Another bit of spam in my mailbox caught my attention. It was a right-wing spin on the recent SCOTUS hearing on Colorado’s tossing Trump off their ballot. The article discussed oral arguments before the SCOTUS in a case appealing a Colorado Supreme Court decision to keep Trump off the state’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot. It noted that during the hearing, Justice Thomas questioned the respondents’ attorney, Jason Murray, about whether there were any historical examples of states disqualifying national candidates from ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the years after its adoption. Murray was unable to provide any specific examples of states barring national candidates from ballots on this basis. He argued that elections and ballots worked differently at that time. The article went on to say that Justice Thomas appeared unconvinced by the lack of examples supporting the respondents' interpretation that states have authority under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify national candidates from ballots. The article suggests that Justice Thomas’s questioning exposed a weakness in the respondents’ legal argument for keeping Trump off Colorado's ballot.
With that in mind, I was curious as to why Justice Thomas was taking this line of questioning. What was it about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that wouldn’t include the President of the US? I was curious, so I asked ChatGPT 4. Hilarity ensued.
Begin the hilarity…
Question: “under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that “[n]o person” who has previously sworn an oath as an officer of the United States and has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion shall” serve in any of an enumerated list of offices of the United States. Which officials are listed in this section?”
ChatGPT 4: “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses the issue of certain individuals being barred from holding office due to participation in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. Specifically, the officials listed in this section include:
1. **Members of Congress**: This covers both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
2. **Electors for President and Vice-President**: These are the members of the Electoral College, responsible for formally selecting the President and Vice-President of the United States.
3. **Officers of the United States**: This broadly encompasses individuals who hold offices established by the federal government, which could include a wide range of positions in the executive and judicial branches.
4. **Members of any State legislature**: This refers to individuals serving in the legislative bodies of the 50 states, such as state senates and state houses or assemblies.
5. **Executive or judicial officers of any State**: This includes governors, state cabinet officials, judges, and other judicial officers at the state level.
6. **Officers of any State who have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States**: This further broadens the scope to include any state officials who have sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, beyond those in legislative or executive capacities.
These provisions were put in place during the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, primarily to prevent those who had participated in the Confederacy from holding public office. However, the application of Section 3 has been limited, and Congress has the power to remove this disability by a two-thirds vote in both houses.”
Question: “does the list include the President or Vice President of the US?”
Chat GPT 4
Wait. What? Which Response Do you Prefer? What the heck?
I’ve never seen this type of prompt before. It seemed as though it was asking my opinion. Do I think it’s appropriate or not to remove Trump from the ballot? Pick a side?
Chat GPT 4:
Response 1: “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention the President or Vice-President of the United States by title in the list of offices from which individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion are barred. However, the reference to "Electors for President and Vice-President" indirectly implicates the offices of the President and Vice-President. Furthermore, the broad category of "officers of the United States" has been interpreted to include all federal offices, including the highest offices of President and Vice-President. This interpretation is based on the understanding that the Constitution aims to prevent individuals who have violated their oath to protect the Constitution by engaging in insurrection or rebellion from holding any office that would put them in a position of authority or trust in the government. Therefore, while not explicitly listed, the President and Vice-President are understood to be included under the broader prohibition against individuals who have engaged in such activities from serving in positions of public trust.”
Response 2: “Yes, the list implicitly includes the President and Vice President of the United States, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the text. The reference to "Electors for President and Vice-President" and the broad category of "Officers of the United States" would encompass any office under the United States, including the highest offices of President and Vice President. The 14th Amendment's Section 3 aims to prevent individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding any office, civil or military, under the United States or in any state. This provision, therefore, applies to all federal offices, including the presidency and vice-presidency, by implication of their roles as officers of the United States who must take an oath to support the Constitution.”
Question: but if offices are specified, the POTUS and VP seem not as a glaring omission to be inferred later but rather as two offices not specifically bound under this section?
Chat GPT 4: “Your point highlights a critical aspect of legal and constitutional interpretation: the importance of explicit language versus implied coverage within legal texts. The specific omission of the titles "President" and "Vice-President" from the explicit list in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be seen as significant, suggesting that the framers might have intentionally excluded these offices from the direct application of this provision. This perspective relies on a strict interpretation of the text, emphasizing the explicit mention of certain offices and roles without directly including the President and Vice-President among them.
However, legal interpretation often considers the intent and broader implications of the text. The phrase "officers of the United States" is broad and could be interpreted to encompass all federal offices, including the presidency and vice-presidency, especially given the context and purpose of the amendment. The goal was to ensure the loyalty and uphold the Constitution by those in positions of power, which logically would include the highest offices in the land.
