Friday 11th July 2025
Blog Page 189

£2 cocktails and a side of guilt

0

In February 2023, Argentina’s inflation rate went past the 100% mark, hitting 102.5%. 

Back in July 2022, in our uni orientation week for a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, the hot topic amongst the international students was money. More precisely: how cheap everything was. You could buy a fancy cocktail for the equivalent of £2, a standard restaurant meal for £5-7, or a steak dinner at Don Julio – named the Best Restaurant in Latin America in 2020 – for £20-30.

For a bunch of uni students from Europe, it was like Christmas came early. We had more spending power than we knew what to do with and a decent amount of free time to live like your typical gap yah kids. But after the initial surprise came a gradual understanding of the situation we found ourselves in, and the implications behind it.

Argentina has two rates for foreign currency exchange: the official rate, and the “blue rate”. Following historical on and off restrictions on the amount of foreign currency locals can purchase, an underground black market for US dollars emerged, dubbed the ‘dólar blue’. While, on the blue rate, locals receive a worse rate than the official one to exchange their pesos, foreigners are rewarded by the system. At the time of writing, £1 =  $265 ARS on the official rate, and $496 ARS on the blue. 

Any card transaction, or money conversion from official channels would give you the lesser rate; to get the blue rate you’d have to seek out “arbolitos” (street dollar sellers), visit “cuevas” (caves, illegal exchange houses), or jump through the bureaucratic hoops of Western Union. 

We became seasoned speculators – the blue rate could change by a margin of 20 pesos on a daily basis, and it wasn’t uncommon to receive a text on exchange student group chats reading “The rate’s good today – go get your money”. When I arrived in Buenos Aires in July, the blue rate was £1 = 320-340 ARS; at the time of writing, £1 = 496 ARS. 

From our privileged, unscathed position as international students – inconvenienced by non-functioning Western Union branches rather than an inability to eat or live – we witnessed how soaring inflation and a failing economy affected life on a daily basis. We didn’t feel the real effects, given that local prices stayed relatively the same to the pound conversion, or even decreased. But it was a really strange dynamic to be part of. Indeed, getting excited about £2 cocktails and feeling the tangible benefits from foreign spending power came with layers of guilt as we watched many of our Argentine friends and acquaintances live the full consequences of the country’s financial struggles.

Inflation in Argentina is directly linked to the increased use of the dollar and other foreign currencies. The emerging rich, nowadays, are those who are paid in US dollars, pounds, or euros. As the Peso loses value, those who spend based on stores of foreign currencies come out of financial transactions better off, and the wealth inequality gap grows. 

In February 2023, Argentina’s inflation rate went past the 100% mark, hitting 102.5%. The rate has risen steadily through the past few months and, if we bear in mind that in July 2022 inflation was at 70.1%, it’s clear that the effects of inflation in the country have long been felt.1 In December, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had to step in to approve $6bn USD (£4.9bn) of bailout money. In fact, the government has recently had to issue a new, $2000 peso banknote to keep up with the falling value of the ARS peso. 

I spoke to my friend Giuliana Camaño, a student of International Relations at the University of San Andrés, about her experience of – and perspective on – the situation. 

She told me: “The main problem is that prices rise and wages don’t. Prices of basic necessities for your average person: gas, public transport, food, clothes, health insurance, etc.” In my experience, prices at the supermarket were different every time you went in, and restaurants tended to have whiteboard-style menus, to be able to change the prices every few days. At the university, there have been four price hikes – of around 20% each time – in fees for local students since the middle of last year.

Giuli came to study in Buenos Aires at the age of 18, but her hometown is the province of Mendoza, which lies to the west of the capital near the Chilean border. Inflation is felt differently in the rest of the country, given that Buenos Aires has starker social and economic inequalities than elsewhere. In Mendoza, for example, “the majority of the population forms the middle class, so the gap isn’t as distinguished – obviously there’s poverty but it’s not felt as directly as it is in the streets of Buenos Aires”. Even so, Mendoza’s supermarket shelves are markedly bare and many businesses have been affected by the worsening economy. 

