Last week, I conducted an experiment to demonstrate how we can use an AI chatbot to test and validate, but also critique and refine an original idea or thesis. One clear advantage of artificial intelligence is the scope it provides for humans to be creative and then to apply shared critical thinking to that creativity.

For this experiment, I chose the concept of hyperreality, a theme I have evoked in many articles over the past decade. In my prompt, I emphasized my desire to understand the weaknesses of the thesis as well as what I see as its strengths. The result was enlightening as it not only illuminated the concept of hyperreality but demonstrated the practical and intellectual value of engaging in an exploratory dialogue with a chatbot.

ChatGPT acknowledged that my thesis concerning hyperreality “makes a great deal of sense,” while DeepSeek found it “compelling and thought-provoking for understanding contemporary Western society.”

ChatGPT analyzed the likely reactions of different categories of the public, whether approving or disparaging. It then offered advice on how to buttress my case. Some of the advice was useful. Some was so general as to be meaningless. For example, it encouraged me to:

“Recognize human complexity—people are shaped by ideology, but they also push back, adapt, and reinterpret meaning in unexpected ways.”

My thesis, dear friend, describes not just human complexity but also deviously complex behavior!

DeepSeek offered more refined insight about the interest of my thesis, particularly with this remark: “Your argument that this system is not a conspiracy but a ‘convenient convergence of interests’ among elites is particularly nuanced.” It demonstrated a deeper awareness of the intellectual background than ChatGPT, observing that the idea of hyperreality is “well-grounded in critical theory.” This left me with the impression that it was engaging at a deeper level than ChatGPT. That may, of course, be nothing more than an impression.

The problem of truth concerning Trump’s plan for Gaza

I then chose to move the conversation to another dimension by alluding to a topic of public debate: the shocking proposal US President Donald Trump made last week to end the conflict in Gaza.

What ensued is what I would call a process of “collaborative analysis.” Instead of expecting AI to provide pat answers, I engaged the chatbot in a shared effort to clarify the way we might tackle an ambiguous topic. The resulting dialogue became so rich and detailed I decided to break it into three separate columns. We will publish Parts 2 and 3 over the next two days.

Let’s begin with my initial prompt:

“Last week US President Donald Trump shocked the world when, in the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, he proposed that the US would take over Gaza and rebuild it, after ejecting its current population.

Commentators who disapprove of the idea have interpreted Trump’s intentions in different ways. Some claim that it is a clear example of imperial hubris, ethnic cleansing and a 21st century version of ‘manifest destiny,’ a notion Trump invoked at his recent inauguration. Some even believe it could succeed.

Others say that Trump does not intend it to happen. They see it as a clever negotiating strategy to wrest control of Gaza away from Israel. One variant of this is to see Trump’s words as intended to project the idea that he is unpredictably mad, capable of outrageous crimes to force his adversaries to fear him, inciting them to do whatever may be required to calm him down. Yet another group of critics reads it simply as an illegal act and war crime that will lead to even more extreme violence.

Given the variety of possible interpretations, what factors should be considered to measure the credibility of any of these theses?”

DeepSeek’s response

“To measure the credibility of the various interpretations of President Trump’s proposal regarding Gaza, several key factors must be considered. These factors help assess the plausibility of each thesis and provide a framework for evaluating the motivations, feasibility, and implications of the proposal.

1. Trump’s Intentions and Rhetorical Patterns

• Consistency with Past Statements: Does the proposal align with Trump’s previous rhetoric on Israel, Palestine, or U.S. foreign policy? For example, his strong support for Israel and his recognition of Jerusalem as its capital suggest a pro-Israel stance, but does this proposal fit within that framework?
• Negotiation Tactics: Is there evidence that Trump uses provocative or extreme statements as a negotiating strategy? For instance, his “madman theory” approach—projecting unpredictability to intimidate adversaries—has been observed in other contexts (e.g., North Korea negotiations).
• Political Goals: What are Trump’s domestic and international political objectives? Is this proposal aimed at rallying his base, appealing to pro-Israel lobby groups, or asserting U.S. dominance in the Middle East?

