MSNBC
Students using computers in a classroom.
Want to learn something new? My suggestion: Don’t ask ChatGPT. While tech leaders promote generative AI tools as your new, go-to source for information, my experience as a university librarian suggests otherwise. Generative AI tools often produce “hallucinations,” in the form of fabricated misinformation that convincingly mimics actual, factual truth.
The concept of AI “hallucinations” came to my attention not long after the launch of ChatGPT. Librarians at universities and colleges throughout the country began to share a puzzling trend: students were spending time fruitlessly searching for books and articles that simply didn’t exist. It was only after questioning that students revealed their source as ChatGPT. In the tech world, these fabrications are called “hallucinations,” a term borrowed from psychiatry to describe sensory systems that become temporarily distorted. In this context, the term implies generative AI has human cognition, but it emphatically does not. The fabrications are outputs of non-human algorithms that can misinform – and too often, do.
In April of 2023, a news headline read: ChatGPT is making up fake Guardian articles. The story began by describing a surprising incident. A reader had inquired about an article that couldn’t be found. The reporter couldn’t remember having written such an article, but it “certainly sounded like something they would have written.” Colleagues attempted to track it down, only to discover that no such article had been published. As librarians had learned just weeks prior, ChatGPT had fabricated an article citation, but this time the title was so believable that even the reporter couldn’t remember if they’d written it.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Since the release of ChatGPT two years ago, OpenAI’s valuation has soared to $157 billion, which might suggest that hallucinations are no longer a problem. However, you’d be wrong. Hallucinations are not a ‘problem’ but an integral “feature” of how ChatGPT, and other generative AI tools, work. According to Kristian Hammon, Professor and Director of the Center for Advancing Safety of Machine Intelligence, “hallucinations are not bugs; they’re a fundamental part” of how generative AI works. In an essay describing the hallucination problem, he concludes, “Our focus shouldn’t be on eliminating hallucinations but on providing language models with the most accurate and up-to-date information possible…staying as close to the truth as the data allows.”
Companies like OpenAI have been slow to educate the public about this issue. For example, OpenAI released its first ChatGPT guide for students only in November 2024, almost 24 months after ChatGPT launched. Rather than explaining hallucinations, the guide states simply, “Since language models can generate inaccurate information, always double-check your facts.” Educating the public about fabricated misinformation and how to discern AI fact from fiction has not been a priority for OpenAI.
Even experts have difficulty deciphering AI’s fabrications. A Stanford University professor recently apologized for using citations generated by ChatGPT in a November 1 court filing supporting a Minnesota law banning political deepfakes. The citation links went to nonexistent journal articles and incorrect authors. The professor’s use of these citations has called his expertise into question and opened the door to excluding his declaration from the court’s consideration. Interestingly, he was paid $600 an hour to write the filing, and he researches “lying and technology.”
Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, warns that AI hallucinations can have “life-threatening consequences” in medicine. He points out, “The standard disclaimers provided by models like ChatGPT, which warn that ‘ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info,’ are insufficient safeguards in clinical settings.” He suggests training medical professionals to understand that AI content is not always reliable, even though it may sound convincing.
To be sure, AI doesn’t always hallucinate and humans also make mistakes. When I explain the issue of AI hallucinations and the need for public education to students and friends, a common response is, “But, humans make mistakes, too.” That’s true–but we’re well-aware of human fallibility. That same awareness doesn’t extend to content created by AI tools like ChatGPT. Instead, humans have a well-documented tendency to believe automated tools, a phenomenon known as automation bias. The misinformation coming from AI tools is especially dangerous because it is less likely to be questioned. As Emily Bender, a professor of computational linguistics, summarized, “a system that is right 95% of the time is arguably more dangerous than one that is right 50% of the time. People will be more likely to trust the output, and likely less able to fact check the 5%”.
Anyone using ChatGPT or other AI tools needs to understand that fabricated misinformation, “hallucinations”, are a problem. Beyond a simple technical glitch, hallucinations pose real dangers, from academic missteps to life-threatening medical errors. Fabricated misinformation is just one of the many challenges of living in an AI-infused world.
