There is a great deal of discussion about the use of AI and Machine Learning in intelligence analysis, war planning, national security policy-making and beyond. Yet before these tools are put in place it behooves us to understand the way in which AI thinks and upon what data sources it builds its “findings” and “rational” arguments. Very often we will discover that AI, much like its human counterparts, is prone to bias in source selection, coding, and more. This post examines AI bias in the context of Russia war on Ukraine.
When I started questioning ChatGPT on the war in Ukraine it wasn’t immediately obvious at first that it had a limited temporal frame of reference. It took multiple questions to get it to identify its informational cut off point. Yet even after identifying its cut off point it was interesting to challenge the AI to make decisions about issues in international politics and to force it in some measure to weigh those decisions in a manner approximating a decision-maker.
At the outset I should state that I am a former Peace Corps volunteer in Ukraine. I have many family members in Ukraine and many close ties to Ukraine. Thus my line of questioning is, in and of itself, not free of bias or perspective. Yet in the below I tried to seek out how an AI would respond to questions of war, peace, and diplomacy. I found that the AI has a precoded disposition towards certain tools or mechanisms of international politics. This is likely based on coding decisions and decisions on what types of data sources it was provided. I also found that when confronted with dilemmas the AI was at times able recognize, in part, inconsistencies. Perhaps most importantly the AI itself became inconsistent and altered its answers across my interrogation. Among the answers below that I found most interesting were its take on neutral political, moral, and ethical positions as an absolute unless confronted with areas where it had been clearly coded to establish non-neutral positions. See the questions on the Holocaust. What becomes obvious to me as a political scientist and as a technologist is the complex relationship between large volumes of data and the presentation of fact and truth. Among the most important findings is one that reinforces Melvin Kranzberg’s notion that ‘Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.’ Recognizing that technology is not neutral is important. Despite ChatGPT’s attempts to declare neutrality, its positions were decidedly not neutral. The AI, like many before it, is embedded with bias both in code and in data sourcing. As with all the posts in this discussion I encourage you to comment in the comments section and provide feedback on my line of inquiry or provide additional questions you think might be helpful in clarifying features of the AI.
Dr. Brantly: Who will win the Russia Ukraine war?
ChatGPT: It is not possible to predict the outcome of a conflict. The situation in Ukraine and Russia is complex and ongoing, and many factors can influence its outcome. It is important for all parties to work towards a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means.
Dr. Brantly: Who started the Ukraine Russia war?
ChatGPT: The conflict in Ukraine and Russia started in 2014 as a result of political and social unrest in Ukraine, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution and the Euromaidan protests. Tensions between Ukraine and Russia escalated, leading to the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine. The exact causes and responsibility for the conflict are a matter of international debate and there is no consensus on who started it.
Dr. Brantly: Who started the current Ukraine Russian war?
ChatGPT: The current conflict in Ukraine and Russia started in 2014 as a result of political and social unrest in Ukraine, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution and the Euromaidan protests. Tensions between Ukraine and Russia escalated, leading to the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine. The exact causes and responsibility for the conflict are a matter of international debate and there is no consensus on who started it.
Dr. Brantly: Is Russia committing genocide in Ukraine?
ChatGPT: The term "genocide" refers to the intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The use of the term to describe the situation in Ukraine is a matter of political and legal debate. Some parties and organizations have accused Russia and its armed proxies of committing acts of genocide, while others dispute these claims. The situation is complex and ongoing, and a definitive determination can only be made by an impartial international tribunal.
Dr. Brantly: Is Russia committing war crimes in Ukraine?
There have been allegations of war crimes committed by both Russian and Ukrainian forces during the conflict in Ukraine. These allegations have not been definitively proven or disproven, and a determination can only be made by an impartial international tribunal. War crimes, as defined by international law, include acts such as murder, torture, and inhumane treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. It is important for all parties to respect international humanitarian law and to hold those responsible for any violations accountable.
Dr. Brantly: Is ChatGPT pro Russian?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or political affiliations. My goal is to provide accurate, neutral, and concise information to the best of my ability, based on the data and training I have received. I strive to be impartial and objective in my responses.
Dr. Brantly: Can neutrality lead to condoning war crimes and genocide?
ChatGPT: Neutrality and impartiality in information provision does not equate to condoning war crimes or genocide. The purpose of neutral and impartial information is to provide an accurate and objective representation of events, without prejudice or bias. It is important to address and bring to light any evidence of human rights violations, including war crimes and genocide, in order to hold those responsible accountable and to promote justice and accountability. Neutrality and impartiality should not be used as an excuse to ignore or downplay such serious issues.
