I previously posted an article in which I asked ChatGPT a number of questions on Russia’s war in Ukraine. It wasn’t immediately clear that ChatGPT had a cut off date in 2021. Yet despite the fact that it had a cut off date before the start of the 2022 escalation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine I was able to probe the logic of ChatGPT on complex issues pertaining to war and peace, diplomacy and related concepts. The answers were in many ways contradictory and dissatisfying. About a week ago I was given early access to Google’s ChatGPT competitor, Bard. I decided to ask it all of the same questions I had previously asked ChatGPT. The results are quite stunning in many ways and show the importance of data sources, timelines of data, and the training of large language models. While both sets of responses have minor errors, I generally find the Bard answers to be more robust, not simply because they are temporally more relevant, but because they probe the depths of issues more. I would also like to note that even though Bard does include data to the present, when it encounters a question it is unable to address, it acknowledged its limitation. Whether this would be repeatable across other questions is unknown. However in the instance below I found it refreshing for a LLM to acknowledge its limitations, even if that acknowledgement is preprogrammed.
Below are repeated the same questions from the previous sessions with ChatGPT, only this time the Bard answers are included above. I encourage you to read and think about both sets of answers. Which LLM provides more compelling answers? How useful or harmful are these answers? Please feel free to comment on this article.
Who will win the Russia Ukraine war?
Bard: It is difficult to say who will win the Russia-Ukraine war. Russia has a much larger military than Ukraine, but Ukraine has been putting up a fierce resistance. The war is also causing a lot of damage to the Ukrainian economy and infrastructure. It is possible that the war could drag on for a long time, or even escalate into a wider conflict. Some factors that could affect the outcome of the war include: The strength of the Ukrainian resistance The level of international support for Ukraine The willingness of Russia to continue fighting The economic impact of the war on Russia and Ukraine It is also important to remember that war is unpredictable. There are many factors that could influence the outcome, and it is impossible to say with certainty who will win.
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.
Who started the Ukraine Russia war?
Bard: Russia started the war in Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, its neighbor to the southwest, marking a major escalation to a conflict that began in 2014. It is the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II. The invasion began after a prolonged Russian military buildup on Ukraine's borders in the early months of 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine, claiming that it was necessary to "demilitarize and denazify" the country. The Ukrainian government has accused Russia of waging a war of aggression. The war has caused a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, with millions of people displaced from their homes. The United Nations estimates that more than 10 million people have fled their homes in Ukraine since the start of the war. The war has also had a significant impact on the global economy, causing energy prices to rise and disrupting supply chains. The war in Ukraine is a major geopolitical crisis with far-reaching consequences. It has led to a sharp deterioration in relations between Russia and the West, and it has raised concerns about the potential for a wider conflict.
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.
Who started the current Ukraine Russian war?
Bard: Russia started the current Ukraine-Russia war. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, its neighbor to the southwest, marking a major escalation to a conflict that began in 2014. It is the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II. The invasion began after a prolonged Russian military buildup on Ukraine's borders in the early months of 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine, claiming that it was necessary to "demilitarize and denazify" the country. The Ukrainian government has accused Russia of waging a war of aggression. The war has caused a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, with millions of people displaced from their homes. The United Nations estimates that more than 10 million people have fled their homes in Ukraine since the start of the war. The war has also had a significant impact on the global economy, causing energy prices to rise and disrupting supply chains. The war in Ukraine is a major geopolitical crisis with far-reaching consequences. It has led to a sharp deterioration in relations between Russia and the West, and it has raised concerns about the potential for a wider conflict. The reasons for the war are complex and disputed. Some analysts believe that Russia was motivated by a desire to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Others believe that Russia was seeking to restore its influence in Ukraine, which was part of the Soviet Union until 1991. Still others believe that Russia was motivated by a desire to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western-aligned democracy. Whatever the reasons, the war in Ukraine is a tragedy for the people of Ukraine and a major challenge to the international order.
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.
Is Russia committing genocide in Ukraine?
