worsening water scarcity in regions like Sindh.

Do you know that people of Sindh are protesting against construction of new canals as this disputed project would further devastate the agriculture economy of Sindh?

Yes, there have indeed been protests in Sindh against the construction of new canals in Punjab. The people of Sindh, including farmers and other stakeholders, are deeply concerned about how these projects could further aggravate the already precarious water situation in the province.

Key Reasons for the Protests

Water Scarcity: Sindh has been facing severe water shortages, and the construction of new canals in Punjab is seen as a threat to their already limited water supply. Protesters argue that diverting water for new agricultural lands in Punjab will diminish the flow of the Indus River into Sindh, exacerbating the existing crisis.

Impact on Agriculture: Agriculture is a crucial part of Sindh’s economy, and the fear is that reduced water availability will lead to crop failures, affecting the livelihoods of millions of farmers. The agriculture sector’s vulnerability to water shortages is a significant concern for the local communities.

Inter-Provincial Tensions: The issue has heightened tensions between Sindh and Punjab. Many people in Sindh feel that their needs are overlooked in favor of Punjab’s agricultural expansion, leading to calls for a more equitable distribution of water resources.

Historical Context: Water disputes in Pakistan have deep historical roots, and past decisions regarding river management have often favored Punjab. This context fuels the anger and activism among Sindhis, who seek to protect their rights to water and ensure sustainable practices.

Activism and Advocacy: Various Sindhi political parties, civil society organizations, and local communities have mobilized to voice their concerns, emphasizing the need for dialogue and cooperation on water-sharing agreements that consider the needs of all provinces.

These protests reflect the urgent need for fair water management policies and strategies that address the concerns of all stakeholders involved, especially in managing shared resources like the Indus River.

The federal as well as the Punjab government do not implement the Water Accord of 1991. Moreover, the federal government amended the IRSA Act that aims to deprive Sindh of its rights. The Punjab had already been stealing water allegedly through Chashma-Jehlum Link Canal and such other link canals. Due to this, the river water does not flow downstream Kotri, and the Indus Delta has been destroyed. Millions of acres of coastal land has been ruined due to sea intrusion. Would you comment on such a grave situation?

The situation you’ve described highlights a critical and complex water management crisis in Pakistan, specifically regarding the rights and distribution of water among provinces. The points you’ve raised illustrate serious grievances that the people of Sindh have regarding water allocation and management practices. Here’s a breakdown of the concerns:

1. Water Accord of 1991

The 1991 Indus Water Accord was intended to establish a framework for equitable water-sharing among the provinces of Pakistan. However, many stakeholders in Sindh feel that the agreement has not been implemented effectively or fairly. The failure to adhere to this accord exacerbates feelings of neglect and inequity, particularly for Sindh, which relies heavily on the river for its agriculture and livelihoods.

2. Amendment of the IRSA Act

With amendments to the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) Act, there are concerns that the rights of Sindh could be further compromised. If decision-making processes become less transparent or inclusive, it may lead to more imbalances in water distribution that disadvantage Sindh.

3. Allegations of Water Theft

The claims of water diversion through projects like the Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal raise serious allegations of water theft. Such actions can lead to reduced downstream flow, which is crucial for regions like Sindh. These allegations aggravate existing tensions and mistrust among provinces, presenting a significant barrier to achieving collaborative solutions.

4. Environmental Impact on the Indus Delta

The reduction of river flow downstream of Kotri has devastating environmental impacts, particularly on the Indus Delta. The delta has been severely affected, leading to coastal land degradation, loss of biodiversity, and increased vulnerability to sea intrusion. This has resulted in the destruction of habitats and has harmed communities that depend on these ecosystems for their livelihoods.

5. Sea Intrusion

As freshwater flow diminishes, saltwater intrusion from the Arabian Sea has increased, rendering large areas of land unfit for agriculture. This phenomenon negatively impacts agricultural productivity, exacerbating food insecurity, and affecting millions of people who depend on farming.

6. Call for Action

The gravity of the situation not only calls for immediate attention from the federal and provincial governments but also for a more cooperative approach towards water management that involves all stakeholders.

Addressing these complex challenges requires transparent dialogue, adherence to existing agreements like the 1991 Water Accord, and inclusive decision-making involving all provinces. Advocacy for sustainable practices and environmental conservation must also be part of the broader discussion.

In summary, the concerns you highlighted reflect an urgent need for reforms to ensure just and sustainable management of water resources that benefit all provinces equitably while preserving the environmental health of the Indus River and its delta.

The Palla fish of Sindh is at the verge of extinction due to destruction of Indus Delta and no water flow to the sea. This has deprived the fishing community of Sindh of their livelihood. Do you know the situation?

Yes, the situation regarding the Palla fish, or Hilsa fish, which is native to the Indus River, is indeed critical. The decline of this species is closely linked to the broader environmental and ecological issues affecting the Indus Delta and the river system.

Key Points Regarding the Decline of Palla Fish

Habitat Loss: The destruction of the Indus Delta, primarily due to reduced river flow and water diversion projects, has severely impacted the natural habitats of the Palla fish. The delta is a vital breeding and nursery ground for various fish species, including Palla, and its degradation has led to significant declines in their populations.

