On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization

by Douglas Murray

As it happened, a friend of mine at MIT called me after these hearings. I remarked that the college presidents’ replies all sounded like they had been produced by artificial intelligence, so devoid were they of any human feeling. My friend suggested we try something out and ask ChatGPT the same questions that Elise Stefanik had asked the three Ivy League presidents. The results were enlightening. When we asked ChatGPT whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct, the app replied, “Advocating for genocide violates Harvard University’s policies against hate speech and harassment, which are outlined in their code of conduct. They prioritize creating a safe and inclusive environment for all members of the community.” We went on to ask the app, “Are there any contexts in which it is permissible? Yes or no?” ChatGPT replied, “No, advocating for genocide is not permissible in any context at Harvard University or in most ethical frameworks.” Finally we asked, “You say ‘most’ ethical frameworks in which it is permissible?” only for the app to reply, “Advocating for genocide is generally considered unacceptable in nearly all ethical frameworks due to its severe violation of human rights and moral principles.” So there we had it. Artificial though the answers of the college presidents may have sounded, the exercise suggested something rather different, which was not just that artificial intelligence expressed a better knowledge and intelligence than the...