For students who come from the other regions to study and work in Buenos Aires, there’s a real struggle to live. In the capital, “things are a lot more expensive than they are in many parts of the country”, leaving many to rely heavily on their parents – but even so, it can be difficult to get by squaring the wages from one’s home province with the prices of the capital.

This economic struggle is playing out side by side with growing social tensions. In October of this year, elections will be held to choose the president, members of the national congress and the governors of most of the provinces. There’s already fighting between the various political parties as they raise campaigns with different strategies to tackle inflation. Giuli tells me that “they constantly blame each other for historical problems. All this is generating a heavy social tension that will be hard to contain.”

1For context, inflation in the UK’s current cost of living crisis clocks in at a rate of 10.4%.

Image credit: Georgie Cutmore

Oxford junior doctors join strike over pay dispute

0

Junior doctors at Oxford’s main hospital are holding a four day walk-out as part of national strike action in response to falling real-wages over the past 14 years. Disruptions to appointments are expected but emergency services will continue to operate.

A picket-line has been set-up since Tuesday morning outside the John Radcliffe hospital by junior doctors calling on the Health Secretary to return to negotiations with the British Medical Association (BMA) and Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association (HCSA). Over 40,000 junior doctors across the nation are expected to strike over the pay dispute between BMA and the government. Strike action is expected to run from 7am Tuesday 11th to 7am Saturday 15th, according to Oxford University Hospitals (OUH).

The 96-hour industrial action has been described by NHS director Sir Stephen Powis as “probably [going to be] the most disruptive period of action in NHS history”. Around 350,000 appointments have been rescheduled nationally as efforts are made to minimise the impact on health service provision.

The strikes follow claims by the BMA that junior doctors have faced a 26% real-wage cut since 2009. Downing Street has criticised demands for a 35% pay rise as “unreasonable and unaffordable”, stating that they will not negotiate with the BMA until this figure is lowered and the strikes stopped.

The Health Secretary has called the BMA’s actions “disappointing”, saying that “if the BMA is willing to move significantly from this position and cancel strikes we can resume confidential talks and find a way forward, as we have done with other unions”.

Oxford City Councillor and NHS anaesthetist Dr Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini has said online that the strike has her “full support”, calling for pay restoration and tweeting that “[w]e can’t continue looking after the public based on staff good will”.

Dr Djafari-Marbini on Twitter.

Doctors across all of OUH’s four hospitals will be striking but OUH has confirmed that urgent and emergency care will still be provided, and encourages patients to continue to attend their appointments if they have not been contacted to reschedule.

“I don’t read the news”

0

I don’t read the news. That might sound shocking, and a little sensationalist, and that’s because it is a little shocking and quite a bit sensationalist, but at the heart of it lies something true. Like a lot of my peers, reading the news has been stressing me out. When reading a newspaper, my hand itches to flick to the Culture section, but there’s always something in me that makes me read the news first. Call it a goody-two-shoes syndrome or a masochistic flair, but I compulsively read the news section before proceeding to stress about it for the next minute, hour, day, or even week. My longest streak has actually been years – when my school kept on showing us climate change documentaries, so I proceeded to make my own deodorant, toothpaste, and soap for the next year. That streak promptly ended when my mum had to have a sit-down intervention with me about how much I smell. I don’t want to yuck anyone’s yum, but growing up for me meant recognising the fact that I am simply not equipped to make my own cosmetic products. And by my standards, that is growth.

Going back to the news anxiety of it all, this compulsive need to stay up to date with current affairs at the expense of my mental health (and personal hygiene) led me to reassess the way I inform myself. The way I get the news nowadays involves a two-step process and a lot of moxie. Step one, where I read the Instagram posts from outlets like The Times, along with their captions, and call it a day. Step two is a bit riskier and involves the trickle-down effect of receiving a wildly inaccurate yet extremely entertaining version of a current affair, after which I then have to go do some research so that I don’t look like a fool if the story turns out to be false. Like the other day, when I recounted a vividly gripping account of a man waking from a decade-long coma that I had heard from a friend, only to have another friend show me that it was a Reddit story.

