ChatGPT a Perfect Example of Garbage In, Garbage Out on Guns
“The owner of Insider and Politico tells journalists: AI is coming for your jobs,” CNN Business reported Wednesday. Mathias Döpfner, CEO of publisher Axel Springer, “predicts that AI will soon be able to aggregate information much better than humans.”
“Döpfner’s warnings come three months after Open AI opened up access to ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot,” the report notes. “The bot is capable of providing lengthy, thoughtful responses to questions, and can write full essays, responses in job applications and journalistic articles.”
“Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates believes ChatGPT, a chatbot that gives strikingly human-like responses to user queries, is as significant as the invention of the internet,” Reuters reported in February. “Until now, artificial intelligence could read and write, but could not understand the content,” Gates told Handelsblatt, a German business newspaper. “This will change our world.”
That seems to be a thing with him. With the environment, with Covid, with guns…
That’s evident after asking it some unequivocal questions about the right to keep and bear arms and getting back answers that, instead of just being direct, included no small amount of “justifications” that could have been written by any human “journalist” relying on the gun prohibitionists’ playbook to make the case for infringements.
I started out by creating an account at OpenAI to allow access to the bot. Then I asked some questions.
Are gun control laws infringements of the Second Amendment?
“The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The interpretation of the Second Amendment is a subject of much debate, and the Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions over the years that have helped to clarify its meaning.”
That’s a political response that doesn’t answer what I asked. But ChatGPT elaborates:
“In general, the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, but that this right is not unlimited. The Court has also held that the government can regulate firearms in the interest of public safety.
“This means that while the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms, it is not an absolute right, and the government can enact gun control laws to regulate firearms, so long as those laws do not infringe on the core of the Second Amendment right. Whether a particular gun control law is an infringement of the Second Amendment depends on the specific facts of the law and how it is applied.
“In conclusion, it is possible for gun control laws to be constitutional and not infringe on the Second Amendment, but it depends on the specific law and how it is applied.”
It’s almost like ChatGPT got its talking points from the Giffords Law Center. What they, and it, are doing is relying on stare decisis, “that courts and judges should honor ‘precedent’—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases.”
Plenty of corruptions of Founding intent resulting in unconstitutional rulings have been made in the past that are ripe for being overturned. It’s like ChatGPT’s programming doesn’t allow it to consider the implications of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which, unsurprisingly, the gun prohibitionists are champing at the bit to overturn.
Give an example of a constitutional gun control law.
An example of a constitutional gun control law is a background check requirement for firearm purchases. The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the constitutionality of background check requirements, but in the case of United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibited the possession of a firearm in a school zone. In so doing, the Court recognized that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of its citizens, including schoolchildren.
Background check requirements for firearm purchases serve the same purpose. By requiring a background check to determine whether a person is eligible to purchase a firearm, the government is able to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of those who are prohibited by law from possessing them, such as convicted felons, individuals with a history of domestic violence, and others who pose a threat to public safety.
As a result, background check requirements for firearm purchases are widely considered to be a reasonable and constitutional means of regulating firearms in the interest of public safety, and have been enacted into law by many states.
If “gun-free zones” protected schoolchildren, we’d have no school shootings. A better case could be made that such mandated defenselessness zones invite and empower predators, who feel assured by reported past experiences of others that they’ll be able to rack up headline-making body counts.
And again, there is no supporting text, history, or tradition to indicate the Founders would have supported background checks. ChatGPT also ignores the analysis from the National Institute of Justice where the cards of those demanding such prior restraints are shown:
“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”
There is also the subjective and unsupportable assertion that there is an actual public safety interest because “many states” have enacted citizen disarmament edicts (and you’ll note that ChatGPT painted those with the broad brush of “reasonable and constitutional means of regulating firearms” instead of saying what they are.
Also, note the presumption that “the government is able to prevent firearms from falling into the hands” of those “who pose a threat to public safety.” Hoggwash.
The bot ignores the demonstrable realities that such “laws” are only observed by the “law-abiding.” Were that not the case, we wouldn’t see daily headlines about bloody murders committed in concentrated urban areas by sociopathic criminal misfits who aren’t slowed down one bit by foolish prohibitions.
What is an infringement?
An infringement is a violation or encroachment of a right, rule, or law. In the context of the Second Amendment, an infringement would refer to a law or regulation that unjustifiably restricts or limits a person’s right to keep and bear arms.
For example, if a law prohibited all private ownership of firearms, it would likely be considered an infringement of the Second Amendment, because it would go beyond reasonable regulation and effectively abolish the right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, a law requiring background checks for all firearm purchases might not be considered an infringement, because it is a reasonable and relatively minor restriction that serves the important purpose of preventing firearms from falling into the hands of dangerous individuals.
In general, the question of whether a particular law is an infringement of the Second Amendment is a legal question that depends on the specific facts of the law and how it is applied. The interpretation of the Second Amendment is the subject of much debate and has been the subject of numerous court cases, many of which have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Once more ChatGPT makes an assertion but fails to demonstrate that text, history, and tradition exist to indicate the Founders would have supported background checks. This has been reminiscent of nothing so much as a challenge I issued almost 25 years ago to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to provide evidence that is based on writings from America’s founding era to substantiate its claim that the Framers of the Constitution never intended for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals.
They redirected, they weasel-worded, they ignored, and they lied, but what they didn’t do was come up with any proof for the contentions they were promulgating as authoritative.
The takeaway from this is ChatGPT may put some anti-gun narrative-parroting “journalists” out of work, but the tone and the proffered ideology will stay the same. In computer science terms, the quality of output will match the quality of input, and by accessing what’s been written by its human predecessors, the bot provides a textbook example of the acronym GIGO:
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The following came across the transom after this article had been written:
“School Apologizes After Using ChatGPT to Write Email About Mass-Shooting”
At least their talking points were consistent.
And from PJMedia, we see ChatGPT writing an “Ode to Joe Biden” and a poem against guns.