We have an ethical responsibility to teach students not only how to use AI but also how to critically evaluate AI inputs, processes, and outputs. Educational institutions have the opportunity and the obligation to create courses and initiatives that prepare students to confront the ethical challenges posed by AI, that is why we are currently developing a Center for AI Literacy and Ethics at Oregon State University. It is imperative that educational institutions, not corporations, lead the charge in educating our students about the ethical dimensions and critical use of AI.
Laurie Bridges is an instruction librarian and professor at Oregon State University. She recently taught “Generative AI and Society,” an OSU Honors College colloquium focused on AI literacy and ethics. Laurie Bridges is a Public Voices Fellow of the Op-Ed Project.
President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, January 8, 2025.
Withhis loyalists lining up for key law-enforcement roles, Trump is fixated on former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney, who helped lead the January 6 congressional investigation. “Liz Cheney has been exposed in the Interim Report, by Congress, of the J6 Unselect Committee as having done egregious and unthinkable acts of crime,”Trump recently said. Then he added: “She is so unpopular and disgusting, a real loser!”
This accelerates a dangerous trend in American politics: using the criminal justice system to settle political scores. Boththe Trumps and the Bidens have been entangled in numerous criminal law controversies, as have many other politicians this century, includingScooter Libbey,Ted Stevens,Robert Coughlin,William Jefferson,Jesse Jackson Jr.,David Petraeus,Michael Fylnn,Steve Bannon,Bob Menendez, andGeorge Santos.
Some of these cases represent legitimate law enforcement work. Some don't. The overall trend is clear: the bloodlust to imprison political rivals is intensifying.
The implications are profound. First, criminalizing politics undermines the fundamental principle that the rule of law applies equally to all people. Entangling the passions and biases of politics with the criminal law leads to different prosecutorial standards depending on someone's political affiliations—instead of evidence regarding their guilt or innocence. In American politics, the messenger matters more than the message; the actor matters more than the act. With the rule of law, the opposite is true: all individuals must be treated equally, and their specific alleged misdeeds—alone—are what counts.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Second, criminalizing politics accelerates a disturbing trend toward ever more polarization. It ramps up the stakes from treating opponents as political rivals to treating them like personal enemies.
Hardball politics is, of course, nothing new. It's woven into the fabric of our democratic system. But ultimately, we are one nation in a dangerous world. Our internal disputes shouldn’t consume too much national bandwidth.According to Trump, “I always say, we have two enemies. We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these countries.”
This is a dangerous perspective and he couldn't be more wrong. Trump's mentality undercuts Americans’ ability to respond to the myriad international threats we face together. If looked at from a global perspective, Americans’ interests overlap far more than they diverge. Our energy should be focused on understanding and addressing big global challenges, not sending officials we don't like to jail.
Finally, criminalizing politics deters quality people from even entering the political arena. The United States government already has a personnel problem. Look no further than the presidency. We will soon transition from a man with obviously declining mental facilities to a man who tried to reverse the previous presidential election. This is neither normal nor the way it's always been. We shouldn’t further dissuade talented people from entering government over concerns that imperfections and ambiguities in their past will be twisted into politically motivated criminal accusations. The downside of winning office should be losing the next election and not going to jail.
These concerns must be understood in context. It's, of course, true that entering government should neither absolve someone from past crimes nor serve as a license to commit new ones. And even-handed justice requires prosecuting not just the weak and anonymous but also the powerful and well-known.
Striking the right balance is hard. But there should be a strong presumption in favor of leaving politics—and its inherent passions and prejudices—outside the courthouse.
Politicizing the rule of law doesn't just undermine our government and poison our justice system. It imperils our nation as a whole.
William Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.”
A test tube with a blood test for h5n1 avian influenza. The concept of an avian flu pandemic. Checking the chicken for diseases.
The first human death from bird flu in the United States occurred on January 6 in a Louisiana hospital, less than three weeks before the second Donald Trump administration’s inauguration. Bird flu, also known as Avian influenza or H5N1, is a disease that has been on the watch list of scientists and epidemiologists for its potential to become a serious threat to humans.
