We asked artificial intelligence 'what are the biggest challenges facing democracy'?
And it nailed it.
If you haven’t yet heard of ChatGPT-3 you will soon. The online artificial intelligence chat bot reached 1 million users in five days (by comparison Instagram took 75 days, Spotify 160 days and Facebook much longer).
But to call it a chat bot is underselling it. Sure, it uses the same principle of aggregating and sorting information as the bot your bank might want you to use. But it has been carefully optimised to both understand your input in a really sophisticated way and provide this information back in well-structured and easily understood forms: essay, article, slogan, dialogue, etc etc.
But how good is it at real, human problems?
We are a democracy publication, so I asked chatGPT-3 to tell me ‘what are the biggest problems facing democracy in Australia?’ (You can find our full dialogue here). It quickly (about 10 seconds) summarised:
Ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process, including through access to information and the ability to vote.
Protecting the rights of minority groups and ensuring that their voices are heard and respected in the democratic process.
Managing the influence of money in politics and ensuring that the political process is not unduly influenced by wealthy individuals or special interest groups.
Addressing issues of political polarization and ensuring that political parties and elected officials are able to work together to find solutions to important issues facing the country.
Dealing with the impact of social media and other forms of technology on the democratic process, including the spread of misinformation and the potential for foreign interference in elections.
Not a bad start. I ran it a few times over with the same question (it comes up with slightly different answers each time), and it added: declining trust in government and political institutions, limited representation and lack of diversity in political leadership, the threat of foreign interference in democratic processes and the rise of populist and extremist political movement. It later added the ongoing debate over the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberties.
I then took the first answer and engaged in a dialogue with it (this is the ‘chat’ part).
It was able to engage in back-and-forth dialogue and develop ideas in what comes across as a pretty well thought out, if slightly robotic, way:
Democracy for Dinner: Do you consider lack of trust in institutions to be a problem also?
ChatGPT-3: Yes, lack of trust in institutions can be a problem for democracy. When citizens do not trust their government or other institutions, they may be less likely to participate in the democratic process or to support decisions made by those institutions. This can lead to a lack of legitimacy for democratic institutions and may make it more difficult for them to effectively govern. In turn, this can lead to further mistrust and a downward spiral of declining participation and effectiveness.
It even anticipated the rest of my question when I accidentally pressed ‘enter’ too quickly:
D4D: You mentioned “Ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process” What do you consider
ChatGPT-3: …ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process” to mean? This means ensuring that all citizens have access to information and the ability to vote, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, gender, or other factors. It also means providing education and other resources to help individuals understand the democratic process and make informed decisions about their participation.
As the discussion progressed, the dialogue got more involved. I asked it ‘What are the barriers to standing for electoral office?’ It offered that “individuals from certain backgrounds may face social or cultural barriers that prevent them from seeking elected office, such as a lack of support from their communities or a lack of role models … some individuals may face personal barriers, such as a lack of confidence or a lack of knowledge about the political process”. And even ‘Are there alternatives to electoral representation that can be just as democratic and ensure citizens voice in government?’, to which it easily responded:
Direct democracy, in which citizens have the ability to directly participate in decision-making through mechanisms such as referendums or initiatives.
Deliberative democracy, in which citizens are brought together in structured, inclusive, and deliberative processes to discuss and make decisions on important issues.
Participatory budgeting, in which citizens have a direct role in deciding how public funds are allocated in their communities.
Civic engagement and participation initiatives, such as community forums, town halls, and other mechanisms that allow citizens to have a voice in government decision-making.
And how might we go about doing more of this? It had an answer for that too… (invest in development to ensure that they are successful, engage with elected officials and other stakeholders, provide education and resources to the public to help them understand etc etc).
So what does this all mean? Well, I sure would hate to be a university lecturer grading essays right now. It’s likely that these sorts of tools will do for content creation what the internet did for distribution. On the plus side-if used for good, not evil (which is a big if) it has the potential to democratise access to well-structured and well thought out information, in written form. It can help summarise complex information easily and make it accessible to many more people, with the potential to accelerate education (see this exchange with ChatGPT-3 on the history of modern physics). On the other hand, we’ve already the concerns about the proliferation of deep fakes perpetuating disinformation - could this be another weapon in the wars of truth and information?
I don’t think chatGPT-3, or AI generally, is the end point for solving complex questions (not for a long while yet anyway). But in the same way none of us could write an article essay or post without access to a Google search these days, I suspect ChatGPT-3 or its successors will over time become second nature, and a key part of our information gathering processes.
For starters, I might pick up a few of its suggestions in a future post.
PS. We’ve been in interesting discussion on Substack recently with Shadi Hamid (author of “The Problem of Democracy”). Check out our conversation in the comments of this post: https://shadihamid.substack.com/p/can-you-force-people-to-be-free/ and maybe check out Shadi’s substack while you are there…
Obviously the AI did not read Simone Weil's essay "Against political parties" and has not heard about sortition, or random selection of representatives among the roster of eligible citizens as the most democratic process ever considered (and only used in Athens 2500 years ago.
Also, the Athenians had a very sophisticated organizational structure to oversee the executive officials, because they knew all about corruption and how it leads to the control of the dreaded oligarchy.