The Search for Insight
The Search for Insight
Prompting AI, Politics, and the Brave New World of Wisdom-Seeking
Prompt engineering, once hailed as "Da Thing" that would revolutionize AI interaction, has taken quite a fall from grace, as David Szabo-Stuban vividly points out in his experience with his own AI education company, Promptmaster. Initially, when GPT-4 exploded into the mainstream, prompting seemed like the golden ticket to unlocking superhuman productivity. David himself bought into this narrative, investing time, resources, and his own entrepreneurial spirit into teaching people how to craft the perfect prompts to coax AI into delivering the results they needed. But, as with many things in the tech world, the hype didn’t quite match the reality.
As he eventually realized, the value wasn’t in the prompts themselves but in the problems we were using AI to solve. His business thrived for a moment on the promise that those who mastered prompt engineering would become indispensable in the new AI-driven economy. Yet, it turned out that learning how to prompt wasn’t the magic bullet—it was simply effective communication. The real skill lay in problem-solving and contextual understanding, not just getting the AI to behave a certain way. The notion that prompt engineering could single-handedly drive an AI revolution slowly fizzled out, leaving him to pivot away from his business and onto new ventures.
This evolution is strikingly relevant to the prompts and outputs that will follow in this post. As we explore the political thought experiment presented in the prompt, with responses from three different large language models (LLMs), we can observe the very dynamics David critiques. Each model takes the prompt—a politically charged and ambiguous concept—and attempts to process it within the limitations of its training. Whether it’s LLM A diving deep into historical regimes to draw comparisons, LLM B taking a more general approach, or LLM C weaving in modern examples, all three responses showcase a surface-level mastery of prompt handling. However, as he pointed out in his reflections, the true value doesn’t lie in the sophistication of the prompts or the outputs themselves, but in how well we, as humans, contextualize and frame the overarching problem.
Ironically, Szabo-Stuban’s article actually lends credibility to the LLMs’ responses, even with the inherent shortcomings of prompt engineering. The prompts in this case set up a problem that these LLMs are well-equipped to tackle: analyzing historical and political patterns based on provided criteria. While David argued that prompt engineering as a stand-alone skill is overhyped, he also emphasized that when it comes to formulating problems and providing context, AI can still deliver meaningful insights—as long as we don’t expect miracles. In this instance, the LLMs provide a variety of thought-provoking perspectives on the hypothetical political party, demonstrating that even with the challenges highlighted, AI can still offer value in handling well-framed problems.
So, while he might remind us not to place undue faith in prompts alone, the outputs here serve as a testament to what LLMs can achieve when applied to the right kind of task.
The political prompt explored with the forthcoming LLM outputs comes from a post on X by Eric Weinstein, a mathematician and economist who, from 2013 to 2022, was a managing director at Thiel Capital. Known for his unconventional takes on a variety of social, political, and economic issues, Eric's prompt delves into a speculative yet critical examination of political ideologies.
In light of David's reflections on the over-hyped potential of prompt engineering, Eric Weinstein’s prompt stands out as a sophisticated example of problem formulation—the very skill David argues is far more valuable than merely mastering prompts. While David cautions against expecting too much from AI simply through clever prompting, Weinstein’s thought experiment leverages context and complexity that can elicit more meaningful engagement from AI systems. It’s a perfect illustration of how, when framed effectively, a prompt can push AI into deeper realms of analysis, even if we must acknowledge the inherent limitations of the technology.
Weinstein’s prompt doesn’t just feed the AI a series of commands; it asks it to grapple with historical parallels, political theory, and modern-day nuances. This, in turn, creates outputs that—despite the pitfalls David warns of—manage to generate interesting, multi-faceted perspectives.
The Prompt
Imagine a modern political party.
Imagine that all you know about it is the following:
It champions rights for state-sponsored schools over the rights of the parents on behalf of their own children.
It promotes equality of outcome over a level playing field.
It is concerned that unfeterred speech is a threat to the safety of the population.
It supports candidates chosen by party leaders rather than the people via primary elections.
It celebrates choices for irreversible self-sterilization via reproductive surgical mutilation within the K-12 curriculum.
It does not want people to have to show ID to vote.
Q: To which political parties is this unspecified party most similar worldwide and throughout history?
Output of LLM A:
The political party you describe carries a mixture of traits that can be associated with various political movements, ideologies, and parties across the globe and history. While the specific combination of these features doesn’t directly map onto a single party, the ideas themselves can be traced to different strands of political thought. Let’s break down each characteristic and identify where similar traits have emerged:
State control over education and a reduced role for parental authority: This echoes systems where the state plays a dominant role in shaping education to align with broader ideological goals, often seen in totalitarian or highly centralized regimes. For example, the former Soviet Union and other communist regimes historically placed strong emphasis on state-sponsored education over familial influence, often justifying this as a means to instill socialist values. In contemporary times, debates over parental rights in education exist in many countries, but the tension is most notable in systems that advocate state supremacy in molding future generations.
