BY SIMONE J. SMITH

I must admit, I knew that when ChatGPT was introduced to the world in late 2022, the way we interact with text would change, and I was not impressed with it at all.  I knew that I could no longer trust everything I read. I would always have to question, “Was this even written by humans?”  “How can we be sure that what we’re reading is the product of human thought and not simply words strung together by an algorithm?”

You can ask AI programs like ChatGPT to write something—anything—and within seconds, it delivers. For many people, this is troubling. Most people I speak with will share their unease about artificial intelligence, with a common sentiment that people don’t want what they consume to be “thoughtlessly” generated by machines. Yet, despite the side eye, AI has quickly been adopted by many for its ability to generate realistic text—sometimes for the better, but often in ways that raise ethical concerns.

So, how do these AI systems work? I am sure that many of you have been hearing this term, large language models (LLMs), which are deep-learning algorithms trained on massive data sets, specifically sets of text. When you ask ChatGPT to write something, it doesn’t “think” in the way you think it does, but rather, it breaks down the question, identifies key elements, and predicts the most appropriate sequence of words to respond, based on its understanding of word relationships. The more powerful the model is, the better it is at understanding context and providing responses that feel natural.

Yes, these models have become more sophisticated, but as an editor and writer, I can share tell-tale signs of AI-generated text. Some systems use custom instructions to refine responses and mask the artificial nature of the text, but no matter how advanced the AI, its responses are ultimately shaped by its training. This means there are often patterns, or nuances that reveal the origin of the text as being from a machine, not the spectacular human mind.

Chatbots have been trained to look for the relationships between words, and they tend to use certain words and phrases more often than a person would. There is no specific list of words and phrases that serve as red flags, but I have used ChatGPT enough that I have started to pick up on them. I am going to share some of them with you, and hopefully at the end of this, my fellow writers and readers can share some of your observations with me.

ChatGPT frequently uses the word “delve,” especially during transitions in writing. (e.g., “Let’s delve into its meaning.”) Similarly, you may see repeated uses of words like: “emerge,” “relentless,” and “groundbreaking.” In particular, when ChatGPT is describing a collection of something, it will often call it a “mosaic” or a “tapestry.” (e.g. “Trinidad’s cultural landscape is a vibrant mosaic.”)

The city it’s writing about is often “integral,” “vibrant,” and a “cornerstone” of the country it’s in. Also, if I see the word “beacon” one more time, I think I am going to lose my mind.

As technology continues to evolve, so are the tools designed to detect it. AI detectors like ZeroGPT are becoming increasingly sophisticated, capable of identifying patterns and styles that suggest human, or AI authorship. This means that it’s more important than ever to be transparent about your use of AI, and to develop skills that distinguish your unique voice from machine-generated content

The rise of large language models in writing has me thinking more critically about what we are consuming as a society. As AI continues to evolve, so must our ability to discern between human creativity and machine-generated content.

BY SIMONE J. SMITH

For the last few decades, and definitely the last few years, the global stage has been filled with a consistent chorus of concern from world governments about climate change and environmental preservation. Yet, beneath this façade of unity, a darker truth often lurks: many nations have long been aware of the detrimental effects of certain practices on both the environment and human health.

Driven by economic interests, governments have often chosen to suppress, or downplay this knowledge, leading to decades of harm. A stark example is the case of DDT, a pesticide once hailed as a miracle chemical, only to be later revealed as a deadly threat to both wildlife and human health.

I received an email from a concerned group of Canadians that call for an immediate and nationwide ban on the use of glyphosate-based herbicides, posing significant health and environmental risks that have been increasingly documented in recent years.

Glyphosate is an herbicide used to control weeds and grasses. It is the active ingredient in the popular weed killer Roundup and other similar products. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide. This means that it is not selective in the types of plants it kills; it can kill all plants it comes into contact with. Glyphosate works not by “poisoning” a plant but by preventing it from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Canada and plays an important weed management role in agriculture and non-agricultural land management. Products containing glyphosate are used to control weeds including invasive weeds, and toxic plants such as poison ivy. Glyphosate is also classified as a systemic herbicide. This means that it is absorbed by the plant rather than just sticking to it like some potentially toxic agents used in the past, such as DDT.

Although the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA), and other international health authorities regard glyphosate weed killers as safe when used as directed, the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) has listed it as a “possible carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent).

The IARC also cited a possible link in humans wherein long-term, high-level exposure to glyphosate may increase the risk of a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Even so, the agency concluded that the evidence was “limited.”

During a re-evaluation, in 2017 Health Canada assessed the potential human health risk of glyphosate from: drinking water, food, occupational and bystander exposure, as well as the environmental risk to non-target organisms. The dietary exposure assessment determined that the levels found in food would not be a health risk to Canadians.

Health Canada granted continued registration of products containing glyphosate for sale and use in Canada, with changes to product labels to provide Canadians with additional information on how to use these products safely. Despite all of this, there are some concerns that we need to be aware of, and I am going to bring all of this to light in this article.

