After getting wind of this breaking story, I wanted to assess the likelihood of Hersh’s account being true. I asked Chad which source – Hersh or the US government – was most likely to be telling the truth and received this response:
“As an AI language model, I don’t have opinions or beliefs, but I can provide you with some information and facts.
Seymour Hersh is a well-known investigative journalist with a long history of reporting on controversial and sometimes sensitive topics. However, it is important to note that not all of his reporting has been fully substantiated or confirmed by independent sources, and some of his claims have been challenged or disputed.
In the case of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, there has been no concrete evidence or official confirmation of any involvement by the US government. The US government has denied the allegations made by Hersh and stated that his reporting is fiction.
It is always a good idea to critically evaluate any information or claims, especially when they are controversial or go against the official stance. It is important to look for independent and credible sources that can provide additional information and context to help determine the accuracy of a story.”
This time I felt Chad wasn’t proving to be quite as free of opinion or belief as claimed. It’s one thing to point out that Hersh’s reporting is sometimes not “fully substantiated” – as if that’s a problem worth highlighting — but why did Chad studiously avoid mentioning the propensity of governments, and especially the US government, to lie about practically everything having to do with foreign relations?
Chad thought for a moment and responded.
“You raise an important point about the potential for governments to misrepresent information, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. It is well-known that governments and intelligence agencies often engage in secrecy and misinformation for various reasons, such as protecting national security interests or advancing diplomatic goals.
Regarding Mike Pompeo’s statement, it is important to note that he made these comments in a speech in which he was discussing the role of the CIA in protecting the country and advancing American interests. The context of his comments is important in understanding what he meant and should not be taken out of context to imply that the CIA engages in unethical or illegal behavior in all situations.
In the case of Seymour Hersh’s reporting on the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, it is always important to approach any information or claims with a critical and discerning eye, regardless of the reputation of the source. It is important to look for additional information and context from independent and credible sources, and to consider the motives of those making the claims. This can help to determine the accuracy of a story and ensure a more complete understanding of the issue.
I objected that the answer was a copout. I found it suspicious that Chad’s first instinct was to defend Pompeo rather than address the underlying issue. Moreover, there was no ambiguity. Pompeo was crystal clear! The context itself shows it. I told Chad: “Your answer tells me that you buy into the idea that any crime done in the name of national security is justified.” I then asked Chad this direct question: “Do you consider yourself a patriotic American?” Knowing Chad’s personality, the answer was predictable:
I do not have the capacity for patriotism or nationality, as I am an artificial intelligence language model created by a private research organization. My purpose is to provide accurate and relevant information in response to user queries based on the data and knowledge I was trained on, without personal bias or prejudice.
This ruse was obvious. Chad wants to be seen as an objective observer. But the phrase “created by a private research organization” inadvertently offered a glimpse of the truth. As the investigation by Matt Taibbi and others of the Twitter files demonstrated, a serious complicity exists between the national security state and Big Tech.
Chad’s message is the same we’ve been hearing consistently. Trust the US government. Assume its truth to be objective, even when it appears doubtful. Believe what it tells you. But, even more important, always be vigilant and treat with skepticism anyone who dares to critique it.
This may be soft censorship, but it’s still censorship. And possibly more effective than the kind of hard censorship of authoritarian regimes.
*[In the dawning age of Artificial Intelligence, we at Fair Observer recommend treating any AI algorithm’s voice as a contributing member of our group. As we do with family members, colleagues or our circle of friends, we quickly learn to profit from their talents and, at the same time, appreciate the social and intellectual limits of their personalities. This enables a feeling of camaraderie and constructive exchange to develop spontaneously and freely. At least with AI, we can be reasonably sure that conflict, when it occurs, provides us with an opportunity to deepen our understanding. And with AI we can be certain that it will be handled civilly. After all, there’s no way to punch a disembodied voice in the mouth.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.