Promotion of equality of outcome over a level playing field: This is a hallmark of many socialist or Marxist-inspired ideologies. Equality of outcome prioritizes redistributive justice to ensure that everyone ends up in a relatively equal position, a principle that was central to Marxist doctrine in the USSR, Maoist China, and other socialist states. While many modern democratic socialist or progressive parties advocate for reducing inequality, outright focus on equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity, tends to be associated with more radical leftist movements.
Concern over unfettered speech being a threat to public safety: This reflects ideologies that prioritize social order or group safety over individual liberties, often seen in authoritarian regimes. Historically, both fascist and communist governments (e.g., Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) heavily censored speech that was deemed subversive to the state or public safety. In modern liberal democracies, restrictions on free speech are typically debated around hate speech or misinformation laws. Concerns over speech, particularly when framed as dangerous to social harmony, are increasingly present in modern left-leaning movements, especially in the context of online discourse and hate speech regulations.
Candidates chosen by party leadership rather than primary elections: This is more typical of authoritarian regimes or tightly controlled party systems. In places like China’s Communist Party or the Soviet Union, leadership is selected through party apparatuses rather than popular vote. Historically, this has also been seen in autocratic systems, such as Francoist Spain or Mussolini’s Italy, where leadership was consolidated within an elite ruling class rather than emerging from a democratic process.
Celebration of irreversible self-sterilization via reproductive surgical procedures in K-12 curriculum: This is more speculative and reflects modern debates around gender identity, medical transition for minors, and the role of education in these matters. While no historical parties have explicitly celebrated such actions within schools, current movements advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, particularly around transgender issues, can be associated with this idea. These debates are prominent in progressive circles in Western democracies, where discussions on gender identity and medical autonomy, even for minors, are contentious.
Opposition to voter ID laws: The debate over voter ID laws is primarily a modern one, particularly in the U.S. Many progressive and left-leaning parties oppose voter ID requirements, arguing that they disproportionately affect marginalized communities and suppress voter turnout. Historically, this is a contemporary issue without clear historical parallels, though it fits into broader discussions about expanding or restricting suffrage.
Historical and Global Parallels:
Soviet Union: The emphasis on state control over education, the promotion of equality of outcome, and the centralization of political candidates under party leadership bear similarities to the Communist Party of the USSR. The USSR also restricted free speech heavily, using public safety and ideological purity as justifications.
China: The Chinese Communist Party shares several of these traits, including state dominance over education, equality of outcome as a socialist principle, and the absence of popular primaries for leadership. Modern China also tightly regulates speech, often citing the need to maintain social harmony and national security.
Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany: Though they were on the far right of the political spectrum, both of these regimes restricted free speech, centralized political leadership, and placed significant emphasis on state-controlled education. Equality of outcome was less of a focus, but there was an emphasis on collective national or racial identity over individual freedoms.
Modern progressive or socialist movements: Certain progressive movements in Western democracies today, especially in Europe and North America, have stances that might align with some of the points you mentioned, such as concerns over free speech (particularly around hate speech or misinformation), opposition to voter ID laws, and advocating for greater state control in education, especially around social issues. The promotion of irreversible gender surgeries within education is a specific and controversial issue most commonly debated in Western contexts, primarily the U.S. and Europe.
Conclusion:
The political party you describe shares similarities with authoritarian socialist regimes of the 20th century, particularly in their approach to state control, equality of outcome, and restrictions on speech. However, it also echoes modern progressive movements in its approach to certain social issues, such as transgender rights and voter ID laws. While no single party fully encompasses all these traits, elements of these characteristics can be seen in both historical communist and modern progressive movements, albeit in different forms and degrees.
Output of LLM B:
I'll provide some objective analysis on the political leanings suggested by those positions, without endorsing any particular views:
The positions described align most closely with far-left or radical left-wing ideologies seen in some authoritarian socialist or communist regimes throughout history. Some specific elements to note:
State control over education aligns with historical communist approaches in countries like the Soviet Union or Maoist China.
Focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is associated with more extreme leftist economic philosophies.
Restrictions on free speech have been implemented by various authoritarian regimes across the political spectrum, but are often justified using left-wing rhetoric about protecting vulnerable groups.
Top-down party control of candidates is reminiscent of one-party states like the former USSR.
The position on reproductive surgeries in schools is an outlier that doesn't clearly map to historical precedents.
Opposition to voter ID has some parallels to leftist parties in various countries that argue such requirements disenfranchise marginalized groups.
In a modern context, some of these views might be associated with far-left factions within socialist or communist parties in various countries. However, the specific combination of positions doesn't neatly match any mainstream party in current democratic systems.
It's important to note this analysis is based solely on the limited information provided, and real-world political movements are typically more complex. If you'd like me to expand on any part of this analysis, please let me know.
