Chat means chat, and GPT is the acronym for Gene Rate Pre trained Transformer. Genrative means generation, and its function is to create or produce something new; Pre trained refers to a model of artificial intelligence that is learned from a large amount of textual materials, while Transformer refers to a model of artificial intelligence. Don't worry about T, just focus on the words G and P. We mainly use its Generative function to generate various types of content; But we need to know why it can produce various types of content, and the reason lies in P. Only by learning a large amount of content can we proceed with reproduction. And this kind of learning actually has limitations, which is very natural. For example, if you have learned a lot of knowledge since childhood, can you guarantee that your answer to a question is completely correct? Almost impossible, firstly due to the limitations of knowledge, ChatGPT is no exception, as it is impossible to master all knowledge; The second is the accuracy of knowledge, how to ensure that all knowledge is accurate and error free; The third aspect is the complexity of knowledge, where the same concept is manifested differently in different contexts, making it difficult for even humans to grasp it perfectly, let alone AI. So when we use ChatGPT, we also need to monitor the accuracy of the output content of ChatGPT. It is likely not a problem, but if you want to use it on critical issues, you will need to manually review it again. And now ChatGPT has actually been upgraded twice, one is GPT4 with more accurate answering ability, and the other is the recent GPT Turbo. The current ChatGPT is a large model called multimodality, which differs from the first generation in that it can not only receive and output text, but also other types of input, such as images, documents, videos, etc. The output is also more diverse. In addition to text, it can also output images or files, and so on.

Members of the National Samsung Electronics Union stage a rally near the company's Hwaseong Campus in Gyeonggi Province, Monday, beginning a three-day strike. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul By Nam Hyun-woo The biggest labor union at Samsung Electronics initiated a three-day strike on Monday, threatening to disrupt the company's chip manufacturing lines unless management agrees to a wage hike and higher incentives. This marks the first strike by unionized workers in the tech giant's 55-year history. The National Samsung Electronics Union (NSEU) claimed that about 4,000 unionized workers from Samsung's plants nationwide participated in a rally at the company's Hwaseong Campus in Gyeonggi Province. Police estimated that approximately 3,000 union members were present at the rally. According to its own survey, the union reported that a total of 6,540 members expressed their intention to participate in the strike. They emphasized that disruptions in manufacturing are anticipated, with over 5,000 members from facility, manufacturing, and development divisions joining the strike. The comments seem to address market expectations that the walkout is unlikely to cause significant disruptions in the chipmaker's operations, largely because most manufacturing lines are automated. The union said that it may launch another strike for an undetermined period, unless management responds to the union’s demand. Since January, the union has been pressing management for a higher wage increase rate for all members, fulfillment of promises regarding paid leave, and improvements to incentive criteria. With negotiations at an impasse, the union announced on May 29 that it would launch a strike. The NSEU has some 30,000 members, accounting for 24 percent of all Samsung employees. Among the union members, about 80 percent work at the device solutions division, which manufactures semiconductors.