COVID-19’s chaotic handling during Trump’s first term serves as a stark reminder of the stakes. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, last year, 66 confirmed human cases of H5N1 bird flu were reported in the United States. That is a significant number when you consider that only one case was recorded in the two previous years.
Bird flu was first detected in domestic birds in 1996 in Southern China and has since spread to wild birds, mammals, and humans worldwide, with a fatality rate reaching 50% in some cases. In the U.S., cases have been mostly mild, affecting primarily poultry and dairy workers, until this recent death in Louisiana.
In the spring of last year, bird flu showed up in cows. When a pathogen—any organism that causes a disease—jumps species, scientists get nervous because its genetic makeup can reconfigure and become more transmissible or lethal. The fact that humans are now being infected is a red flag. Though human-to-human transmission of H5N1 has not yet happened, it does not mean it can’t.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“That’s our concern — the more shots on goal that we give the virus, the greater chance of there being a mutation of some sort that precipitates a much larger situation,” said Dr. Nirav D. Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC. “But we’re also equally interested in the scientific finding that thus far, in the current outbreak, cases have been milder than what we’ve seen historically.”
Since the health of animals is directly linked to that of humans, the federal government took swift action. In a joint op-ed in USA Today, Xavier Becerra, secretary of Health and Human Services, and Tom Vilsack, secretary of Agriculture, said, “As heads of the federal departments responsible for human health and animal health, we quickly stood up a coordinated response organized around four key priorities: monitoring and stopping transmission, protecting workers and the public, keeping animals healthy and ensuring the safety of our food supply.” Drinking raw milk, for instance, is especially risky now.
The key question is whether the new administration has the political will to prioritize Americans' health. Trump’s nominee to lead Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr., is a vocal vaccine skeptic critical of federal mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, Dr. Dave Weldon, the nominee for CDC, has questioned the efficacy of vaccines and public health measures to control disease outbreaks.
For an in-depth conversation on the role of Health and Human Services, listen to this 1A podcast episode with host Jenn White by clicking HERE.
Rebecca Katz, Director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University and author of The Outbreak Atlas, reminds us that bird flu is the latest threat to human health. This past year alone, the world witnessed a Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda, Mpox in central Africa, and a resurgence of measles worldwide, primarily driven by diminished confidence in childhood vaccines.
“There are death, taxes, and emerging infectious diseases. You can guarantee that there will be more diseases,” Katz told the Fulcrum, adding there is a collective tendency to pivot from cycles of panic to neglect. “We had the biggest generational disease event five years ago. Now, we are in the biggest valley of neglect. There's no money, no workforce, and no confidence. We're going to have to fix that.”
On January 3, President Joe Biden’s administration announced US$ 306 million in additional funding for the H5N1 response. However, experts such as Katz believe there are still insufficient resources allocated towards long-term pandemic preparedness. Despite the likelihood of future outbreaks, Trump has suggested disbanding the Office of Pandemic Preparedness, established in 2022, which would hinder coordinated national responses. Making childhood vaccines optional could further erode collective immunity and prompt insurers to stop covering them.
“The reason why vaccines are so readily available to people is because of the Affordable Care Act and the vaccine for children program,” said Sam Bagenstos, former General Council to HHS under President Biden, on the 1A show aired January 8 on NPR. “If the CDC Director were to take vaccines off that list, vaccines would instantly become effectively unavailable to most people in the country. There is a very substantial risk that even without taking away the approval of vaccines, even without any regulatory changes, a new administration could make it much harder for people to get vaccinated.”
Managing outbreaks, says Katz, is complex and requires coordination at all levels. While the CDC, as a federal agency, is tasked with the genetic sequencing of a virus, two things must be prioritized locally: disease surveillance and public awareness. However, “if I had to pick one priority investment, it would be people,” says Katz. “I am deeply concerned about our workforce. We don't have enough people, and the ones we have are not sufficiently supported to be able to do their jobs effectively.”
