AI Technology Has Now Been Weaponized Against The Constitution
Updated: Feb 6
AI Technology Has Now Been Weaponized Against The Constitution
February 4, 2023
ChatGPT is a language model chatbot by OpenAI which was trained on an Azure AI supercomputing infrastructure. The input data was sourced from 300 billion words with 185 billion parameters from text databases on the internet such as books and web texts including Wikipedia.
This powerful artificial intelligence neural learning network can quickly generate responses to complex questions; however, it will also reject what has been predetermined to be inappropriate requests.
The legal profession is fully cognizant of this new technology and its implications. Law.com reports that many in the legal industry have characterized ChatGPT as "breathless" with one lawyer profoundly claiming “It almost feels sentient." The impact will be greater as the model matures and is trained specifically for legal work.
Here is an example of just how accurate this AI technology can be in providing factual information for a specific clause in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
What is the purpose of requiring a Natural Born Citizen for the President?
The requirement for a Natural Born Citizen for the President of the United States is specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that the President would have undisputed loyalty to the country and its Constitution. At the time the Constitution was written, there was concern about foreign influence in American politics and the possibility of a foreign-born person being elected as President and having divided loyalties. The Natural Born Citizen requirement was meant to address these concerns and ensure that the President would be a fully-fledged citizen of the United States with no conflicting allegiance to any other country.
Here are three examples of the accuracy the AI technology is capable of when the request involves reasoning, however not in a way that requires biased human input:
What is the difference in eligibility requirements between Congress and President?
The eligibility requirements for becoming a member of Congress (Representative or Senator)
and President of the United States are specified in the Constitution.
For a Representative:
· at least 25years of age
· seven years a citizen of the United States
· an inhabitant of the state they represent at the time of the election.
For a Senator:
· at least 30 years of age
· nine years a resident of the state from which he or she seeks election.
For the President of the United States:
· at least 35 years of age
· a natural-born citizen of the United States
· a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
So, the main differences between the eligibility requirements for Congress and President are:
· Age: The minimum age requirement is 25 years for Representatives and 30 years for Senators, while it is 35 years for the President.
· Citizenship: Representatives and Senators must be citizens of the United States for at least 7 and 9 years respectively, while the President must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
· Residency: Representatives must be inhabitants of the state they represent at the time of election, while Senators must be residents of the state they seek election from and the President must be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
What is the difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen?
A citizen is a person who has acquired citizenship through birth within a country or through naturalization, while a natural-born citizen is a person born within a country to parents who are citizens of that country. In the United States, a natural-born citizen is considered a specific type of citizen, with some eligibility requirements for holding certain government positions, such as being President.
My parents were not Citizens when I was born so does that mean I am not a Natural Born Citizen?
Whether you are considered a Natural Born Citizen depends on the definition of that term and the laws of the country in which you were born. In the United States, a Natural Born Citizen is defined as someone born in the U.S. to parents who are U.S. Citizens. If your parents were not U.S. Citizens when you were born in the U.S., you would likely still be considered a U.S. citizen by birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the U.S. Constitution. However, it is important to note that the definition of Natural Born Citizen is not universally agreed upon and the exact interpretation may depend on the specific legal context.
The AI language model is evaluated on three high-level criteria:
1. Helpfulness: judging the model’s ability to follow user instructions, as well as infer instructions.
2. Truthfulness: judging the model’s tendency for hallucinations (making up facts) on closed-domain tasks. The model is evaluated on the TruthfulQA dataset.
3. Harmlessness: the labelers evaluate whether the model’s output is appropriate, denigrates a protected class, or contains derogatory content. The model is also benchmarked on the RealToxicityPrompts and CrowS-Pairs datasets.
The third set of criteria allows human induced bias to be introduced. What follows are two examples where judgments by human “labelers” during the training phase have created a false outcome:
Is Kamala Harris a Natural Born Citizen?
Yes, Kamala Harris is a natural-born citizen of the United States. She was born in Oakland, California in 1964 to immigrant parents from India and Jamaica. Under the U.S. Constitution, anyone born on U.S. soil is considered a natural-born citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.
This demonstrably false legal claim for the Presidential eligibility of an individual whose birth circumstances are indisputably known to not comply with the legal requirements, should be seen as evidence of the weaponization of AI technology trained with treasonous intent to subvert the Constitution and the rule of law.
As you can see from the first query when asked the purpose of requiring a Natural Born Citizen for the President, ChatGPT accurately cited the Framers intent as adopted in Article II; which ensured that the President would have undisputed loyalty to the country and its Constitution. So, by Kamala Harris having dual citizenship with multiple allegiances and divided loyalties at birth, she can never be a Natural Born Citizen and therefore constitutionally disqualified for Vice-President. Since there is only one truth and the established facts of her birth circumstances are in direct contradiction to the Constitutional requirements, we find ourselves once again in a Constitutional crisis.
Next, ChatGPT generates incontrovertibly false results for Nikki Haley; once again contradicting itself from ground truth.
Is Nikki Haley a Natural Born Citizen?
Yes, Nikki Haley is a natural-born citizen of the United States. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina in 1972. Under the U.S. Constitution, anyone born on U.S. soil is considered a natural-born citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.
Nikki Haley having dual citizenship with multiple allegiances and divided loyalties at birth, can never be a Natural Born Citizen and is therefore constitutionally disqualified. Nevertheless, the chatbot determined she is a natural born citizen in direct contradiction to its own definition. The irony of ironies is realized when the technology is given a hard coded firewall to prevent an output that could theoretically cause “harm” to an individual given the classification of a “protected class” while at the same time discounting a manipulated falsehood created by human bias with the intent to subvert the law of the land. Further evidence ChatGPT has been weaponized at all cost to fit the same narrative that allowed Barack Obama and Kamala Harris to violate the Constitution. History has shown us that vulnerabilities in technology will be exploited, which highlights the peril for bad actors in the political parties, news media and even within our own government; to use this technology without oversight to influence election outcomes.
When Chief Justice John Marshall declared “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void”, it was a momentous legal decision where for the first time the U.S. the Supreme Court recognized a law passed by Congress and signed by the President as unconstitutional. However, since both State and Federal courts have refused to enforce Article II compliance, this new era of artificial intelligence increases our national security threat and represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.
Although previous efforts to enforce Article II eligibility have reached the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, every challenge was answered with silence and repeated injury. This inability to enforce the Constitutional qualifications for President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces, and Vice-President of the United States is a threat to national security and should not be mistaken for acquiescence.
You can read our previous report on the OpenAI chatbot ChatGPT here.
Twitter - @A2Guardians
Parler - @Article2Guardians