ChatGPT and the tradition of rhetorics in the public domain

Politics and policy will be deeply affected by AI systems such as ChatGPT. The civil servant who needs to write a note and the politician who needs to write the speech can use it, as well as discussion groups within political parties. Even citizens on the eve of elections can use it to discuss complex issues. To assess its relevance I take two lessons from the history of rhetoric. ChatGPT is a language model. In a beautiful style, it presents fluid, possibly unknown and even creative reasoning. But all things considered, it is not much more than a search system that talks nicely. The information it provides can be found on the internet, but the system presents it dizzyingly quickly and elegantly into a smooth whole. Since Socrates' battle against the Sophists we know that sweet talk is different from having something to say. Well-flowing sentences, clearly arranged paragraphs and error-free spelling might make a text more readable than that of the average student, but they are no guarantee for good and original thoughts. The criteria for the latter transcend elegant language. After Plato's rejection of rhetoric, Aristotle rehabilitated eloquence, and therein, too, lies a lesson for us. Aristotle started a long tradition of criteria with which good rhetoric had to comply, the most famous of which are 'logos', 'pathos’, and 'ethos'. The argumentation must be correct, the speaker must evoke the right emotions, and his person must inspire confidence. ChatGPT offers a range of considerations in reaction to any question: it contains an infinite number of 'logos'. In a public discussion, however, it is not only the argument that matters, but also who says it. There are people in authority, people who put problems on the agenda, people who release test balloons, and people who consciously provoke. The pathos and the ethos are inseparable from the argument. Modest but seductive ChatGPT unquestioningly places the arguments next to each other, and it is up to the reader to decide what is important. The system is honest about its inhuman communication; it explicitly indicates that it has no judgments or beliefs. Therefore it does not need "pathos" and "ethos". Because meanings and beliefs arise in dialogue between people, the chat partner is not a fully-fledged conversation partner. Its modesty does not alter the fact that the system has a strong temptation, which leads to a paradox. It's a useful tool, but only works well with people who don't shy away from real conversation. To use the system in such a way that it strengthens our thinking, we will have to practice our conversational skills independent from the system. The system works well if we can handle it well, but it should not undermine our ability to handle it well.