The returner of the Chang'e-6 lunar probe is opened during a ceremony at the China Academy of Space Technology under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation in Beijing, capital of China, June 26, 2024. The returner of the Chang'e-6 lunar probe was opened at a ceremony in Beijing on Wednesday afternoon. During the ceremony at the China Academy of Space Technology under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, researchers opened the returner and examined key technical indicators. Photo: Xinhua As the US space industry recently faced yet more delays and stagnation with key components including manned spacecraft and space suits "going wrong," NASA has once again resorted to its "sour grapes" rhetoric upon seeing China's successful retrieval of fresh lunar soils from the far side of the moon, by claiming that China did not directly invite its scientists to participate in the lunar soil research. This behavior is a typical blame-shifting trick, Chinese experts said, noting it is clear to all that it is the US' own laws, not China, that are restricting space cooperation between the two sides. Instead of deceiving themselves by distorting the truth, the US should face up to its own problem of overall weakening engineering capability and the lack of long-term planning in its space industry. After the Chang'e-6 samples, weighing nearly 2 kilograms, were safely transported to a special laboratory for further study on Friday, NASA spokesperson Faith McKie told media that while China worked with the European Space Agency, France, Italy and Pakistan on this mission, "NASA wasn't invited to take part in the moon probe." NASA also didn't get "any direct invitation" to study China's moon rocks, after it welcomed all scientists from around the world to apply to study them, McKie told NatSec Daily. Responding to the remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told the Global Times on Monday that China is open to having space exchanges with the US, and we also welcome countries around the world to take part in the study of lunar samples. "However, the US side seems to have forgotten to mention its domestic legislation such as the Wolf Amendment. The real question is whether US scientists and institutions are allowed by their own government to participate in cooperation with China," Mao said. "The existence of the Wolf Amendment has basically shut the door to space collaboration between the two countries," Wang Yanan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Monday. Even if research institutions of the US have the willingness to work with China on opportunities such as lunar sample research, institutions there must obtain special approval from the US Congress due to the presence of this amendment, Wang explained. Currently, no such "green light" is in sight from the Congress. Furthermore, China's collaboration with international partners is based on equality and mutual benefit, leveraging their respective scientific resources, facilities, and expertise. However, the US only wants what it doesn't have, and its engagement with China would be advantageous only to itself, Wang noted. NASA has found itself embroiled in a number of thorny issues recently, with the latest being Boeing's Starliner manned spaceship experiencing both helium leaks and thruster issues during a June 6 docking with the International Space Station (ISS), which led to an indefinite delay for its crew's return to Earth, despite NASA's insistence that they are not "stranded" in space. The return of the Starliner capsule, while has already been delayed by two weeks, will be put on hold "well into the summer" pending results of new thruster tests, which are scheduled to start Tuesday and will take approximately two weeks or even more, per NASA officials. Previously on June 24, NASA cancelled a spacewalk on the ISS following a "serious situation," when one of the spacesuits experienced coolant leak in the hatch. While being broadcast on a livestream, the astronauts reported "literally water everywhere" as they were preparing for the extravehicular activity, space.com reported. The report said that this is the second time this particular spacewalk was postponed, after a June 13 attempt with a different astronaut group was pushed back due to a "spacesuit discomfort." The recurring issues with the spacesuits are due to their much-extended service lifespan, media reported, as the puffy white ones US astronauts currently wear were designed more than 40 years ago. Despite the pressing need to replace them, NASA announced recently that it is abandoning a plan to develop next-generation spacesuits, which had been committed to be delivered by 2026, CNN reported on Thursday. One of the root causes for such problems is that the US has developed many large technology conglomerates, which for a long time have benefited significantly from government orders and industry monopolies. Consequently, in many complex engineering fields, the level of attention given is greatly insufficient, Wang noted. It also reflected the US' lack of long-term strategic planning for its manned space program. For instance, the ageing spacesuits should have been replaced a decade ago to ensure that operational suits remain in usable condition. Failure to address this issue results in a hindrance to the space station's necessary maintenance tasks and even poses life-threatening risks to astronauts in emergency situations, experts said. The issues with Boeing's spacecraft and the spacesuits are not isolated problems, but reflected a systemic issue in the US space industry - the overall weakening of engineering capabilities, they noted.

On the 8th, the Argentine government promulgated the "Foundations and Starting Points for Argentine Freedom" comprehensive bill and a package of fiscal measures, marking the official entry into force of the government reform bill. According to the official gazette of the Argentine government, Argentine President Milley, Chief Cabinet Minister Guillermo Francos and Economy Minister Luis Caputo jointly signed Decrees No. 592 and No. 593 to promulgate these two new reform measures. The comprehensive bill declared Argentina to enter a one-year public emergency in the administrative, economic, financial and energy fields, and granted the president special powers in these fields. It also includes the relaxation of economic regulations, labor reforms and the implementation of a large-scale investment incentive system. The package of fiscal measures involves anti-money laundering, tax deferral, tariffs, re-imposition of high-salary income tax and reduction of personal property taxes. On June 28, after six months of negotiations, the two reform bills were finally passed by the Argentine Congress.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn