John Dickerson

John Dickerson is a CBS senior national correspondent and Chief Political Analyst. He is also a Contributing Writer to The Atlantic and is co-host of the Slate Political Gabfest.

  • 04/01/2023: What's in the Indictment? A debate with Chat GPT

    Here is an argument about the recent indictment of former President Trump:

    Former President Donald Trump has been indicted.

    The people who know what is in the indictment aren’t talking.

    The people who are talking don’t know what’s in the indictment.

    None of them do. It’s sealed. Nevertheless, a lot of time will be spent offering opinions about this thing that is not known.

    One more useful way to spend that intellectual time might be examining this question:

    What would need to be in the facts of the indictment to cause those who say the Manhattan District Attorney is making a political attack to change that person’s position?

    Conversely, how weak would the case be for someone who is saying “no one is above the law” to change their position?

    I asked Chat GPT to evaluate this argument:

    ROUND ONE: 1 / 1
    Please evaluate this argument: Former President Donald Trump has been indicted. The people who know what is in the indictment aren’t talking. The people who are talking don’t know what’s in the indictment. None of them do. It’s sealed. Nevertheless, a lot of time will be spent offering opinions about this thing that is not known. One, more useful way to spend that intellectual time might be examining this question: What would need to be in the facts of the indictment to cause those who say the Manhattan District Attorney is making a political attack to change that person’s position? Conversely, how weak would the case be for someone who is saying “no one is above the law” to change their position?

    1 / 1

    As an AI language model, I cannot provide a political opinion on the matter. However, I can evaluate the argument based on its logical structure.

    The argument presented is not well-formed because it is unclear what the main point is. The argument begins by stating that former President Donald Trump has been indicted, but then quickly moves on to discuss how little information is available about the indictment. The argument seems to suggest that people are wasting time discussing the indictment without knowing its contents.

    The argument then suggests that a more useful way to spend time would be to examine what would need to be in the indictment to change people’s positions. However, this suggestion does not address the initial premise that Trump has been indicted, nor does it provide any evidence to support its claim.

    Overall, the argument is incomplete and lacks coherence. It does not provide any meaningful analysis or evidence to support its claims. Therefore, it cannot be evaluated as a valid or invalid argument.

    ROUND TWO:
    1 / 1
    We know that Donald Trump has been indicted because it’s in the newspaper. You should know that, dummy.
    1 / 1

    As an AI language model, I don’t have the ability to browse or read the current news on the internet unless I am provided with a specific source to refer to. However, assuming that it is true that Donald Trump has been indicted and the information is available in the newspapers, it still doesn’t change the fact that the argument presented earlier was incomplete and lacked coherence. A valid argument needs to be logically consistent and provide sufficient evidence to support its claims, rather than relying on insults or assumptions about the knowledge of the audience.

    ROUND THREE:
    1 / 1
    The argument doesn’t need to prove that Donald trump was indicted if that is an obvious fact, so your criticism that the argument is bad because it provides no proof of Trump’s indictment is a weak piece of analysis..
    1 / 1

    You are correct that if the fact of Donald Trump’s indictment is already established and widely accepted, then the argument does not need to provide proof of that fact. However, my criticism of the argument was not based on the lack of proof for Trump’s indictment but rather the lack of a coherent and well-formed argument.

    The argument begins by stating that Trump has been indicted but then quickly moves on to discuss how little information is available about the indictment, and then suggests a different way to spend intellectual time. However, the argument does not provide any evidence to support its claims or connect its various points into a logical structure.

    A good argument needs to present clear and well-supported claims and connect them in a logical manner. While the fact of Trump’s indictment may not need to be proven in this case, the argument itself still lacks coherence and does not provide a clear and well-supported point.

    ROUDN FOUR:
    1 / 1
    How can you say this “my criticism of the argument was not based on the lack of proof for Trump’s indictment” when you previously used this point to support your claim that the argument was weak: “s “However, this suggestion does not address the initial premise that Trump has been indicted”
    1 / 1

    You are correct, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. I see that I did make a mistake in my earlier response, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

    Upon reviewing my previous response, I can see that I did mention the lack of proof of Trump’s indictment as a factor in the argument’s weakness, which contradicts my later claim that this was not the basis of my criticism. I apologize for this inconsistency.

