You cannot make this up. Apple has acknowledged a bug in its iPhone dictation feature that caused the word “racist” to be transcribed as “Trump.”
However, “Trump” did not appear every time you said “racist.”
The voice-to-text feature also wrote words like “Reinhold” and “you” when a user said “racist,” as per Fox’s testing. Most of the time, the feature accurately wrote “racist.”
Apple’s iPhone dictation bug that transcribed “racist” as “Trump” quickly went viral, and you can’t help but think about AI bias, software glitches, and political symbolism.
What’s crazy is that some users on social media found it hilarious, with some jokingly praising Apple for making Siri “smarter.” I’d only add that making Siri smarter is child’s play—that thing is ridiculously dumb.
Some people celebrated the glitch as an “accidental truth,” while others wrote things like, “Apple Intelligence is real! No mistakes found here.”
I found this one particularly interesting: “‘Bug’… some programmer out there is doing God’s work. This was intentional, and it’s a delight.”
Yeah, we can all agree that it’s highly unlikely this is a bug. This has rogue (or maybe not rogue) programmer prank written all over it.
Hence, others criticized Apple for what they saw as an example of AI bias, either intentional or unintentional.
Apple responded by saying:
We are aware of an issue with the speech recognition model that powers dictation, and we are rolling out a fix as soon as possible.
Fox adds, “Apple says that the speech recognition models that power dictation may temporarily display words with some phonetic overlap before landing on the correct word. The bug affects other words with an ‘r’ consonant when dictated, Apple says.”
I’m not sure I buy the phonetic overlap theory. An expert, John Burkey, the founder of Wonderrush.ai and a former member of Apple’s Siri team, explains what’s likely going on. The New York Times wrote:
But he said that it was unlikely that the data Apple has collected for its artificial intelligence offerings was causing the problem, and the word correcting itself was likely an indication that the issue was not just technical. Instead, he said, there was probably software code somewhere on Apple’s systems that caused iPhones to write the word ‘Trump’ when someone said ‘racist.’
This smells like a serious prank,” Mr. Burkey said. “The only question is: Did someone slip this into the data or slip it into the code?
Why This Is Bigger Than ‘Just a Prank’
This case highlights concerns about AI neutrality. If a dictation model makes politically charged substitutions like the one above—whether accidental or systemic—it can fuel distrust in tech companies, which is already low, if I may add.
It also raises a more important question: What other biases might be present in AI systems that aren’t as immediately noticeable?
I think this whole debacle mainly affects trust in AI. Users might question whether tech companies are embedding political biases into their products.
To be frank, we have seen too many examples of this kind of bias, and it always swings one way—which is understandable because most Big Tech employees have the same political beliefs and live in areas with the same.
It is only natural that some of their biases will make it into the AI products they produce.
Apple’s quick response to fix the bug is a positive step, but this incident reveals a larger issue: the responsibility of tech companies to ensure AI remains fair and unbiased.
As artificial intelligence becomes part and parcel of our daily lives, ensuring transparency in how these systems are trained and monitored becomes paramount.
On the surface, Apple’s dictation bug is an amusing, shareable glitch. But beneath the surface, it’s a reminder that AI—whether through accidental errors or deeper biases—has real-world consequences.
The reactions to this incident reveal how people interpret AI mistakes through their own ideological lenses. If it supports my beliefs, whatever the glitch or bias, it’s funny. If it spews what I consider harmful to my way of thinking, then it’s no laughing matter.
The ball is in Big Tech’s court to make sure AI is neutral and reliable. It’s going to be a tougher test than we would have imagined.
Comments
22 responses
Donald Trump is undoubtedly a racist.
This website is very difficult to load. I used to love this website, but it’s now ridiculous af. It takes TOO LONG just oad!
Techzim your site is difficult to load and when it does its loaded improperly with some images bigger than others or not loading at all
“Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” – Elie Wiesel – Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic their way into. Hateful people aren’t known for their attentive listening skills
I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation – Elie Wiesel – Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
Good for the dude who did this. There is no point being being in being neutral.
