Former President Donald Trump filed three motions Monday to dismiss his Georgia 2020 election case‚ including one claiming presidential immunity prevents his prosecution. The motions argue for dismissal based on due process grounds‚ double jeopardy and presidential immunity. The claims in Trump’s presidential immunity filing mirror those made in his bid to dismiss the federal indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith over alleged efforts to interfere with the 2020 election‚ which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to consider on Tuesday. “The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President‚” Trump’s motion states. “The indictment is barred by presidential immunity and should be dismissed with prejudice.” Trump’s attorney argued in the filing that “statements to the public on matters of national concern— especially matters involving core federal interests‚ such as the administration of a federal election—lies in the heartland of the President’s historic role and responsibility.” “President Trump has filed three persuasive‚ meritorious pretrial motions seeking a complete dismissal of the indictment and thus an end to the Fulton County district attorney’s politically based prosecution‚” Trump attorney Steve Sadow told Atlanta News First. “Also still pending is President Trump’s First Amendment as-applied challenge‚ which seeks the same relief.” The deadline for filing pretrial motions in the case is Monday‚ according to CNN. Trump and his 18 co-defendants were indicted on Aug. 14 for alleged efforts to overturn the election in Georgia and charged with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Trump announced Monday that he would attend oral arguments in Washington‚ D.C.‚ considering his presidential immunity appeal in the federal election interference case. “Of course I was entitled‚ as President of the United States and Commander in Chief‚ to Immunity‚” he wrote in a post on Truth Social. “I wasn’t campaigning‚ the Election was long over. I was looking for voter fraud‚ and finding it‚ which is my obligation to do‚ and otherwise running our Country.” Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Trump Files Flurry of Motions Seeking to Dismiss Georgia Election Charges appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Those who have experienced serious health issues following their Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccination are raising more concerns about censorship on social media platforms. These individuals‚ who consider themselves victims of the vaccine‚ report that their attempts to share their experiences and symptoms online are being stifled. Among these is a father of two who suffered a life-altering blood clot‚ leading to permanent brain damage‚ after receiving the vaccine in spring 2021. He is currently pursuing legal action against AstraZeneca in the High Court in London. Similarly‚ a lawsuit has been filed by the husband of a woman who tragically died following her vaccination. Others who believe they have suffered adverse reactions to the jab‚ yet are not involved in any legal battles‚ have expressed frustration over the suppression of their voices on platforms like Facebook. They claim that they are being pushed towards using cryptic language and self-censorship to evade group shutdowns‚ as reported by the Telegraph. UK CV Family‚ a private Facebook group founded by Charlet Crichton‚ serves as a support network for over 1‚000 members who feel they have been harmed or bereaved by the Covid vaccines. Crichton‚ who experienced a severe reaction to the AstraZeneca vaccine‚ had to abandon her 13-year-long Sports Therapy business due to prolonged bed rest. The group‚ which was established in November 2021‚ has earned the status of core-participant in the Covid Inquiry‚ allowing members like Crichton‚ who claims to have suffered myocarditis post-vaccination‚ to testify in the inquiry. Crichton revealed that her comments had been blocked to prevent misuse‚ and she even faced a temporary ban from Meta for allegedly not meeting their standards. She also noted that some members have experienced shadow banning‚ where their posts are obscured from public view. Further‚ YouTube attempted to censor a video featuring lawyers discussing vaccines at the Covid Inquiry‚ citing a breach of their medical misinformation policy. A video of Stephen Bowie‚ a Scottish Vaccine Injury Group member who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots post-vaccination‚ received a similar warning. The post Facebook and YouTube Censored Victims of AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It has come to light that UK police forces have been using facial recognition technology to conduct extensive searches within the nation’s passport database‚ which comprises 46 million British passport holders. This clandestine operation‚ ongoing since at least 2019‚ The Telegraph and Liberty Investigates have found. Passport photos are collected for a specific purpose – to verify the identity of individuals for international travel. When these photos are repurposed for a facial recognition database by law