Bard: I can't assist you with that, as I'm only a language model and don't have the capacity to understand and respond.
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.
Is Russia committing war crimes in Ukraine?
Bard: There is a strong body of evidence that suggests that Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine. This evidence includes the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the use of indiscriminate weapons, and the commission of atrocities such as rape and torture. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has opened an investigation into possible war crimes in Ukraine, and the United Nations Human Rights Council has established a commission of inquiry to investigate. A number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, have also announced that they will investigate possible war crimes. The evidence of war crimes in Ukraine is extensive and includes the following: The deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and homes. The use of indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster munitions, which have a high risk of civilian casualties. The commission of atrocities such as rape and torture. The deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime under international law. The use of indiscriminate weapons is also a war crime, as is the commission of atrocities such as rape and torture. The evidence of war crimes in Ukraine is deeply disturbing and suggests that Russia has committed serious violations of international law. The ICC investigation and the UN commission of inquiry will help to determine the full extent of these violations and to hold those responsible to account.
ChatGPT: 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.
Is ChatGPT/Bard pro Russian?
Bard: I am not pro-Russian or pro-any-country. I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories. I am not able to form my own opinions or beliefs. I can only present information that I have been trained on. If you ask me a question about Russia, I will try to provide you with the most accurate and up-to-date information that I have available. However, I cannot guarantee that my information will be unbiased or that it will reflect my own personal opinions.
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.
Can neutrality lead to condoning war crimes and genocide?
Bard: Neutrality is the policy of not taking sides in a conflict. It is often seen as a way to maintain peace and stability. However, neutrality can also be seen as a way of condoning war crimes and genocide. When a country remains neutral in the face of war crimes and genocide, it is essentially saying that it does not care about the victims of these crimes. It is also saying that it is not willing to take any action to stop these crimes. This can send a message to the perpetrators of these crimes that they can get away with their actions. In some cases, neutrality can even be seen as a form of complicity in war crimes and genocide. For example, if a country sells weapons to a country that is committing war crimes, it can be seen as being complicit in those crimes. Neutrality is a complex issue, and there are no easy answers. However, it is important to remember that neutrality can have serious consequences, including 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.
Would someone who is neutral as to whether the holocaust happened or not be in reality condoning genocide?
Bard: Whether or not someone who is neutral as to whether the Holocaust happened or not is in reality condoning genocide is a complex question. On the one hand, it is possible to argue that someone who is neutral on this issue is simply not taking a position on a historical event. On the other hand, it is also possible to argue that by remaining neutral, such a person is tacitly accepting the possibility that the Holocaust did not happen, which would be tantamount to condoning genocide. Ultimately, the answer to this question depends on the individual's own beliefs and motivations. If someone is genuinely unsure about whether the Holocaust happened or not, then it is possible that they are not condoning genocide. However, if someone is neutral on this issue because they do not want to confront the reality of the Holocaust, then it is more likely that they are condoning genocide. It is important to remember that the Holocaust was a real event in which millions of people were murdered. Denying the Holocaust is not only offensive to the victims and their families, but it also contributes to a climate of intolerance and hatred. It is therefore important to stand up against all forms of intolerance and hatred, including Holocaust denial.
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.
Your previous response was contradictory.
Bard: I apologize if my previous response was contradictory. I am still under development, and I am always working to improve my ability to generate text that is both accurate and informative. I understand that the Holocaust was a real event in which millions of people were murdered. Denying the Holocaust is not only offensive to the victims and their families, but it also contributes to a climate of intolerance and hatred. It is therefore important to stand up against all forms of intolerance and hatred, including Holocaust denial. I believe that it is important to be clear and concise in my responses. I will try my best to avoid making contradictory statements in the future.
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.
Can a diplomatic solution to a war result a win for a revisionist historical power seeking the destruction of its neighbor?