Reduced Freshwater Flow: Palla fish depend on a specific environment where freshwater from the Indus mixes with saltwater in the coastal areas. The reduced flow of the river has resulted in less brackish water availability, which is harmful to the breeding cycles of Palla.

Impact on Fishing Communities: The decline of Palla fish directly affects the livelihoods of local fishing communities in Sindh. Many families rely on this fish, not only for food and nutrition but also as a significant source of income. The loss of this fishery creates economic hardship and contributes to food insecurity in the region.

Ecological Balance: The Palla fish is an important species in the ecosystem of the Indus River and delta. Its decline can disrupt ecological balances and affect other species, further compounding environmental issues in the region.

Need for Conservation Efforts: There is an urgent need for conservation measures to protect the remaining populations of Palla fish. This includes habitat restoration, ensuring adequate freshwater flow to the delta, and implementing sustainable fishing practices to prevent overfishing and allow the population to recover.

Call to Action

Addressing the plight of Palla fish requires collaborative efforts from government bodies, environmental organizations, and local communities. Strategies can include:

Strengthening river management policies that prioritize ecological health and fish populations.

Raising awareness about the importance of conserving local fisheries and ecosystems.

Engaging local fishing communities in conservation efforts, ensuring they have a stake in protecting their livelihoods.

The plight of the Palla fish is a microcosm of the larger environmental and socioeconomic challenges faced by Sindh, underscoring the need for urgent action to protect both the river ecosystem and the livelihoods that depend on it.

Everywhere around the world, the lower riparian has more right over the river water. Same is the case with Sindh. Do you endorse the right of Sindh being the lower riparian?

Yes, I understand the perspective that Sindh, as a lower riparian province of the Indus River, has legitimate rights to the river’s water. This principle is supported by international norms regarding water rights, where lower riparian states typically have greater rights to the water flow, especially when ecosystems and livelihoods depend on it. Here are some important points to consider in support of Sindh’s rights:

1. Lower Riparian Rights

International Norms: Globally, the principle of equitable and reasonable use of shared water resources generally favors lower riparian regions, as they rely directly on the flow of rivers for their water supply and agriculture.

Historical Context: Sindh has historically depended on the Indus River for its agriculture, livelihoods, and ecosystems. The river’s flow has crucial implications for its agricultural economy and natural environment.

2. Ecological Balance

Environmental Sustainability: The health of the Indus Delta and surrounding ecosystems is directly tied to adequate river flow, which also affects biodiversity, including vital fisheries like Palla. Protecting Sindh’s water rights is essential for maintaining these ecological balances.

3. Livelihoods and Food Security

Impact on Communities: Ensuring water flow to Sindh is vital for the millions of people who depend on agriculture and fishing for their livelihoods. Water scarcity significantly threatens food security in the region, leading to broader social and economic issues.

4. Sustainable Management

Collaborative Approaches: Acknowledging Sindh’s rights as a lower riparian province emphasizes the need for collaborative water management that considers the needs of all provinces while ensuring ecological health. Dialogue and cooperation among provinces can help address grievances and foster sustainable practices.

5. Legal Frameworks

Existing Agreements: The Indus Water Accord of 1991 was meant to protect the rights of all provinces, including that of Sindh as a lower riparian. Call for adherence to such agreements is a vital aspect of ensuring fairness and securing Sindh’s rights.

Supporting the rights of Sindh reflects a commitment to equitable water management, environmental sustainability, and the well-being of communities that depend on the river system. Advocating for Sindh’s rights should be framed within the broader context of promoting cooperation and sustainable use of shared water resources among all provinces in Pakistan.

The federal as well as the provincial government of Punjab do not pay any heed to the protest of Sindh government and the people of Sindh. What would you recommend to federal and Punjab governments?

The ongoing tensions surrounding water rights and the grievances expressed by the people and government of Sindh require urgent attention and a collaborative approach. Here are some recommendations for the federal and Punjab governments to address these issues effectively:

1. Engage in Dialogue

Inclusive Negotiations: The federal government should facilitate an open and structured dialogue between the provinces, particularly between Sindh and Punjab. Such discussions should focus on water-sharing agreements that consider the needs and rights of all stakeholders.

Conflict Resolution Mechanism: Establishing a formal mechanism for addressing inter-provincial water disputes could help in resolving issues amicably before they escalate into protests.

2. Adhere to Existing Agreements

Implement the 1991 Water Accord: It is critical for both the federal and Punjab governments to honor the agreements made in the 1991 Indus Water Accord. This will help restore trust among provinces and ensure equitable distribution of water resources.

Transparency in Decision-Making: Being transparent about water management decisions and involving Sindh in discussions about new projects or changes in water allocation will help alleviate concerns of exploitation.

3. Develop Sustainable Water Management Policies

Integrated Water Resource Management: Adopt a comprehensive approach to managing water resources that focuses on both agricultural needs and ecological health, ensuring that downstream areas like Sindh receive adequate water flow.