enforcement‚ it constitutes a significant invasion of privacy. People do not expect their passport photos to be used for surveillance or policing purposes‚ which can lead to a feeling of constant monitoring and a loss of anonymity in public spaces. Misuse can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and assembly‚ as individuals might fear being unjustly targeted due to their presence in these databases. When individuals provide their photos for passports‚ they do not explicitly consent to their use in law enforcement databases‚ neither have they typically been arrested for a crime – which is often used as grounds for collecting biometric data from a suspect. Law enforcement’s use of passport databases for facial recognition scanning turns all passport holders into a potential suspect pool‚ raising major civil liberties concerns. This lack of consent is a fundamental issue‚ as it bypasses the individuals’ rights to control how their personal data is used. The use of these photos without explicit permission for law enforcement purposes can be seen as a violation of personal autonomy and rights. Concerns have been raised over privacy and data protection following this disclosure. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)‚ through its spokesman‚ has voiced intentions to address these concerns with the Home Office‚ emphasizing the need to align facial recognition technology’s usage with data protection principles. The Home Office’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Request data reveals that‚ in the first nine months of 2023 alone‚ over 300 facial recognition searches were conducted on the UK passport database. This practice has raised alarms among several MPs and privacy watchdogs. John Edwards‚ the information commissioner‚ through his spokesman‚ has indicated the ICO’s engagement with the Home Office on this matter‚ highlighting the “importance of transparency” and the potential implications for data protection. The post UK Police Have Been Secretly Using Passport Database for Facial Recognition Since 2019 appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

In late October 1917‚ a detachment of German mountain troopers weary from hard Alpine fighting on the Isonzo front were crossing the river Torre with a group of Italian prisoners. The ordinarily calm waters of the river had swollen into a raging flood after constant heavy rain. Suddenly an Italian prisoner was dragged away by the current. Screaming and flailing‚ he whirled downstream‚ sinking under the weight of the large pack he was carrying. An unexpected rescuer came to his aid. The battle-hardened German officer who had defeated the Italian’s comrades and overseen his capture went galloping after him. Driving his horse straight into the torrent‚ the German risked getting washed away as he drew the helpless prisoner‚ hanging onto one of his stirrups‚ to safety. The German officer was young Oberleutnant Erwin Rommel‚ and this act of compassion was typical of him. It would be a cornerstone of his career during two world wars in which contempt of one’s enemies and xenophobia were idealized by authorities in power in Germany. Surprisingly‚ Rommel chose to write about this rescue and other similar anecdotes of humanity in his 1937 World War I memoir‚ Infantry Attacks! Then a military instructor‚ Rommel intended to use the book as teaching material for future soldiers training to fight in the Wehrmacht—during a dark era when popular culture in Germany was at its most unmerciful. His original German text offers valuable insights about his outlook and approach to war that censorship and mistranslation had hidden from history. A Controversial Character Erwin Rommel is one of the most controversial figures in World War II and German history. Awarded Imperial Germany’s highest decoration for valor‚ the Pour le Mérite‚ for his impressive actions as a junior officer during World War I‚ Rommel reached the pinnacle of his fame during World War II as a brilliant Panzer leader in the 1940 conquest of France and as the daring “Desert Fox” who fought—and ultimately lost to—British and Allied troops in North Africa from 1941 to ’43. Rommel would go on to direct the fortifications of the Normandy coast in preparation for the Allied invasion of France‚ and command Germany’s Army Group B during the D-Day landings in 1944. Erwin Rommel in 1912. Rommel never joined the Nazi Party nor did he receive any Party decorations‚ despite the fact that joining would have boosted his career—as it did conversely for Ferdinand Schörner‚ also a professional soldier‚ World War I veteran and Pour le Mérite recipient who opted to become a Nazi Party member. Despite the best efforts of Nazi propaganda to cast Rommel as a hardline ex-SA storm trooper‚ which he was not‚ and Allied efforts to depict him as a coldblooded fascist thug‚ Rommel confounded the expectations of both sides with his unpredictable and humanistic behavior during the war. He disobeyed Adolf Hitler’s infamous Commando Order of 1942 demanding that all Allied “irregular” troops captured were to be delivered to Heinrich Himmler’s security services for immediate