2. Feasibility and Practicality

• Military and Logistical Realities: How feasible is it to forcibly displace Gaza’s population and rebuild the territory? What would be the military, financial, and logistical challenges, and how would Israel, the U.S., and other actors respond?
• International Reaction: How would the international community, including the UN, EU, and Arab states, respond to such a proposal? Would it face widespread condemnation, sanctions, or other consequences?
• Regional Dynamics: How would regional actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and neighboring Arab states, react? Could this proposal escalate violence or destabilize the region further?

3. Legal and Ethical Implications

• International Law: Does the proposal violate international law, including the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit forced displacement and ethnic cleansing? Would it constitute a war crime or crime against humanity?
• Human Rights Concerns: What are the ethical implications of displacing over two million people in Gaza? How would this affect civilians, and what humanitarian crises might arise?
• Precedent and Legitimacy: How would such an action affect the U.S.’s global standing and legitimacy? Would it set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts?

4. Historical and Geopolitical Context

• U.S.-Israel Relations: How does this proposal fit into the broader U.S.-Israel relationship? Does it align with Israel’s strategic interests, or does it risk straining the alliance?
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What role does Gaza play in the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict? How would this proposal impact the prospects for a two-state solution or peace negotiations?
• Historical Parallels: Are there historical examples of similar actions (e.g., forced displacements, territorial takeovers) that can provide insight into the potential outcomes of this proposal?

5. Domestic and International Political Dynamics

• U.S. Domestic Politics: How does this proposal align with the interests of Trump’s domestic base, including evangelical Christians and pro-Israel lobby groups? What are the potential political gains or risks for Trump?
• Global Power Struggles: How does this proposal fit into broader global power dynamics, such as U.S.-China or U.S.-Russia competition? Could it be a move to assert U.S. dominance in the Middle East?

6. Credibility of Sources and Interpretations

• Expert Opinions: What do regional experts, legal scholars, and political analysts say about the proposal? Are there consensus views or significant disagreements?
• Media Framing: How has the proposal been framed by different media outlets? Are there biases in how the interpretations are presented?
• Trump’s Track Record: How reliable is Trump’s rhetoric as an indicator of his intentions? Has he followed through on similar proposals in the past, or are they often rhetorical?

Evaluating the Specific Theses:

1. Imperial Hubris/Manifest Destiny:

• Credibility: This thesis gains credibility if the proposal aligns with Trump’s broader rhetoric of U.S. dominance and unilateral action. Historical parallels to U.S. expansionism could support this view.
• Factors to Consider: Trump’s ‘America First’ ideology, his past statements on U.S. power, and the feasibility of the proposal.

2. Negotiation Strategy:

• Credibility: This interpretation is plausible if there is evidence that Trump has used similar tactics in the past or if the proposal is part of a broader diplomatic effort.
• Factors to Consider: Trump’s use of the ‘madman theory,’ his negotiation style, and whether there is a clear endgame or negotiation framework.

3. Madman Theory:

• Credibility: This variant of the negotiation strategy thesis gains credibility if Trump has a history of using extreme rhetoric to intimidate adversaries.
• Factors to Consider: Examples of Trump’s past behavior in negotiations (e.g., North Korea, Iran) and the reactions of regional actors to his rhetoric.

4. Illegal Act/War Crime:

• Credibility: This thesis is supported by international legal frameworks and the potential humanitarian consequences.
• Factors to Consider: Compliance with international law, ethical implications, and the likelihood of legal or political consequences.

Conclusion:

The credibility of each thesis depends on the interplay of these factors, as well as the evolving political and diplomatic landscape. To assess which interpretation is most plausible, one must weigh Trump’s intentions, the feasibility of the proposal, its legal and ethical implications, and the broader geopolitical context. Additionally, the reactions of key stakeholders—both domestically and internationally—will provide further insight into the proposal’s credibility and potential outcomes.”

