Internet critics are not accepting the U.S. government’s reason for removing Section 9 and Section 10 from the Constitution Annotated website.Archive searches earlier on Wednesday suggested the White House had scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 (pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful de...
2 removals and an edit, all 3 pertaining to things Trump’s trying to bully his way into existence. Complete accident though.
Oh, they’re still missing hours later? That’s weird…
“We swear that our top developer, Chat GPT fixed the issue.”
More likely Grok.
Was it praising Hitler or drawing nude pictures of Taylor Swift?
It was drawing nude pictures of Hitler.
Grok is capable of many of things. It can pronounce to everyone that it is the next mecha-Hitler and create nude deep fakes of Taylor Swift.
Devil’s advocate, but depending on how the page is laid out in the code, it could be that the entirety of Article 1 is a section, so if a mistake was made at some point in the section it would affect the rest of it.
Considering they fired all of the competent people, it’s within the realm of possibility that it was a fuck up. Shit, they might have just copy and pasted whatever chatgpt spit out.
But if it was really a coding error, all they’d have to do is provide the merge request.
Fuck you and your devil’s advocate the results are what matter and the results are what we’re planned, get your head out of your fucking ass
Nah I’m blaming AI for this one too.
But why is AI fucking with the constitution at all? Dunno
This. All of these hypotheticals and excuses people are making are missing/ignoring 1 simple detail:
Why were they editing The Constitution to begin with?
It only changes through acts of Congress and requires a super-majority. So why were they editing it?
@onslaught545 - Seriously? You’re going the “code layout” route? Even a syntax error wouldn’t leave the rest of Section 8 unaffected while removing the hundreds of pages after it. Seriously, look at the site’s structure, each section has hundreds of pages. This isn’t a fluke.
Because it’s a legal version with annotations, and considering all of the court cases surrounding the section recently, it makes sense to update it.