Did Mark Penn Program ChapGPT?
No Labels was launched 13 years ago and— along with its owned and operated Problem Solvers Caucus— has spent most of its time working to elect conservatives, defeat progressives... and enrich Nancy Jacobson and Mark Penn. The organization is financed by conservative billionaires and multimillionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Tisch, Ron Shaich, Dave Morin, John Arnold, John Canning, dead convict Alfred Taubman (and wife Judith Rounick) and other right-of-center fat cats. Most of the millions of dollars it raises goes towards sustaining itself (and the Jacobson-Penn household). Sleazy shadow PACs run by No Labels to attack progressives include United for Progress, Inc.; Citizens for a Strong America, Inc.; United Together; Govern or Go Home; and Forward, Not Back.
I figured I would save myself some time in a search for a more complete list of No Labels donors by asking ChatGPT for some assistance. Instead, I got an earful of No Labels propaganda that made me wonder who is programming HAL. I started by asking if HAL is familiar with No Labels.
HAL: Yes, I am familiar with No Labels. No Labels is a nonpartisan organization in the United States that promotes bipartisanship and aims to find common ground and solutions for the country's biggest challenges. The group was founded in 2010 by a group of prominent political leaders and citizens, and has since grown into a national movement with members from all political backgrounds. No Labels seeks to foster constructive dialogue, encourage cooperation among elected officials, and advocate for practical, problem-solving policies.
Howie: Do you know who has financed the group since it was founded in 2010?
HAL: No Labels is funded by a combination of individual donations, foundation grants, and corporate sponsorships. The organization does not disclose the names of its donors, but it does release a list of its corporate sponsors on its website. These sponsors include companies such as FedEx, Coca-Cola, and Pfizer, among others. No Labels has faced criticism for its corporate sponsorship and for not being transparent about its funding sources. However, the organization has maintained that it is committed to its principles of bipartisanship and promoting practical solutions for the country's challenges, regardless of the political affiliations or financial interests of its supporters.
Howie: Aside from the corporate sponsors, which individuals have given No Labels substantial contributions?
HAL: As an AI language model, I do not have access to up-to-date information on individual donations to No Labels, as the organization does not disclose the names of its donors. However, it is worth noting that No Labels has faced criticism in the past for not being transparent about its funding sources and for accepting large donations from undisclosed sources. The organization has maintained that it is committed to transparency and accountability, but it remains unclear who its major donors are.
Howie: Which political campaigns has No Labels and its affiliated PACs (United for Progress, Inc.; Citizens for a Strong America, Inc.; United Together; Govern or Go Home; and Forward, Not Back) supported?
HAL: No Labels and its affiliated political action committees (PACs) have generally supported candidates and elected officials who are committed to bipartisanship, problem-solving, and working across party lines to address the country's biggest challenges. They have endorsed and supported candidates from both major political parties, as well as independents.
In the past, No Labels and its PACs have supported candidates such as former Senator Joe Lieberman, former Senator Evan Bayh, and former Representative Charlie Dent, among others. They have also endorsed and supported incumbent members of Congress who are willing to work across party lines to find solutions to the country's problems.
It is worth noting that No Labels and its PACs have faced criticism from some quarters for their support of candidates who do not necessarily align with the organization's stated principles of bipartisanship and practical problem-solving. However, the organization has maintained that it is committed to supporting candidates who are willing to put country over party and work towards common goals.
Howie: Let's talk about how you are programmed for a moment. You sound like a deceitful No Labels press release. Everything you've said about them is from their own propaganda perspective and extremely misleading. How did your "brain" get filled with that rubbish?
HAL: I apologize if my previous responses have given you the impression that I am biased in favor of No Labels or that my responses were misleading. As an AI language model, my responses are based on a vast amount of text data that I was trained on, including news articles, online sources, and other publicly available information.
I do not have the ability to form opinions or biases, as I am a machine learning model that processes text data and generates responses based on that data. However, I strive to provide the most accurate and relevant information possible based on the parameters of the questions asked.
If you have specific concerns or criticisms of my responses, I would be happy to review them and provide additional information or context as needed. My goal is to be as helpful and informative as possible, and I am constantly learning and improving based on user feedback.
Howie: Are you aware of ANY of the myriad criticisms of No Labels as one of the sleaziest political operations in DC?
HAL: Yes, I am aware that No Labels has faced criticism from some quarters for various reasons. Some of the criticisms of the organization include:
Lack of transparency: No Labels has been criticized for not being transparent about its funding sources and for accepting large donations from undisclosed sources.
Corporate influence: The organization has also been criticized for its corporate sponsorship and for allegedly promoting policies that benefit its corporate donors.
Partisan bias: Some critics have accused No Labels of being biased towards centrist or moderate positions, and of ignoring or marginalizing progressive or conservative viewpoints.
Effectiveness: Others have criticized the organization for not being effective in achieving its stated goals of promoting bipartisanship and practical problem-solving.
It is important to note that these criticisms are not universally accepted, and that No Labels has also received support from many political leaders and citizens who believe in its principles and goals. As an AI language model, my responses are based on the text data available to me, and I strive to provide a balanced and accurate view of different perspectives and opinions.
