They bought the thing three decades ago, they're now trying to sell it for £2m, and they want some sympathy because a £2500pa surcharge might knock their massive profits slightly. Get bent.

"any such material should be removed". Right on!

Yes, I think that's right, but I also think that the term has a post-Austinian life where that is not taken to be so. The SEP article on speech acts, for example, makes a sharp distinction between speech and speech acts. This could of course just be terminological. You can see why I'm confused!

I am uninterested in the content of any answer given by ChatGPT to any question.

I am interested (both senses) in the question of whether anyone should be interested in the content of answers given by ChatGPT.

My answer to that question has nothing to do with truth or sensibleness.

I am entirely uninterested in ChatGPT's answer to anything at all.

Hmmm I think any plausible view of speech acts is going to appeal to social things, e.g. institutions that confer authority to perform certain acts. And, more generally, language just is social, and I think that was in speech act theory from the start.

#philsky

A speech act is an action where (a) a meaning-bearing vehicle is intentionally used to try to do something and (b) the thing could be successfully done just be successful use of the vehicle.

Nah

A person performs a speech act when (and only when) they (a) intentionally use a meaning-bearing vehicle to try to do something and (b) could succeed in doing that thing just by successfully using the vehicle to do so.

Nah

Apparently it's a more subtle training exercise than I credited: if you do click a link you get a telling off from IT, and if you flag/report the email as suss you get a congratulatory email. But since both just generate more email I'm going to stick with deletion.

It's a whole haircare package, this place.

It's a good excuse!