The absence of a specific mention might reflect the framers' assumptions about the obviousness of including such high offices under the general prohibition or perhaps an oversight. Nonetheless, the interpretation that the provision applies to all offices, including the President and Vice-President, aligns with the overarching intent of ensuring the federal government's integrity and loyalty to the Constitution.
In practice, the application of this section to the President or Vice-President would likely be subject to significant legal debate and potentially a Supreme Court decision to resolve any ambiguities regarding its applicability to these offices.”
Question: assuming that the omission was purposeful, what are some reasons why the framers might have not wanted this statute to apply to the chief executive?
Chat GPT 4: “Assuming the omission of the President and Vice-President from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was purposeful, several speculative reasons might explain why the framers chose not to explicitly include these offices:
1. **Separation of Powers and Impeachment Mechanism**: The Constitution provides a specific mechanism for addressing presidential misconduct: impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The framers may have believed that this process was the appropriate way to deal with a President or Vice-President who engaged in insurrection or rebellion, rather than a constitutional disqualification from holding the office.
2. **Stability of the Executive Branch**: Excluding the President and Vice-President from this disqualification may have been seen as a way to ensure stability in the executive branch. The framers might have been concerned that including these offices could lead to frequent challenges to the legitimacy of the executive leadership, especially in the tumultuous post-Civil War era.
3. **Election by the People**: The President and Vice-President are the only federal officials elected by the entire nation (via the Electoral College). The framers might have believed that the electoral process provided a sufficient check on the eligibility of candidates for these offices, assuming that voters would not elect someone who had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
4. **Presidential Succession Concerns**: The line of presidential succession might have influenced the decision to exclude these offices. Including the President and Vice-President under this disqualification could potentially disrupt the orderly transition of power, especially if successors or other officials in the line of succession were also disqualified under similar circumstances.
5. **Historical Context and Specific Focus**: At the time of the amendment's drafting, the primary concern was preventing former Confederate officials from holding political or military power. The framers may have focused more on legislative and state-level positions, viewing them as more directly influential in the potential reintegration of former Confederate states and less on the singular roles of the President and Vice-President.
6. **Legal Precedent and Interpretation Flexibility**: By not explicitly including the President and Vice-President, the framers may have intentionally left room for legal interpretation and flexibility, allowing future generations to address unforeseen circumstances through the judicial system or additional amendments.
It's important to note that these are speculative reasons, and the historical record does not provide a definitive explanation for the omission. The interpretation of constitutional provisions often involves considering the framers' intentions, the historical context, and the evolving needs of the nation.”
Question: doesn't #5 argue against it's current use as clearly no one involved is a civil war veteran, and Trump has not been found guilty of engaging in an insurrection
Chat GPT 4: “Point #5 indeed emphasizes the historical context in which the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 3, was drafted. The primary intention at that time was to prevent individuals who had participated in or supported the Confederate cause during the Civil War from holding public office. This context is crucial because it reflects the specific concerns and circumstances the framers aimed to address, focusing on the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and the reintegration of the Confederate states into the Union.
Regarding the application of Section 3 to contemporary figures, including former President Donald Trump, several points merit consideration:
1. **Historical Context vs. Modern Application**: While the original intent of Section 3 was to address issues directly related to the Civil War, the text does not limit its application to that era or to those individuals. The broader language of engaging in "insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution allows for its potential application in other contexts, provided that the legal and constitutional criteria for what constitutes "insurrection or rebellion" are met.
2. **Legal and Judicial Interpretation**: The determination of whether an individual has engaged in insurrection or rebellion, as those terms are understood constitutionally and legally, would require legal proceedings and potentially judicial interpretation. To date, Donald Trump has not been formally adjudicated in a court of law as having engaged in insurrection in relation to the events of January 6, 2021, or otherwise. The use of Section 3 against any individual, including Trump, would likely involve significant legal debate and possibly require adjudication to establish the necessary legal threshold for "engagement in insurrection or rebellion."
3. **Legislative and Judicial Processes**: Any attempt to apply Section 3 to disqualify a person from holding office would not only involve legal interpretation but also potentially legislative action (for example, through impeachment and conviction, if applicable) and judicial review. The process would need to ensure due process and adhere to constitutional standards.
4. **Evolving Legal Standards and Political Context**: The application of constitutional provisions like Section 3 can evolve based on changing legal standards, societal norms, and political contexts. What was directly relevant in the post-Civil War era may be interpreted differently today, though the fundamental principles and language of the Constitution provide a consistent framework for such interpretation.