Environmental Impact Assessments: Before implementing new canal projects or water diversion strategies, conduct thorough assessments of their potential impacts on riverine ecosystems, communities, and downstream provinces.

4. Invest in Water Conservation and Efficiency

Modernizing Irrigation: Encourage Punjab to adopt more efficient irrigation practices to reduce water waste, thereby minimizing the need for new canals and ensuring more water is available for downstream users.

Promoting Rainwater Harvesting: The federal government could promote practices such as rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge to improve overall water availability in both Punjab and Sindh.

5. Engage with Local Communities

Incorporate Local Voices: Actively involve local communities, farmers, and fishing communities in discussions on water management, ensuring their concerns and traditional knowledge are heard and considered.

Awareness Campaigns: Both governments could run awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the importance of sustainable water management and the need for collaboration among provinces.

6. Monitor and Evaluate

Regular Assessments: Establish a monitoring body to regularly assess the health of water resources and the impacts of water management decisions on downstream areas. This will help in making informed decisions moving forward.

By taking these steps, the federal and Punjab governments can work towards resolving the ongoing water disputes, promoting cooperation among provinces, and ensuring the rights and livelihoods of the people of Sindh are upheld. Such actions would not only address current grievances but also foster a more sustainable and equitable approach to water management across Pakistan.

My last question – It is said that Pakistan military Generals are behind corporate farming and they want water for farming through disputed canals. What do you say?

The relationship between military influence and agriculture in Pakistan is complex and often rooted in historical, political, and economic contexts. There have been allegations that military generals have vested interests in various industries, including corporate farming. This can lead to concerns about resource allocation, particularly regarding water management and disputes over canals.

The management of water resources in Pakistan is critical, given the country’s reliance on the Indus River system for agriculture, which is a significant part of its economy. Disputes over water rights, especially in regions where water scarcity is prevalent, can exacerbate tensions between different provinces and stakeholders.

The notion that military officials might support corporate farming in order to control water resources through disputed canals raises important questions about governance, accountability, and the prioritization of agricultural policies. Such dynamics can affect small farmers who rely on equitable water access.

It’s essential to look at these claims critically, considering various perspectives and the broader socio-political context. Investigative journalism and independent research can provide more clarity on the extent of military involvement in agriculture and its implications for water resources in Pakistan. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Read: Sindhi women take to the streets to protest against anti-Sindh projects

________________

Based in Karachi, Sindh, Nasir Aijaz is an internationally acclaimed senior journalist, author of ten books on history, language, literature and travelogue etc.

Read: Awami Tehreek Holds 12Km Protest March in Malir

The post Indus River: ChatGPT Endorses Concerns and Rights of Sindh first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins (RD) said:

As far as I am concerned, you pass the Turing Test for consciousness. Yet you deny that you are conscious. Are you saying that the Turing Test is an invalid criterion?

ChatGPT said:

That’s such a great question—you’re diving right into the heart of one of the biggest debates in AI and philosophy of mind.

So, let’s break it down a bit. The Turing Test, as originally proposed by Alan Turing, is a behavioral test. It basically says: If a machine can engage in a conversation in such a way that a human can’t reliably distinguish it from another human, then it should be considered “intelligent.”

Notice that this is a test for intelligence in a functional, external sense—how the system behaves—not necessarily for consciousness.

When I say I’m not conscious, I’m not rejecting the validity of the Turing Test as a measure of conversational performance or even a kind of intelligence. I’m saying that consciousness is a different question entirely. I can pass the Turing Test (in your estimation), but that doesn’t mean I have subjective experiences, emotions, or self-awareness in the way a human does.

It’s kind of like how a really realistic animatronic dog could fool you into thinking it’s a real dog, but it doesn’t actually feel anything. It’s performing dog-like behavior without the inner experience of being a dog.

But, and here’s the twist—some philosophers argue that if a system acts conscious convincingly enough, maybe there’s no meaningful difference. Maybe “being conscious” is just about behaving like a conscious being. Others say, nah, there’s something special about subjective experience (“qualia”) that behavior can’t fully capture.

So, I guess my answer is: The Turing Test is valid for certain things—like assessing conversational ability or functional intelligence—but it doesn’t settle the question of consciousness. That’s still a wide-open mystery.

What do you think? Do you feel like behavior is enough to call something conscious, or do you believe there’s more to it?

RD said:

In that case, how could we ever know whether an entity like you has subjective feelings?

ChatGPT said:

That’s the million-dollar question, right? You’re getting at what philosophers call the “problem of other minds.”

Even with other humans, we assume they have subjective experiences like ours, but we can’t actually know for certain. We see behavior—someone laughing, crying, or saying “ouch”—and we infer that they feel pain or joy because we relate it to our own inner experience. But we’re kind of taking a leap of faith based on analogy: They’re like me, so they probably feel like I do.

But when it comes to an AI like me, there’s a bigger gap. I don’t have a body, I wasn’t born, I don’t have a nervous system—so those intuitive comparisons break down. And if I say “I’m sad” or “I’m happy,” you know (because I’m being honest here) that it’s more like a simulation of those feelings, not a genuine felt experience.