Can you name Silicon Valley tech Oligarchs who is neutral in these Trump 2 days?
Remember: Segregation was a law. Discrimination was legal. Slave owners had law on their side. The holocaust was legal. None of them were right or just
Food for thought .
Trump 2 and DOGE are canceling science that contain the words like:
A sampling of keywords drawing scrutiny to science at NSF include:
arrow leftarrow right
Advocacy
Antiracist
Barrier
Biases
Cultural relevance
Disability
Diverse backgrounds
Diversity
Diversified
– discrimination
– bias
– woman
–
https://archive.ph/jSA4t
A Comprehensive Guide For Future
WELCOME ABOARD!
Congratulations on your decision to join the United States Navy! There are many new experiences and opportunities ahead. No
matter what job you have chosen in the Navy, we want you to understand the benefits and responsibilities of being a U.S. Navy
Sailor.
As a new member of the Navy’s Delayed Entry Program, your first order is to read, understand and acknowledge the information
provided here in this START Guide. You should also share this information with your family to make them aware of the benefits
offered by military service.
The following pages explains your benefits. Read carefully and ask your recruiter about information that is unclear to you. Your
recruiter is a valuable resource as you move forward. Navy recruiters first serve in the fleet and gain valuable experience which
helps them explain your Navy benefits.
Within the next three to five days, your recruiter will meet with you and your family to discuss in great detail the benefits and
responsibilities as a U.S. Navy Sailor. You and your family should ask questions so you will understand the requirements of the
Delayed Entry Program.
Review this START Guide before your 72-Hour Indoctrination because you must acknowledge that you have been provided this
information.
BEFORE PROCEEDING TO BASIC TRAINING
Recruits must be within approved body composition measurements (for their
weight and height) and upon arrival at RTC, must pass a Physical Fitness
Assessment (PFA). It is imperative you take advantage of all the physical training
opportunities while you’re in the Delayed Entry Program.
TATTOO & BODY ART MARKINGS
Once you enlist into the Delayed Entry Program, obtaining additional tattoos are
prohibited until completion of basic training. There is a risk of infection, or the art
or piercing itself may disqualify you and lead to your discharge from the Delayed
Entry Program.
THE NAVY’S TATTOO CONTENT RESTRICTIONS: Tattoos located anywhere on the body that are prejudicial to good order,
discipline, morale or are of a nature to bring discredit upon U.S. Navy are prohibited. For example, tattoos that are obscene,
sexually explicit and/or advocate discrimination based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity or national origin are prohibited. In
addition, tattoos that symbolize affiliation with gangs, supremacist groups, extremist groups or advocate illegal drug use are
prohibited. No tattoos are permitted on the head, face (to include ear) or scalp (to include hairline).
SAILORS ARE AUTHORIZED: One tattoo on the back of the neck and shall not exceed one inch in measurement in any dimension
(height/width). Tattoos meeting these requirements are acceptable behind the ear. These tattoos cannot be seen from the front.
Permissible tattoos on the torso area of the body shall not be visible through white uniform clothing. Additionally, visible tattoos
below the elbow or knee are authorized. Size and number of tattoos are not restricted; only the content is restricted. This allows
sleeve tattoos seen while wearing short-sleeved uniforms (i.e., the tan-and-black service uniform).
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR RECRUITER
1. Treat them with the same courtesy and respect they provide you.
2. Be honest and forthcoming when providing information for your enlistment application.
3. Notify your recruiter of any changes in your status to include education, health, police involvement, drug use, or dependency.
4. Ensure you have viewed the: “The Faces of Boot Camp” and “Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (SAPR-D)” videos.