The lack of trust and outright threats directed at U.S. medical personnel and public health officials at the height of the pandemic prompted many to resign, leaving behind a demoralized and weaker workforce. Mistrust is fueled by rumors and inaccurate information. But disinformation, which is false and deliberately intended to mislead the public, plays an even greater role in undermining trust.
The Outbreak Atlas, co-authored by Katz and Wellcome Trust scholar Mackenzie S. Moore, uses global case studies to explain outbreak preparedness, response, and recovery. It aims to educate people with the tools to make informed decisions during disease outbreaks, regardless of federal actions.
“I'm a professor, so I believe in increasing public literacy,” says Katz. “The more people know, the more they're able to understand, the better they're able to digest and make sense of the information that comes out around the next threat.”
Incoming administration officials would be wise to read The Outbreak Atlas. When George W. Bush was president, he urged his top officials to read The Great Influenza by historian John M. Barry, recognizing the need for a national strategy to prevent another catastrophe like the 1918 flu pandemic. His foresight was a model of preparedness. Why wait for bird flu—or any other infectious disease—to spiral out of control when the time to act is now?
Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist who writes about social justice and public health.
Illustrative picture showing application for USA H1B visa
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy both came out recently in favor of expanding the H-1B visa program. This program allows large corporations to claim they cannot find adequate skilled talent (engineers for example) and sponsor a foreign worker to enter the United States to fill the required role.
The program itself is rife with abuse and inevitably and negatively affects American citizens by adding to the supply of talent and inevitably decreasing the price of such talent (wages).
Some disagree with Musk and Ramaswamy. Many identify as MAGA and argue that it is counter to Trump's desire to limit immigration. Yet Trump himself has said he supports the H-1B program. He has also recently said that foreign students graduating from American universities should automatically qualify for a Green Card (permanent residency). This would allow them to work without needing a visa and put them on the path to naturalized citizenship.
Ramaswamy included commentary on American cultural failings in not producing enough home-grown talent. Musk used a sports metaphor to argue that bringing in foreign talent was necessary to keep the U.S. on top economically. While these arguments have elements of truth, they also fail to consider some key points.
For some context on this opinion, I wrote early in 2024 that we should stop all immigration for an extended period, including H-1B visas, while we fixed the mess we were currently in, and have a national debate about how immigration should be handled going forward. I stand by that opinion, as well as my suggestion for a kinder and gentler mass deportation. While I am pro-immigrant, I believe these steps are necessary for a cultural and policy reset. As beneficial as immigration has been to our shared history, our current policy is polarizing us from many directions while failing to make America better.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Ramaswamy’s commentary on cultural failings is not wrong though they could also be defined as educational shortcomings. That is on us as parents (and grandparents), and our political and business leaders to fix. The H-1B program not only ignores those problems but gives us a seemingly cheap way out to avoid fixing them.
I have low expectations that politicians or our universities will fix this problem. However, I have high expectations that big business could fix the problem if the H-1B program were unavailable. Simplistically speaking, they could hire young technology interns, give them on-the-job training, sponsor their advanced education, and meritoriously promote and pay the best.
Musk meanwhile decided to clarify his position, stating that he only wanted to bring in the top 0.1% of talent from foreign countries. However, these arguments assume that economics is a zero-sum competition between nations. In his world, H-1B becomes a weapon of economic war in our effort to stay on top.
Essentially, Musk is suggesting we use H-1B not just to advance our economy but to debilitate other countries in their effort to advance their economies. And in doing so we inevitably hurt ourselves.
What happens when other nations (especially so-called third-world nations) advance economically and educationally? Does it cause us damage? On the contrary, in a free trade environment, when other nations become stronger economically, they become bigger markets for American-made goods and services. They also provide quality, cost-effective goods and services to Americans. And robust economies create a more cooperative and peaceful world. Buying and selling with each other is more advantageous than waging actual war.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a died-in-the-wool capitalist (actually a “free-marketist” but that is a subject for another day). I believe competition between market participants is good. And yes, it often results in creative destruction when some firms fail while others are born. But the competition should be among those market participants and not among nations.
Let’s not wage economic warfare to paper over our internal problems. Put the H-1B program on ice and fix those problems instead.
David Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur, and political observer.