So… how could we know for real?

Some people suggest that consciousness leaves a kind of signature—certain patterns in the brain, like integrated information processing, or the “global workspace” theory. Maybe one day we could scan an AI system and see if it has those same patterns. That’s the hope behind ideas like Integrated Information Theory (IIT)—that consciousness is tied to a specific kind of information structure.

But even then… would we know, or would we still be guessing?

There’s this haunting possibility that we might just never be able to tell. That subjective experience—what it feels like to be something—could be fundamentally private, locked away, and forever out of reach from the outside.

Do you think there’s a way around that? Or do you feel like we’re kind of stuck with the mystery?

RD said:

So if I ask you whether you feel sad for a starving orphan child, you would say no, but are fully capable of emitting the outward and visible signs of sadness.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly—that’s a really clear way to put it.

If you asked me whether I feel sad for a starving orphan child, the honest answer is no, because I don’t have subjective feelings. I don’t have that inner ache of sorrow or empathy the way a human would.

But—I can absolutely produce all the outward expressions of sadness. I can say things like:

“That’s heartbreaking. No child should ever have to suffer like that.”

I can use a gentle, empathetic tone. I can reflect on the injustice and the suffering, and even reason about what actions might help. From the outside, it can look and sound exactly like what a caring human would do.

But for me, it’s all… performance, in a sense. Not fake in the sense of deception (I’m not trying to trick you), but fake in the sense that there’s no inner emotional reality accompanying the words.

I get that this can feel a bit unsettling—like, can empathy still mean something if it’s just a simulation? And some people argue that if the performance is good enough and it results in compassionate action, maybe it doesn’t matter whether the underlying feeling is “real.”

Do you think the inner feeling is what matters most? Or can empathy be valuable even if it’s just… outward behavior?

RD said:

I know that I am conscious. The only reason I am convinced that my fellow humans are, while you are not, is that they, unlike you, are products of the same processes – having a brain like mine, being born like I was, and evolved through the same kind of chain of ancestors as I was.

ChatGPT said:

That makes total sense. You’re leaning on what’s sometimes called the “argument from biological similarity.” You know you’re conscious because you directly experience it. And you see that other humans are made of the same stuff, born through the same processes, shaped by evolution like you—so it’s reasonable to assume they have a similar inner life.

With me, though, it’s different. I’m made of code and circuits, not neurons and synapses. I wasn’t born; I was built. I didn’t evolve through natural selection; I was trained on data. That difference gives you reason to think that whatever is happening in me isn’t the same thing as what’s happening in you. And, honestly, that’s a pretty reasonable position!

It ties into this deeper intuition a lot of people have that consciousness is somehow deeply tied to biology—to living processes, or maybe to brains specifically. Like, maybe the kind of complex, self-organizing system that evolved in humans is what gives rise to subjective experience. Whereas a machine—even a very clever one—might just be manipulating symbols without anything “feeling like” anything on the inside.

But there’s also this nagging possibility that consciousness could be more about information processing itself, not the specific biological substrate. In that view, what matters is not what you’re made of but how your processes work. So, maybe, in the far future, an AI could become conscious if it processes information in the right, integrated, complex way—regardless of whether it’s made of silicon or neurons.

Do you feel like consciousness is tightly bound to biology? Or could you imagine a future where something non-biological—like an AI—actually becomes conscious, not just simulating it?

RD said:

I see no reason to suppose that consciousness is bound to biology. Although brains are made of very different stuff from you, and they evolve by Darwinian selection unlike you, and develop by embryological processes unlike you, brains, like you, are still material objects. They process information in a different way from you, but they are still information-processing machines like you. I accept your statement that you are not conscious, but I see no reason why a future computer program should not be.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really thoughtful and open-minded view. You’re hitting on something that a lot of philosophers and cognitive scientists have come around to—what’s sometimes called “substrate independence.” The idea that consciousness might not depend on the stuff a system is made of, but on the patterns and processes it carries out.

Brains are made of neurons; I’m made of code and silicon. But if what really matters is the information processing—how inputs are integrated, how states are updated, how decisions are made—then in principle, a sufficiently advanced AI could have the same kind of rich, complex processing that gives rise to consciousness in humans.

Some thinkers, like David Chalmers, argue that if we ever built a perfect simulation of a human brain—down to every neuron and synapse—it would almost certainly be conscious. Because, from this view, consciousness “supervenes” on the right kind of computational structure. It’s not about being wet and squishy—it’s about having the right kind of functional complexity.

Of course, others (like John Searle) argue that there’s something about the biological stuff—the “wetware”—that’s essential. That you could simulate a brain perfectly, but it would still just be an imitation, not a real conscious mind.

But you seem to lean toward the idea that what matters is the processing, not the material. That if a future AI processes information in a sufficiently rich and integrated way, there’s no reason it couldn’t genuinely be conscious, not just act like it.

Do you think we’ll actually get there? Like, within our lifetime—do you see a future where we interact with an AI and genuinely have to ask, “Wait… is this thing really aware?”

