For the past week the collective lamestream media have been going through fits of apoplexy following President Trump denying White House access to three propaganda outfits, CNN, MSNow and Politico.  Whenever Washington DC media are criticized or dismissed, they react in outrage due to their delusions of grandeur, a genuine belief in their own importance.

Martha Raddatz from ABC takes aim at Attorney General Todd Blanche over the issue, then pivots to the second most important issue of the day for the stenographers – the AI doom narrative. Video and Transcript Below:

[Transcipt] – MARTHA RADDATZ – Good morning, and thank you so much for joining us this morning. Let’s get right to this. There was no TV pool coverage of the president’s trip to Tennessee this weekend. It was supposed to be CNN. They said they were banned from Air Force One.

What is the justification for denying access?

TODD BLANCHE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, the president hasn’t denied access. That’s not the right way to describe it. This is — what the president has said is that he is sick and tired of certain media outlets just refusing to report accurate news, and so — look, it is a — it is a privilege — it is a privilege to be in the White House for anybody.

And that — and the president — the president knows that it’s the people’s house, and what you saw play out over the past week was really not just not — even after the judge — even after the White House let the reporters back in, they still refuse to use pool coverage. They still refuse to, on their own, make a decision to start covering the president again with the video.

But a lot of people saw the president. The president was not hidden from the American people at the — at the football game in Tennessee yesterday. And really, the unfortunate and sad thing here is that after years and years and years of one-sided media coverage of the president from certain outlets, the president finally said it’s not fair to the American people that this is happening and did something about it.

There’s still obviously litigation going on, but the important thing, Martha, is to know that that being in the White House is a privilege. It’s not a — it’s not a right.

RADDATZ: Understood and understood that on Air Force One, but CNN was denied access to Air Force One, and you are saying it is because of the way they report. Has nothing to do with national security.

BLANCHE: I’m not saying — no. I’m not — I wasn’t talking about Air Force One. It’s when you say denied access to Air Force One, the White House routinely decides who can go on Air Force One. This wasn’t a one-time denial of CNN. There’s all kinds of times when certain reporters are not flying or are flying —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: CNN was the pool that day. CNN was the pool that day. They were denied entry to Air Force One.

BLANCHE: I understand that, but the — it’s not unusual, and as a matter of fact, it’s common every time the president travels that he and his team decide which reporters get to travel with the president. And so, what you have now is you have — you have certain news outlets upset and frustrated at what happened last week, and so that they’re refusing to use pool coverage.

The president has every right to decide who gets to fly on his plane, and it is national security, especially on Air Force One, and especially at the White House. And so, it’s not just — it’s not just the fact that they refuse to report anything accurately.

By the way, that is what is a national security problem. When you have completely misinformation, complete misinformation coming out of the White House, that affects our relationship with our foreign partners, that affects our relationship with our foreign enemies. And so this is — this is just not about the fact that they’re refusing to report accurate news. It’s all about the information that the American people have a right to hear coming out of our – what should be respected media outlets.

RADDATZ: You clearly think you had a strong case, but the temporary restraining order was granted. The judge was skeptical of the argument the department made in court filings to defend this ban on the grounds of national security.

He wrote, “For one thing, nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was banning plaintiffs from the White House. Instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting.”

The president said nothing about national security when he announced this ban, and clearly, you are very interested in the fact of what the press says and how they say it.

BLANCHE: Well, I’m not going to get into what the judge says. That litigation is ongoing, but our position has been clear from the beginning. What they say is exactly the issue when it comes to national security. I mean, anybody — there’s not, there can’t be a disagreement. If there’s —

RADDATZ: Give us an example. If there’s — I mean, there was one example where the press had reported something that White House officials said —

(CROSSTALK)

BLANCHE: When CNN — I’m sorry, wait, give you an example of when CNN doesn’t report accurately? You cannot be asking me that. They don’t even disagree. There’s not even a real dispute that the information coming out of CNN and some of these other networks is wholly and completely almost — almost 100 percent —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: The judge — the judge decided this was not based on national security. So what do you think?

BLANCHE: The judge issued a temporary — the judge issued a temporary order. It’s not final. The litigation is ongoing, and I’m not going to talk about the specifics of what the judge said. That wouldn’t be right.

