For retired academics like myself without research funding, AI has appeared as a qualified saviour in undertaking and drafting research. It comes with two caveats – it can be (and often is). just wrong, and most academic journals are seriously averse to publishing stuff where Anthropic Fable 5 (or its juniors) is a co-author. So with Claude as a device there comes a steep learning curve, especially the way in which prompts and queries need to be devised, and a recognition we are stepping into a very different world..
These papers have been prepared in the context of the failure of the Australian government to enunicate and resource a serious policy in the broad multicultural area, the rise of One Nation and Advance as a fiercely and influential racist couplet, and the debates over the role of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. It is backgrounded by the Voice referendum where a 60:40 split on support for the Voice reversed in 18 months. The Social Topography paper tries to identify the various elements that have to be addressed by anti-racism policies, removing it from a battlefield of emotion to a space with discernible and actionable elements. The racism policy “Solving the Quandary” paper reflects the decision of the Working Group on Multicultural Australia beyond Social Cohesion that it would be helpful to have a “pathway” document looking forward to indicate policies and programs that the evidence suggest would be necessary. In particular it is important to name and interpret the policy freeze points that have stymied movement, even where racism is intensifying all around and inaction is a major contributor.
On this page I have posted four papers – a short comparison of what Haiku thinks the difference would be if Fable 5 had been used instead of Haiku to write the “Quandary” paper; the Haiku version of the paper outline; the Fable full paper (~9000 words); and a separate Haiku 2500 word paper on “The Social Topography” of racism in Australia. These have all been checked over by me and corrected where I have found errors or confusions. They essentially follow or extend the arguments I have made previously, which I actually wrote all on my ownsome.
If using these papers or their arguments please reference them – and let me know. Also if you disagree sufficiently to put ‘pen to paper’ (anachronism) please do so to ajakub49@gmail.com.
Andrew Jakubowicz 