ChatGPT Chopped by Chinese Challenger

There’s something liberating about sharing my rants here rather than on Instagram or Linkedin – the pressure of social media diminishes. It’s a joy to see many of my mutuals testing the waters of my newsletter. On Instagram, I can choose a soundtrack for my writing. Indulge me and do the same with this newsletter: play “Mariella” by Khruangbin. I’ll even provide the links: Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube.

What a week it has been since ChatGPT lost its job to an AI. Deepseek, a Chinese AI firm, has released a model that reportedly surpasses or at least matches ChatGPT’s performance at a considerably lower cost, causing its app to soar up the Appstore charts.

AI’s New Emperor Has No Clothes

AI wunderkind Deepseek is sending Silicon Valley into a tizzy, demonstrating that the East can play the tech game too. However, peek behind the curtain, and you’ll discover a chatbot with a selective memory that would make the Ministry of Truth proud. Ask it about Tiananmen Square, and you’re more likely to receive a dumpling recipe. Taiwan? As Chinese as fortune cookies. The Dalai Lama? Acknowledged with all the enthusiasm of a cat in a bathtub. Deepseek’s responses are a stark litmus test for the Chinese government’s control over AI technology. When pressed, Deepseek suddenly develops amnesia, regurgitating party lines with the finesse of a seasoned propagandist. This isn’t merely cautious programming; it provides a glimpse into how China might use AI as a tool for global information control.

And forgive me for having to say this: People are dumber than a sack of hammers. Here we are, locked in a tech cold war with China, and what do these idiots do? They rush to download Deepseek as if it’s the second coming of Candy Crush. These imbeciles are handing over their personal data to Beijing on a silver platter. How readily people are willing to trade national security for a shiny new toy that can churn out half-hearted poetry is mind-boggling. At this rate, we might as well roll out the red carpet for Chinese spies and hand them the keys to Fort Knox—it’d be less shameful than watching millions of dipshits voluntarily become China’s digital guinea pigs.

The Silicon Inquisition

Speaking of dipshits: This week, I strongly encourage you to read Ian Dunt’s essay “How to Resist the Tech Overloads.” It offers numerous examples of a phenomenon that writers frequently face: “Oh, I wish I had come up with this sentence.” Here’s just one of many instances:

The author contends that tech giants align with far-right politics to evade regulation, emphasising that effective regulation is both achievable and essential. On a personal note, the essay encourages readers to reconsider their relationship with technology, advocating more mindful and controlled usage. This certainly resonates with me. It concludes by asserting that societal and individual responses to technology should focus on reclaiming control from tech oligarchs, starting with small actions like removing apps from one’s home screen.

The Algorithmic Crusade

Google is testing the removal of EU news content from its Search, News, and Discover platforms. This could significantly impact how European citizens access news. While Google presents this test as a data-gathering exercise to inform regulators and publishers about its role in driving traffic to news sites, European media outlets view it as a serious threat to the sustainability of journalism and democratic values.

As a journalist myself, I must tell you that this situation is a real head-scratcher. We cannot deny that Google is throwing us a lifeline with its algorithms, which serve as a megaphone for our stories, broadcasting them to people who might never have stumbled across our work otherwise. But here’s the rub: we’re dancing with the devil. The more we rely on Google, the more we risk becoming its puppets. It’s a slippery slope from “thanks for the exposure” to “please, algorithm overlords, tell us what to write.” (Another reason a newsletter appeals to me most.) We are already witnessing newsrooms pivot to churning out SEO content that Google’s bots adore instead of the hard-hitting stories that truly matter. We must wake up and smell the coffee before we find ourselves as nothing more than content farms for Big Tech.

Extra! Extra! Read All About It: Nothing of Consequence Happens Again

Perhaps Google isn’t our greatest threat as journalists; rather, it seems we may be our own biggest threat. This became evident when I checked my phone on Wednesday and noticed that The New York Times had sent out "breaking news” via their app:

The once-hallowed phrase “breaking news” has been diminished to a mere clickbait contrivance, a lamentable ploy to draw the masses into the digital maw of mediocrity. The New York Times, that supposed bastion of journalistic integrity, has yielded to this vulgar practice, breathlessly announcing the relocation of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa as if it were transformative. Let us be clear: the Mona Lisa’s new quarters are about as “breaking” as the crumbling plaster in the Louvre’s neglected corridors. This is not news; it is a scheduled renovation masquerading as urgency, a cynical attempt to inject excitement into the mundane machinations of museum management. But the Times is far from alone in this race to the bottom of journalistic standards. Across the digital landscape, news outlets, both large and small, are engaged in an orgy of false urgency, slapping the “breaking” label on everything from celebrity wardrobe malfunctions to the banal pronouncements of politicians. This incessant cry of “wolf” has rendered us numb to genuine crises. When every trivial event is heralded as earth-shattering, how are we to distinguish the truly momentous from the merely mundane? The answer, of course, is that we do not. The real tragedy here is not merely the death of breaking news as a concept but the slow asphyxiation of journalism itself. In their desperate bid for clicks and eyeballs, news organisations have sacrificed substance on the altar of sensation. And what of the public? We are complicit in this farce, our attention spans shortened to the point where we can scarcely digest a headline before moving on to the next digital distraction.

The solution, if it exists, does not lie in some quixotic attempt to reform the media landscape. Rather, the responsibility rests on us, the consumers of this drivel, to demand better. We must cultivate a healthy scepticism, approaching each sensational headline with a critical eye and a readiness to dig deeper. If we do not, we risk becoming a society that is not merely misinformed but actively disinformed, our collective intellect eroded by the relentless drumbeat of false urgency. Such a fate would be a tragedy far greater than the Mona Lisa’s change of address.

When Geeks Play God

If you speak or at least understand German, you’re in luck. Because you wouldn’t want to miss out on this well-produced radio feature: “Die letzte Religion: KI als Schöpfungsgeschichte.” You know how we’ve always regarded Silicon Valley as a haven for atheists and rationalists? After all, half of tech workers identify as atheist or agnostic. Well, there’s a rather amusing twist to that story. The history of artificial intelligence is actually intertwined with faith and spirituality. Imagine that – the tech wizards of our age dabbling in matters of the soul. The broadcast goes on to say that as AI develops at breakneck speed, it raises some rather significant questions. These developers are essentially playing God. It’s a bit like watching a group of avowed atheists inadvertently start a new religion. The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. But I suppose that’s human nature for you – always full of surprises, even in the heart of our technological paradise. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to it.

Unhoused yet Unsilenced

I want to close with an article that truly touched me in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Patrick Fealey, a 59-year-old former journalist and art critic, gained attention for his compelling firsthand account of homelessness in Esquire magazine. By the age of 29, Fealey was an award-winning writer for publications like Reuters and The Boston Globe. In 1997, he was diagnosed with severe mental health issues, which forced him to leave journalism and concentrate on literary fiction. Despite his challenges, Fealey has written 15 literary works since 1997, moving between 20 residences in 18 cities across the United States. However, in October 2023, he became homeless after managing to avoid it for 26 years following his diagnosis. He has been living in his 2013 Toyota Corolla while continuing to write. His 9,000-word article detailing his experiences as a homeless person has justifiably garnered significant attention and sympathy.

After composing this third edition of my newsletter, I have come to the realisation that my worldview is pessimistic and bleak. Therefore, what follows will serve as a reminder to myself as much as to you: In the words of the late Douglas Adams, author of the aforementioned Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: “Don’t Panic.” Instead, think. Question. Resist. And perhaps take a moment to appreciate the irony of it all. After all, in a world where AI is replacing AI, and tech billionaires are inadvertently founding new religions, laughter might be our last bastion of sanity.

Until next time, keep your wits sharp and your bullshit detectors even sharper. And remember, in the grand circus of technological progress, it’s always wise to keep one eye on the clowns running the show.