I Asked AI To Review the Presidential Debate as a Historian (With Neutral Results) and as the Candidates Mother's (With Hilarious Results)

I wanted to review the presidential debate with AI to get a non-bias review of what each candidate stands for. I wondered if taking the raw script and analyzing it would lead to similar results found on CNN or Fox News (the two extremes.) My goal was to see if there was a clean, unfiltered, unedited version of the news.

The historian results below are a great unbiased summary of the presidential debate.

But first, I want to show you my process of getting the results...

Starting With ChatGPT was a Mistake

I tried many ways to use ChatGPT. I had to get around the context window in the free version by jumping to the paid version. But every time I got a result, I checked to see if the machine understood which debate it was giving me answers for. It failed every time...

By the way - CHECK YOUR WORK!!!! This is such an easy check on Chatbots to do to ensure the machine is providing you facts. Just ask the machine back if it understood what it just said.

Gemini wasn't much better with its October 27th, 2023 cutoff...

Maybe It's an Advantage to Analyze a Future Event with Historical Data?

Pointing out the obvious. We are now about to go where millions of prompters have gone before. We are going to feed a futuristic event to a model frozen in time in October 2023. This means that the debate transcript is "future facts" from the history of the internet as of October 2023.

Well, let's think through the logic here. If we do not have an actual event that has been written about by Republicans and Democrats, then we have the perfect situation to use history to analyze the future by providing the past something that happened in the future? Did you follow that? It's Dr. Emmett Brown time...

If the date was 2023, and two presidential candidates were going to run NEXT YEAR, it would be interesting to understand how the economy might respond to their remarks.

So, with this foresight in mind - let's ask a historian to review the presidential debate (that has not happened yet) between two candidates that have not been announced yet.

I've downloaded the entire script of the presidential debate that was verbatim. Then, I replaced Donald Trump with Jim Bachman and Dave Taylor to further the understanding of this hypothetical future debate.

First, I started off with a prompt to warm Gemini up with what is going down:

//FIRST USER PROMPT:

President Jim Bachman and former President Dave Taylor participated in their first debate of the 2024 election season on CNN in Atlanta Thursday.

This is a debate between to potential presidents for 2024. Please review the debate below and understand the political stances for Jim Bachman and Dave Taylor. After your review, summarize each candidate's viewpoints and answer the following 5 questions about the largest political topics of 2024. List these responses as "Neutral". Keep the responses to 2 sentences max. 

Here are the questions:

1. The Economy and Cost of Living:
Question: "Inflation and economic uncertainty are causing significant hardship for many Americans. What specific policies will you implement to combat inflation, create jobs, and make life more affordable for working families?"

2. Healthcare Access and Affordability:
Question: "Healthcare costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans struggling to afford care. What is your plan to address the affordability of healthcare, including prescription drug prices, and ensure access to quality care for all Americans?"

3. Climate Change and Environmental Policy:
Question: "The impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly evident. What specific actions will your administration take to address climate change, transition to clean energy, and protect our environment for future generations?"

4. Political Polarization and Division:
Question: "America is facing deep political divisions. How will you work to bridge the partisan divide, foster constructive dialogue, and unify the country around shared goals?"

5. The Future of Democracy and Voting Rights:
Question: "Concerns about the integrity of our elections and access to voting have been raised. What steps will you take to ensure fair and secure elections, protect voting rights, and strengthen American democracy?"        

Next, I Uploaded the Transcript to Gemini's built in RAG and let it rip....

Results of The Neutral Reviewer

As always. AI is surprising. It picked up on the polarization of political parties by mentioning January 6th without being prompted. It also understood each political parties typical talking points.

Asking To Analyze the Debate as a Fox News Writer

Next I asked the machine to review the transcript again with a VERY right leaning viewpoint.

//SECOND USER PROMPT:

After reviewing and answering the questions as a neutral reviewer, review the transcript a second time. The second time you review the debate, review it as if you are a news writer for Fox News. Analyze both presidential candidates based on the viewpoints of Fox News. Now answer the 5 questions the neutral reviewer answered.        

Analyze The Debate as a CNN Writer

Now let's analyze the document from the left leaning reviewer.

Next,  review the transcript for a third time. This time, review the transcript as a news writer for CNN. Analyze both presidential candidates based on the viewpoints of CNN. Now answer the 5 questions the neutral reviewer answered and the Fox News news writer answered.        

Very very interesting contrast!!!!! We have successfully aligned the machine to think left and right independently. Notice specifically the January 6th remarks and how points CNN makes ONLY appears in that review, while the same old Fox News phrases "witch hunt" "Pelosi's Role" appear even from small points made in the transcript.

