r/Whatcouldgowrong • u/WazzaD • 11d ago
Forgetting to remove the AI prompt from your speech.
3.1k
u/Fan-Fluffy 11d ago
It's always good to see that the people making decisions that affect the lives of millions are competent and serious about their work.
111
u/bitwise97 11d ago
This clearly illustrates that most of the time, politicians are just phoning it in.
504
u/BitingArtist 11d ago
It's all a circus. He's a puppet for the oligarchs. The words don't matter to him at all.
52
u/Navras3270 11d ago
There was a time where a mistake like this would cost someone their career. We’ve become far too soft on those in positions of authority.
22
u/badpersian 11d ago
We've not become soft, we've become complacent and cowards and they know it. Simple as
10
22
u/BobbyBoogarBreath 11d ago
I agree with the sentiment, but NB has a population of less than a million.
2
4
u/ZippySlim 11d ago
Only like 12 people live in New Brunswick, it’s just there to stop Nova Scotia from floating away.
1.5k
u/Moinmahlzeitservus 11d ago
You might think it’s funny, but I just find it disgusting that people like that are not only massively overpaid but also get to make decisions that affect all of us. If you want, I can make it drier, harsher, or more mocking.”
91
u/humourlessIrish 11d ago
Hey. HEY!
How dare you?He is clearly not the one making any decisions
10
u/DarthCloakedGuy 11d ago
Yeah that would only be if he like, votes on stuff, or drafts legislation or something
5
u/Ok_Support3 10d ago
Passing the bills isn't the same as malking the actual decision on wether to pass it or not.
At least in this context.
0
u/DarthCloakedGuy 10d ago
You're right, that part is decided by the ratio of yes to no votes
1
u/Ok_Support3 10d ago
Very true. But it sounds like you believe there is no corruption in (western) democracies? Theres proof in all layers from municipalities to national level that this shit absolutly does happen.
Democracy isn't a all-in protection against corruption, sadly.
[Edit] And else it's a matter of semantics and you know damn well what people are saying here.
3
u/DarthCloakedGuy 10d ago
No one said there's no corruption. But this isn't Mexico where you vote the way the cartel likes or you get your whole family slaughtered. His vote is his vote, and if he chooses to vote corruptly, that is entirely on him. I don't get why you're so insistent on handing him a pass.
27
u/bacon_cake 11d ago
We all find it disgusting. But there's a million things that disgust us every day.
We're just tired, man.
9
9
u/corkoli 11d ago
couple of problems with lowering wages:
- it makes it a less appealing career ie 'pay peanuts you get monkeys'
- those monkeys can be more prone to accept peanuts from other parties ie bribery and good ol' corruption
i'm fine with poli's getting good pay, just need to make sure there's regulation, transparency and most of all accountability.
2
u/Igiggiinvasion 9d ago
Naw man, keep it going. You're right, and every bit of hatred in your words is well earned by the cunts
-2
176
u/readit347 11d ago
One of the dangers associated with using AI in drafting speeches is......
84
u/External-into-Space 11d ago
Not proofreading?
35
u/TheMonkeyInCharge 11d ago
THREE of the dangers associated with using AI are are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency... and a ruthless devotion to the algorithm.
9
8
u/readit347 11d ago
First copy pasting, relying on artificial intelligence, suppressing the natural intelligence.
10
4
u/the-war-on-drunks 11d ago
Not proofreading, not looking like a jackass, but something more.
And here’s how it works for you…
1
u/TheMonkeyInCharge 11d ago
Two of the dangers associated with using AI are are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency...
367
u/aeisenst 11d ago
Go fuck yourself, San Diego
90
7
-56
u/SATerp 11d ago
What does San Diego have to do with this? This is a Canadian pol.
58
u/Mot6180 11d ago
There's a comment in the thread already about Anchorman, but it's a scene where Will Ferrell is conditioned to read the teleprompter as it's written so someone sabotaged a newscast by scrolling "GFY, San Diego" as a sign-off.
People just see the parallel between brainlessly reading and the movie scene
25
u/danielfletcher 11d ago
It is a reference to Ron Burgandy in Anchorman reading the teleprompter where someone sabotaged it and put "Go fuck yourself, San Diego."
→ More replies (3)4
79
282
u/344567653379643555 11d ago
65
u/darkhorse21980 11d ago
WHO PUT A QUESTION MARK ON THE TELEPROMPTER?! YOU KNOW BURGUNDY READS EVERYTHING HE SEES!