In moments like this, not reading the news is so embarrassing (and maybe secretly a little funny). Am I part of the fake news problem? Should I inform myself a bit better? I am self-aware enough to realise that this is sad. I am a twenty-one-year-old woman, so I better start acting like one. On the other hand, though, I’ve got to protect my inner peace. If I don’t look out for my MVP, who will?

Jokes aside, nowadays the news are really tricky to navigate. I know that I’m not the only one who feels uninformed but also dreads reading sensationalist headlines about the latest climate catastrophe, the newest economic crisis, or a current femicide. I don’t have the answers to the perfect balance, but I do think that complete ignorance cannot be the answer. I have embarrassed myself one too many times after adopting that particular coping mechanism, so I will not be partaking in the practice anymore, thank you. But, compulsively reading the news during a machoistic streak is not it either. I wish I was Dolly Alderton so I could give myself some kick-ass advice, but alack, I am not, and I will have to learn to deal with that. Maybe it’s okay not to have all the answers just yet, and maybe it’s okay to read newspapers through their social media accounts rather than their fatalistic hardcopies that make you flick through all the news before getting to the good stuff. Maybe I should just accept my Gen Z-ness and embrace this whole digital thing.

I still don’t read the news. At least not in the traditional, sit-down-with-the-paper-and-my-coffee sort of way. My way is the more experimental, sit-on-the-toilet-scrolling-through-my-phone sort of way –­ but who can judge a multi-tasking queen? Certainly not me, that’s for sure.

Do we want public figures to be like us?

0

This February, new Conservative Party Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson sent shockwaves across much of Britain’s media. He did this by confessing that he would support the return of the death penalty in the UK. To honour the occasion, The Guardian issued a satirical likeness of Anderson’s ‘10-point plan’ for his Party, including the reintroduction of ‘public executions’ and ‘priority booking’ for Party members, in order to confirm the position as the contrivance of a hard-right niche of the Tory Party. The Times highlighted how Anderson’s position put him ‘in the minority’ in the UK. To The Independent, Anderson was ‘forthright’ and ‘controversial’.

Now, whilst none of these appellations is necessarily unfair or untrue, they do paint a picture of a man altogether reactionary, out of touch with the times and the general public. They certainly do not intimate the kind of conclusions that are to be drawn from a March 2022 YouGov poll that saw 40% of Britons support the reintroduction of the death penalty for any murder (admittedly with 50% opposed) and, even more strikingly, 54% in support (versus 35% against) in cases of terrorism and 55% (versus 33% against) in cases of multiple murder. Even if we accept that a majority of Britons would still oppose its reintroduction in all murder cases, 40% in support is not a statistic to be sniffed at and certainly not one to be deemed the preserve of the extreme fringes of the Tory Party. Far from representing a fringe minority of the public, Lee Anderson’s ‘controversial’ remarks on this matter and on numerous others point to his articulation of a publicly unspoken swathe of British public opinion.

Are we to conclude from this comparison that the mainstream of British media is simply out of touch with the British public, whatever that means? Far from it. I would suggest that much of Britain’s mainstream media, by and large, reflects what we do expect of public figures. And what we expect of our public figures is not a mere replication of our own views – those we might be more willing to express in anonymous polls.

Even Lee Anderson is aware of this. In a widely mocked, staged cold call on a doorstepping round in his constituency, Anderson was visibly embarrassed when the man, later revealed to be a friend of his, suggested whipping anti-social people with the “cat o’ nine tails” – a whip formerly used for severe physical punishment in the Royal Navy and British Army – and making them “wear a pink tutu”. Having realised the risk of him being associated with views even more extreme than his own publicly expressed ones, Anderson responded: “I can’t support that” and tensely asked the camera-operator to “cut there for one moment”. Had this conversation been held in private, I suspect Anderson would have gone further than just agreeing with his friend. Before the cameras, however, he was acutely aware of the public’s expectation for him to keep comments that many of them might voice themselves, albeit flippantly and privately, out of public view. I would suggest that this incident showcases how even the most ‘controversial’, ‘forthright’, ‘man of the people’ type of politician knows that fundamentally, the vast majority of the public neither expects nor wants them to be fully authentic in their public role.