Public health concerns:

Recent studies have reinforced the significant health risks associated with glyphosate exposure. Research from Boise State University has linked glyphosate exposure in pregnant women to adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth and a heightened risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Additionally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) continues to classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Another study published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation has shown that glyphosate can penetrate the brain, increasing levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which may contribute to neurodegenerative disorders.

The UC Berkeley School of Public Health has revealed that childhood exposure to glyphosate is associated with liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in early adulthood, potentially leading to severe conditions such as: liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. These findings are particularly concerning given the widespread presence of glyphosate in the environment and its detection in human urine samples.

Environmental impact:

Glyphosate’s environmental impact is profound and multifaceted. Its pervasive use has led to contamination of water sources and soil, disrupting ecosystems, and harming non-target plant species. The herbicide’s presence in the environment has contributed to the decline of beneficial: insects, birds, and aquatic life. Moreover, glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged, necessitating the use of even more toxic chemicals and creating a cycle of dependency that further degrades the environment .

Biodiversity threats:

The decline in biodiversity due to glyphosate use is alarming. Monarch butterflies, bees, and other pollinators are particularly vulnerable to glyphosate exposure, threatening their populations and the critical ecological services they provide. Protecting biodiversity is essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems and ensuring food security.

Alternatives and sustainable practices:

There are viable alternatives to glyphosate that are less harmful and promote sustainable agricultural practices. Integrated pest management (IPM), organic farming, and mechanical weed control methods can effectively manage weeds without compromising human health or the environment. Encouraging and supporting these practices will lead to a healthier and more sustainable future for Canada.

Legal cases and settlements:

The legal landscape surrounding glyphosate underscores its dangers and the failures of its manufacturers to adequately warn users. As of 2024, a major corporate company faces over 160,000 lawsuits alleging that exposure to glyphosate-based products caused cancer and other health issues. Significant verdicts include a $2.25 billion award in Pennsylvania for a plaintiff who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using glyphosate-based products for 20 years.

The persistence of these lawsuits and the substantial settlements reached highlight the severity of the issue. Billions of dollars have been ordered to be paid in damages, reflecting the courts’ recognition of the herbicide’s harmful effects and the company’s negligence.

Environmental impact:

Glyphosate’s detrimental impact on the environment cannot be overstated. It threatens biodiversity by harming non-target species, including beneficial insects and aquatic life. Glyphosate residues in soil and water disrupt ecosystems, contributing to the decline of pollinators essential for food production.

Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s health and environmental risks, Canadian communities are urging the Government of Canada to act decisively. A nationwide ban on glyphosate is a necessary step to protect public health and preserve our environment for future generations. We call on the government to prioritize the safety of Canadians and the health of our ecosystems by enacting this ban immediately.

Considering these significant concerns, we urge the Government of Canada to take immediate action to protect its citizens and environment by implementing a nationwide ban on glyphosate. By doing so, Canada can demonstrate its commitment to: climate change, public health, environmental stewardship, and sustainable agriculture.

We trust that our government will prioritize the well-being of its people and the environment over the interests of chemical manufacturers.

REFERENCES:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/fact-sheets-other-resources/glyphosate.html

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-carcinogen-2249070

https://www.verywellhealth.com/glyphosate-5084577

BY STEVEN KASZAB

Human Resources Officers must be very busy these days with the general turnover of employees in our retail and business sectors. It is hard enough to find skilled people, let alone potential employees willing to be trained. Then after the training, a few weeks go by then they come to you and ask for a raise. You refuse as there simply is no excess money in the budget and away they fly to wherever they come from, trained, but are not willing to put in the time to achieve that wanted raise.

I have had potential candidates come in and we give them a test to see if they do indeed know how to weld, polish or work with wood. Two out of ten we hire, and one of those is gone in a week or two. Housing starts are doing well, but way behind because those trades needed to finish a project simply don’t come to the site, with delay after delay. Some people’s attitudes are just too funny. A recent graduate from an ivy league university came in for an interview. The position was mid-management potential, but when we told them a three-month period was required and then they would make the big bucks they disappeared as fast as they arrived.

Government agencies are really no help, sending us people unsuited, or unwilling to conduct the jobs we offer. Handing money over to staffing firms whose referrals are weak and ineffectual. Perhaps with fall and winter upon us these folks will have to find work and stop playing on the golf course or cottaging away. Tried to hire new arrivals in Canada, but it is truly difficult finding someone who has a real identity card and is approved to live and work here. Who do we hire?

Several years ago, my father’s firm was rocking and rolling with all sorts of work. It was a summer day when the immigration officers arrived and 30+ employees hit the bricks almost immediately. The investigation that followed had threats of fines thrown at us by the officials. Good thing, we kept excellent records, photos and digital copies. We had to prove the illegal documents given to us were as good as the real McCoy.

Restaurateurs, builders, manufacturers, finishers, trades-based firms, warehousing are all suspected in hiring illegals, yet that becomes secondary as Toronto increases its minimum wage again bringing our payroll up another $120,000.

Survival in Canada’s financial and business sectors is questionable for many. Good luck chuck!. At least your carbon tax refund check should be arriving soon.