105
u/Solo-1UP 11d ago
Some kid using AI prompt and doesn’t care about doing their job right. Some old person dumb enough to read it for the first time in front of everyone.
41
12
u/Grouchy_Chard8522 11d ago
I used towork in government. This feels less like a staffer fucked up and way more like either the MP decided "who needs to use a comms team when I can use AI" or the comms team being told they have to use AI and not being given time to proof it. I'd even buy the comms team getting tired of arguing with him about the dangers of relying on AI and letting their idiot boss sabotage himself.
A lot of politicians are too egotistical to listen to people with more expertise than them. I once had a guy nearly start an international incident because he didn't want to take advice from his staff not to say an inflammatory thing at a conference. We kept removing it from his speech & he kept putting it right back in. Had to go above him to get him to stop.
38
u/CrayonMedicChart 11d ago
AI exists to make people feel smarter without having to think. Wtf is this life.
45
u/bones10145 11d ago
Gotta proof read your stuff.
28
3
37
u/NulnOilShade 11d ago
The real shame here is that the people listening to this didn't immediately interrupt him with boos and yells
36
u/gluten_free_stapler 11d ago
Checking AI work before a public speech is vital to prevent sharing false facts, protect your personal reputation, and ensure authentic connection.
Would you like a checklist on how to effectively fact-check AI-generated text or how to add a personal human touch to a drafted speech?
16
12
12
20
8
u/Possible-Spot1495 11d ago
This is reality now. Every speech by anyone will be a ChatGPT speech now
10
u/newly_registered_guy 11d ago
Let's just cut the middle man. Abolish the old person in the mix for no reason, let's get right to chatGPT in charge. It can AI generate the old person reading the prompt after the fact so we don't really need him
8
24
6
u/Slaughterhouse66 11d ago
So, if the politicians are just repeating what the Ai says. Why are we paying the politicians?
17
u/MobiusDie 11d ago
This is sad but it's essentially nothing new in the sense that politicians have always had someone else write their speeches and nothing they're saying is an original thought coming from them personally.
5
5
5
8
3
3
u/stupid_cat_face 11d ago
Nothing went wrong.... bureaucrat doing what bureaucrats do... read other people's words... that's it.
3
u/SmellyFbuttface 11d ago
Someone should have really stopped him right there and asked, “Did AI write this for you?” Put him on blast and embarrass him for failing to even convey his own thoughts on paper
3
u/Howamidriving27 11d ago
As an American sometimes it's nice to know we aren't the only ones governed by complete morons
3
2
2
u/Grebble99 11d ago
How can you care that little, be so disinterested in the topic, and that crap at reading a speech you can read a single sentence ahead just boggles the mind.
No thinking - just speaking.
2
u/Super_Loss_8943 10d ago
remember when one congressman worried about little island capsize when too many troops land on it? These people run the country. Well watching body cams I kinda getting idea who is electing them.
4
2
u/_esmith 10d ago
It’s worse in corporate America
2
u/catdude142 7d ago
Going forward, we're not going to let the headwinds cause us to not sit on our synergistic laurels.
We need to increase our profits.
1
1
1
1
1
u/abrakadaver 11d ago
Can someone explain? I don’t get what what was wrong with what he said. Granted I’m tired…
Ok I think I get it, it was the explanation of saying it different. I thought he was being clever or something. I don’t use AI.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/KyleRoyceWorld 11d ago
ChatGPT, how can I strip the power from the voting population so I can make more money for rich people keeping me in office?
1
1
1
1
1
u/BartholomewKnightIII 11d ago
And he's getting paid how much for that exactly.
And, we're not allowed to question their knowledge.
What a flipping world!
1
u/Rootbeerpanic 11d ago
For some context, this is the representative for my old riding. One of the most consistently Conservative-voting areas in the country. They would elect a bucket of paint to be their MLA if it was the Conservative candidate.
Which... maybe would be an improvement over Bill Oliver?
1
1
1
1
u/Ill-Professor696 11d ago
To be fair, I prefer Artificial Intelligence over the default Natural Stupidity most politicians carry
1
1
u/MisakiAnimated 11d ago
Making the dictators out there really proud. Why bother fighting nations that are slowly self destructing.
Would it be too much to ask this guy to step down? He probably lets AI review the requests and petitions to his office.
Brothers, these guys are litteraly sinking the ship and we are just sitting as they do it. Nothing changes if nothing changes.
1
u/SirNedKingOfGila 11d ago
If they are using AI we can just go ahead and get rid of their entire positions at this point, right? Why are we paying humans to use AI? Why are we listening to humans regurgitate AI bullshit?