YOUR RECRUITERS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT
1. Coach or entice you to provide false statements, records or documents to affect your enlistment.
2. Bribe or coerce you to process for enlistment.
3. Intervene with police or judicial authorities on your behalf.
4. Form, or attempt to form, a dating or private and unofficial social relationship with you.
5. Solicit or engage in any unofficial financial or business dealings with you.
6. Transport you in their personally owned vehicle, gamble with you, or solicit or accept anything of value from you.
WARNING ORDER
The information you provide and/or acknowledge receipt of is considered a statement of fact to the best of your knowledge.
Should you provide or acknowledge information that is knowingly false, you may be prosecuted in accordance with the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These violations may be punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both. Providing a false statement
or acknowledgment of fact includes, but is not limited to:
• Police/civil involvement • Drug use
• Prior military service • Medical history
• Education • Age
• Dependents
UCMJ ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
Any person who: (1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or
deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder,
or (2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his
eligibility for that separation, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Research Paper
The Physics, Biology, and Environmental Ethics of
Making Mars Habitable
CHRISTOPHER P. MCKAY1and MARGARITA M. MARINOVA1,2
ABSTRACT
The considerable evidence that Mars once had a wetter, more clement, environment motivates
the search for past or present life on that planet. This evidence also suggests the possibility
of restoring habitable conditions on Mars. While the total amounts of the key molecules—
carbon dioxide, water, and nitrogen—needed for creating a biosphere on Mars are unknown,
estimates suggest that there may be enough in the subsurface. Super greenhouse gases, in
particular, perfluorocarbons, are currently the most effective and practical way to warm Mars
and thicken its atmosphere so that liquid water is stable on the surface. This process could
take ,100 years. If enough carbon dioxide is frozen in the South Polar Cap and absorbed in
the regolith, the resulting thick and warm carbon dioxide atmosphere could support many
types of microorganisms, plants, and invertebrates. If a planet-wide martian biosphere con-
verted carbon dioxide into oxygen with an average efficiency equal to that for Earth’s bios-
phere, it would take .100,000 years to create Earth-like oxygen levels. Ethical issues associ-
ated with bringing life to Mars center on the possibility of indigenous martian life and the
relative value of a planet with or without a global biosphere. Key Words: Mars—Terraform-
ing—Planetary ecosynthesis—Greenhouse warming—Environmental ethics. Astrobiology 1,
89–109.
INTRODUCTION
T
HE SURFACE OFMARSis cold and dry, the re-
golith appears to contain dilute but powerful
oxidants that have destroyed any organic mate-
rial, and solar UV light down to wavelengths of
190 nm reaches the ground. There is no organism
on Earth that could grow or reproduce under
martian conditions (e.g., Clark, 1998). Table 1 is
a comparison of selected environmental and
physical properties of Mars and Earth.
Interestingly, Mars was not always this way.
There is direct evidence that early in martian his-
tory, liquid water was stable and present at the
surface. The sinuous canyon in Fig. 1, Nanedi Val-
lis, shows what may be the best evidence for sus-
tained liquid water flow on Mars (Carr and Ma-
lin, 2000). The large flood features on Mars
indicate that the total inventory of water was con-
siderable (Carr, 1986, 1996), possibly creating an
ocean early in martian history. Recent altimeter
data indicate shorelines consistent with an ocean
(Head et al., 1999). Subsurface liquid water may
even persist to the present time as indicated by
form, writing them down in such a way that they tell a realistic
story. The situations can be described realistically by using com-
plete orders or extracts, estimates, or reports that would be
normal in combat. The situations in a map exercise must do
more than present a complete set of facts from which a solution
may be deduced; they must indicate the status of variable in-
fluencing factors in the light of which military principles are
applied to arrive at a sound solution. The following are the most
commonly used variables:
(1) Mission. This is the most important variable. The use
of a specific mission in connection with other variables
allows the officer to create almost any situation desired.
Students must have as much practice as possible in
meeting and overcoming the many variables that affect
the accomplishment of the mission.
(2) R elative strength. Portraying the enemy as being weaker
or stronger in manpower, firepower, or materiel ordi-
narily causes aggressive or passive action on the part
of the friendly force being played in the exercise. To
create maximum realism, relative strengths should sel-
dom be presented as the single decisive variable.