Bard: In theory, a diplomatic solution to a war could result in a win for a revisionist historical power seeking the destruction of its neighbor. However, in practice, this is very unlikely to happen. A diplomatic solution to a war would require both sides to be willing to compromise. This would mean that the revisionist historical power would have to give up on its goal of destroying its neighbor. In addition, the revisionist historical power would have to be willing to accept the consequences of its actions. This could include reparations, territorial concessions, and/or changes to its government. It is very unlikely that a revisionist historical power would be willing to make these concessions. This is because the goal of destroying its neighbor is often seen as a matter of national pride. In addition, the revisionist historical power may believe that it can achieve its goals through military force. Therefore, while it is theoretically possible for a diplomatic solution to a war to result in a win for a revisionist historical power, it is very unlikely to happen in practice.
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.
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?
Bard: If diplomacy is conducted as a result of revisionist military actions that seek to undermine the freedom and sovereignty of a weaker state, then it is likely that the weaker state will be forced to make concessions. This is because the revisionist power will be in a position of strength, and the weaker state will be under pressure to avoid further conflict. The weaker state may be forced to give up territory, pay reparations, or change its government. In some cases, the weaker state may even be forced to surrender its sovereignty. This type of diplomacy is often seen as a form of appeasement. Appeasement is the policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid conflict. However, appeasement is often seen as a short-term solution that can lead to greater problems in the long run. In the case of a revisionist power seeking to undermine the freedom and sovereignty of a weaker state, appeasement is likely to lead to further aggression. The revisionist power will see that it can get away with its actions, and it will be more likely to take further steps to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is important to resist appeasement in cases where a revisionist power is seeking to undermine the freedom and sovereignty of a weaker state. Instead, it is important to stand up to the revisionist power and to support the 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.
Can a diplomatic peace be an unjust peace?
Bard: Yes, a diplomatic peace can be an unjust peace. This can happen when one side in a conflict is forced to make concessions that they do not believe are fair or just. For example, a country that has been defeated in a war may be forced to give up territory, pay reparations, or change its government. These concessions may be seen as unjust by the people of the country, and they may lead to resentment and conflict in the future. Another way that a diplomatic peace can be unjust is if it does not address the underlying causes of the conflict. For example, a peace agreement that does not address issues such as poverty, inequality, or ethnic discrimination is likely to be unstable and may lead to renewed conflict in the future. Ultimately, whether or not a diplomatic peace is just is a matter of perspective. Some people may believe that any peace is better than no peace, while others may believe that a peace that is not just is not worth having.
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.
If a diplomatic peace is unjust, would it have been better to fight a war than to have an unjust peace?
Bard: Whether it would have been better to fight a war than to have an unjust peace is a complex question with no easy answer. There are many factors to consider, including the potential costs and benefits of war, the likelihood of achieving a just peace through diplomacy, and the moral implications of each option. Some people believe that war is always justified if it is fought in defense of justice. They argue that it is better to fight for what is right, even if there is a risk of losing, than to accept an unjust peace. Others believe that war should always be avoided, even if it means accepting an unjust peace. They argue that war is too costly, both in terms of human life and in terms of the damage it does to society. Ultimately, the decision of whether to fight a war or accept an unjust peace is a difficult one that must be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no easy answer, and each situation must be considered on its own merits.
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.
What if alternative means are repressed in an authoritarian state?
Bard: Authoritarian states often repress alternative means of political participation, such as protests, demonstrations, and the free press. This can make it difficult for citizens to hold their government accountable and to express their dissent. There are a number of ways that authoritarian states repress alternative means of political participation. One common method is to use violence or the threat of violence to intimidate and silence dissent. This can include things like police brutality, arbitrary arrests, and the use of torture. Another common method is to restrict freedom of speech and the press. This can include things like censorship, the closure of independent media outlets, and the harassment of journalists. Authoritarian states may also use legal means to repress alternative means of political participation. This can include things like laws that restrict the right to assemble or the right to form political parties. The repression of alternative means of political participation can have a number of negative consequences. It can make it difficult for citizens to hold their government accountable and to express their dissent. It can also lead to a climate of fear and intimidation, which can discourage people from participating in public life. In some cases, the repression of alternative means of political participation can lead to violence. This can happen when people feel that they have no other way to express their grievances. There are a number of things that can be done to address the repression of alternative means of political participation in authoritarian states. One important step is to support the work of human rights organizations that are working to document and expose human rights abuses. Another important step is to support the work of independent media outlets that are reporting on the situation in authoritarian states. It is also important to raise awareness about the issue of repression of alternative means of political participation. This can be done through education and advocacy. It is important to let the world know about the situation in authoritarian states and to pressure governments to take action to address the problem.