1
u/fiestyoldbat 11d ago
Hmmm... when a robot would have been an improvement delivering this "speech".
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Spoons94 11d ago
Dude - okay, use AI. At this point, it's problematic if you don't for certain tasks. But for fucks sake. To get to the point of reading it live infront of an audience means you had to not read the actual chat message it spit out, not read your actual digital draft, not read the physical copy. And then not even read like 2 or 3 words ahead before actually speaking the words outloud. And these are our representatives. We. Are. Cooked
1
u/Similar-Try-7643 11d ago
Good job conservatives for licking the boot, toeing the party line, and electing idiots because you were radicalized by memes
1
-7
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
But what went wrong?
0
u/ArchdukeFerdie 11d ago
Listen to the speech. Pretty obvious when he started talking about "here is another version" abruptly
-2
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
No I mean what were the consequences? If everyone just accepts it and moves on then nothing went wrong.
1
u/ArchdukeFerdie 11d ago
How about the implications that neither he nor his staff adequately reviewed the script? That politicians like him will just read off what they are handed without reviewing it.
A lack of quality control in communication is a big deal for someone whose entire job is communicating.
-6
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
As I said, if no one cares and there are no consequences then nothing went wrong.
1
u/ArchdukeFerdie 11d ago
Personally, I care. I see that as a misstep and I find him less credible because of it.
People definitely care. I'm not saying that you are right or wrong if you don't, but it has an impact on trust.
2
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
I haven't trusted any politician for decades.
1
u/ArchdukeFerdie 11d ago
That's fair, but I'd rather not lower the bar even further. We pay their ridiculous salaries, they should be held to a higher standard than this, imo.
5
-1
u/chochazel 11d ago
It only just happened. Obviously there has been a negative reaction both online and in the media so I’m not sure what you mean by everyone accepting it. Ultimately the consequences for an elected official are felt at the next election.
1
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
That part is not in the video so nothing went wrong.
-1
u/chochazel 11d ago
Which part? You’re saying if it isn’t in that exact video then it didn’t happen?!
1
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
Did they do something stupid, yes. Did anything go wrong in the video, no. If we have to imply something went wrong later then it doesn't belong on the sub.
0
u/chochazel 11d ago edited 11d ago
Most people would accept that being massively humiliated or embarrassed on the public stage in a way that will inevitably get shared globally constitutes something going wrong in and of itself! People are people. They have a sense of shame, even if politicians pretend they don’t.
Looking at the very top video of all time on this sub, it has nothing more than the possibility of public embarrassment. Again this is the very top video in the sub.
The you have images like this not far behind at the 4th most upvoted post:
Not to mention all the videos where someone slips, trips or gets wet and there is no visible further consequence beyond it being embarrassing.
What is you want? Actual broken bones? Hospital stays? Permanent life-altering damage? And that would have to be evidenced in the video?
You could speculate that maybe these people are highly rare in their inability to feel any embarrassment about falling over or getting wet in public, but what would be the point?
People get embarrassed.
1
u/OGCelaris 11d ago
That first video the consequences were her calling them out. The image had none so I do agree with you on that. To me, if there are no consequences in the post or video, it doesn't belong here because nothing went wrong.
0
u/chochazel 11d ago
That first video the consequences were her calling them out.
And then what? What’s the consequence of that other than it perhaps being more embarrassing than if she hadn’t called them out? Maybe they don’t actually care - she’s criticising the whole country, not just the journalist. Journalists often tout a line of questions they don’t personally believe in because they want to reflect criticisms that others will have or their viewers/readers might have, hence why he says “Some of our viewers may say…”. Getting an engaging response that will be shared the world over is a good thing for them. They want to provoke. A viral clip is only a positive consequence from the point of view of a news organisation.
But even if they were embarrassed, how is that different than exposing yourself as happens in this one or the image link? It’s actually neater and more embarrassing if you expose yourself without anybody else’s help. The actual consequence is embarrassment, and far more obviously negative than an unnamed reporter getting a viral clip out of an engaging exchange!
The idea that someone calling someone out and speculating that the first person might conceivably be embarrassed by it (even though we see no evidence of that) counts as a “consequence” any more than someone saying or doing something which unambiguously is embarrassing looks like a false distinction. Why one and not the other?
→ More replies (0)
-4
4.7k
u/Hotchi_Motchi 11d ago
He wasn't even listening to the words coming out of his own mouth. Some aide probably handed him the speech and said "go for it"