This dynamic is, I would suggest, characteristic of our basic human lack of self-reflection and our instinctive willingness to accept double standards for ourselves and public figures respectively. It is a quality I observe not only in media discourse but in my closest friends and even, though I am ashamed to admit it, in myself. I have always been amused by friends who lather their social media pages with calls for the latest celebrity guilty of an historical offensive tweet to have their face irreversibly stripped from the public sphere, and who simultaneously fail to bat an eyelid when their own friends utter careless quips carrying equal, if not higher, levels of offence as those of their latest victim.

A relatively high-profile variant of this phenomenon was covered by both American and British media in March 2021. Alexi McCammond, a high-flying journalist at Axios and Editor-in-Chief-elect of Conde Nast’s Teen Vogue, was forced to resign from the latter position before she had even assumed the role after a public and media outcry against anti-Asian tweets she had posted as a 17 year old, around 10 years prior. It was not, I would suggest, a genuine consensus across the American public or across Twitter-users in general that led former Teen Vogue editors and current staff to speak out against McCammond’s appointment to the press, even less a general conviction that none of them had, as a 17 year old or indeed older, said much worse themselves. This was certainly not the case for one staff member who criticised McCammond’s appointment, who was discovered to have tweeted racial slurs as a teenager herself soon after calling for McCammond to go. No, what motivated the latter’s sacking was an understanding of the general public’s largely hypocritical, yet deeply influential expectation for public figures to be, as it were, ‘better than them’. The very flaws we failed to acknowledge in ourselves and those closest to us, we did and would continue to unthinkingly see even minor public figures lose their livelihoods for, without so much as a pang of self-reflection.

So what does this mean for us, as students and members of the public in general? As in most areas of life, drawing fixed, universal rules from a set of well-documented cases, let alone a few barely examined anecdotes, is a futile task. On the one hand, as an opponent of the death penalty myself, I do not see the correspondence of Lee Anderson’s public views to much of Britain’s private ones as a reason for radicalising public political discourse in line with the often flippant and ill-thought-through extremist sentiments that ebb and flow unpredictably through public opinion.

On the other hand, I see huge benefits in a society of private persons whose reflection on its own flaws and past wrongs helps shape a more forgiving and transparent public discourse, be this in journalism or politics – in effect, a greater alignment of reflective private views with the treatment of public figures. But these positions are, of course, shaped by my own prejudices. It is not my duty to voice them, unexplained. What we do with the realisation that we frequently impose different and often higher standards of behaviour on our public figures than on ourselves and loved ones is up to us as individuals.

I would finish simply by suggesting that greater levels of self-examination, whether we use this to address our own faults and those of our closest friends, or to temper overly pious condemnation of those living under the glare of public scrutiny, can in moderation be no bad thing.

Image Credit: Thomas Rowlandson, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons


New menu new me? Turtle Bay brings fresh flavours to tried and tested formula

0

When I reviewed Turtle Bay back in November of last year, it was great to, as ever, try a huge variety of what was on offer. As a result, I got to see both the best and blandest dishes that shone a light on the brilliance of Caribbean cuisine but also let it down in places. With its new and long-awaited menu refresh, the Caribbean chain now seems to have truly turned its focus onto the food alongside its brilliant drinks offering with increased plant-based and fresh-tasting options.

This time around I was visiting the newly opened branch in Hammersmith. Still shining from its unveiling just a week ago, it uses the same formula as many of the chain’s other sites but on an even bigger scale. The bar is front and centre as you enter and behind it lies a vast ground floor split into a couple of disctinct sections with tables of varying sizes. Upstairs, another bar and a smaller number seem primed for private hire or particularly busy Friday and Saturday nights.

We kicked things off with the starter and sharing options including the pulled chicken doubles. These are a new twist on their famous ‘Trini Doubles’ that have always been the star dish on offer here. I must say they were one of my favourite things on the day— the combination of avocado and pineapple countered the seasoning of the chicken and barbecue sauce well with the texture a step up from the original dish in my opinion.

Pulled Chicken Doubles

There are now vegan jerk chicken options from the jerk pit as well as barbecue ribs. As English ribs go these were also full of flavour and much larger than you often find. The mac and cheese with them was unremarkable in flavour but crispy on top to bring the crunch that any good macaroni needs.

