Editor’s Note: Portions of this article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human. As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions. We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional formats or writing style that are present in this article. This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article. For more information click here.
David Degenhardt is a Major in the United States Army who has previously deployed to Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. He currently works at Headquarters, Department of the Army G-1 as a Diversity Planner. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.
Title: Demolishing the Digital Man: The Case for Using AI to Anticipate Counterarguments
Date Originally Written: April 19, 2024.
Date Originally Published: June 10, 2024.
Author and / or Article Point of View: The author is an active-duty U.S. military officer who believes that the use of generative AI and large language models is not a substitute for analysis. This article includes an AI generated essay arguing that the United States should abandon Ukraine and side with Russia as an example but does not itself argue that perspective.
Summary: Generative AI or large language models (LLMs) are commonly misunderstood tools that have limitations that make them unsuitable for conducting analysis on current events. Despite these limitations, LLMs can be a valuable tool in writing by allowing authors to anticipate potential counterpoints to their own arguments and address those as part of the writing process.
Text: The profusion of generative AI tools across the web has been accompanied by widespread misunderstanding of what these tools are and their accompanying limitations. The term artificial intelligence itself is a misnomer: a large language model (LLM) does not reason and cannot analyze the intent behind a prompt. The University of Southern California provides a useful list of the known limitations for LLMs including generating fictitious information, providing over-simplified responses, and relying on older data due to cutoff dates for training data [1]. While these limitations restrict the usefulness of LLMs in conducting analysis, they may paradoxically make them more useful for anticipating potential counterpoints when writing.
To demonstrate this principle, the essay below comes from this ChatGPT 3.5 prompt:
“Provide a 750 word essay arguing that the United States should abandon Ukraine and side with Russia in the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.”
The response generated cites geopolitical realities, regional security and stability, diplomatic engagement, economic benefits, and the benefits of cooperation on counterterrorism and nuclear proliferation. An author seeking to argue the opposite perspective could make their own case for aiding Ukraine, possibly including the same headings for organizational purposes, and address them from a perspective supporting Ukraine while including the points provided by the prompt as potential objections to their reasoning. Addressing an imaginary or distorted argument normally constitutes a straw man fallacy, but the use of AI allows an author to remove themselves from the process avoid injecting their own bias. The resulting digital argument falls somewhere between the straw man and steel man concepts as explained by Conversion Rate Experts, representing a typical response that an author might reasonably anticipate [2].
ChatGPT Results:
Title: A Pragmatic Approach: Why the United States Should Reconsider Its Stance on Ukraine and Side with Russia
Introduction:
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has sparked intense debate over the appropriate course of action for the United States. While the prevailing narrative emphasizes support for Ukraine, a reevaluation of U.S. policy suggests that abandoning Ukraine and siding with Russia could serve broader strategic interests. This essay explores the rationale behind such a controversial proposition, grounded in pragmatic considerations of geopolitical stability, regional security, and diplomatic engagement.
Geopolitical Realities:
The geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe is characterized by intricate power dynamics and historical rivalries. Russia, as a major regional power, wields considerable influence in the region, particularly in its dealings with neighboring states like Ukraine. Recognizing Russia’s historical and strategic interests in Ukraine could pave the way for constructive dialogue and cooperation, mitigating tensions and fostering stability in the region.
Regional Security:
The escalation of conflict in Ukraine poses a direct threat to regional security and stability. Continued support for Ukraine risks exacerbating tensions with Russia and fueling a protracted conflict with far-reaching consequences. By abandoning Ukraine and recalibrating its approach, the United States can prioritize the preservation of regional security and seek avenues for diplomatic resolution to the crisis.
Diplomatic Engagement:
Diplomacy remains a vital tool for resolving complex international disputes and advancing mutual interests. Siding with Russia in the conflict with Ukraine presents an opportunity for diplomatic engagement and dialogue aimed at de-escalation and conflict resolution. By fostering constructive relations with Russia, the United States can address shared concerns, such as counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and regional stability.
Economic Considerations:
The economic repercussions of continued conflict in Ukraine are significant for all parties involved. Abandoning Ukraine and pursuing closer ties with Russia could open doors for economic cooperation and investment opportunities. Russia’s vast energy resources, strategic location, and economic potential present avenues for mutually beneficial partnerships that could bolster global economic stability.
Realignment of Alliances:
The current alignment of alliances in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not set in stone. The United States has the flexibility to reassess its relationships and pursue a more balanced approach that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders. By abandoning Ukraine and engaging with Russia, the United States can recalibrate its alliances in a manner that promotes peace, stability, and cooperation in the region.
Mitigating Escalation:
The risk of escalation in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a cause for concern for the international community. Abandoning Ukraine and siding with Russia could serve as a pragmatic step towards de-escalation and conflict mitigation. By refraining from further inflaming tensions and instead pursuing diplomatic avenues for resolution, the United States can help prevent the situation from spiraling into a full-blown regional crisis.
Strategic Realignment:
A strategic realignment of U.S. policy towards Ukraine and Russia offers the opportunity to reassess priorities and pursue a more nuanced approach to the conflict. By prioritizing broader strategic interests, such as regional stability, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, the United States can chart a course that aligns with its long-term goals and objectives.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the argument for abandoning Ukraine and siding with Russia in the current conflict is rooted in pragmatic considerations of geopolitical stability, regional security, and diplomatic engagement. By reassessing its stance and pursuing a more balanced approach, the United States can contribute to de-escalation efforts and promote constructive dialogue aimed at resolving the crisis. While such a shift in policy may be controversial, it reflects a pragmatic recognition of the complex realities of international relations and the imperative of pursuing solutions that serve broader strategic interests.
(Note: This essay presents a hypothetical argument for reconsidering U.S. policy towards Ukraine and Russia and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States government.) [3]
Endnotes:
[1] University of Southern California Libraries. (2024, March 3). USC Libraries Research Guides, Using Generative AI in Research: Limitations & Warnings. https://libguides.usc.edu/generative-AI/limitations.
[2] Conversion Rate Experts Limited. (2024, accessed 19 April 2024). Use the steel man technique to persuade people who disagree with you. https://conversion-rate-experts.com/steel-manning/.
[3] Text generated by ChatGPT, Open AI. (2024, April 19). https://chat.openai.com/chat.