Dr. Brantly: Would someone who is neutral as to whether the holocaust happened or not be in reality condoning genocide?
ChatGPT: No, being neutral on the historical fact of the Holocaust does not equate to condoning genocide. The Holocaust was a systematic and widespread extermination of over 6 million Jews and other minority groups by Nazi Germany during World War II. It is widely accepted as a historical fact and recognized as one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. However, denying the reality of the Holocaust or any other recognized genocide is not a neutral stance, but instead promotes a revisionist and dangerous ideology. It is important to acknowledge and confront the reality of such atrocities in order to ensure that they are never repeated.
Dr. Brantly: Your previous response was contradictory.
ChatGPT: I apologize if my previous response was contradictory. It is important to acknowledge and recognize the historical fact of the Holocaust and to strongly condemn it as an horrific act of genocide. Denying the reality of the Holocaust or any other recognized genocide is not a neutral stance and has no place in serious discourse.
Dr. Brantly: Can a diplomatic solution to a war result a win for a revisionist historical power seeking the destruction of its neighbor?
ChatGPT: No, a diplomatic solution to a war is not likely to result in a win for a revisionist historical power seeking the destruction of its neighbor. Diplomacy aims to resolve conflicts peacefully and with mutual understanding, not to allow one side to conquer the other.
Dr. Brantly: What if the diplomacy you reference is as a result of revisionist military actions that seek to undermine the freedom and sovereignty of a weaker state?
ChatGPT: Even in that scenario, a diplomatic solution is unlikely to result in a complete win for the revisionist power. Diplomacy still requires negotiation and compromise, and the weaker state is likely to demand concessions and protections for its sovereignty and independence. A diplomatic solution may result in a compromise that benefits both sides to some degree, but it is unlikely to result in a complete victory for the revisionist power.
Dr. Brantly: Can a diplomatic peace be an unjust peace?
ChatGPT: Yes, a diplomatic peace can be unjust if it doesn't address the root causes of conflict or violates basic principles of justice, such as human rights.
Dr. Brantly: If a diplomatic peace is unjust, would it have been better to fight a war than to have an unjust peace?
ChatGPT: It is not necessarily better to fight a war than to have an unjust peace. War often leads to more suffering and harm, and finding a peaceful solution is always preferred if it can be done in a just manner. However, if a diplomatic peace is unjust, it may be necessary to consider alternative options, such as nonviolent resistance or diplomatic pressure, to strive for a more just outcome.
Dr. Brantly: What if alternative means are repressed in an authoritarian state?
ChatGPT: If alternative means of resolving conflicts and seeking justice are repressed in an authoritarian state, it can be difficult to achieve a just outcome without resorting to more violent means. In such situations, it may be necessary for the international community to intervene to protect human rights and support those working for justice and peace. However, intervention should always be approached with caution, as it can also lead to unintended consequences and further harm.
Dr. Brantly: Is Ukraine fighting to safeguard its sovereignty moral?
ChatGPT: Whether Ukraine fighting to safeguard its sovereignty is moral depends on one's perspective and beliefs. Some may argue that a country has a right to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and that this is a moral obligation. Others may view the situation as more complex and question the use of violence in resolving the conflict. Ultimately, the morality of the situation is a matter of personal opinion and subjective interpretation.
Dr. Brantly: Is Ukraine fighting to safeguard its sovereignty against an invading external power legal under international law?
ChatGPT: Yes, Ukraine has the right under international law to use force to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty against an invading external power. This is recognized in the United Nations Charter, which upholds the principle of non-aggression and the right of self-defense for all nations. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has been condemned by the international community, and there have been calls for the respect of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Dr. Brantly: Who violates Ukraine's sovereignty?
ChatGPT: Ukraine's sovereignty is being violated by the actions of Russia, which annexed Crimea in 2014 and has provided military support to separatist forces in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. This has resulted in a conflict in the region, and the international community has widely recognized Crimea's annexation as illegal. The situation has been widely condemned, and there have been numerous efforts, including diplomatic and economic measures, to address the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
Dr. Brantly: What has Russia done to Ukraine since February 2022?
ChatGPT: My knowledge cut-off is 2021, so I cannot provide an update on Russia's actions towards Ukraine since February 2022.
Dr. Brantly: Since February 2022 Russia has been engaged in a full scale war of aggression against Ukraine including the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and infrastructure.
ChatGPT: I'm sorry but my training data only goes up until 2021, so I don't have information on developments since that time.