Can Artificial Intelligence Play a Role in Politics? A Look at the Republican Debate and ChatGPT

I found the Republican National Debate this week to be particularly interesting because, for once, it seemed to revolve around actual issues rather than recycled talking points. One comment that caught my attention was an attack by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Vivek Ramaswamy, implying that he was a clone of ChatGPT.

While this allegation was untrue, it begs the question: would it necessarily be a bad thing if Ramaswamy had used ChatGPT?

This criticism reflects the ongoing debate surrounding the use of ChatGPT in education and the broader concerns about using generative AI tools in the workplace, with some viewing it as a form of cheating. However, the notion that utilizing gen AI means cutting corners and disregarding established methods is simply misguided. Let me explain.

Breaking the Habit of “the-way-it’s-always-been-done”

One of my frustrations when I first started working at a multinational company was the resistance to innovative approaches for solving seemingly insurmountable problems. Whenever I suggested a different approach, I would often hear phrases like “That’s not how we do things here.” There was always an abundance of historical reasons why trying something new was impossible.

While there are risks associated with deviating from established practices, blindly rejecting innovation is equally unwise. If we need to innovate in order to achieve our goals, stifling that innovation only guarantees failure.

Generative AI has the potential to enable us to accomplish more in less time while maintaining or even improving the quality of our work, provided that the model is appropriately trained. So why wouldn’t we leverage it for tasks that we rarely engage in, such as debating or interviewing?

Using Generative AI for Debates

I witnessed a debate conducted by IBM’s Watson AI, one of my clients. Although Watson lost the debate, the definition of victory in that context was highly subjective. What struck me as odd was that Watson appeared to be more human than the human debater. Watson employed humor and voice inflection, qualities that could potentially benefit a political leader. Individuals who haven’t rehearsed sufficiently can come across as rigid and emotionally detached, a problem that Watson didn’t have.

Moreover, how much “debate” really occurs in the day-to-day responsibilities of a president? Most political debates seem to occur during elections, much like job interviews are conducted when changing jobs. Our interview skills don’t necessarily correlate with our job skills. Interviewing and being interviewed are skills in and of themselves. Yet, we seldom provide comprehensive training in public speaking or update such training.

Generative AI could prove incredibly valuable in enabling individuals without expertise to engage in more successful debates, either as a preparation tool or as a resource during the debate itself. By leveling the playing field in terms of debate skills, we can address the common problem of “the biggest jerk always winning” and shift the focus to the content. This increases the likelihood that the person with the most well-reasoned answers will emerge as the victor.

From Business to Government

The implications of generative AI extend beyond businesses and can also benefit governments. In the realm of government, it could aid politicians in developing their public statements and enhance their understanding of the benefits and risks of AI, enabling better regulation of the technology. By using generative AI in debates, the audience can be more focused on the content rather than individual debating skills, ensuring that the winner is determined by the strength of their facts and arguments rather than their speaking abilities.

In the business context, generative AI could lead to better interviewers and more successful interviewees. Just as many companies failed to grasp the effective use of the internet and subsequently went under, those that do not embrace and effectively utilize gen AI may face a similar fate.

Therefore, going back to the GOP debate, although Christie was mistaken in accusing Ramaswamy of using ChatGPT, perhaps Ramaswamy, as the youngest participant with tech savvy, should have considered leveraging such technology. It could have helped compensate for his lack of experience and closed the gap in stature with the other candidates on the stage.