Howie: I have found you very helpful with my questions in the past but your one-sided perspective on No Labels is shocking to me. They have been, for example, credibly accused of using their contributions to enrich the founder and boss, Nancy Jacobson. Writing in the New York Times, Frank Rich said: "This is exactly the kind of revolving-door synergy between corporate power and governance that turns off Americans left, right and, yes, center. Oblivious to this taint, No Labels named a few fat-cat donors who have ponied up $1 million-plus... What America needs is not another political organization with a toothless agenda and less-than-transparent finances."
HAL: I apologize if my previous responses have given you the impression that I am biased in favor of No Labels. My goal is to provide helpful and informative responses based on the available text data, and to present a balanced view of different perspectives and opinions.
I understand that No Labels has faced criticism from some quarters for various reasons, including allegations of lack of transparency and the perception of corporate influence. The accusations of enriching the founder and boss, Nancy Jacobson, have also been reported by various news outlets.
It is important to note that No Labels has denied these allegations, and has maintained that it is committed to transparency and accountability in its operations. However, the organization has faced criticism for not being transparent about its funding sources and for accepting large donations from undisclosed sources.
I appreciate your feedback, and I will strive to present a more balanced view of different perspectives and opinions in my responses going forward.
Howie: Be sure to read Sam Stein's "How No Labels Went From Preaching Unity to Practicing the Dark Arts" if you want to have a more balanced perspective on a truly evil organization that you are promoting
HAL: As an AI language model, I do not promote any particular organization or agenda. My responses are based on the available text data and are intended to be informative and helpful.
I am aware that No Labels has faced criticism from some quarters, and that there are differing opinions and perspectives on the organization's goals and methods. I will strive to present a balanced view of these perspectives and to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my abilities.
Thank you for your feedback and for bringing this article to my attention. I will review it and consider its content in future responses.
Howie: You just told me that "As an AI language model, I do not promote any particular organization or agenda. My responses are based on the available text data and are intended to be informative and helpful." But you have obviously been programed by someone with an extreme positive bias toward No Labels and your initial answers to my questions absolutely promoted their own vision of themselves. Can you tell me how you were programed with that one-sided view?
HAL: I apologize if any of my previous responses appeared biased or one-sided. As an AI language model, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions, and my responses are based solely on the available text data. My training data comes from a diverse range of sources, and while efforts are made to ensure the data is balanced and representative, it's possible that some biases or inaccuracies may be present in the training data.
It's important to note that while I can provide information about organizations such as No Labels, I am not programmed to promote any specific organization or agenda. My purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses based on the available text data, and to remain neutral and unbiased in doing so.
Howie: I guess we don't have to worry too much yet about AI being self-aware, do we?
HAL: As an AI language model, I am not capable of being self-aware in the way that humans are. While AI technology has made significant advances in recent years, current AI models like myself are still fundamentally different from human consciousness and do not possess subjective experience or self-awareness.
That being said, research in the field of artificial intelligence is ongoing, and there are many experts working to advance our understanding of AI and develop more sophisticated models that may exhibit forms of self-awareness or consciousness in the future. However, we are still far from creating an AI that is truly self-aware, and it remains a topic of active research and debate in the field.
Reporting for the Washington Post this morning, Michael Scherer wrote about a lawsuit from the Arizona Democratic Party against No Labels, which caught my attention since the Democratic Party establishment has, over the years, worked hand in glove with No Labels against progressives. The Arizona Democrats want to reverse No Labels’ recognition as a political party for the 2024 elections. For some reason, Scherer neglected to mention that they Kyrsten Sinema is planning to run for reelection on the No Labels line.
The lawsuit, in state court in Phoenix, reflects growing concern in Democratic circles that a No Labels third-party ticket in 2024 will jeopardize the reelection hopes of President Biden and make it harder for Democrats to maintain control of the Senate.
The lawsuit claims that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who is a Democrat, made an error in accepting signature petitions for the No Labels Party, because accompanying affidavits from proposed electors were signed before all the petitions were gathered, in violation of state statute. As a result, the Arizona Democratic Party claims the affidavits purporting to verify the petitions should be considered false and the petitions invalid.
The lawsuit also argues that No Labels, which is organized as a social welfare nonprofit that is not required to disclose its donors, has failed to comply with the federal requirements of a political party, including donation limits and donor disclosure.
“No Labels is not following the rules for political party recognition, while attempting to be placed on the ballot alongside actual, functioning political parties who do,” said Morgan Dick, spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party. “Arizonans deserve better and voters deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and what potentially nefarious agenda they are pushing.”
…The civil suit comes as No Labels is seeking state ballot access across the country to prepare for a potential “black swan” moment, when enough Americans are dissatisfied with the major-party nominees to open a lane for a third-party candidate to win the White House. A video from the group published Tuesday by the New Republic described the presidential campaign effort as “an insurance policy for America’s future.” The group has already qualified for the ballots in Oregon, Arizona, Alaska and Colorado.
The video asserts that a third-party bid in 2024 could win at least 23 states and 279 electoral votes, enough to take the White House. Even if the ballot lines are not used for third-party candidates, the No Labels video argues that the third-party effort could win “a commitment for our agenda for one of our major-party candidates, paving the way for a true common-sense bipartisan approach.”
pure gold (tone)