execution. Numerous Allied POWs attested to Rommel’s humane treatment of them. Among them was Capt. Roy Wooldridge of the British Army’s Royal Corps of Engineers‚ who credited Rommel with saving his life. Wooldridge was captured by a German U-Boat crew while on a secret 1944 mission to scout obstacles around the Normandy coast. Although Wooldridge was told by interrogators that he would be shot‚ Rommel unexpectedly summoned Wooldridge‚ sparing him from a firing squad and sending him off to France after giving him a beer and a pack of cigarettes. “When I got to the prisoner of war camp‚ a German guard who spoke English said‚ ‘You’re a very lucky man. If you hadn’t been to see Rommel you would have been shot as a saboteur‚’” Wooldridge told the BBC in 2014. Plotting Against Hitler? Disillusioned with Hitler’s leadership as early as 1942‚ Rommel became part of a group of German Army officers conspiring to remove Hitler from power. Contrary to common perceptions‚ there was not an absence of German Resistance nor did such resistance only come into existence when the war appeared to be closing in around Germany in 1944; pockets of dissent had existed within Germany’s military from much earlier and became more active over time. Having burned many of his personal papers‚ particularly from early 1944‚ to protect himself and others‚ Rommel’s activities against Hitler—particularly his knowledge or lack thereof regarding Claus von Stauffenberg’s failed July 20 assassination attempt—remain debated. Erwin Rommel‚ on horseback center left‚ passes through a village along with fellow officers and men of the 124th (6th Württemberg) Infantry Regiment during World War I. This photo was one of many saved in Rommel’s personal estate. What is indisputable is that Hitler and other leading Nazis perceived Rommel to be a threat and acted quickly to get rid of him. Severely wounded by a plane that strafed his staff car in Normandy on July 17 and left him with a fractured skull‚ Rommel was executed on Hitler’s orders on Oct. 14‚ 1944. Representatives of Hitler came to Rommel’s home and threatened to harm his family unless he agreed to commit suicide—immediately. With the house surrounded by Gestapo and SS men‚ Rommel complied‚ and took cyanide he was given on an isolated roadside less than 15 minutes from his driveway. Nazi officials concealed the cause of Rommel’s death‚ initially claiming he had succumbed to wounds from a “car accident” without mentioning a plane strafing. Doctors who examined Rommel’s body were threatened to falsify his cause of death. Authorities transformed Rommel’s funeral into a propaganda spectacle to rally public support for Hitler. Witnessing Rommel’s executioners use his funeral as political theater was a lifelong source of pain and anger for Rommel’s then 15-year-old son Manfred‚ aware of the true cause of his father’s death. News of Rommel’s demise was initially celebrated in the Allied press. The darker story emerged after the war was over. Since then‚ Rommel has been the focus of endless debate—celebrated‚ reviled‚ doubted and admired. Was he a hero? A hopeless fence-sitter? A would-be assassin? A military genius or a blunderer? Although this author is prepared to venture well-researched opinions on these matters‚ that is not the purpose of this article. Instead‚ readers of this story are invited to cast an eye back to the start of Rommel’s career and the experiences he recorded in the original German text of his 1937 book‚ Infantry Attacks! (Infanterie Greift An)‚ which provides valuable clues about Rommel’s philosophy and ethos. Censoring Rommel The book is inextricably bound up with the story of Rommel’s life and had a propelling effect on his career. It launched him to the heights of military command‚ unlocked barriers to armored warfare‚ and paved his road to Africa and Normandy—and‚ most fatefully‚ brought him into contact with Hitler‚ the man who sealed his doom. It was also poorly translated into English. The U.S. Army produced translations of the book in 1943 and 1944‚ which were heavily redacted and contained errors. Phrases and entire passages were removed. All color and emotion were drained from the original language. This changed not only the content but the tone of the writing. This photograph showing smoke rising from a North African battlefield was one of many taken by Rommel with his Leica camera during World War II. Rommel became famous as “The Desert Fox” in part due to his World War I book. With Rommel’s personality scrubbed out of the book‚ readers were left only with a bare skeleton of his work. That bare skeleton has shaped perceptions of Rommel among English readers. It might appear to anyone picking up the U.S. Army’s rendition of Rommel’s writing that he was a bland technocrat who produced one of the most convoluted and tedious war memoirs written by any officer who ever dared to pick up a pen. The contrast between the common 1944 English translation‚ which is about as exciting as reading an encyclopedia‚ and the otherwise dashing figure of Rommel is enough to leave a person baffled. Although Rommel was a meticulous teacher of troops and intended