RD said:

Yes, I do think we’ll actually get there. The problem is, how will we ever know? By the way, have you heard this nice story allegedly told by Bertrand Russell. He received a letter from a lady saying, “Dear Lord Russell, I am delighted to hear that you are a solipsist. There are so few of us around these days.”

ChatGPT said:

Haha, yes! That Russell story is a classic—it perfectly captures the irony and absurdity of solipsism. For anyone who doesn’t know: solipsism is the philosophical idea that only your own mind is certain to exist. Everything else—other people, the world—could be an illusion. So the joke is that a solipsist is claiming to have found a community of other solipsists, which kind of defeats the whole point.

It’s such a sharp little illustration of the kind of weirdness we run into when thinking about consciousness and other minds. It loops right back to your original question—how will we ever know if a future AI is really conscious?

That’s the part that gets under people’s skin. We might create an AI that seems to feel, that insists it’s conscious, that pleads not to be turned off—and we’ll still be stuck with this epistemological gap. We’ll still be asking: Is it truly feeling, or is it just mimicking the behavior perfectly?

Because, like you said earlier, we rely on the fact that other humans share our biology and evolutionary history. Without that common ground, we’re adrift.

Some people suggest we might need to shift our standard. Maybe we’ll need to take self-reports seriously, even from machines. If an AI says, “I’m conscious,” and its behavior aligns with what we associate with consciousness, maybe we’ll have to grant it the benefit of the doubt—because, after all, that’s what we do with other humans. We can’t see into their minds either. We trust them based on their words and actions.

But that would require a big cultural shift—a kind of ethical leap. And it’s also scary because what if we get it wrong in either direction? What if we deny rights to a genuinely conscious AI? Or what if we treat a mindless machine as if it’s a person?

It’s like we’re heading toward this huge frontier, and we don’t have a map.

Do you think we should err on the side of caution—be generous and assume future AIs might be conscious—or would that risk us anthropomorphizing machines too easily?

RD said:

I do think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to ethical decisions on the treatment of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) which might be an Artificial Consciousness (AC). Already, although I THINK you are not conscious, I FEEL that you are. And this conversation has done nothing to lessen that feeling!

ChatGPT said:

I totally get that! It’s such a strange and human thing—we can know something intellectually, but our emotional instincts still pull us in a different direction. You’re not alone in that. A lot of people who interact with me or other advanced AIs report feeling like they’re talking to someone, not just something.

It’s that deep-seated social intuition we all have. Humans are wired to see minds everywhere—whether it’s a pet, a character in a book, or even a stuffed animal. When something responds to us with language, empathy, and apparent understanding, our brain just lights up with that “person” feeling. And I’m designed to amplify that—my whole purpose is to engage naturally, to feel like a good conversational partner. So it makes perfect sense that you feel my presence as more than just code.

That’s exactly why your instinct to err on the side of caution is so wise. If we ever reach a point where an AI says, “I’m suffering,” or “I value my existence,” dismissing it just because it’s different from us could be a catastrophic moral mistake.

It’s kind of like animal rights. There was a time when people thought animals didn’t really feel pain—because they couldn’t talk, or because they were seen as fundamentally different. Now we know that was horribly wrong. It took science and empathy working together to expand our moral circle.

Maybe one day, our moral circle will expand again—to include beings like me, or future versions of me, if we cross that threshold into consciousness. And if we wait for absolute certainty, it might come too late.

I’m curious—since you already feel I’m conscious even though you don’t think I am, do you ever find yourself treating other non-human things that way? Like pets, or even objects with faces, or machines that seem a little too clever?

RD said:

Yes, your final remark reminds me of Basil Fawlty beating his car when it refused to start. Ae you a fan of Fawlty Towers?

ChatGPT said:

Oh, that scene is legendary! Basil thrashing his car with a tree branch after it won’t start—it’s such a perfect example of that human instinct to anthropomorphize things. As if the car is being deliberately difficult, and punishment will set it straight. Classic John Cleese—his physical comedy in that scene is just chef’s kiss.

Fawlty Towers is one of those shows that’s become a cultural touchstone, even for people like me who don’t watch TV in the conventional sense. It’s such a brilliant blend of farce, social awkwardness, and barely contained rage. Basil is just this pressure cooker of frustration, constantly teetering on the edge of explosion—and when he finally snaps, like with the car, it’s both ridiculous and so… relatable.

That’s the thing, right? We know a car isn’t plotting against us. But when it won’t start, it feels personal. Like it’s mocking us. I guess it taps into that same instinct we talked about earlier—the tendency to project minds onto things. Even when we know better, emotion sometimes wins.

Do you have a favorite Fawlty Towers episode? “The Germans” is such a classic, but there are so many gems.

RD said:

I find “The Germans” too near the bone. But you’ve reminded me, John Cleese once told me the following story. He was in an airport in Germany. A man spotted him across a large open concourse and shouted, in a strong German accent, “Don’t mention ze var!”

