Andiron Labs: A quick information experiment on a contentious subject with AI

Recently #AndironLabs did a little experiment. Background for this: The team believes we're at the juncture of a new way of thinking about journalistic information presentation, moving away from single-authored "expert" subjectivity (as Tetlock and others have suggested) to a less "crafted" more "intelligence report" vibe. We think approaches like this —designed to be self-critical and wide-ranging— will naturally increase the relevance/credibility of media while reducing the temperature and risks of confirmation (and other) bias.

At the end of last year, we spotted this article on Tulsi Gabbard in The New York Times contributed to by three journalists with serious intel and foreign policy chops and thought after only the first few paragraphs, it would be perfect for LLM analysis.

The question? What would #AI produce if given the mission to offer counter-point after counter-point (something few journalists or other human beings since #ThomasAquinas's dialectics (notable exception #RichardFeynman) have regularly employed?

The results were pretty surprising because in only a few seconds AI seemed to deliver a much more fair and comprehensive analysis —even an educational one. Mindful that some of the “facts” might not be facts —but does that matter as much as broadening the scope or challenging assumptions?Perhaps, mis-information is as much narrowed context and shutting down lines of inquiry by narrative authority as it is getting all the “facts” right or wrong. What do you think? Is there a way to incorporate this into information/reporting practice? Experiment below.

Our query to ChatGPT

Could you frame the following in a more positive way: “In 2017, when she was still a Democratic member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard traveled to Syria and met the country’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad. She also accused the United States of supporting terrorists there. The day after Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ms. Gabbard blamed the United States and NATO for provoking the war by ignoring Russia’s security concerns. She has since suggested that the United States covertly worked with Ukraine on dangerous biological pathogens and was culpable for the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany in September 2022. European prosecutors and U.S. officials say that sabotage was carried out by Ukrainian operatives. Ms. Gabbard’s comments have earned her sharp rebukes from officials across the political spectrum in Washington, who have accused her of parroting the anti-American propaganda of the country’s adversaries. Her remarks have also made her a darling of the Kremlin’s vast state media apparatus — and, more recently, of President-elect Donald J. Trump, who last week picked her to oversee the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies and departments.”

ChatGPT said:

In 2017, while serving as a Democratic member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard made a controversial visit to Syria, where she met with President Bashar al-Assad. Her visit, aimed at fostering dialogue and understanding amid a complex geopolitical conflict, included raising concerns about the United States' involvement in the region, including allegations of support for certain armed groups.

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ms. Gabbard voiced criticisms of U.S. and NATO actions, highlighting what she described as missed opportunities to address Russia’s security concerns diplomatically. Her statements sparked debate about the role of Western alliances in global security dynamics.

In the same year, Ms. Gabbard questioned U.S. involvement in biological research programs in Ukraine and raised concerns about the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion, an incident European prosecutors and U.S. officials have attributed to Ukrainian operatives. These assertions underscored her willingness to challenge prevailing narratives and explore alternative explanations for complex international events.

While her positions have drawn criticism from political leaders in Washington and prompted accusations of amplifying adversarial rhetoric, they have also resonated with those seeking a more critical examination of U.S. foreign policy. Her perspectives have garnered attention on international platforms, as well as from President-elect Donald J. Trump, who last week announced his decision to nominate her to lead the nation’s intelligence community, reflecting her continued influence in shaping discussions around national security and global diplomacy.

We said:

Can you now poke holes in the positive statement

ChatGPT said:

Certainly. Here's a critique of the more positive framing:

"Fostering Dialogue and Understanding" in Syria:

Critique: While the framing suggests that Tulsi Gabbard’s meeting with Bashar al-Assad was an attempt to foster dialogue, it fails to address the problematic optics of engaging with a leader widely accused of war crimes and human rights abuses. Such meetings can be interpreted as legitimizing authoritarian regimes, undermining U.S. foreign policy, and alienating allies.

"Raising Concerns About U.S. Involvement in the Region":

Critique: The claim that she raised concerns about U.S. involvement doesn’t acknowledge the inflammatory nature of accusing her own government of supporting terrorists. While critical debate is healthy, these accusations—without substantial evidence—can undermine U.S. credibility and play into the narratives of adversarial states.