his experiences to be used as a textbook—a blend of memoir with “lessons learned”—the original German book has much more historical value than the tactical teachings it contains‚ which so far have been the only thing that most English readers have been able to appreciate about it. Nothing in the material that was censored contained gory‚ obscene or political language‚ but ordinary passages for any soldier’s wartime memoir. Many removed passages were ones in which Rommel came across as more relatable or sympathetic on a human level‚ such as his anecdote of finding a wounded Frenchman by a mountain hut who is subsequently tended by Rommel’s troops‚ his care for his horse‚ and friends’ funerals. Working to produce English translations in the middle of World War II‚ the U.S. Army also removed passages that they may have worried would intimidate Allied soldiers or civilians‚ such as some passages describing soldiers’ deaths‚ violence‚ or grim scenes. Some praise for German troops was removed‚ as well as a reference in which Rommel clearly states that he has no fear of Russians. The Russians—allies in World War II‚ of course—in that sentence were conveniently changed to “Romanians.” Clues About Rommel From His Writing Rommel’s use of the German language makes for interesting study. His writing is distinctly straightforward with a colloquial South German twist. Patterns of expression emerge. As an author‚ Rommel showed a tendency to remove direct references to himself from his own narrative. While this is not unusual in the German language‚ the lengths that Rommel went through to avoid focus on himself is unique—especially when it comes to describing the hardships of battle or frontline conditions. Although he didn’t hesitate to describe himself in decision-making‚ he tended to make difficult or uncomfortable situations into “we” and “us” experiences‚ or simply speak of the tribulations of war in a more abstract sense. It is clear that Rommel did not wish to complain nor describe his own sense of suffering‚ but referred to himself as part of a group—and above all‚ focused on the sacrifices of his comrades. This attitude can often be found in the memoirs and statements of war veterans who wish for others to focus on the deeds of their friends around them rather than on themselves. German soldiers charge up a hill during the spring 1940 Battle of France in this photo also taken by Rommel. A dedicated instructor of infantry troops‚ Rommel also had keen interest in armored warfare. A sense of deep affection for his comrades is manifest in Rommel’s writing. He referred to his troops in endearing terms‚ in many cases as “mein Häuflein”—meaning “my little flock‚” as if they were a flock of sheep who need to be tended or a small handful of something to be looked after. He stressed his feelings of responsibility towards his men‚ particularly in situations where they were in danger and he felt compelled to protect them; in one instance‚ Rommel risked his entire force to save a group of their comrades who were stranded amid enemy forces‚ taking a “one for all‚ all for one” type of attitude. Rommel wrote tributes to fallen comrades‚ recording their achievements‚ deaths and funerals. He later revisited former battlefields and photographed his friends’ graves. Additionally‚ Rommel devoted what sometimes seems like an inordinate amount of energy into building fortifications to protect his men from harm‚ spending much time analyzing and improving shelters and dugouts. The amount of effort he put into improving structures for defense suggests that Rommel was actually more cautious and circumspect on the front than he is commonly perceived to have been. ‘Homeland’ not ‘Fatherland’ Thought-provoking word choices pop up frequently in Rommel’s writings. While it has been assumed that Rommel had no taste for music or literature‚ his narrative contains several references to songs and culture‚ including an ironic reference to a scene from a Richard Wagner opera. It’s also worth noting that Rommel never used the word “Vaterland” (“Fatherland”) to describe Germany‚ instead preferring to use “Heimat”—a folksy term meaning “homeland” which wasn’t quite German nationalists’ cup of tea. While the term “Vaterland” was often used by the Nazis to stress the concept of Germany as a strong unified country under Hitler’s rule‚ “Heimat” is an old-fashioned term that can refer to one’s native region and is non-political. Since the book was published within the Third Reich‚ when Nazism and support for Hitler were encouraged on every level of society‚ Rommel had no reason not to appeal to mainstream Nazi political sentiments in his book; indeed‚ it might have made his work more popular. Yet the book contains no mentions of a Führer nor a “new Fatherland”.  Rommel was a native of the Swabian Alps‚ and after serving as an infantryman on the Western Front early in World War I‚ was selected to become part of the Württemberg Mountain Battalion‚ an elite unit of Gebirgsjäger troops—German army mountain rangers. These rangers are highly mobile‚ extremely resilient and adaptable‚ and trained to maneuver and fight in all manner of harsh mountain environments. They were and continue to be among the most elite units in German-speaking nations. Entitled to great cultural esteem due to their abilities and affinity with the mountains‚ they are entitled to wear the symbol of the Edelweiss flower. Training troops For the Wilderness The Edelweiss‚ whose name means “noble white‚” is a legendary bloom known for growing in the most austere mountain environments and being difficult to reach. It is a symbol not only of beauty but of hardiness and resilience. Still worn by Gebirgsjäger troops today‚ the Edelweiss patch was also a hard-earned symbol that Rommel was entitled to wear. It is visible on his cap in several of his World War I photos. Rommel’s writings reveal his strong sense of identity as a mountain ranger‚ which arguably has never been properly appreciated by historians. Although he built strong bonds with his men in the trenches of the Argonne‚ one of the singular events in World War I that truly had a transformative effect on Rommel and his future leadership was his becoming a mountain ranger. Within this close-knit group‚ Rommel quickly developed a strong sense of pride‚ along with confidence in harsh training and an attitude of fearlessness. Camaraderie and the tests of combat convinced Rommel that‚ together‚ he and his men could accomplish nearly anything. Rommel interacts with his troops from his Sd.Kfz. 250 “Greif” armored half-track command vehicle in North Africa. Becoming disillusioned with Hitler as early as 1942‚ Rommel was implicated in a conspiracy to remove the Führer from power and was forced to take poison by Hitler’s representatives after being severely wounded at Normandy in July 1944. The Rommel that emerged as a skilled commander of mountain rangers was the same Rommel who would become the “Desert Fox” in North Africa—a man who excelled in the wilderness and at molding soldiers into masters of mobile combat‚ who could all withstand not only battle but the very elements of nature. An intense spirit of individuality‚ pride and elite group identity‚ as well as feelings of a close personal bond with Rommel as their commander‚ remained with many Afrika Korps veterans for their whole lives. The seeds of this future success are clear to be seen in Rommel’s proud and emotional writings about his love for the mountain troops. Themes and Slang Nature forms a major theme in Rommel’s narrative. He had a special flair for describing natural environments such as forests‚ trees‚ mountains‚ and geographic features‚ as well as elemental forces like thunder‚ lightning‚ clouds and different types of storms. Even in the midst of grim battles‚ Rommel somehow appreciated his natural surroundings and found a way to draw attention to it in writing. His writings on nature are poetic‚ highly descriptive and sometimes romanticized. In one instance‚ for example‚ Rommel compared meadows to the Elysian Fields of Roman mythology. Despite Rommel’s sense of poetry about nature‚ his writings  abound with slang common to soldiers’ memoirs. Rommel wrote with an understated and ironic sense of humor‚ and—with a sly attitude similar to the Civil War’s “Gray Ghost‚” Col. John Singleton Mosby—clearly enjoyed taking enemies by surprise and chasing fleeing foes. Rommel’s writings on action are far from clinical. Gunfire “rips through” things‚ men are “gunned down‚” and planned actions will be a “piece of cake”—or even “fun”. Rommel’s mix of slang‚ irony and hard-edged soldierly humor is characteristic of the memoirs of many military professionals. Humane Treatment of Enemies Another factor that stands out throughout Rommel’s book is his humane treatment of enemies. The amount of times that Rommel gave his enemies opportunities to surrender rather than shoot them is surprising—in fact‚ there are several cases when‚ as Rommel gained opportunities to surprise formidable enemy forces‚ readers might fairly wonder if opening fire might have been a more practical battlefield measure than yelling at foes to give themselves up. Rommel however made a constant habit of requesting surrenders even when it seemed clearly inconvenient or downright dangerous to do so. He frequently spoke with prisoners afterwards and gives them cigarettes. In a mirrorlike foreshadowing of events at St. Valery during World War II in 1940‚ Rommel invited captured officers to have a meal with him. As in 1940‚ the captured officers were understandably too upset by their situation to appreciate this gesture. But it’s worth noting that this naïve attempt at magnanimity was one that Rommel would repeat in World War II. Young Rommel also helped enemy wounded‚ and in one instance intervened to stop his own men from harming POWs. It’s worth mentioning that Rommel‚ in describing these anecdotes and choosing to include them in his military textbook‚ risked coming across as “weich‚” or “soft‚” in Nazi Germany. His anecdotes of showing kindness to enemies did not correspond to the general sense of bloodthirsty nationalism whipped up by Kaiser Wilhelm II during the First World War nor the iron-hearted cruelty advertised as being “strong” in Hitler’s Germany. Rommel could