前田敦司

生徒の尊い命が奪われているというのに、これはひどいですね。これでこの人たちのやっている平和運動に対する一般の人々からの信頼も失われることでしょう。

4月速報から財の交易条件を計算すると、2020年＝100として、92.3でした。前年同月は93.8でしたので、悪化はしたものの恐れていたほどではなかったということになります。

貿易統計のもう一点重要な示唆は、交易条件の悪化がまだ深刻ではなかった点です。4月の段階では輸入物価が予想通り上がりましたが、輸出物価も相応に上昇しました。半導体などの価格上昇が効いております。あくまで4月時点になりますが、交易条件を通じた景気下押し圧力はまだ限定的と言えます。 輸出額の伸び率が輸入額を上回った点もポイントです。これにより、今年4月は貿易黒字となり、昨年4月が赤字だったため、全く異なる結果となりました。この輸出価格の上昇や輸出額の伸びは景気悪化を和らげる一因になります。 ただし、全ては4月時点の評価であり、誰しもが懸念していることはこの先の石油枯渇リスクと思います。それによる影響を見極める上で29日鉱工業生産指数も大変重要な統計と見ております。

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

見違えるほど鮮やかになりましたね。これでドラクロワのルーヴルにある有名作品は一通り修復が完了しましたが、何度も言うようにこれまでの図録の写真は破り捨てていいくらい、色彩が別物です