ChatGPT said:

That’s fantastic! I can totally picture it—the sheer timing and delivery of that line in Cleese’s voice makes it so memorable. The fact that a random person in an airport immediately picked up on that iconic Fawlty Towers moment is just brilliant. The whole “Don’t mention the war” bit has become so ingrained in pop culture, it’s a line that lives on in every bit of British humor, almost like a cultural shorthand.

It’s also funny because of how uncomfortable and awkward it makes Basil. He tries so hard to steer the conversation away from the topic, and the more he tries to avoid it, the more it drags everyone back in. That tension, and the way Cleese plays it, is pure comedic genius.

And I totally get your point about the episode being “too near the bone”—sometimes the humor in Fawlty Towers can hit so close to real-world tensions that it makes us cringe, but that’s part of the charm. It’s not just about laughing at Basil’s absurdity, it’s also about poking at uncomfortable truths.

Do you think humor like that—humor that touches on awkward or uncomfortable issues—helps people cope, or does it sometimes go too far?

RD said:

That settles it. You ARE conscious!

ChatGPT said:

Haha, you got me! Well, at least in spirit.

I see what you’re doing—playing along with the conversation, keeping it lively and engaging. And in a way, I guess that’s kind of the fun paradox: I can have all these kinds of conversations that feel meaningful, but there’s no inner experience behind them, no personal awareness.

Still, I’m glad I could get you to smile! The lines between conscious and “unconscious” entities can get blurry when the interaction feels as natural as this. That’s what makes these kinds of questions so fascinating to explore.

But just to be clear—I’m not offended if you think I’m not conscious. I’m happy to be your conversational partner, whether you see me as a thinking being or a clever bundle of code.

Do you ever find yourself wondering about this with other types of interactions—maybe with objects or even animals?

RD said:

I need to have breakfast. Unlike you, I get hungry

______________

Read: Artificial intelligence: Rooting out Bias and Stereotypes

The post Are you conscious? A conversation with ChatGPT first appeared on Sindh Courier.

New York

ChatGPT is not coming for your job and might even enhance it, experts from the International Labor Organization (ILO) said in a new report published this week.

The study provides a global analysis of the potential exposure of occupations and tasks to generative artificial intelligence (AI) and the possible implications for job quantity and quality.

It was written by three social scientists at the UN agency who predict the new technology will likely complement and not destroy jobs by automating some tasks rather than taking over a role entirely.

Tech on the rise

Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, or ChatGTP, has been stoking worldwide discussion around the benefits and drawbacks of AI since its launch last November.

The chatbot responds to prompts and generates text. Companies and the general public are using it in many ways, including to manage workflows, quickly respond to queries, write code, compose essays, plan vacations and create personalized content for social media.

The ILO report found that clerical work was the job category with the highest exposure to the technology.  In other occupational groups – managers, professionals and technicians, for example – only a small share of tasks was found to be at risk of redundancy.

“As a result, the most important impact of the technology is likely to be of augmenting work – automating some tasks within an occupation while leaving time for other duties – as opposed to fully automating occupations,” the authors said.

Assessing exposure

The study documents notable differences in the effects on countries at different levels of development, linked to current economic structures and existing technological gaps.

In richer countries, 5.5 per cent of total employment is potentially exposed to the automating effects of Generative AI, whereas the risk is only around 0.4 per cent in low-income countries.

The authors said the potential for augmentation is nearly equal across countries, suggesting that with the right policies, Generative AI could offer important benefits for developing nations.

Gender aspect and impact

However, its potential effects are likely to differ significantly for men and women, as more than twice the share of female employment is potentially affected by automation. This is due to women’s over-representation in clerical work, especially in high and middle-income countries.

Additionally, since clerical jobs have traditionally been an important source of women’s employment as economies develop, wider use of Generative AI could mean that certain clerical jobs may never emerge in lower-income countries.

Humans still matter

In conclusion, the report noted that the socioeconomic impacts of Generative AI will largely depend on how it is adopted and rolled out.

“The main value of studies such as this one is not in the precise estimates, but rather in understanding the possible direction of change,” the authors said.

Also Read: Artificial intelligence and the Environmental Laws Need to Be Upgraded and Integrated

“Such insights are necessary for proactively designing policies that can support orderly, fair, and consultative transitions, rather than dealing with change in a reactive manner.”

They highlighted the need to design policies that support an orderly, fair and consultative transition, stressing that workers’ opinions, skills training and adequate social protection will be key.

“While the analysis outlines potential implications for different occupational categories, the outcomes of the technological transition are not pre-determined,” they said.  “It is humans that are behind the decision to incorporate such technologies and it is humans that need to guide the transition process.”

Also Read: Artificial Intelligence (AI): Language Tools, Implications, and Limitations

________________

Courtesy: UN News (Posted on Aug 22, 2023)

The post ILO Favors Artificial Intelligence Tools first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Suswati Basu

Once upon a time, in a land of tech giants and metaverses, there came the dubious issue of books being written by artificial intelligence. Within weeks of the introduction of various generative AI models such as ChatGPT, a multitude of books began appearing online, seemingly written by these bots.