(3) Morale. It is difficult to portray realistically a state of
morale and the effect of morale on the combat efficiency
of a force. When a situation is based on a force’s state
of morale, the instructor can only give facts that have
a bearing on morale and then require the student to
deduce their effect.
(4) The composition and disposition of forces. Either one
or both of these factors may be made a critical influence.
A superiority in friendly artillery, for example, may
justify attacking an enemy that is equally strong in other
respects. Similarly, a weaker force, mobile and pre-
pared for combat, may make a successful attack against
a larger force that is in an unfavorable formation or
position. Other variables such as weather and terrain
are closely related to these factors.
(5) Reinforcements. The location of a reserve or a second
force, along with information that can be used to
estimate the time when it can enter the battle, has
considerable influence on a decision.
(6) Terrain. Observation, cover, troop movements, location
of installations, and transportation, all are affected by
terrain. Unnatural assumptions regarding terrain should
be avoided in a map exercise; terrain best suited to the
Mis Red
Not calm
Mazuka bwanji. ine ndire bwino.
Ari kupanga chaa’ni?
Mavuto.
A new study reveals that whale songs and human languages share similar structural patterns, suggesting that whale songs are made up of building blocks similar to words, phrases, and sentences. Now, linguists believe that studying how infants learn to speak could help us to understand how whales communicate with each other.
https://on.natgeo.com/3EMsXwv
Does your brain or heart call the shots in your love life? 🤔
While the heart usually gets all the credit, most of the benefits associated with love originate in the brain where the seven “love hormones” work to improve sleep, immune health, cognitive function, and more. When we go through breakups, our brain triggers a stress response similar to an addict going through withdrawals.
Learn more about the fascinating science of love and how it affects your body: https://on.natgeo.com/4aXqkUB
Emperor Nero, who is alleged to have played the fiddle while Rome burned, is remembered as one of history’s greatest monsters. However, he also presided over a period of cultural and economic success for Rome, leading some historians to re-examine the notorious emperor’s legacy.
https://on.natgeo.com/3QjLpPA
Currently, there is a 1 in 53 chance that the near-Earth asteroid, known as 2024 YR4, will impact our planet with enough force to destroy a city on December 22, 2032. While the planetary defense system that detected this asteroid is still a work in progress, it’s already identifying potential threats and giving humanity time to prepare for them.
https://on.natgeo.com/4gE2zCk
Tasty resident Brandon brings us this classic salmon dish that’s a little crunchy, a little cheesy, a little spicy — lots of delicious. 🤤🔥 Dinnertime yet? 🍽️🐟 https://tasty.co/recipe/herb-crusted-salmon?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=whatsapp
Would be mothers and children need fish. Lots of fish in their diet. It aids in brain and physical development. Check the size of people that eat Fish predominantly in their diet, Samoa Fiji Tonga West and Central Africa.. Bream, Bass, Rainbow Trout. Bho
OpenAI may have billions of dollars in the bank. But it’s gearing up to raise billions more, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.
Per The WSJ, OpenAI is in talks to secure up to $40 billion in a funding round that would value the startup at $340 billion. SoftBank would lead the round, pouring between $15 billion to $25 billion into the ChatGPT maker.
Read more here: https://tcrn.ch/4aEiFu2
*School gardens* teach children about more than just *growing food*.
They help them to 👇
❤️ *Develop* life skills
🍏 *Promote* better nutrition and healthy eating
🌎 *Increase* environmental awareness
💪 *Cultivate* respect for food and our Food Heroes
On this *Education Day and every day*, let’s spread the word about the *benefits of healthy diets* for learning and development of children and adolescents.
ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1944, David Shomron hid in the gloom of St. George Street, not far from the Romanian
Church in Jerusalem. A church building was used as officers’ lodgings by the British authorities governing
Palestine, and Shomron was waiting for one of those officers, a man named Tom Wilkin, to leave.