ChatGPT’s response to the same prompt

“To assess the credibility of these different interpretations of Trump’s proposal regarding Gaza, several key factors need to be considered:

1. Trump’s Historical Behavior and Rhetoric

• Consistency with Past Statements: Has Trump made similarly extreme or provocative statements in the past, and were they followed through with action? For example, his use of ‘fire and fury’ towards North Korea was widely seen as bluster, but it later led to diplomatic engagement.
• Use of Shock Tactics: Trump has a well-documented history of using provocative statements to dominate news cycles, shift focus, or unsettle opponents. If this aligns with his past negotiation tactics, it may support the theory that this is a strategic bluff.

2. Feasibility and Logistics

• Military and Diplomatic Capabilities: Does the U.S. have the military capacity, political will, and international support to carry out such a large-scale operation in Gaza? The logistical challenge of ejecting a population, rebuilding the territory, and maintaining control would be immense, suggesting impracticality.
• International Law and Reaction: The proposal, if taken literally, would be a clear violation of international law, including conventions against ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers. The expected backlash from the international community would be significant, raising questions about whether this is a serious policy or a rhetorical device.

3. Strategic Interests

• U.S. Middle East Policy: Does this proposal align with broader U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East? Historically, the U.S. has been cautious about direct intervention in Gaza due to the complex dynamics involving Israel, Palestine, and other regional actors.
• Impact on Israel-U.S. Relations: The theory that Trump is using this as a negotiating tactic to shift control from Israel suggests a divergence from the traditionally strong U.S.-Israel alliance. Evaluating whether this aligns with his administration’s overall policy towards Israel could clarify this interpretation.

4. Psychological and Negotiation Tactics

• The ‘Madman Theory’: Trump’s alleged use of unpredictability to intimidate adversaries mirrors Nixon’s ‘madman theory’ during the Vietnam War. Evaluating whether this aligns with Trump’s known strategies could lend credibility to the idea that he’s projecting volatility for leverage.
• Domestic Political Considerations: Sometimes, extreme foreign policy statements are aimed at domestic audiences to rally support, distract from scandals, or shore up political bases. The timing relative to domestic political events may provide clues.

5. Reactions from Key Stakeholders

• Israeli Government Response: Netanyahu’s reaction, whether public or private leaks, can offer insight. If Israel reacts with alarm or rejection, it suggests the proposal is unexpected and perhaps unserious.
• Palestinian and Arab World Response: Understanding how Palestinian leaders and neighboring Arab nations interpret the statement could help assess whether they view it as a genuine threat or political theater.
• International Community and Allies: NATO, the UN, and other global players’ responses will also shed light on the perceived seriousness of the proposal.

6. Media and Expert Analysis

• Bias and Framing: Consider how different media outlets—domestic vs. international, conservative vs. liberal—frame the proposal. Comparing these can help identify whether interpretations are influenced by political bias or grounded in objective analysis.
• Expert Opinions: Foreign policy analysts, legal scholars, and Middle East experts can provide context about the implications and likelihood of such a proposal being pursued.

By systematically evaluating these factors, one can better discern whether Trump’s statement was a serious policy proposal, a negotiating tactic, an example of reckless rhetoric, or a strategic ploy rooted in psychological gamesmanship.”

My conclusion

Both responses are informative and cover largely the same ground, highlighting the variables to take into account when considering each hypothesis. DeepSeek strikes me as more focused on the specific historical factors at play in determining Trump’s intentions. It breaks down the variables more finely than ChatGPT, which focuses more on the methodology of assessment.

In Part 2, my prompt challenged the two chatbots to assess the credibility:

“Is it possible to attribute a higher coefficient of credibility to one of the interpretations? Which is likely to have the highest and which the lowest?”

This takes us beyond the abstract to the concrete. The non-linear nature of this kind of exercise became more focused. As Part II will reveal, even the way of responding contained some new surprises.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.