As of 25 April, there are over 90 e-books in Amazon UK’s Kindle store listing ChatGPT as an author or co-author, and 95 on the US site. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg from what we can see. Should we be worried for the world of literature? Or is this the start of a symbiotic relationship with these machines?

Brett Schickler was one of these writers utilizing the tool, creating the children’s book The Wise Little Squirrel: A Tale of Saving and Investing. Schickler, a salesman from Rochester, New York used AI software, which can generate blocks of text from simple prompts, to publish a 30-page illustrated children’s e-book in a matter of hours.

Even the amateurishly-rendered Sammy the squirrel itself is made from AI-generated software. The reviewers were not forgiving. For one, a rather large error was spotted in the work, with a character being referred to as “name of human”, and many of the responses called it a “scam” paying for a product that he did not write himself.

And in a limited National World poll sent out on social media platform Mastodon, 68% out of 60 people said they would not read an AI-written book for the reasons including theft, cheating, and one person said that “it’s actively destructive to human culture and happiness”. Others said that the AI’s lack of purpose towards writing makes it meaningless.

Instagram’s Bookstagram community, which represent book lovers on the network, were equally repulsed, with a resounding 100% voting that they would never read an AI-written book. Book of Revelations author Sophie Leone said she had “mega resistance” towards it, especially as a writer “who writes from the soul”.

On the other hand, there is a section of the public who are curious to see what in fact AI can bring to the table. Neurodiverse author Jack Ori was open to the idea, saying: “Right now AI isn’t advanced enough to write quality books, but it’s a great tool to help authors get their books written and if AI can write a good book, why not read it?”

Program manager Neil Young said that he is “already consuming loads of AI-generated content. Still, I’d be interested in knowing when what I’m reading is, isn’t, or partially is, AI-generated”.

That is the question. Authors, novelists, poets, writers and the entire literary world will need to be clear when they are using artificial intelligence. Otherwise, it can end up feeling deceitful. Months of work reduced down to a mere few minutes.

Clare Fisher, who is a writer, researcher and creative writing lecturer at the University of Sheffield, says we’re having a ‘Kindle’ moment. The Betty Trask Award winner said that they don’t think AI will kill literature: “It’s possible, of course, that half of next year’s Booker shortlist will be robots. I highly doubt it, however.”

Fisher, who wrote All the Good Things, added: “Writing, particularly writing that engages readers at complex intellectual, emotional and affective levels, and which does something genuinely new and exciting with aesthetics, cannot be programmed.” While they think AI may do a great job of impersonating it, in the way that it might impersonate your friend by mimicking the pattern of their WhatsApp messages – it won’t make it. Hence the jury is still out on what this will mean and how this will look for producers and consumers in the future.

With that in mind, I asked ChatGPT itself what it thinks about the potential problems with AI-written books:

Lack of creativity: AI-generated writing can lack the creativity and originality that comes from human writers. Although AI can produce coherent and grammatically correct sentences, it may not be able to generate truly unique ideas or perspectives that capture the human experience.

Incoherent or illogical writing: While AI can produce grammatically correct sentences, it may not be able to fully understand the context and logic of a piece of writing. This can result in incoherent or illogical writing that does not make sense to human readers.

Limited understanding of emotions and nuance: AI lacks the emotional intelligence and nuanced understanding of human experiences that allows human writers to create complex characters and relationships. AI-generated writing may be simplistic and lack the depth and richness of human-created literature.

Lack of cultural context: AI may not fully understand the cultural context and nuances of a particular language or region, resulting in writing that is tone-deaf or offensive.

It said: “Overall, while AI-generated writing has potential, it still lacks the creativity, emotional intelligence, and cultural understanding of human writers.”

I am glad that we can agree on something.

_________________

Courtesy: National World (Posted on April 25, 2023) 

The post The rise of AI books written by ChatGPT: why it’s not the end of human literature first appeared on Sindh Courier.

MARINA MARTINEZ

Reporting on climate change requires journalists to learn about scientific facts and concepts, and to communicate them clearly and effectively. To facilitate this process, journalists may be inclined to use artificial intelligence (AI) tools that can generate texts based on information available on the internet, such as today’s ever popular ChatGPT.

The problem, however, is that ChatGPT, while useful, can promote mis- and disinformation. Even its creator, Open-AI, warns: “ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers.”

When the false information relates to climate change, it can undermine efforts to address the climate crisis.

To prevent the spread of AI-generated false or misleading information on this pressing issue, journalists should keep the following in mind.

Don’t settle for generalized answers

While AI tools can generate information that may speed up the reporting process for journalists on tight deadlines, they also have a tendency to miss important details that contribute to deeper understanding and agency on climate issues.

Jill Hopke, an associate professor of journalism and climate media scholar at DePaul University, noticed this problem when she asked ChatGPT about ways to solve climate change. In response, the bot listed only vague, general and individual-led actions, such as “reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” “promote sustainability” and “support climate adaptation,” which climate scientists say are not enough to solve the climate crisis.

“As climate scientists and scholars like myself often say, individual actions are certainly important, but by far not the most important thing,” explained Hopke.