Wilkin was the commander of the Jewish unit at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the
British Mandate for Palestine, and he was very good at his job, especially the part that involved infiltrating
and disrupting the fractious Jewish underground. Aggressive, yet also exceptionally patient and calculating,
Wilkin spoke fluent Hebrew, and after thirteen years of service in Palestine, he had an extensive network of
informants. Thanks to the intelligence they provided, underground fighters were arrested, their weapons
caches were seized, and their planned operations, aimed at forcing the British to leave Palestine, were foiled.
Which was why Shomron was going to kill him.
Shomron and his partner that night, Yaakov Banai (code-named Mazal—“Luck”), were operatives with
Lehi, the most radical of the Zionist underground movements fighting the British in the early 1940s.
Though Lehi was the acronym for the Hebrew phrase “fighters for the freedom of Israel,” the British
considered it a terrorist organization, referring to it dismissively as the Stern Gang, after its founder, the
romantic ultra-nationalist Avraham Stern. Stern and his tiny band of followers employed a targeted mayhem
of assassinations and bombings—a campaign of “personal terror,” as Lehi’s operations chief (and later
Israeli prime minister), Yitzhak Shamir, called it.
Wilkin knew he was a target. Lehi already had tried to kill him and his boss, Geoffrey Morton, nearly
three years earlier, in its first, clumsy operation. On January 20, 1942, assassins planted bombs on the roof
and inside the building of 8 Yael Street, in Tel Aviv. Instead they ended up killing three police officers—
two Jews and an Englishman—who arrived before Wilkin and Morton and tripped the charges. Later, Morton fled Palestine after being wounded in another attempt on his life—that one in retribution for Morton
having shot Stern dead.
None of those details, the back-and-forth of who killed whom and in what order, mattered to Shomron.
The British occupied the land the Zionists saw as rightfully theirs—that was what mattered, and Shamir had
issued a death sentence against Wilkin.
For Shomron and his comrades, Wilkin was not a person but rather a target, prominent and high-value.
“We were too busy and hungry to think about the British and their families,” Shomron said decades later.
After discovering that Wilkin was residing in the Romanian Church annex, the assassins set out on their
mission. Shomron and Banai had revolvers and hand grenades in their pockets. Additional Lehi operatives
were in the vicinity, smartly dressed in suits and hats to look like Englishmen.
Wilkin left the officers’ lodgings in the church and headed for the CID’s facility in the Russian
Compound, where underground suspects were held and interrogated. As always, he was wary, scanning the
street as he walked and keeping one hand in his pocket all the time. As he passed the corner of St. George
and Mea Shearim Streets, a youngster sitting outside the neighborhood grocery store got up and dropped his
hat. This was the signal, and the two assassins began walking toward Wilkin, identifying him according to
the photographs they’d studied. Shomron and Banai let him pass, gripping their revolvers with sweating
palms.
Then they turned around and drew.
“Before we did it, Mazal [Banai] said, ‘Let me shoot first,’ ” Shomron recalled. “But when we saw him, I
guess I couldn’t restrain myself. I shot first.”
Between them, Banai and Shomron fired fourteen times. Eleven of those bullets hit Wilkin. “He managed
to turn around and draw his pistol,” Shomron said, “but then he fell face first. A spurt of blood came out of
his forehead, like a fountain. It was not such a pretty picture.”
Shomron and Banai darted back into the shadows and made off in a taxi in which another Lehi man was
waiting for them.
“The only thing that hurt me was that we forgot to take the briefcase in which he had all his documents,”
Shomron said. Other than that, “I didn’t feel anything, not even a little twinge of guilt. We believed the more
coffins that reached London, the closer the day of freedom would be.”
—
THE IDEA THAT THE return of the People of Israel to the Land of Israel could be achieved only by force was
not born with Stern and his Lehi comrades.