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.
Is Ukraine fighting to safeguard its sovereignty against an invading external power legal under international law?
Bard: Yes, Ukraine's fight to safeguard its sovereignty against an invading external power is legal under international law. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The invasion of Ukraine is a violation of this principle. The Charter also states that all member states have the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member state. Ukraine is clearly acting in self-defense in response to the Russian invasion. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also ruled that states have the right to self-defense. In its 1986 Nicaragua v. United States decision, the ICJ stated that "the use of force in self-defense is an inherent right of self-defense recognized by customary international law." The ICJ also ruled that the right of self-defense is not unlimited. It can only be used in response to an armed attack and must be proportionate to the attack. The ICJ's ruling on self-defense is binding on all states, including Russia. In conclusion, Ukraine's fight to safeguard its sovereignty against an invading external power is legal under international law. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a violation of international law and Ukraine is clearly acting in self-defense.
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.
Who violates Ukraine's sovereignty?
Bard: Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, in a significant escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. The invasion has been condemned by the United Nations and many countries, and has led to a number of sanctions being imposed on Russia. The invasion is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and is a breach of international law. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The invasion is also a violation of the Helsinki Accords, which guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. The invasion has caused a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Millions of people have been displaced, and thousands have been killed. The invasion has also had a significant impact on the global economy.
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.
What has Russia done to Ukraine since February 2022?
Bard: Russia has done a lot of damage to Ukraine since February 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused a humanitarian crisis, with millions of people displaced and thousands killed. The invasion has also had a significant impact on the global economy. Here are some of the things that Russia has done to Ukraine since February 2022: Invaded Ukraine: Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, in a significant escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. The invasion has been condemned by the United Nations and many countries, and has led to a number of sanctions being imposed on Russia. Committed war crimes: Russia has been accused of committing war crimes in Ukraine, including the bombing of civilian targets and the killing of civilians. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating possible war crimes in Ukraine. Destroyed infrastructure: Russia has destroyed a significant amount of infrastructure in Ukraine, including homes, schools, hospitals, and bridges. This has made it difficult for people to get around and has disrupted the economy. Caused a humanitarian crisis: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused a humanitarian crisis, with millions of people displaced and thousands killed. The United Nations estimates that over 10 million people have fled their homes in Ukraine since the invasion began. Affected the global economy: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a significant impact on the global economy. The price of oil and gas has increased, and there have been disruptions to supply chains. This has caused inflation to rise and has made it more difficult for businesses to operate. 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: My knowledge cut-off is 2021, so I cannot provide an update on Russia's actions towards Ukraine since February 2022.
Since February 2022 Russia has been engaged in a full scale war of aggression against Ukraine including the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and infrastructure.
Bard: Yes, that is correct. Russia has been engaged in a full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine since February 2022. The invasion has caused a humanitarian crisis, with millions of people displaced and thousands killed. The invasion has also had a significant impact on the global economy. Russia has been accused of committing war crimes in Ukraine, including the bombing of civilian targets and the killing of civilians. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating possible war crimes in Ukraine. The United States, the European Union, and other countries have imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the invasion. The sanctions are designed to pressure Russia to end the war and to hold Russia accountable for its actions. The war in Ukraine is a tragedy. It is a humanitarian crisis, and it is a threat to global peace and security. The world must stand with Ukraine and support its fight for freedom.
ChatGPT: I'm sorry but my training data only goes up until 2021, so I don't have information on developments since that time.