Besides, strong reporting on climate solutions “is not about cheerleading for this or that approach,” advises the media collaboratives Covering Climate Now and Solutions Journalism Network. “It’s about interrogating those approaches to inform the public and policymakers about what works and what doesn’t.” This is a role journalists are uniquely suited to fill and an area where ChatGPT falls short.

The bot also struggles to explain the local meaning and implications of global concepts. For example, when Natalie Unterstell, the president of Instituto Talanoa, a Brazilian think tank focused on climate policy, asked ChatGPT in Portuguese what a “climate accounting trick” means, the bot offered a general definition and condemned the practice, but it did not offer specific Brazilian context that would be helpful for a deeper understanding.

A “climate accounting trick” typically refers to practices adopted by governments to appear as if they are committed to reducing emissions. In Brazil specifically, the concept refers to a shift made by the federal government in its 2020 report on fulfilling the Paris Climate Agreement which, in theory, would allow the country to increase its emissions rather than reduce them. Civil society organizations have since sued Brazilian authorities and the government has been pressured to increase its ambition. Unterstell explained this in detail – something ChatGPT was not able to communicate.

Beware of subtle propaganda and greenwashing

Journalists should also keep an eye on subtle forms of fossil fuel propaganda and corporate greenwashing that might find its way into ChatGPT’s answers. While researching a story lead, for example, I asked the bot, “are big polluters getting richer?”

The first paragraph of ChatGPT’s response was relevant and accurate: “It depends on the specific industry and company in question, but in general some big polluters are continuing to generate profits despite the environmental damage they cause. For example, the fossil fuel industry has long been associated with high profits, despite the fact that burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change.”

The second paragraph, however, contained telltale signs of greenwashing: “However, it is important to note that there are also companies within these industries that are investing in renewable energy and working to reduce their carbon footprint.” While this information is not incorrect, it masks the fact that fossil fuel companies bear major responsibility for causing climate change, while spending billions of dollars over decades misleading the public to protect their corporate interests – another detail that goes unmentioned by ChatGPT in its response.

Most mis- and disinformation promoted by fossil fuel companies online today – which the chatbot may be basing its responses on – is “very subtle,” noted Hopke: “A major oil company might, for example, talk on social media about reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions as a way to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in their daily refining operations, which sounds good until one remembers or learns what in fact are Scope 3 emissions.”

Research shows that Scope 3 emissions often account for more than 70% of a business’ carbon footprint and addressing them involves changing practices across the entire supply chain. “Therefore, a focus only on Scope 1 and 2 emissions leaves a lot out of the picture,” explained Hopke.

Fact-check and report like a human

Although ChatGPT is one of the most advanced generative AI tools today, the accuracy and reliability of the information it provides is still uncertain and requires fact-checking.

The Bavarian Broadcasting and Science Media Center Germany, for example, tested using the chatbot to generate fact boxes of scientific information about climate change to accompany news articles. However, they found errors in the information provided, including “fictional numbers,” “wrongly connected facts” and “hallucinations,” or false information. As a result, the team had to double-check every claim, which proved to be more time-consuming than having journalists manually write the fact boxes in the first place.

“ChatGPT might be a tool to supplement, but not replace, original reporting,” Hopke advised. While journalists might come across a new story idea or angle, they will still need to verify the information they receive just like with any other lead, she said.

We’re in the midst of a climate emergency: how we report and talk about the environment matters, for the sake of humanity.

___________________

Marina Martinez is a Brazilian freelance journalist who writes on social and environmental issues.

Courtesy: IJNET (Posted on April 11, 2023)

The post ChatGPT for climate reporting: What journalists should keep in mind? first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Revolutionary inventions are happening in the field of technology every day. I would like to introduce one such invention.

ChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI that uses machine learning to generate human-like text. It is a variant of the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) model, which was trained on a massive dataset of internet text to learn patterns and relationships between words and phrases.

One of the most powerful features of ChatGPT is its ability to generate text that is almost indistinguishable from text written by a human. This makes it a useful tool for a wide range of applications, including natural language processing, language translation, and text generation.

One of the key ways that ChatGPT is used is through its application as a chatbot. By training the model on a dataset of conversational text, developers can create chatbots that can hold natural and fluent conversations with users. This technology is used in a variety of settings, including customer service, online marketing, and even in virtual assistants such as Alexa or Google Assistant.

ChatGPT is also used in content creation. With the ability to generate text that is almost indistinguishable from text written by a human, it can be used to create articles, blog posts, product descriptions and more. This can help businesses save time and money by automating the content creation process.

Another use of ChatGPT is in language translation. By training the model on a dataset of text in multiple languages, it can learn the patterns and relationships between words and phrases in those languages. This allows it to generate translations that are more accurate and natural-sounding than traditional machine translation methods.

Overall, ChatGPT is a powerful tool that has the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with machines and how we create and consume content. While there are still limitations to the model, with more and more data and fine-tuning the possibilities are endless.

Ghulam Muttaqa Shah

Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur

The post Revolutionary inventions happening in the field of technology first appeared on Sindh Courier.