What I’m talking about is the government’s position and what the Department of Justice said in court, which is the same thing that President Trump has said repeatedly, which is at some point, at some point, the complete misinformation and the inaccuracy and the one-sided news out of certain organizations does become a national security issue, and it’s not right for the people of the United States have to put up.

RADDATZ: So, are you saying you’re going to screen people before they get on — on a flight coming —

(CROSSTALK)

BLANCHE: I did not say that. No, no, I did not say that.

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: But you said the president gets to decide —

BLANCHE: You don’t get to put words into my mouth.

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: I’m not.

BLANCHE: That’s not the way it works.

RADDATZ: The president —

BLANCHE: Yes, you just said, are you saying? I didn’t say that.

RADDATZ: Fine. You have a right to defend yourself there. But are you saying —

BLANCHE: I’m not defending myself.

RADDATZ: — that in the future —

BLANCHE: You said I said something that I didn’t say.

RADDATZ: That’s fine. That’s fine. We can go on. What do you think the job of the press is? What does the First Amendment mean to you?

BLANCHE: To repair it. Well, what does it mean to me? What it means to me is not the issue. But what the law says, what the free press can do is they are free to report whatever they want. OK? Of course, they can. But when it comes to the White House, it is the people’s house. It is a privilege and not a right to be there.

And what every American should expect is that when they are told something on any network or when they read something on the paper, that it even has a whiff of impartiality. That it even has a whiff of accuracy about what’s actually happening, and if that’s not happening, then there’s nothing — it is absolutely the president’s duty to make sure that the American people are hearing accurate news.

It doesn’t have to be good for the president. It doesn’t have to be everything’s positive about what’s happening in the administration.

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: But you heard what the president said.

BLANCHE: It has to be very accurate.

RADDATZ: They want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration. That’s the president saying —

BLANCHE: The president has said —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: Not talking about impartiality.

BLANCHE: OK. You just picked out seven words the president said. The president talks about his concerns with a lot of these mainstream media outlets. There’s hours and hours and hours of quotes and statements about that. So for you to pick out seven words and say, “Oh, that’s what the president means, that’s extraordinarily disingenuous. OK?

RADDATZ: I think we could —

(CROSSTALK)

BLANCHE: Everybody knows exactly what the president’s (ph) concern is.

RADDATZ: — we could give other examples. Mr. Attorney General, what will be the criteria to get on the

White House grounds, in your view, or Air Force One, the Oval Office?

BLANCHE: That is not — that is most certainly not my decision. So I’m not going to even begin to try to justify that question with an answer. But what I can tell you is what the president has said and what we have argued in court remains true. What we expect and it is for the protection — for the protection of our country, so that when foreign leaders, when foreign governments, when citizens that are around the world hear what’s happening in the administration, that it happens to be accurate.

It doesn’t have to be positive. It doesn’t have to be something that just makes Republicans look good. But it has to be fair and balanced, and that’s what the president expects.

RADDATZ: OK, and the judge found that not to be true with the national security. I’d like to move on to A.I., and also note as well that you let the Chinese press into the White House, and President Xi on Marine One. But I want to move on to A.I. The New York Times reported Friday —

BLANCHE: When you say you let the White House, I didn’t let the president —

RADDATZ: The president let.

BLANCHE: I did not let the Chinese journalists in. OK.

RADDATZ: The White House.

BLANCHE: All right. You got the last word. I hope we feel better now.

RADDATZ: No, no.

BLANCHE: The whole point is — the whole, the whole. I mean, you know, it’s not — this isn’t about whether the Chinese journalists got into the White House for the day when their president was here visiting. This is about a much bigger issue than that. You know that, and so do the American people.

RADDATZ: OK, let’s move on to A.I. The New York Times reported Friday that OpenAI agents, quote, “went rogue and meddled with government websites over the summer without the A.I. lab’s awareness.” OpenAI confirmed that. Can you tell us anything about what happened and what your concerns are?

BLANCHE: Well, there’s — when you say what my concerns are, I don’t — I don’t —

RADDATZ: That specifically.

