Artificial Intelligence responds to my Memorial Day blog post

"O brave new world that has such people in it!"
      William Shakespeare, The Tempest

There aren't people in the brave new world of Artificial Intelligence. But it knows stuff anyway.

My blog post on Memorial Day received far more than the usual amount of criticism. 

I outlined a theory of history: endless cycles, not progress. I said that since the human species sought status within and between groups, human groups would be drawn to war by our instinctual motivations of self-interest, honor-seeking, and fear of the ambitions of others. I said these motivations lead to wars of territorial conquest. I cited White settlers replacing indigenous people in North America. I said the cycles of ebb and flow continue, and ownership of my farm back to indigenous people will come full circle when descendants of immigrants from the south own the farmland again. I was serene about it.

One critic said the immigrants were murderous outsiders and I would regret welcoming them. Another said I was antisemitic in saying that humans, including both Jews and Arabs in Israel, wanted ethnic cleansing so disputed land would be an unshared homeland for their own tribe. Other critics thought I sounded bleak and depressed.

I asked an Artificial Intelligence program -- claude.ai -- what it thought. I asked it to write a response of approximately 250 words from the point of view of a Republican reader.  Here was  the AI response:

Dear Mr. Sage,

While I respect your right to express your views, I must strongly disagree with the bleak and cynical perspective presented in your recent blog post.

As Republicans, we believe in the fundamental goodness of America and the principles upon which our great nation was founded. Your characterization of history as an endless cycle of conquest and oppression, with no real progress, runs counter to the ideals that have made the United States a beacon of hope and opportunity for people around the world.

We acknowledge that our nation's history has its dark chapters, but we also celebrate the tremendous strides we have made in expanding liberty, equality, and justice for all. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of the 1960s were not the birth of a "sham" nation, but rather important steps in our ongoing journey to form a more perfect union.

Your suggestion that the current political climate represents a "counter-revolution" against the gains made by women, minorities, and the LGBTQ community is misguided. As Republicans, we believe in equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their background. What we oppose are divisive identity politics that seek to pit one group against another.

Finally, your resignation to the idea that "humans come and go" and that our land will inevitably be lost to others is antithetical to the spirit of American exceptionalism. We believe in the power of our ideas and the resilience of our people to overcome any challenge and to secure a brighter future for generations to come.

America is not perfect, but it is a nation worth fighting for. As Republicans, we will continue to champion the values that have made us great and to work towards a future of opportunity and prosperity for all.

Sincerely, A Proud Republican

This reveals some of the abilities and limitations of AI at its current state of development. Artificial Intelligence text adopted a polite and reasonable tone. It got the Republican give-no-quarter response right. It held the ground of America-is-good patriotism.  AI saw "both sides." 

But the AI program mis-read my post describing a "sham." Equality, I had written, was an unmet aspiration of our founding documents until the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws, not because of them.

The AI text demonstrated a wider knowledge of events than what is present in the document it critiqued. It "knows" things, including the presence of "divisive identity politics" on the left. It "knows" that "American exceptionalism" is an idea a Republican critic might cite. AI is well-read and has good common sense.

There is a formula to it that my eighth grade English teacher, Ray Lewis, taught. Start with an opening statement of the point of view. Then three examples of evidence, the third one beginning with "finally." Then a short re-statement of the now-proven conclusion. It is a good formula for clear exposition. Its weakness is that it reads as formulaic.

I consider it soul-less, but I have a hard time describing why. If I were reading quickly for content I might consider it clear and persuasive. I probably would not notice it was written by a machine. It is competent and sounds confident.

I write these blog posts myself. I try to be competent and sound confident. Like claude.ai, I, too, make mistakes.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]