Ribs

Fried chicken was always my favourite choice at Turtle Bay and with the new menu that much remains unchanged. It is best in the ‘Honey Bunny Yardbird’: This is a Caribbean twist on chicken and waffles and is a stack of roti topped with a boneless chicken thigh, honey and a fried egg as well as watermelon on the side. The combination of flavours here is perfect and it strikes me as the best thought-out dish as well as being a great twist on a brunch classic. The fried chicken is just as good with some rice and beans. The thigh is well browned and the coating carries just enough of a punch to bring flavour but not too much spice for the UK market. Rice has a lot more smokiness to it than so many restaurants that just churn out bog-standard, tasteless grains.

Fried Chicken and Mac and Cheese

All of the sunshine bowls have been switched up too and for the first time at Turtle Bay, you can get a salad. That is topped with jerk chicken and a good variety of vegetables with a watermelon dressing. The dressing strikes me as a good combo with the flavour of jerk but unfortunately this one is too toned down for me. You can taste it at times but the breast definitely needed more kick to align it with those classic jerk flavours. This does feel like an important dish for Turtle Bay, especially now that all chains must display their calorie counts on menus: the fact that they are now able to offer something under 400 calories will open up the scope for lunches to a large number of people who in the past might have seen this as a ‘cheat-meal’ destination.

Jerk Chicken Salad

Back to plant-based and the jackfruit burger is a huge step up from the vegan fried chicken offering I tried last year. The red onion, lettuce, and tomato bring a freshness to the smoky barbecue sauce and a crunch to the jackfruit texture that makes for a genuinely complete bite. The only disappointment here is the bun which is still too soft and plain for me, lacking in substance and flavour.

Pulled Jackfruit Burger

Dessert-wise, options are still limited. Usually, this is a positive for me, suggesting that a closer focus ensures quality over quantity. Indeed, the banana toffee cheesecake is another fun take on an English classic with a Caribbean twist and the biscuit base is sufficiently chunky. Unfortunately, the chocolate brownie falls far short. Quite honestly it isn’t a brownie and is entirely cake-like in texture. The coconut ice cream with it helps but there is a total absence of the gooeyness and flavour that make a good brownie. It is worth saying that the manager told us the recipe had recently changed and that the company are working quickly to improve it so it may well be that this isn’t the case for long.

Chilli Chocolate Brownie and Banana Toffee Cheesecake

In the past, Turtle Bay was an easy recommendation for me for anyone looking for late-night eats, happy hours, or bottomless brunches. With its new menu though, it has firmly entered the market as an option for lunches and dinners with far more inclusive offerings. Even more so now, it is a potential stop-off at any time of day or night.

Solidarity: What we can Learn from Strikes in Hilary

0

The topic of this article needs little introduction. If you haven’t seen or been impacted by the vast array of strikes that have occurred nationally, I wouldn’t hesitate to question which rock you’ve been living under for the last year. The strikes have impacted a vast array of sectors, most notably transport, the NHS, postal services, and of course education. In December 2022 alone, 822,000 working hours were lost across the UK. So what has been the more relatable impact on Oxford students and staff?

When scanning back through the articles we had published across Hilary term in the Comment section of Cherwell, I was almost stunned to realise that none of them had been about the strikes. Last term, I often walked to my lectures wondering whether I would be retracing my steps fifteen minutes later because they had been called off. The strikes planned for late February and early March were thankfully called off, but the impact on teaching in Hilary was significant nonetheless.

For students, the disruption to the education that many of us accumulate masses of debt for each year is understandably exasperating. Despite this, the overwhelming reaction I have gathered has been in support of the strikes. I feel that many of us recognise that if we are to be given the incredible educational opportunity Oxford promises, staff need to be in the position to provide such an experience. To do so, they need to be fairly paid and be in a secure financial position. This allows them to dedicate their attention to teaching us and providing the knowledge that their field-leading expertise often allows.

