Listen to the article
Part 3
How successful have the previous winners been in learning and reproducing ethical and moral values? How many of them could be classified on just one side of the binary divide, among the good or the bad? And most importantly, looking at them today, through the filter of time, do the former winners appear better than the choice of Chat GPT as the person of 2023 would look to a future generation?
For example, Richard Nixon, Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 1971 and 1972.
After the Watergate affair, volumes of text have been written about Nixon’s character and his mythical abuses of power. But perhaps a careful observer could have caught some disturbing details earlier. For example, Nixon always spoke about himself in the third person. And then he would add ‘President of the Free World.’ For instance – Do you want Richard Nixon, President of the Free World, to make you a gin and tonic? Or – Would you like to take a walk through the rose garden with Richard Nixon, President of the Free World?
Perhaps they wouldn’t award him the title of Person of the Year? Or give him the codes to launch nukes? Or at least not let him record everything he says in the White House, leading to his own impeachment?
Did you miss: Will Chat GPT become Time Magazine’s Person of the Year? – Part 1 and Will Chat GPT become Time Magazine’s Person of the Year? – Part 2
The title of Time’s Person of the Year, just like political scandals, didn’t adhere to party lines in America. And, similar to scandals, it didn’t care much about who it fell upon. Thus, President Bill Clinton was chosen as Person of the Year in 1992 and 1998. He was a popular president, implementing a series of measures that transformed the American economy and justice system. The liberalization of the banking system allowed bankers to do what they were best at – creating a global economic crisis. Meanwhile, his measures in the justice system turned America into the country with the largest prison population in the world. Clinton also faced two major sexual scandals, and he lied under oath about one of them. Fortunately for him, his famous statement – I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky – remained in the collective memory as the most popular example of treacherous body language and facial expression of someone lying. As a result, today, almost no one remembers the economic and legal trivia of his administration.
To ensure that Clinton’s moral transgressions were adequately punished, his nemesis from that time took care of it. Person of the Year 1995, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House and leader of the Republican majority. On the political spectrum, Gingrich stood slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. He preached a Republican revolution, which meant only one thing: family values, God, and America. A careful observer will not miss that these are, in fact, three things, which together formed one thing. You’ve probably encountered this concept before, in religion or in the instant coffee market. Of course, while persecuting Clinton for extramarital wanderings, Gingrich himself was involved in an extramarital affair. And he did the natural thing for a man who holds the sanctity of marriage dear: he decided to get a divorce. You’ll agree that it’s not easy to slip into a conversation with someone that you’re divorcing them, especially if you’re doing it during a hospital visit while they’re recovering from an oncological intervention.
No matter how challenging the task, Newt was confident he had done a good job. And he was quite surprised when his then-wife threw him out of the room.
And how does GPT compare to Rudy Giuliani – the Person of the Year 2001? The popular mayor of New York and presidential candidate? Were there any subtle signs that his choice would not always look great? For example, when his then-wife found out that Rudy was divorcing her while watching a press conference on TV.
Ah, yes, Rudy Giuliani’s wife was also his cousin. As uncomfortable as a divorce among relatives may be, the wedding was probably even more awkward, with all the guests, when asked if they were from the bride’s or groom’s side, replying – both.
But let’s set aside such complex issues as matters of the heart and politics. How does this chatbot compare to other candidates in simpler tasks? Like, for example, the proper way to eat a pretzel. GPT, in that category, at least theoretically dominates: The safest way to eat a pretzel is to chew it thoroughly to prevent choking. In contrast, Person of the Year 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush, embarked on an uninformed attempt at eating a pretzel that nearly cost him his life due to choking.
If you ask Chat GPT what it thinks of its chances of becoming Time’s Person of the Year, it will diplomatically respond that the title is awarded to individuals who have had a significant impact on the world in the past year, so it’s therefore inappropriate to compare Chat GPT with such people. We can interpret this as modesty. However, if we pay attention to the part of the sentence where it says it’s not polite to compare it with “such people,” perhaps it’s just telling us, in a politically correct way, that it wouldn’t want to be remembered in the future as part of such a group?
So who are the potential winners of Time’s title today, and how does the chatbot fare against today’s competition for the Time’s Person of the Year title?
More on that in the next installment in a few days.
Did you miss: Will Chat GPT become Time Magazine’s Person of the Year? – Part 1 and Will Chat GPT become Time Magazine’s Person of the Year? – Part 2