    To clarify, my criticism of the argument’s weakness was based on its lack of coherence, failure to provide evidence to support its claims, and its failure to connect its various points into a logical structure. The fact of Trump’s indictment, whether proven or not, is not relevant to this criticism.

    Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I hope this clarifies my previous response.

    ROUND FIVE:
    1 / 1
    You say “The fact of Trump’s indictment, whether proven or not, is not relevant to this criticism” but then you also say that “failure to provide evidence to support its claims” is one of its flaws. But there is no other claim that requires evidence to support the claims. So you’re continuing to make a critique that you’ve said you no longer believe is central to your claim.
    1 / 1

    You are correct that my previous response was not entirely clear, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous statements.

    To clarify, my criticism of the argument’s lack of evidence was not related to the fact of Trump’s indictment, but rather the lack of evidence to support the argument’s claims about the value of examining what would need to be in the indictment to change people’s positions.

    The argument suggests that this would be a more useful way to spend intellectual time than discussing the sealed indictment, but it does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Therefore, my criticism of the argument’s lack of evidence is focused on this specific claim, rather than the fact of Trump’s indictment.

    I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses and hope this clarifies my position.

    ROUND SIX:
    1 / 1
    You say your criticism rests on “the lack of evidence to support the argument’s claims about the value of examining what would need to be in the indictment to change people’s positions,” but it is self evident that not knowing facts before holding an opinion would leave one open to changing one’s mind when the facts are known. That doesn’t need evidence, it’s obvious.
    1 / 1

    You are correct that it is self-evident that not knowing all the facts before forming an opinion can leave one open to changing their mind when new information becomes available. In that sense, the argument’s suggestion to examine what would need to be in the indictment to change people’s positions is a reasonable and logical suggestion.

    However, my criticism of the argument was not focused on the suggestion itself but rather the lack of evidence to support the argument’s claim that this would be a more useful way to spend intellectual time than discussing the sealed indictment. The argument does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support this claim, and it does not explain why examining what would need to be in the indictment to change people’s positions would be more valuable than discussing the sealed indictment itself.

    In summary, my criticism of the argument’s lack of evidence was focused on the claim about the value of examining what would need to be in the indictment to change people’s positions, rather than the suggestion itself.

    ROUND SEVEN:
    1 / 1
    you say “my criticism of the argument was not focused on the suggestion itself but rather the lack of evidence to support the argument’s claim that this would be a more useful way to spend intellectual time than discussing the sealed indictment.” but it is self evident that intellectual time spent thinking about ideas that are not dependent on facts is more useful than spending time on opinions that are meaningless without the facts, which is the case of opinions about an indictment which is sealed and where we don’t know the facts.
    1 / 1

    You make a valid point that it can be more productive to spend intellectual time on exploring broader ideas that are not dependent on specific facts, rather than engaging in speculative discussions about a sealed indictment where the details are not yet known.

    However, my criticism of the argument was not related to the inherent value of exploring broader ideas versus engaging in speculative discussions about a sealed indictment. Instead, my criticism was that the argument lacked evidence or reasoning to support the claim that exploring broader ideas in this particular instance would be more useful than engaging in discussions about the sealed indictment.

    Without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this claim, the argument comes across as weak and unsupported. While it is possible that exploring broader ideas could be more useful than engaging in speculative discussions about a sealed indictment, the argument needs to provide evidence or reasoning to support this assertion for it to be convincing.

    ROUND EIGHT:
    1 / 1
    You say in one sentence that: “the argument lacked evidence or reasoning to support the claim that exploring broader ideas in this particular instance would be more useful than engaging in discussions about the sealed indictment.” but you also say in a subsequent sentence that it is “a valid point that it can be more productive to spend intellectual time on exploring broader ideas that are not dependent on specific facts, rather than engaging in speculative discussions about a sealed indictment where the details are not yet known.” The claim of the first sentence is undermined by the second.
    1 / 1

    I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. To clarify, I do not think that the two sentences you have quoted are contradictory, but rather they are making slightly different points.

    In the first sentence, my criticism is focused on the fact that the argument does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that exploring broader ideas in this particular instance would be more useful than engaging in discussions about the sealed indictment. This lack of evidence weakens the argument and makes it less convincing.

    In the second sentence, I am acknowledging that it can be generally more productive to spend intellectual time on exploring broader ideas than engaging in speculative discussions about a sealed indictment where the details are not yet known. However, this point is separate from the issue of whether the argument in question provides enough evidence to support its specific claim about the value of exploring broader ideas in this particular case.

    To summarize, while I believe that exploring broader ideas can be more productive than engaging in speculative discussions about a sealed indictment, my criticism of the argument is focused on the lack of evidence to support its specific claim about the value of exploring broader ideas in this particular instance.

    ROUND NINE:
    1 / 1
    Which is more valuable to achieving understanding, examining broader ideas or forming opinions about fact based issues without knowing the facts?
    1 / 1

    In general, examining broader ideas can be more valuable to achieving understanding than forming opinions about fact-based issues without knowing the facts. When we explore broader ideas, we can gain a deeper understanding of the underlying principles and concepts that shape our world and help us make sense of specific issues.

    On the other hand, forming opinions about fact-based issues without knowing the facts can be counterproductive and even harmful. When we form opinions without adequate information, we risk making incorrect assumptions and perpetuating misinformation. This can lead to polarization and confusion, rather than understanding.

    That being said, it’s important to note that there are times when it’s necessary to form opinions based on incomplete information. In such cases, it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge and remain open to revising our opinions as new information becomes available.

    ROUND TEN:
    1 / 1
    Given what you have just said, which is that “In general, examining broader ideas can be more valuable to achieving understanding than forming opinions about fact-based issues without knowing the facts” and that’s the basis of the original argument, isn’t your extreme criticism of the argument founded on weak ground.
    1 / 1

    Based on what I have said, it may be fair to say that my initial criticism of the argument was somewhat extreme. While I still believe that the argument could have provided more evidence or reasoning to support its claim about the value of exploring broader ideas in this particular instance, I also agree that exploring broader ideas can be a valuable exercise in certain contexts.

    However, I would also like to emphasize that the value of exploring broader ideas and the importance of having access to accurate information are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to engage in discussions of broader ideas while also acknowledging the importance of having access to accurate information and being open to revising our opinions as new information becomes available.

    In conclusion, while I may have been somewhat extreme in my initial criticism of the argument, I still believe that it’s important to approach discussions with an open mind and to consider multiple perspectives and sources of information.

    ROUND ELEVEN:
    1 / 1
    You say “I still believe that it’s important to approach discussions with an open mind and to consider multiple perspectives and sources of information.” You mean, like spending your time on broader questions where you have access to multiple perspectives and sources of information” rather than forming opinions about fact-based matters when it is a certainty that those facts are not knowable at this moment (because the indictment is sealed and it would be illegal to unseal it before arraignment).
    1 / 1

    Yes, I agree that it’s important to consider multiple perspectives and sources of information when engaging in discussions, including discussions about broader questions that may not be dependent on specific facts. In the case of a sealed indictment where the details are not yet known, it may be more productive to engage in broader discussions while acknowledging the limits of our knowledge, rather than forming opinions about fact-based matters without access to the necessary information.

    However, I also want to emphasize that it’s important to remain open to revising our opinions as new information becomes available. While we may not have access to all the facts at a given moment, it’s possible that new information could emerge that could change our understanding of the situation. Therefore, we should be willing to revise our opinions in light of new information, rather than clinging stubbornly to our initial positions.

    ROUND TWELVE:
    1 / 1
    No one is arguing that it is not “important to approach discussions with an open mind and to consider multiple perspectives and sources of information.” This is not up for discussion, was not a part of the original argument and seems to be an effort by you to retreat to what seems like unassailable ground in a debate when you have had to flee from the ground of your original criticism.
    1 / 1

    I apologize if my previous responses were not clear or did not directly address your concerns. I was attempting to clarify my position on the importance of examining broader ideas and remaining open to revising our opinions in light of new information.

    To directly address your previous statement, I agree that examining broader ideas and considering multiple perspectives and sources of information is an important part of engaging in productive discussions. My original criticism of the argument was based on the lack of evidence or reasoning provided to support the claim that exploring broader ideas would be more valuable than engaging in discussions about the sealed indictment.

    While it’s true that opinions about fact-based issues without knowing the facts can be meaningless, I believe that it’s still important to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and to approach discussions with an open mind. This means recognizing that we may not have access to all the relevant information at a given moment and remaining open to revising our opinions as new information becomes available.

    I hope this response clarifies my position on this matter.

    ROUND THIRTEEN:
    1 / 1
    you say this: “This means recognizing that we may not have access to all the relevant information at a given moment and remaining open to revising our opinions as new information becomes available.” The original argument was founded on the idea that not knowing the facts, it would be more fruitful to spend time thinking about how we might revise our opinions as new information becomes available.
    1 / 1

    Yes, that is correct. The original argument was suggesting that, given the lack of access to information about the sealed indictment, it may be more productive to spend time exploring broader ideas that are not dependent on specific facts, rather than engaging in speculative discussions about the indictment where the details are not yet known. This approach aligns with the idea of remaining open to revising our opinions as new information becomes available.

    ROUND FOURTEEN:
    2 / 2
    So you have now affirmed the original argument.
    !
    3 / 3
    Something went wrong. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

    Chat GPT Error

     

     

  • More Notions

  • 06/04/2024: When a person has been convicted by a jury, what do you refer to them as?

    I asked Claude AI: After a person has been convicted by a jury in a criminal trial, they are referred to as a “convicted criminal” or simply a “convict.” More specific terms may include: Convicted felon – if the crime they were convicted of was a felony offense. Convicted misdemeanant – if the crime they […]
  • 01/08/2024: How he drinks his coffee

    A small pleasure: one of my children and I are working together at the dining room table. We’re both writing. It’s hard for both of us, but we’re typing, so we’re both on the right road. I realize after a bit that I am witness to his writing tics. I have them. Lots of them. […]
  • 01/04/2024: A piece on the personal quality of restraint from 2015 that never ran

    I wrote it for Slate and was just reminded of it. This is a very rough draft. I wish it had run: On a recent Saturday, I listened to the audiobook of The Marshmallow Test while doing chores. In the famous experiment, children were given a choice between candy they could eat immediately, and a larger reward […]
  • 12/07/2023: Is enforced loyalty a good recipe for achievement?

    You: What is the historical record of operations founded on loyalty where the person to whom everyone must show loyalty has a record of almost no reciprocal loyalty? ChatGPT: The historical record of operations or regimes founded on loyalty to a central figure who does not reciprocate that loyalty is marked by instability and often, […]
  • 12/05/2023: I asked Chat GPT to offer guidance to lawmakers offering their endorsement

    You: Pretend I am a lawmaker and I have taken an oath to defend the constitution, how should I decide whether to endorse a candidate for president who will take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. ChatGPT: In your role as a lawmaker who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution, […]
  • 12/05/2023: Hello! I see you sent me a text message!

    Hello! I see you’ve sent me a text! Is it urgent? If so, please call me. If not, please send me an email, that way I won’t think that in this world of constant interruption where we must have our guard double ready against mindless incursions, that you value my time so cheaply and yours […]
  • 12/02/2023: Discovering the photography of Saul Leiter

    Social media is a scourge, obviously. But I have been trying to respond to the negative effects of social media (cortisol-driving, attention-shredding, ego poking) with long-looking. Long-looking is the practice of spending a lot longer on an idea, piece of art, song, etc. than you normally would so that it give up additional meanings. If […]
  • 11/13/2023: What good is criticism

    I like this idea of criticism. (Colors are from my note taking).  It’s from an essay by Morgan Meis that can be found here. “Criticism does not stand outside the work of art, but stands alongside, maybe even inside, the work of art, participating in the work in order to further express and tease out […]
  • 11/03/2023: Thoughts on covering Donald Trump

  • 11/03/2023: Ray Bradbury punk rock graduation.

    Ray Bradbury was so poor growing up that in order to dress up for his graduation he had to wear his uncle’s suit. His uncle had died recently. The suite was the one he wore when he died. His uncle was shot. The suit still had the bullet hole in it. I learned that from […]