Can AI Capture the Voice of a President? Exploring ChatGPT’s Political Speechwriting Skills

Introduction

Imagine a world where the State of the Union address is written not by a team of seasoned speechwriters but by an AI model. This might sound like science fiction, but researchers are diving into this possibility, investigating how advanced language models like ChatGPT fair as ghostwriters for US Presidents. The study by Jacques Savoy looks into whether AI can mirror the eloquence and style of past Presidents in their annual addresses and what this could mean for the future of political discourse. So, join me as we peel back the layers of AI’s attempt at presidential prose.

AI Takes a Seat in the Oval Office

Let’s set the stage: the State of the Union (SOTU) address is a big deal. It’s where Presidents outline their vision and priorities for the nation. Jacques Savoy took this theme and decided to pit ChatGPT against the real McCoys—authentic addresses written by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The aim was simple: mimic the masters and see if an AI could pull it off.

Style Over Substance?

Right off the bat, Savoy’s work shows us that while ChatGPT can certainly produce grammatically sound and coherent narratives, it struggles to nail down the presidential oomph. A noticeable habit? Overusing “we”. Sure, Presidents love a good “we”, but ChatGPT takes this to the extreme, sprinkling it in like confetti at a New Year’s Eve party—much more than the human-authored addresses.

Yet, where it goes light on verbs and opts for lengthier sentences, it betrays a stylistic fingerprint distinct from authentic SOTU addresses, which tend to pack a punch with succinct language.

Breaking Down the Presidential Style

The Power of the Pronoun

One style hallmark of any powerful speech is how personal it feels. Presidents often use pronouns like “we” to foster unity and connect with their audience. However, ChatGPT goes overboard in its usage, which can dilute the intended effect. It makes you wonder: is AI too eager to please, or is it just a bit robotic in grasping nuance?

When Less Could Be More

In terms of overall composition, ChatGPT-produced speeches tend to beat around the bush more than the average President’s address by forming longer, more complex sentences. While this might work for academic journals, the commanding rhetoric of a SOTU address favors directness. Additionally, the density of big, verbose words was considerably higher with ChatGPT’s versions. In essence, the AI’s verbosity doesn’t mimic the usual crispness of presidential speeches.

What Does This Mean for Political Speeches and AI?

The Good, the Bad, and the Neutral

ChatGPT, like a diligent student, hits all the right notes by imitating positive rhetoric and symbolic language common in political speeches (e.g., freedom, nation). Yet, it fails to capture the emotional highs and lows that human speechwriters inject. This results in a somewhat neutral tone that avoids the more compelling clashes of opinion we’re used to from political wordsmiths.

Practical Implications

Why is this important? As we edge closer to advanced AI systems being used in various sectors, understanding limitations and strengths becomes crucial. Could AI write speeches for busy executives or community leaders as effectively? Absolutely! But for now, scripting nuanced political discourse filled with emotional and rhetorical depth should remain a human endeavor—enhanced perhaps, but not replaced.

Key Takeaways

1. AI’s Style Limitation: ChatGPT can craft well-structured and coherent speeches, but it naturally opts for longer sentences with less actionable verbs, resulting in a style that is more passive than that seen in a typical presidential address.

2. Pronoun Overuse: While using “we” creates connections, the overuse by AI indicates a lack of nuanced understanding of audience engagement tactics.

3. Lack of Emotional Nuance: The neutral and positive tone AI leans on misses the emotionally charged rhetoric often employed to galvanize or comfort audiences.

4. Descriptive Rather than Decisive: The AI’s output is inclined toward general descriptions, shying away from the decisive pitches that real-life state addresses deliver.

5. Potential in Other Realms: Despite its shortcomings in political speechwriting, AI holds potential for writing in less high-stakes environments, offering support in areas that require straightforward information dissemination.

6. Room for Growth: Further developments in AI may enhance its ability to handle pronouns with greater dexterity and weave geographical and temporal depth into its prose.

In conclusion, while AI is not quite ready to ghostwrite for the Oval Office, it’s fascinating to imagine how, with continued advancements, it might someday bring its unique strengths to the table in crafting compelling narratives for influential figures. Until then, the human touch remains invaluable where speech and emotion intersect. So, stay tuned to this emerging intersection where technology and communication collide—it’s sure to be as compelling as the speeches themselves!

If you are looking to improve your prompting skills and haven’t already, check out our free Advanced Prompt Engineering course.

This blog post is based on the research article “GPT as ghostwriter at the White House” by Authors: Jacques Savoy. You can find the original article here.