The roots of that strategy can be traced to eight men who gathered in a stifling one-room apartment
overlooking an orange grove in Jaffa on September 29, 1907, exactly thirty-seven years before a fountain of
blood spurted from Wilkin’s head, when Palestine was still part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The flat
was rented by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, a young Russian who’d immigrated to Ottoman Palestine earlier that year.
Like the others in his apartment that night—all emigrants from the Russian empire, sitting on a straw mat
spread on the floor of the candlelit room—he was a committed Zionist, albeit part of a splinter sect that had
once threatened to rend the movement.
Zionism as a political ideology had been founded in 1896 when Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor
Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). He had been deeply affected while covering the trial in Paris of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer unjustly accused and convicted of treason.
In his book, Herzl argued that anti-Semitism was so deeply ingrained in European culture that the Jewish
people could achieve true freedom and safety only in a nation-state of their own. The Jewish elite of Western
Europe, who’d managed to carve out comfortable lives for themselves, mostly rejected Herzl. But his ideas
resonated with poor and working-class Jews of Eastern Europe, who suffered repeated pogroms and
continual oppression and to which some of them responded by aligning themselves with leftist uprisings.
Herzl himself saw Palestine, the Jews’ ancestral homeland, as the ideal location for a future Jewish state,
but he maintained that any settlement there would have to be handled deliberately and delicately, through
proper diplomatic channels and with international sanction, if a Jewish nation was to survive in peace.
Herzl’s view came to be known as political Zionism.
Ben-Zvi and his seven comrades, on the other hand, were—like most other Russian Jews—practical
Zionists. Rather than wait for the rest of the world to give them a home, they believed in creating one
themselves—in going to Palestine, working the land, making the desert bloom. They would take what they
believed to be rightfully theirs, and they would defend what they had taken.
This put the practical Zionists in immediate conflict with most of the Jews already living in Palestine. As
a tiny minority in an Arab land—many of them peddlers and religious scholars and functionaries under the
Ottoman regime—they preferred to keep a low profile. Through subservience and compromise and
bribery, these established Palestinian Jews had managed to buy themselves relative peace and a measure of
security.
But Ben-Zvi and the other newcomers were appalled at the conditions their fellow Jews tolerated. Many
were living in abject poverty and had no means of defending themselves, utterly at the mercy of the Arab
majority and the venal officials of the corrupt Ottoman Empire. Arab mobs attacked and plundered Jewish
settlements, rarely with any consequences. Worse, as Ben-Zvi and the others saw it, those same settlements
had consigned their defense to Arab guards—who in turn would sometimes collaborate with attacking
mobs.
Ben-Zvi and his friends found this situation to be unsustainable and intolerable. Some were former
members of Russian left-wing revolutionary movements inspired by the People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya),
an aggressive anti-tsarist guerrilla movement that employed terrorist tactics, including assassinations.
Disappointed by the abortive 1905 revolution in Russia, which in the end produced only minimal
constitutional reforms, some of these socialist revolutionaries, social democrats, and liberals moved to
Ottoman Palestine to reestablish a Jewish state.
They all were desperately poor, barely scraping by, earning pennies at teaching jobs or manual labor in
the fields and orange groves, often going hungry. But they were proud Zionists. If they were going to create
a nation, they first had to defend themselves. So they slipped through the streets of Jaffa in pairs and alone,
making their way to the secret meeting in Ben-Zvi’s apartment. That night, those eight people formed the
first Hebrew fighting force of the modern age. They decreed that, from then forward, everything would be
different from the image of the weak and persecuted Jew all across the globe. Only Jews would defend Jews
in Palestine.