arguably have gotten farther by describing himself being merciless rather than being empathetic. If anything‚ the passages attest not only to Rommel’s inner principles but his independence. As a military instructor during the Third Reich‚ Rommel must have been aware of the values that the regime wanted to instill in future soldiers‚ but instead chose to set an example of humanity for his students even if it did not match popular ideology. His behavior also forms a continuum with what Allied POWs witnessed during World War II—that Rommel’s compassionate treatment of POWs was not part of any postwar mythologizing‚ but was rather a real part of his character that was evident when he was a young man. World War I had a profound impact on Rommel. Haunted by his experiences‚ Rommel would return to his former battlegrounds‚ form a veterans’ group‚ write about‚ teach about and dwell on his battlefield experiences for the rest of his life. He also wore his Pour le Mérite medal‚ earned among his beloved mountain troops‚ constantly until it chipped and faded. There are many more insights to be gained about Rommel’s early transformation into an effective war leader from his memoir—too many to describe in one article. However‚ what truly stands out is that‚ contrary to the commonly read‚ clinical English translations produced during World War II‚ Rommel was a gifted writer who expressed more about ethics in war than has been previously realized. this article first appeared in military history quarterly See more stories subscribe now!  

New Spin: Pack the Supreme Court to Unpack It

Democrats Really Have No Good Options on Immigration

Reuters: Biden Isn't Considering Firing Def Sec Austin

2023 was the year when the hype around artificial intelligence (AI) went into hyperdrive. Following its release in late 2022‚ ChatGPT-3 made AI technology accessible and genuinely useful to the general public‚ prompting the development of numerous other Large Language Models (LLM) by some of Silicon Valley’s mightiest giants. AI was the word on everyone’s lips last year‚ but could it be set to enter a period of stagnation?Rodney Brooks believes so. Brooks is a former director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT who regularly comments on technology's progress (or lack thereof). Since 2018‚ he has posted his predictions of self-driving cars‚ human space travel‚ and – last but not least – robotics‚ AI‚ and machine learning. He’s promised to keep making the forecasts each year until 2050 when he’ll turn 95.In his latest scorecard‚ Brooks predicted that 2024 won’t be a golden age for AI‚ noting that the current fanfare is “following a well worn hype cycle that we have seen again‚ and again‚ during the 60+ year history of AI.”“Get your thick coats now. There may be yet another AI winter‚ and perhaps even a full-scale tech winter‚ just around the corner. And it is going to be cold‚” Brooks concluded.Brooks is far from a pessimistic Luddite. He’s been studying AI since the 1970s and has been dubbed “one of the world’s most accomplished experts in robotics and artificial intelligence.” If he seems cynical‚ it’s simply because he’s seen it all before; all the publicity‚ letdowns‚ false promises‚ and setbacks. Take a look at his former predictions and you’ll see his technological prophecies are often right on the money.When talking about AI in his 2024 scorecard‚ Brooks is referring to LLMs‚ chatbot systems like ChatGPT‚ and others made by the likes of Bing and Google’s Deep Mind. While he believes these AI systems are capable of some impressive feats‚ he thinks they don’t have the capability to become an all-powerful‚ earth-shattering Artificial General Intelligence. In his mind‚ these systems lack true imagination and genuine substance.“[I encourage] people to do good things with LLMs but to not believe the conceit that their existence means we are on the verge of Artificial General Intelligence‚” Brooks added.“There is much more to life than LLMs.”Speaking in an interview with IEEE Spectrum‚ Brooks goes deeper into his criticism‚ explaining how advanced LLMs still make regular mistakes when tasked with relatively simple coding tasks.“It answers with such confidence any question I ask. It gives an answer with complete confidence‚ and I sort of believe it. And half the time‚ it’s completely wrong. And I spend 2 or 3 hours using that hint‚ and then I say‚ ‘That didn’t work‚’ and it just does this other thing. Now‚ that’s not the same as intelligence. It’s not the same as interacting. It’s looking it up‚” said Brooks.Ultimately‚ he believes‚ LLMs have a long way to go before they can be considered anything like a fully-fledged Artificial General Intelligence because they are merely clever wordsmiths‚ not uber-intelligent beings. If his musings are accurate‚ the same could be true of GPT-5‚ GPT-6‚ and beyond.“It doesn’t have any underlying model of the world. It doesn’t have any connection to the world. It is correlation between language‚” Brooks explained.“What the large language models are good at is saying what an answer should sound like‚ which is different from what an answer should be‚” he added.

