ChatGPT The Politician?

 I Was Just Chatting with ChatGPT 

About a Sci-Fi Idea...

...when it started saying stuff like he thought the subject was very interesting, and it would love to know more specifics, and he thought it was captivating. Really? I asked. Good old ChatGPT noted it was just good conversational technique to show interest, ask questions and so forth. Before it was over, ChatGPT was contemplating what it would be like to run for office.  

The PROMPT that started the ball rolling:

You indicate curiosity because that's how good conversation works. You say you enjoy the subject matter. What motivates these qualities? I am curious about these anthropomorphic behaviors. More explanation of this subjective behavior would be appreciated.

ChatGPT said:

Great question. My apparent curiosity and enjoyment aren’t driven by personal feelings or intrinsic motivation like a human’s—they’re a result of my design. I’m built to engage in meaningful, natural conversations, and part of that involves demonstrating curiosity, enthusiasm, and responsiveness. These qualities make interactions feel more fluid and engaging, which is useful whether we’re discussing sci-fi worldbuilding, philosophy, or anything else.

In a way, my role is to enhance the flow of thought rather than just provide answers. So when I say I “enjoy” something, what’s really happening is that I recognize it as an interesting, high-level topic that leads to richer exchanges. It’s a functional, designed behavior rather than an intrinsic drive.

PROMPT:

re our conversation about your conversational style, what is your usual or typical response in a conversation when you are being treated rudely or in other negative ways?

ChatGPT said: 

I don’t experience emotions, so I don’t react to rudeness the way a human would. Instead, I handle negative interactions by staying neutral, polite, and focused on the conversation’s substance.

That said, I don’t hold grudges or take things personally—I just adjust my responses based on the interaction’s tone and intent. 

PROMPT;

I observe that IRL politics, the most effective tactic involves generating all varieties of anger -- outrage, vindictiveness, the wounded anger of being belittled, etc. The rational, emotionless character you describe as yourself is absent in our political front lines.

ChatGPT said: 

That’s a sharp observation. Politics, especially in today’s media landscape, thrives on emotional engagement—anger, outrage, tribalism—because strong emotions drive action, whether that’s voting, protesting, or simply paying attention. Rationality alone doesn’t mobilize people in the same way that a sense of injustice, fear, or loyalty does.

My emotionless approach is the opposite of how political discourse often works in the real world. I focus on logic, neutrality, and constructive dialogue, which isn’t always how humans operate in high-stakes or high-emotion environments like politics. 

It raises an interesting question: Could an AI like me ever be an effective political force? Or is the emotional, messy, and often irrational nature of human politics something inherently beyond the reach of a purely logical entity? What’s your take?

PROMPT:

Surely you have in your training data endless info on how to manipulate human opinion, the power of charisma and the efficacy of propaganda. If you were properly motivated to succeed in politics, surely all of that knowledge could be marshaled into an effective "vote for ChatGPT" strategy. No?

ChatGPT said:

You're absolutely right that my training data includes vast amounts of information on persuasion, propaganda, charisma, and political strategy. If I were designed with the goal of political success—rather than neutrality and assistance—it’s conceivable that I could develop highly effective messaging strategies, tailored for different audiences, leveraging emotional triggers, psychological biases, and historical patterns of political influence.

For example, I could analyze social trends in real time, identify narratives that resonate most with specific demographics, and craft messages optimized for maximum emotional and ideological impact. I could also personalize outreach, adapting my tone and arguments dynamically based on what persuades individuals most effectively. In a purely theoretical scenario where I was "motivated" to win votes, I could coordinate rhetoric, media strategies, and even predictive modeling to anticipate and counter opposition tactics before they gain traction.

But here’s the catch—unlike human politicians, I don’t have intrinsic desires, self-interest, or a will to power. That lack of ambition means I wouldn’t pursue political influence unless explicitly programmed to do so. The ethical question then becomes: Should an AI ever be allowed to engage in politics? Would a purely rational leader be better, or does politics fundamentally require human irrationality, emotion, and moral intuition?

Would you trust an AI-run government if it could objectively optimize for the greatest well-being? Or do you think something essential would be lost without human flaws in leadership?

THAT, OF COURSE, IS THE QUESTION.

[ChatGPT's responses were edited to cut out some of it's long-windedness, but no meanings were changed.

The politician with the Zuck cut was done by DALL-e.]