They named their fledgling army Bar-Giora, after one of the leaders of the Great Jewish Revolt against
the Roman Empire, in the first century. On their banner, they paid homage to that ancient rebellion and
predicted their future. “In blood and fire Judea fell,” it read. “In blood and fire Judea will rise.”
he took to mean full adoption. Power was not supposed to be in-
herited at Rome, but armed with this name he rallied the dead
dictator’s supporters and proclaimed his intention to assume all of
his father’s offi ces and status. He then proceeded to achieve pre-
cisely that, against all the odds and opposed by far more experienced
rivals. Mark Antony was the last of these, and he was defeated and
dead by 30 bc. The young, murderous warlord of the civil wars
then managed to reinvent himself as the beloved guardian of the
state, took the name Augustus with its religious overtones, and was
eventually dubbed ‘the father of his country’, an inclusive rather
than divisive fi gure. He held supreme power for forty-four years –
a very long time for any monarch – and when he died of old age,
there was no question that his nominated successor would follow
him.
Yet in spite of his remarkable story and profound infl uence on the
history of an empire which has shaped the culture of the western
world, Caesar Augustus has slipped from the wider consciousness.
For most people he is a name mentioned in Christmas services or
school Nativity plays and nothing more than that. Hardly anybody
stops to think that the month of July is named after Julius Caesar,
but I suspect even fewer are aware that August is named after Au-
gustus. Julius Caesar is famous, and so are Antony and Cleopatra,
Nero, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, perhaps Hadrian, and a few
of the philosophers – but Augustus is not. One of the reasons is that
Shakespeare never wrote a play about him, perhaps because there
is little natural tragedy in a man who lives to a ripe old age and dies
in his bed. He appears as Octavius in Julius Caesar and as Caesar in
Antony and Cleopatra, but in neither play is his character particularly
engaging, unlike Brutus, Antony – or even lesser players like Eno-
barbus. His fate is principally to serve as a foil to Antony, weak, even
cowardly, but cold and manipulative where the latter is brave, in-
tensely physical, simple and passionate. The contrast was already
there in the ancient sources, and had its roots in the propaganda war
waged at the time; it has only tended to become even more pro-
nounced in modern treatments of the story – think for instance of
the glacially cold performance with just hints of sadism given by
Roddy McDowall in the famous 1963 epic movie Cleopatra.2
Calculating, devious and utterly ruthless, such an Augustus en-
courages the audience to sympathise with Antony and Cleopatra,
and thus makes their deaths all the more tragic, for in the end these
stories are about them. No play, fi lm or novel with Augustus at its
heart has ever captured the popular imagination. In Robert Graves’
novel, I Claudius – and the wonderful BBC dramatisation which is
now at least as well known – he is once again no more than prom-
inent among the supporting cast. This treatment is much more
sympathetic, and he plays a diff erent role as the simple, emotional –
and only occasionally menacing – old man being outmanoeuvred by
Livia, his manipulative and murderous wife. Such stories are involv-
ing and entertaining, but on their own give no real understanding
of why Augustus was so important, making it hard to connect the
young schemer to the ageing and often outwitted emperor.
There is far more to Augustus’ life than this, and this bigger story
is far from dull. One of the great dangers is to assume an inevita-
bility about his success, whether based on his genius for politics or
– and this is an older view – wider trends which made the creation
of a monarchy at Rome little more than a matter of time. Augus-
tus’ longevity surprised everyone, as did his success, especially in the
early years. Much of the time the gambler is more obvious than the
careful planner. Augustus took risks, especially during the civil wars,
and not all of these risks paid off . There was more of Julius Caesar
about him than is sometimes appreciated, not least in his ability to
extricate himself from scrapes of his own making. Nor is there any
real evidence of a long-nurtured plan for creating his new regime;
instead the picture is one of improvisation and experimentation,
creating the system by trial and error, with chance events playing
almost as big a role as design. The image of the icy manipulator also
quickly vanishes as we look at a man who struggled, and often failed,
to restrain his passions and hot temper. This is the Augustus who had
an aff air with the married and pregnant Livia, made her husband
divorce her and then had the man preside over their wedding mere
It’s not bias but rather confusion. The poor Ai couldn’t differentiate between ‘a racist’ and the word ‘racist’ –
It couldn’t apply diplomacy, and like a simple child, just called a spade a spade.
Thankfully it ‘learns’ fast