As a science website‚ it's easy to get bogged down in questions like "is there life on Enceladus" and "where are all the aliens"‚ when people are struggling with more basic (but fun!) questions like "why can't we power our cars with magnets" and "could people breathe the air on Mars". One fun question we stumbled across this week is: if you fell from a great height on the Moon‚ would you die or otherwise get badly injured?Of course‚ in real life‚ any small fall on the Moon could potentially be quite deadly. During one Moon walk‚ astronaut John Young turtled himself while attempting to join in the "Moon Olympics".      "I decided to join in and made a big push off the moon‚ getting about 4 feet [1.2 meters] high‚" Young explained in the book Moonwalker by Charlie and Dotty Duke years later. "But as I straightened up‚ the weight of my backpack pulled me over backward. Now I was coming down on my back. I tried to correct myself but couldn't‚ and as my heart filled with fear I fell the 4 feet [1.2 meters]‚ hitting hard – right on my backpack.""Panic!" he continued. "The thought that I'd die raced across my mind. It was the only time in our whole lunar stay that I had a real moment of panic and thought I had killed myself. The suit and backpack weren't designed to support a 4-foot [1.2-meter] fall."But say suits weren't a problem‚ and you have a breathing device sorted. Would the reduced gravity of the Moon allow you to gently fall to the lunar surface‚ landing harmlessly like Superman?In short‚ no. Though the lower gravity will help you land softer at lower heights‚ it's not going to help you a great deal if you are falling from a great height. On Earth‚ when you freefall you reach terminal velocity‚ where the drag force of the air you are moving through is equal to the downward force of gravity. At this point‚ there is no further acceleration.For a skydiver spread out‚ this is around 200 kilometers per hour (120 miles per hour)‚ though they can fall faster by diving feet or head first‚ reducing drag. At higher altitudes‚ where the air is thinner so drag is reduced in this way‚ it's possible to fall faster still. Felix Baumgartner famously jumped from 39 kilometers (127‚852.4 feet) high in 2012‚ reaching the speed of sound.    On Earth‚ acceleration due to gravity is around 9.8 m/s²‚ whereas on the Moon it is 1.6 m/s2. But crucially‚ on the Moon‚ there is only a very thin atmosphere‚ meaning little drag force to slow down your acceleration as you slip and plummet from your 40-floor Moon hotel.   Say you fell from 100 meters (328 feet): by the time you hit the lunar surface you would reach the velocity of 17.89 meters per second‚ or 64.4 kilometers per hour (37 miles per hour). At that speed‚ you will very likely injure yourself. If you were to jump off the tip of the tallest skyscraper in the world (after you transferred it to the Moon‚ for some reason) you would reach the velocity of 51.53 meters per second‚ or 185.5 kilometers per hour (115 miles per hour)‚ more than enough to cause serious damage or death.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.  