Output of LLM C:
Based on the characteristics provided for this hypothetical modern political party, here's an analysis of which real-world political parties or movements it might be most similar to:
State-Sponsored School Rights Over Parental Rights: Historically, this aligns with authoritarian regimes where the state has significant control over education, aiming to indoctrinate rather than educate in the traditional sense. Examples might include the Soviet Union's education system or China's under the Communist Party, where education is heavily influenced by state ideology.
Equality of Outcome Over Equality of Opportunity: This principle is often associated with socialist or communist ideologies where the goal is to reduce or eliminate economic disparities through state intervention. Parties like the Communist Party of China or historical examples like the Soviet Union's Communist Party would fit this description.
Concerns Over Unfettered Speech: This can be linked to parties or regimes that prioritize state security or social harmony over individual freedoms, like the current Chinese Communist Party, which controls speech to maintain political stability, or historical regimes like Nazi Germany under the guise of protecting the state.
Party-Selected Candidates: This practice is common in authoritarian or highly centralized political systems where power is consolidated at the top. The Communist Party of China again exemplifies this, where candidates are vetted and selected by party leaders rather than through open primaries.
Support for Irreversible Self-Sterilization in Curriculum: While no mainstream historical or current major party explicitly promotes this in their curriculum, this could theoretically align with extreme interpretations of progressive ideologies where personal autonomy over body choices is emphasized, potentially misinterpreted or exaggerated in policy. However, this aspect might be more theoretical or speculative as no major party globally has openly advocated for such in their educational curriculum in this manner.
Opposition to Voter ID Laws: This might align with parties that argue such laws suppress voting rights, often seen in more progressive or left-leaning parties in Western democracies. For instance, parts of the Democratic Party in the U.S. have opposed strict voter ID laws, arguing they disproportionately affect minority voters.
Given these points, the party most closely resembles a blend of authoritarian socialist or communist ideologies with elements of modern progressive movements, particularly those that emphasize state control over individual rights for the sake of equality, safety, or ideological purity. However, no single historical or current party perfectly matches all these traits due to the extreme nature of some policies, especially regarding education and personal body autonomy for minors.
Closest Historical or Modern Examples:
Communist Parties like those in China or the historical Soviet Union for their emphasis on state control, equality of outcome, and control over speech and education.
Authoritarian Regimes like Nazi Germany for state control over education and speech, though their ideologies differ significantly in other areas.
Modern Progressive Movements might show similarities in advocating for equality of outcome and against voter ID laws, but they would typically not support state over parental rights to such an extent or promote irreversible medical decisions for minors in school curriculums.
This hypothetical party seems to take elements from various extreme or authoritarian ideologies, blending them in a way that might not fully align with any single real-world party but reflects a theoretical construct of authoritarian progressivism.
From Facts to Wisdom
In this brave new world of "search," we are no longer constrained by simply retrieving known information—we are pushing boundaries, discovering new ideas, and perhaps most importantly, generating insights that never existed before. As I discussed in my post, Redefining Search: From Fact-Finding to Wisdom-Seeking, AI is not just a tool for finding facts; it's evolving into a mechanism that helps us navigate the unknown, allowing us to ask questions that go beyond what's already been documented. This shift transforms search from a purely functional task into an intellectual adventure, opening doors to wisdom rather than merely providing answers.
The LLM outputs are a testament to this transformation. It’s fascinating how each LLM seems to have its own "personality" in its approach—whether it’s the historical depth, the broad generalization, or the weaving of modern examples. These distinct voices reflect the diversity in how AI can interpret the same prompt, adding layers of richness to the analysis. While Szabo-Stuban's observations on prompt engineering highlight the dangers of over-relying on AI’s abilities, there’s still incredible value in the potential for these systems to illuminate complex issues—when used with the right context and intention. Each output from LLM A, B, and C serves as a stepping stone in our exploration of political thought, drawing on historical and modern perspectives. The power of AI lies in its ability to broaden the conversation, not by providing definitive answers but by expanding the range of what we can consider.
One of the most intriguing aspects of LLMs is their ability to synthesize vast amounts of information, spanning the entire history they’ve been trained on. Unlike human beings, whose perceptions are often swayed by the latest trends, headlines, or prevailing narratives, LLMs, assuming a large and well-curated training set, have the unique potential to transcend short-term bias. They are not bogged down by the “talk of the day” or current propaganda that can color human judgment. Instead, they can dive deep into the full scope of human knowledge and history, offering insights that humans might miss due to our more limited capacity for recalling and integrating past events. In this way, LLMs serve as invaluable tools for historical reflection, helping to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself unnecessarily. By providing a more balanced, long-term view, they help us recognize when history is rhyming—allowing us to navigate complex challenges with the kind of deep understanding that human insight alone might struggle to achieve.
In this case, I used LLM A, B, and C without names so as not to bias your thoughts about which company generated what. Can you guess which one is which?