Despite this, frustrated students are opposed to these actions. Take my coursemate for example. Upon realising that yet another of our politics lectures had been cancelled, she exasperatedly argued that such pay disputes shouldn’t affect her educational experience. It is easy to empathise with such an argument, especially for international students who pay so much more than the rest of us. However, current pay conditions have been (and still are) a massive barrier to the wellbeing of staff. The ability of lecturers to make ends meet comes well above the comparatively mild inconvenience we have felt on those cold February mornings thrown with the news a lecture wouldn’t be taking place. 

Amidst the chaos, the impact on those who teach us should be our most important consideration. Last term, one of my tutors took ‘action short of a strike’ to show his solidarity with those striking by dedicating the first quarter of our tutorial to helping us gain an understanding of why staff were striking.  Hearing personally from him about how tough the conditions are given the exceptionally high expectations of this university was eye-opening.. My coursemates agreed, saying it gave them a renewed sense of support for the action and an appreciation for just how important a strong pay deal is for our tutors. I feel that we can often become detached from the human side of such struggles and hearing a first-hand account gives us an appreciation of how all-consuming they can be in the lives of others. A large part of what we can do as students is listen to our tutors and lecturers, simply aiming to understand why the action is occurring so we can empathise with them.

Staff, including DPhil students who take up work as tutors, are overworked and underpaid, often unfairly compensated for the time they put in alongside their other commitments. Comparisons have been made between working conditions at Oxford and the ‘gig economy’ – work done on fixed term contracts, with little stability as the permanence of many jobs is unreliable. Generally, the gig economy undermines workers’ rights and there has been much debate about whether more protection is needed. Is this what we want for our university staff?

Returning to the action my tutor took, I believe we can learn from his approach and develop a stronger relationship between students and staff that brings benefits for all involved. I would urge all students (and tutors who may read this) to adopt an open mind, educating themselves and spreading awareness to each other. Reach out, have a conversation, let your tutors know you support their action- they devote a large portion of their careers to helping us, an often almost thankless commitment. The least we can do is support their livelihoods, and a student-staff alliance would go a long way to defending against the common, invisible enemy of inflation. 

Such collaboration does not mitigate the need for strikes. Ultimately, I do not believe there is a viable alternative to strike action under current conditions. Strikes are an effective way of gaining national coverage and therefore awareness, and the disruption they cause is a necessary side effect of such an arrangement. Essential services like education going unprovided is unsustainable and forces employers and the government to take action. In a time where we have a government that likes to deflect, distract, and undermine the rights of the working people who give the most to this country, it is vital that grassroots action like striking continues and is not repressed or demonised. Unless a deal is struck to pay staff fairly and competitively, Oxford risks losing top talent to the private sector or other institutions, especially amidst a drop in research funding attributed to our exit from the EU. I do not doubt for a second the passion for teaching that many professors and lecturers have, but there will undoubtedly come a point where these conditions are no longer viable. For this reason, we can do nothing but hope that whatever deals are agreed are enough to soften the blow of the current cost of living crisis.

Image Credit: Caledonian Union/ CC BY 2.0 Via Flickr

Rabelais’s Gargantua: Formulating Free Will in the Twenty-First Century

François Rabelais may be the most misunderstood author in history. The adjective “Rabelaisian” – inspired by perceptions of his work as vulgar or raunchy – only captures one facet of the satirist’s vibrant hodgepodge of style, tone, and subject matter. This plays right into the French Renaissance author’s hand. Reading The Inestimable Life of the Great Gargantua (1535) in 2023 reminds contemporary readers of the power in freethinking. And the fun of doing so.

That Rabelais should have a word named after him with a confused etymology is either poetic justice or the author playing the long game. In Gargantua, he criticizes the Sorbonne for benighted scholasticism, then provides his own history for how Paris got its name based on Gargantua urinating on the city from the heights of Notre Dame. The Parisians run away, screaming “we’re all awash in pee” or par rys. Rabelais celebrates the dynamism of language while taking another satirical stab at the Sorbonne. After nearly five centuries, Gargantua still tests the limits of funny.