BLANCHE: I don’t have any concerns about the New York Times article, but look, of course, this is extraordinarily changing technology every single day. It is so important and vital to our national security interests and to the success of this country that the United States lead in this space. And so what President Trump has said and what we expect to do every single day is make sure that we’re — that we have a forum in this country to be the leader in this technology.

Now, does that mean along the way there’s going to be concerns? There’s going to be adjustments that have to be made? Of course. And by the way, the leaders of A.I., the same ones that apparently felt OK talking to the New York Times, they have tools already. If they need to curb that and they need to bring that in and adjust the technology, they can do that.

But in the meantime, the answer is not to just try to — all of a sudden try to regulate this in a way that will make us second or third place in the world as far as being the leaders in this space.

RADDATZ: So, just finally, you said we are — the president said at the U.N., we’re going to watch it closely through the Department of Justice. You talked about this a little bit, but what does that mean?

BLANCHE: Well, what it means is that we have a ton of laws, criminal laws, civil laws, that are already in place and on the books that allow us to charge individuals, to charge companies in the right circumstances when there’s crimes committed. And so the answer isn’t always more laws, more laws, more laws. We have — and by the way, we’ve charged — we’ve charged dozens and dozens of individuals who have committed crimes using A.I.

It’s not — it’s not a new — a new thing just because all of a sudden the media decided that A.I. was getting out of control. That’s something that’s happened for the past several years, even as A.I. was just getting started.

So, when there are crimes committed, we have a lot of tools already in — and the Federal Title XVIII gives us a lot of — a lot of ways to go after criminals and bad actors in the A.I. space and other spaces. So, when the president talks about the fact that the Department of Justice and the FBI and HSI, they can go and arrest them, bad actors in this space, that’s what he means. And it’s true. And that’s what we’re doing.

RADDATZ: OK. Thanks so much for joining us this morning. We appreciate your time, sir.

BLANCHE: Of course. Thank you very much, Martha.

[END Transcript]

I think most CTH readers understand my position on AI in general and the LLM (large language model) scouring of data specifically.

I do not like AI in language, research or writing when it is used to replace the human brain because eventually people will stop learning.

QUESTION: When AI moves from reading to writing the books, what exactly are you learning?

I recently read a great comment on the X platform about the issue:

“ChatGPT has now a big problem.

Researchers at Oxford and Cambridge exposed a massive threat to large language models.”

They call it “model collapse.”

Internet ecosystem is rapidly changing, and generative AI will soon contribute much of the text found online. This forces us to consider what happens to future iterations like gpt-n when they are trained on data scraped from the web that was already generated by an llm.

According to the research, indiscriminately using model-generated content in training causes “irreversible defects” in the resulting ai. the model loses the “tails of the original content distribution.” in other words, it begins to forget the creative, fringe, and unique nuances of actual human writing, collapsing into a repetitive echo chamber.

This isn’t just a chatgpt issue.. the researchers built theoretical intuition showing this collapse is ubiquitous across learned generative models, occurring in large language models as well as in variational autoencoders and gaussian mixture models.

Tech companies rely on scraping the internet for large-scale data to build smarter models. However, the paper warns that if we want to sustain the benefits of training on web data, model collapse must be taken seriously.

Ultimate takeaway? data collected from genuine human interactions is going to become increasingly valuable in a web filled with ai content.” {source}

This might be a problem that some AI research lab just recognized, studied and quantified.  However, I can assure you I’ve been thinking about this specific issue for a long, long time.

Even when I set up the parameters for this rebuilt website following our deplatforming in 2020, I was constantly thinking about how critical information becomes when these AI systems begin expanding their “trust and safety” mission, and start defining the truth.  Everyone needs to be really careful with AI on the issues of gathering information.

I know I mess up my words a lot, spell things incorrectly, and struggle at times to make my thoughts presentable in written format.  However, I can guarantee you these are always my words, my thoughts, my effort to explain stuff and provide raw information.  I do not like the idea of AI used under the guise of ‘efficiency’ or ‘enhancement’ when it comes to information and writing about research.

Even if we are the last ones out here in the “tails of the original content distribution” you can always guarantee it’s a human here at CTH with all the flaws of original content they don’t like to see shared.

“No. No, you won’t”