"When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus," goes a classic Turkish proverb.
In Afrikaans there is an idiom with a similar meaning: "Al dra 'n aap 'n goue ring, bly hy steeds 'n lelike ding!" Directly translated: "Even if a monkey wears a golden ring, it stays an ugly thing."
Alas, you are who and what you are... a clown can't morph into a king because of a title and an ape doesn't become smart and sexy because of a ring.
But in this ultra-sensitive day and age in which people still differ on whether apes and humans share a common ancestor, we better not go there, or I may find myself in the equality court, or even worse, before the Human Rights Commission - a body that has been accused of treating certain individuals more equal than others.
A very human trait.
This brings us to the age-old question: What does it mean to be human?
Back in 1637 French philosopher, René Descartes (pronounced Daycart) wrote, "I think, therefore I am" - of course, in French.
Generally, Frenchmen don't like it when you disagree with them, but I think Descartes was wrong. Maybe "Descartes was, because he thought" or at least he thought he was, but I don't think you can generalise!
I think that to establish whether "you are" or whether "I am", not only depends on the fact that you think, but on the quality of your thoughts. If Descartes had written, "I think lucid thoughts with clarity, therefore I am" - it would be a completely different story!
Working in the digital news sphere, I often witness the heated exchange of ideas - especially on Facebook.
The quality of the written thoughts during an online debate often digress to allegations of racism.
In many cases the accusations of racism are made by the party at the point of losing the argument. Calling the other side racist is a sure, yet unintellectual way, to bring the argument to a blunt end.
The victim normally leaves the chat - scared that whatever he or she says will deliberately be misconstrued by the accuser, who then claims victory. Or should I say "appropriates" victory.
In light of Cyril Ramaphosa's signing of the Expropriation Act, I asked ChatGPT to create an example of a debate about South African land reform policies in which someone is unfairly accused of racism.
This is a shortened version of what it came up with.
Scenario:
A discussion about South African land reform policies is taking place at a university debate.
Dialogue:
Lebo: "I think the policy of expropriation without compensation needs to be carefully implemented. If we don't manage it well, it could discourage foreign investment and harm the economy."
Sizwe: "That sounds like something a racist would say. Are you worried about land reform because it threatens white landowners?"
Lebo: "No, not at all. I'm fully in favour of addressing historical injustices and redistributing land fairly. I just believe that if the process isn't done thoughtfully, it could backfire!"
Except if we accept that AI chatbots are human, ChatGPT's intelligent, concise example shot my entire theory about what it means to be human out of the water. Chatbots often have more lucid "thoughts" than humans.
I'm a feminist, or at least I think I am, but I fully understand if someone is unfairly labelled a racist, that the frustrated victim’s only thought may be: "Jou ma se ...!".
A response as human as can be.