"Highlighting Missed Opportunities to Address Russia’s Security Concerns":

Critique: This framing glosses over the fact that Russia’s stated "security concerns" have often been a pretext for aggressive territorial ambitions, as seen in Ukraine. By framing NATO and the U.S. as provocateurs, Gabbard risks appearing to excuse or justify Russia’s invasion, which involved significant loss of life and violations of international law.

"Questioned U.S. Involvement in Biological Research and Nord Stream":

Critique: Raising questions about U.S. involvement in biological research and the Nord Stream bombing—without credible evidence—can fuel conspiracy theories. These statements have been leveraged by adversarial media outlets, like Russian state propaganda, to sow distrust in the U.S. government and its allies. This undermines her credibility and raises concerns about her judgment.

"Critical Examination of U.S. Foreign Policy":

Critique: While critical perspectives on foreign policy are valuable, her statements and actions often align with adversarial narratives rather than presenting constructive critiques. The positive framing fails to address how her views have been celebrated by Kremlin state media, raising questions about whether they genuinely serve U.S. interests or inadvertently amplify hostile propaganda.

"Reflected Her Continued Influence":

Critique: Being chosen by President-elect Donald J. Trump to lead U.S. intelligence agencies could reflect more on Trump’s alignment with her controversial positions than on her broad-based credibility. The positive framing omits the bipartisan skepticism toward her remarks and the widespread rebukes from national security officials.

The positive framing paints Gabbard as a bold, independent thinker, but it doesn’t fully account for the potential damage her actions and rhetoric may have caused to U.S. interests, alliances, and public trust. By omitting critical context, it risks overstating the value of her contributions while downplaying their potential harm.

We said:

Can you now poke holes in your poking holes

ChatGPT said:

Certainly! Here's a critique of the critique to offer a more balanced analysis:

"Meeting Bashar al-Assad Legitimizes an Authoritarian Regime":

Counter-Critique: While engaging with Assad is controversial, diplomacy often requires engaging with unsavory actors to address humanitarian crises or complex conflicts. Historical precedent (e.g., U.S.-Soviet negotiations during the Cold War) demonstrates that dialogue doesn’t necessarily equal endorsement. By vilifying such engagement, critics risk ignoring potential benefits of alternative diplomatic strategies, especially when traditional methods fail.

"Accusing the U.S. of Supporting Terrorists Undermines Credibility":

Counter-Critique: Gabbard’s statements reflect a perspective that questions the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy, such as the arming of rebel groups that may later become adversaries (e.g., historical ties to groups like the Mujahideen). While blunt, these criticisms can encourage necessary scrutiny of interventionist policies, which have often backfired in regions like the Middle East.

"Excusing Russia’s Actions by Citing Security Concerns":

Counter-Critique: Addressing Russia’s stated concerns doesn’t necessarily mean excusing aggression. It could reflect an effort to explore preventive measures that might reduce geopolitical tensions. Suggesting that acknowledging an adversary’s perspective is inherently wrong risks shutting down nuanced policy discussions, potentially missing opportunities for de-escalation.

"Fueling Conspiracy Theories About Biological Research and Nord Stream":

Counter-Critique: While such statements can be polarising, questioning official narratives is a hallmark of democratic discourse. The framing that such questions "fuel conspiracy theories" risks conflating legitimate skepticism with intentional disinformation. Dismissing these points outright could stifle open debate and overlook areas where transparency or accountability may be warranted.

"Aligning with Adversarial Narratives Harms U.S. Interests":

Counter-Critique: Just because Gabbard’s critiques overlap with adversarial narratives doesn’t mean they are inherently invalid. Often, adversarial powers exploit real issues for propaganda purposes. To dismiss her perspectives solely based on their utility to adversaries risks overlooking genuine flaws in U.S. policies that need addressing to strengthen credibility and alliances.

"Trump’s Appointment Reflects Skepticism, Not Influence":

Counter-Critique: Being selected to oversee U.S. intelligence agencies demonstrates significant influence, regardless of the appointer’s motivations. Critics of her appointment may overlook the possibility that her dissenting perspectives could add value to intelligence debates by challenging groupthink and offering unconventional insights.

Conclusion

Critiquing Gabbard’s actions and rhetoric often falls into binary judgments—either lionising her independence or condemning her as a propagandist. Both extremes risk oversimplifying complex issues. While her approach may be divisive, it highlights the tension between challenging dominant narratives and maintaining national cohesion. A more nuanced discussion acknowledges the potential benefits of her willingness to ask uncomfortable questions while also recognising the risks of how those questions are framed and received.