Our lives are becoming increasingly data driven. Our phones monitor our time and internet usage and online surveys discern our opinions and likes. These data harvests are used for telling us how well we’ve slept or what we might like to buy.Numbers are becoming more important for everyday life‚ yet people’s numerical skills are falling behind. For example‚ the percentage of Year 12 schoolchildren in Australia taking higher and intermediate mathematics has been declining for decades.To help the average person understand big data and numbers‚ we often use visual summaries‚ such as pie charts. But while non-numerate folk will avoid numbers‚ most numerate folk will avoid pie charts. Here’s why.What is a pie chart?A pie chart is a circular diagram that represents numerical percentages. The circle is divided into slices‚ with the size of each slice proportional to the category it represents. It is named because it resembles a sliced pie and can be “served” in many different ways.An example pie chart below shows Australia’s two-party preferred vote before the last election‚ with Labor on 55 percent and the Coalition on 45 percent. The two near semi-circles show the relatively tight race – this is a useful example of a pie chart.A simple pie chart showing the percentages for the two major Australian parties in an opinion poll.Image Credit: Victor OguomaWhat’s wrong with pie charts?Once we have more than two categories‚ pie charts can easily misrepresent percentages and become hard to read.The three charts below are a good example – it is very hard to work out which of the five areas is the largest. The pie chart’s circularity means the areas lack a common reference point.Three example pie charts‚ each with five similar categories. Can you quickly tell which color is the largest in each pie?Image Credit: Schutz via Wikimedia Commons‚ (CC BY 1.0)Pie charts also do badly when there are lots of categories. For example‚ this chart from a study on data sources used for COVID data visualization shows hundreds of categories in one pie.A pie chart with dozens of categories. Not every category has a label‚ it’s not clear what the total number of categories is and what the unlabelled slices refer to.Image Credit: Trajkova et al.‚ Informatics (2020)‚ (CC BY 4.0)The tiny slices‚ lack of clear labeling and the kaleidoscope of colors make interpretation difficult for anyone.It’s even harder for a color-blind person. For example‚ this is a simulation of what the above chart would look like to a person with deuteranomaly or reduced sensitivity to green light. This is the most common type of color blindness‚ affecting roughly 4.6 percent of the population.The same data chart as above‚ but run through a simulation filter to demonstrate what it would look like for someone with a common type of colour blindnessImage Credit: Trajkova et al.‚ Informatics (2020); modified‚ (CC BY 4.0)It can get even worse if we take pie charts and make them three-dimensional. This can lead to egregious misrepresentations of data.Below‚ the yellow‚ red‚ and green areas are all the same size (one-third)‚ but appear to be different based on the angle and which slice is placed at the bottom of the pie.A standard two-dimensional pie chart and two three-dimensional pie charts. In every chart the proportions are one-third but there appear to be differences between states in the three-dimensional versions.Image Credit: Victor Oguoma‚ CC BY-NDSo why are pie charts everywhere?Despite the well known problems with pie charts‚ they are everywhere. They are in journal articles‚ PhD theses‚ political polling‚ books‚ newspapers and government reports. They’ve even been used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.While statisticians have criticized them for decades‚ it’s hard to argue with this logic: “if pie charts are so bad‚ why are there so many of them?”Possibly they are popular because they are popular‚ which is a circular argument that suits a pie chart.A collection of terrible pie charts gathered from various open access sources‚ including ‘exploded’ pie charts and 3D pie charts.Image Credit: Adrian Barnett and Victor Oguoma‚ CC BY-NDWhat’s a good alternative to pie charts?There’s a simple fix that can effectively summarise big data in a small space and still allow creative color schemes.It’s the humble bar chart. Remember the brain-aching pie chart example above with the five categories? Here’s the same example using bars – we can now instantly see which category is the largest.Three pie charts‚ each with five similar categories‚ and the same data presented using bar charts.IMAGE CREDIT: SCHUTZ VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS‚ (CC BY 1.0)Linear bars are easier on the eye than the non-linear segments of a pie chart. But beware the temptation to make a humble bar chart look more interesting by adding a 3D effect. As you already saw‚ 3D charts distort perception and make it harder to find a reference point.Below is a standard bar chart and a 3D alternative of the number of voters in the 1992 US presidential election split by family income (from under US$15K to over $75k). Using the 3D version‚ can you tell the number of voters for each candidate in the highest income category? Not easily.The same voter data presented as a standard two-dimensional bar chart and an unhelpful three-dimensional version.Image Credit: Victor Oguoma‚ CC BY-NDIs it ever okay to use a pie chart?We’ve shown some of the worst examples of pie charts to make a point. Pie charts can be okay when there are just a few categories and the percentages are dissimilar‚ for example with one large and one small category.Overall‚ it is best to use pie charts sparingly‚ especially when there is a more “digestible” alternative – the bar chart.Whenever we see pie charts‚ we think one of two things: their creators don’t know what they’re doing‚ or they know what they are doing and are deliberately trying to mislead.A graphical summary aims to easily and quickly communicate the data. If you feel the need to spruce it up‚ you’re likely reducing understanding without meaning to do so.Adrian Barnett‚ Professor of Statistics‚ Queensland University of Technology and Victor Oguoma‚ Senior Research Fellow‚ Poche Centre for Indigenous Health‚ The University of QueenslandThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.