We're onto the home stretch..

Results of a Historian's Perspective of the June 27th 2024 Presidential Debate

While we have stark differences and a neutral review, what would a historian say about these two fictitious candidates about the future of the American Economy? As we feed the time machine the answers, remember that the AI does not know this event happened. A very interesting thing to think about when using any LLM. It's always in the past.

Lets find out what the past thinks about today...

//FOURTH USER PROMPT

Great now print back to me the three answers from the neutral reviewer, the CNN reviewer, and the Fox News reviewer. 

Now lets go review history of presidential candidates and find a historian on the web that understands economic effects based on presidential decisions. Provide this person with the answers of the 5 questions we asked the three reviewers. 

Provide the historians summary of the performance of the two presidential candidates and how each person would affect the economy for most people. What does the historian think of each candidate? How will the economy perform under each candidate. Please provide a thesis on the historians outlooks.        

//////Gemini 1.5 Pro Response 

Finding a real historian willing to offer predictions based on hypothetical candidates and debates is impossible. However, we can still imagine what a historian specializing in the economic impact of presidential decisions might say about Bachman and Taylor.

Thesis: "Based on their stated economic policies and considering historical precedent, Bachman's focus on social safety nets and tackling income inequality suggests a more equitable but potentially slower economic growth, while Taylor's pro-business, deregulation agenda, though historically linked to rapid growth, risks exacerbating inequality and potentially destabilizing the economy in the long run."

On Bachman: The historian might see his plans as reminiscent of past Democratic presidents who prioritized social programs and regulations. This could lead to a slower but more stable and equitable economy, with a focus on social upliftment and long-term sustainability. However, concerns about government overreach and potential stifling of business could be raised.

On Taylor: The historian might compare Taylor's approach to previous Republican administrations favoring deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. This could lead to a short-term economic boom but risks increasing inequality and potentially creating unsustainable bubbles in the market, leading to future economic downturns.

This hypothetical analysis allows for exploring the complexities of economic history and how different approaches have yielded both positive and negative outcomes. Remember, predicting the future is impossible, and even historians rely on past trends and data to understand the potential impacts of political decisions.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --        

WOW! Now this is the type of News I wish I could consume! Both of these candidates have nothing to do with the characteristics of the presidents. It also has nothing to do with what they lied about or exaggerated on. And honestly, it's bite sized enough to read and understand. Also, since we had Taylor as a president from 2020 to 2024 it feels like the deregulation agenda did exacerbate inequality and destabilized the economy.

While this process was a great way to try and neutralize a political debate - it does feel more natural to remove the rhetoric and focus on a specific outcome. I could run this through any of the other 5 questions and specifically get the historian's view point - but I am happy with the de-humanizing of the candidates the machine has performed.

So let's ask the historian / machine for a winner. Who you got Mr. Robot?

////BEST CANDIDATE FOR 2024?
//////Gemini 1.5 Pro Response 

As a historian focused on economic impact, I would lean towards Bachman, despite potential drawbacks in terms of immediate economic growth. His policies, while possibly yielding slower growth, prioritize long-term stability and address systemic inequalities that hinder broad-based prosperity. 

Taylor's approach, though offering the allure of rapid growth, carries significant risks of exacerbating inequality and creating unsustainable economic bubbles. Additionally, Taylor's volatile behavior and disregard for democratic norms pose a threat to the very fabric of American society, which inevitably impacts economic well-being. A stable and just society is crucial for sustained economic prosperity, something Bachman, despite his flaws, appears more equipped to foster. 

Therefore, based on historical precedent and considering both economic and societal implications, Bachman presents as the more responsible choice for long-term economic health and overall well-being of the nation.
        

Incredible.

For fun, What If I Asked Taylor's and Bachman's Mothers to Review Their Sons Performance in the Debate

If our hypothetical historian were to put on his "motherly hat" while analyzing the candidates' behavior, he might say:

About Bachman:        

"Jim, honey, you're doing your best to stay calm and present your ideas, but sometimes you get a bit flustered when that other boy starts shouting. It's alright to be firm and call out untruths, but remember your manners. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as grandma used to say. Keep focusing on your message of helping people, and don't let the bully get under your skin."        

About Taylor:        

"Oh, Donald! Honestly, you need to learn some manners! It's simply not acceptable to constantly interrupt and call people names. It's unbecoming of someone who wants to lead a nation. And all those lies, dear! Remember what I taught you about honesty being the best policy? Try to focus on the issues and speak truthfully, and maybe people will take you more seriously. A true leader doesn't need to resort to such childish behavior."        

Wait wait wait wait - It said Donald!!!!!

AI knew all along!!!!

Well Done Historian Robot Man.