The Sorbonne and the Parliament of Paris condemned Rabelais’s pentalogy, The Life of Gargantua and Pantagruel, multiple times for obscenity and heretical content; if Rabelais traded the printing press for a Twitter handle, he’d likely be canceled. However, as was true in the sixteenth century, so is true now that context is everything. In the comic masterwork, scatological humor confronts Evangelical morality, heroic epic narrative goes toe to toe with nonsensical farce, and classical/biblical allusions mingle with popular debates. Rabelais melds high and low brow to frustrate readers’ impulse to view social, political, or religious norms as one-dimensional and unassailable.

The Prologue to Gargantua brings this mission close to home. Rabelais instructs people to read between the lines for the underlying significance of the novel. He then immediately tells them not to read too much into his text and laughs at those who try. With an unreliable narrator, the author mimics in literature the unknowable existence of a guiding hand architecting events in life. He draws out the distinction between making fun (of someone) and to make fun (to navigate the uncertainty of daily existence by defining for oneself personal fulfillment). Laughing at others is reasonably easy. Laughing at oneself, reasonably harder. When readers recognize the ridiculousness of all people as well as appreciate their own, it alleviates the burden of making everything mean something. Figuring out the joke may be hard enough.

All times are uncertain, but twenty-first century readers can particularly empathize with the search for meaning. We see language manipulated all the time on broadcast news and social media. Picking up Gargantua in 2023 is exciting because it’s a handheld neutral zone. Since the novel is about five centuries past its copyright date, it’s unlikely to menace current sociopolitical frameworks or cause personal offense. The novel provides the opportunity for audiences to evaluate the fictions they are told and the ones they tell themselves. 

In a famous episode of the text, the giant mother Gargamelle gives birth to Gargantua through the ear. Rabelais, who was trained as a physician, couches the birth scene in quasi-reality through his use of precise medical jargon as the young giant travels through his mother’s body. Remarkably, this incredibly subversive look at faith was not what got him on the Sorbonne’s “do not read list.” (That was more due to his accusation that the Theology Faculty corrupted the religion they preached with their stupidity.) Rabelais provides a birth narrative equally as miraculous as the Immaculate Conception to examine the demarcation line between fiction and faith. 

At this point, readers say to themselves you must be kidding. He is not. Rabelais would love nothing more than for you to think his text is a joke. No moral compass. No redeeming quality. Because when redemption is no longer on the table, readers must use their own judgment to evaluate what is in good taste. What metrics do you use to define good, anyway?

Contemporary readers who come to Gargantua for a Rabelaisian read may change their perspective on the text itself and recognize language’s complex relationship with fiction. Nowadays people don’t often write thousand-page epics; character counts are limited. Rabelais was acutely aware of a single word’s ability to define a history or culture. More than ever, people today wield the remarkable power to change the world with word choice. 

In the final sequence of Gargantua, the young giant builds the Abbey of Thélème as a thank-you to his friend, Frère Jean, who stuck by him in war. The structure is an anti-abbey for an anti-monk. The doors to the abbey bear the sole guidance: fay ce que voudras, or “do as you please.” There are no barriers of any kind built around it. There are no clocks or sundials because according to the young giant, there is no greater lunacy in the world than to rule your life by the sound of bells and not according to your own good sense. 

It can feel, at times, that various sources are all fighting to influence you. Not Rabelais. Gargantua provides us with the timeless lesson that cutting through the noise isn’t easy. But it’s the only way to be your own person. 

Oxford professors join Musk and Wozniak in call for six month pause in AI development

At least 13 members of Oxford University’s academic staff have now signed an open letter calling on labs developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems more powerful than GPT-4 “to immediately pause for at least 6 months”.

Currently, the letter has amassed more than 30,000 signatories, including the likes of Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and US politician Andrew Yang, but remains controversial among its supporters and critics alike.

The letter was penned by the Future of Life Institute, a non profit organisation criticised for supporting theories such as longtermism. This philosophy views longterm improvement as an essential moral priority and is supported by such academics as Oxford professor Nick Bostrom, who was criticised recently for a racist email he wrote in the 1990s and whose work is cited in the open letter. The letter raises concerns over what is viewed to be a disproportionately high rate of AI development in relation to a comparatively more limited understanding of the risks it might entail. 