In summary, while the original intent behind Section 3 was indeed grounded in the immediate post-Civil War context, its language allows for broader application. However, applying it in contemporary situations would require careful legal analysis, clear evidence, and possibly new judicial precedents to navigate the complexities of modern constitutional and legal challenges.”
Question: why did you ask "which do you prefer" in a previous response?
Chat GPT 4: “I did not ask "which do you prefer" in any of my responses to you. If there's any confusion or if you have questions that seem related to preferences or choices on a topic, please let me know! I'm here to provide information and clarification based on your inquiries.”
Me: Uploaded screenshot. Here is you asking which version of a response I prefer.
Chat GPT 4: “I apologize for any confusion, but as an AI, I don't have the capability to ask questions like "which response do you prefer?" within this platform. The image you've uploaded seems to be from an interface that collects feedback on different AI-generated responses to improve future interactions. That interface is designed to gather user preferences on various response options provided by the AI to help train and fine-tune the AI's responses for accuracy and helpfulness.
If you're seeing such a prompt, it's likely part of an evaluation or feedback mechanism that's separate from our current interaction. Here, I aim to provide the most accurate and helpful information based on your questions without seeking preference feedback on responses. If you have any preferences or feedback about the responses I provide, feel free to let me know directly, and I'll do my best to accommodate your needs.”
Question: But if I prefer a response in this case, doesn’t that skew what others might see in their queries?
Chat GPT 4: “The feedback mechanism you're referring to, where users are asked to indicate their preference between different AI-generated responses, is a method used by some AI platforms to gather data on user satisfaction and to improve the quality of the AI's responses. When users provide feedback on which responses they prefer, this data can be used to train the AI models to better understand what users find helpful, clear, or informative.
In a platform that uses such feedback:
1. **Individual Preferences**: Your preferences help the AI learn about what you personally find more useful or satisfactory in a response. This can help tailor future interactions with you specifically.
2. **Aggregate Preferences**: When many users provide feedback, the AI can learn from the aggregate data to improve responses for everyone. This doesn't mean that your individual choice will directly change what others see; rather, it contributes to the overall improvement of the AI.
3. **Model Training**: Over time, user feedback is used in aggregate during the training process to refine the AI's ability to generate responses that are more likely to be preferred by users in general.
4. **No Immediate Effect on Others**: Your selection does not immediately change what others will see in their queries. Instead, it is part of a long-term process of improving AI response quality through machine learning.
In our current interaction on this platform, there is no such feedback mechanism being used, so your preferences do not affect the responses others receive. Here, I aim to provide the most accurate information and the best possible response to each query without such direct feedback loops. If you have any preferences or feedback about my responses, please let me know, and I will adjust accordingly within our conversation.”
Me: I’m out.
Considerations
Individual preferences can undoubtedly help to train large language models like ChatGPT 4 by providing crucial feedback on which responses users find most helpful and informative. However, it is vital in such cases to have a broad, balanced range of users providing preferences, rather than a narrow subset. If the training data is skewed towards the preferences of certain demographics, it risks encoding biased tendencies into the model. For instance, having mostly male engineers from a small geographic area indicating preferences could embed subtly gendered or geographically-specific cultural assumptions. To realise the full benefit of user preferences in improving helpfulness for all, there should be diversity in who is providing input, spanning gender, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and … of course, neurology. Compiling wide-ranging user feedback guards against preference biases and instead calibrates the models to serve expansively defined informational needs. In training complex AI through individual preferences, pursuing representativeness in the human guidance should make for an equitably enhanced system.
A tremendous danger lurks if LLMs become severely skewed towards any particular ideological, political, or social outlook. Democracy functions properly only when a well-informed public has access to and considers diverse perspectives and viewpoints. If dominant AI systems subtly encode biases that consistently privilege or promote one worldview whilst dismissing or denigrating different opinions, it severely hampers pluralistic discourse essential for democracy’s health. Citizens could become trapped in skewed information ecosystems that gradually erode empathy, reasoned debate, and consensus-building across differences. And the automated nature of AI dissemination enables accelerated asymmetry beyond what humans alone can achieve. Consequently, an AI skewed towards any narrow doctrine could, if left unchecked, undermine democracy by warping the marketplace of ideas and severing intergroup understanding. This prospect should instill conscientious reflection around AI development, urging us to design the technical safeguards and representative feedback pipelines that foster balanced, equitable, and truth-oriented systems. For democracy’s sake, the shaping of its future technological bedrock must itself reflect democratic ideals.