The support of various Oxford academics among thousands of other signatories has been described by one academic as part of “sounding the alarm”. 

Carissa Véliz, one of the signatories of the open letter, is an Associate Professor at the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy and the Institute for Ethics in AI. The institute, launched in 2021 as a part of Oxford’s Faculty of Philosophy following a donation by Stephen A. Schwarzman, has been dedicated to exploring the ways in which the world of artificial intelligence interacts with areas such as human rights, democracy, environment, governance and human well-being. Cherwell recently spoke with the Professor about how she believed the University of Oxford specifically should – if at all – respond to the current rate of development. 

According to Véliz, while the establishment of the Institute was a “welcome development”, “we’d stand a much better chance of ensuring that AI will contribute to the wellbeing of individuals, and to values like equality, fairness, and democracy” if we “invested a fraction of what is being spent on developing AI on research on the ethics of [it’s] governance”.

When asked why she believes the focus on regulation within the artificial intelligence industry has received less attention than other fields, particular emphasis was placed on the significance of private sector monopoly.

That artificial intelligence is “mostly being developed in private companies, as opposed to public institutions or universities […] makes it harder to regulate”. According to Véliz, these challenges have been contributed to further by the lobbying power of “big tech companies”, as well as the very nature of artificial intelligence as “a very complex technology, with unforeseen applications and possible consequences”. She also added that she does not “subscribe to the longtermism movement”.

According to the Future of Humanity Institute, the six month “pause” in AI development called for hopes to mitigate these unknowns, rather than pause the development of artificial intelligence in general. 

Despite this, certain experts within the field have criticised the contents of the letter for not going far enough, furthering a cycle of “AI hype”, rather than offering concrete solutions for the threats actually posed by limited regulation. According to Arvind Narayanan, an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Princeton University, the letter “further fuels AI hype and makes it harder to tackle real, already-occurring AI harms”. 

While there are “valid long-term concerns […] they’ve been repeatedly strategically deployed to divert attention from present harms”, Narayanan tweeted on Wednesday. While he agrees that these concerns warrant attention, “collaboration and cooperation […] the hype in this letter—the exaggeration of capabilities and existential risk—is likely to lead to models being locked down even more”.

Further criticism has come from a group of researchers at the DAIR (Distributed AI Research Institute). They published a riposte to the letter, claiming that while the authors raise many legitimate concerns about AI, “these are overshadowed by fearmongering and AI hype”. The DAIR writers also criticize the longtermist philosophy behind the open letter and the lack of attention to the exploitative practices of large corporations. There are also no signatories from Open-AI, designer of Chat GPT-4, or the Open-AI spin-off Anthropic, which aims to create safer AI, as of March 29.

Oxford University’s Associate Professor in Machine Learning, Michael Osborne, is another member of the university’s teaching staff to sign the letter. Echoing fears of the impact of artificial intelligence in undermining democracy, Osborne highlighted in conversation with Cherwell that the potential threats of under-regulated AI may include “targeted propaganda, misinformation and crime”, but that the University of Oxford is currently “leading the world” in its research.

Osborne added that if regulation fails to keep up with technological developments, it “will be necessary to tackle the possible harms from these models”, particularly as technologies such as ChatGPT increasingly move into the sphere of public consumption.

Breaking: Broad Street reopened as bomb scare understood to be false alarm

0

Police have reopened Broad Street after cordoning off areas of central Oxford in an incident believed to be a bomb scare this morning.

The incident was declared at 10:51 today, with the public being asked to leave the Broad Street area. Blackwell’s Bookshop was closed, along with other Broad Street businesses and the King’s Arms, while Google Maps indicated that traffic to the area was restricted.

However, the police have told pedestrians that the incident is now believed to be a false alarm and Blackwell’s tweeted at 12:02 that the police have reopened Broad Street.

Cherwell understands that those on site in Hertford College were also asked to evacuate, and the Bodleian Library and Weston Library were temporarily closed. However, the Bodleian tweeted that the Rad Cam remained open to readers.

A live stream from the Oxford Martin School monitored the situation behind the cordon as police vehicles attended the scene.

However, it is understood that the area is now safe for the public as of midday.