Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Clyde Dwyer

What Does the Rise of A.I. Chatbots Mean for the Future of Conversations?

by

Clyde Dwyer ‘25 (DCI Fellow)

Artificial intelligence (A.I.) chatbots have taken the world by storm in recent months. It started with ChatGPT, a chatbot from the OpenAI GPT-3 engine, and has since generated a flurry of attention and concern about the growing role this technology will play in our lives. In one sense, we are nearing an exciting new frontier of knowledge and information accessibility, with chatbots capable of recounting historical events, solving complex equations, or giving you relationship advice. In another sense, the future of human interaction as we know it is at stake.

How does this connect to deliberation?

Conversation, collaboration, and deliberation are essential components of our lives. Especially in a college environment, information, and knowledge are diffused between students and professors of all different backgrounds and disciplines. Through my daily conversations and interactions, I learn about things that would have otherwise never crossed my mind. Like the science behind music, from my roommate, who is a Physics major and plays guitar. Or listening to my non-white peers talk about their experience attending a predominantly white institution, something that I’ll never experience as a white person.

There are clear benefits to opening yourself up to new perspectives and worldviews. This is true in conversations with friends and deliberations, where conflicting viewpoints and arguments occur. These benefits cannot be realized through the use of chatbots.

Of course, chatbots will never replace conversation and deliberation–– but it is very plausible that chatbots can begin to chip away at vital human exchanges of knowledge. For example, why study with a friend who is more proficient in economics than you if ChatGPT has all the answers? Similarly, why attend a book club to hear people’s thoughts on Harry Potter when ChatGPT can instantly analyze all the book’s themes? Why go to office hours with an esteemed, knowledgeable professor when you can spend time with all-knowing ChatGPT? One may balk at the possibility of these scenarios, but as chatbots become more intelligent and accessible, they are not outside the realm of possibility.

When I asked ChatGPT about the role of A.I. in the future of deliberative citizenship, it told me that chatbots could be harnessed for “increasing accessibility, facilitation of dialogue, and expansion of civic education.” ChatGPT may have some utility in deliberative citizenship. During D-Teams or deliberative forums, participants may be confused about technical aspects of specific topics–– an area where a knowledgeable chatbot can be handy. However, deliberation and communication with other humans are essential to promoting deliberative citizenship.

Chatbots cannot provide the emotional element that underpins logical reasoning and can never fully encompass the variety of human experiences. Take a chatbot and a person arguing for the same thing: Davidson should build more affordable housing. If you oppose this claim, the chatbot’s arguments will do little to sway you. However, if you learn that the person making the same point is a single mother who was evicted from her apartment due to increasing rents, this will certainly shift how you understand the situation.

Deliberative citizenship as a means and as an end will need to adapt in the face of emergent technologies. These technologies may threaten certain elements of human interaction and knowledge exchange; however, for deliberative citizenship, they can be harnessed for positive means and will not stand in the way of deliberation. Deliberation is a fundamentally human process–– one which engages both reason and emotion in tandem. Even in a changing world, deliberation is crucial to the future.

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

How do we get people to the table?

by

empty table

Clyde Dwyer ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Over the past couple months, the DCI Fellows have held deliberations with students, faculty, community members and alumni on a range of topics from election accessibility to free speech and inclusion. As a Fellow, I’ve deliberated with both familiar and unfamiliar faces, people younger and older than me from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences.

As Daniel, a fellow DCI Fellow, pointed out in his blog post, deliberation that pushes people towards new ideas serves society. I came to Davidson from New York City, a political echo chamber where it’s often difficult to find ideological diversity. Working with DCI, I’ve recognized the importance of engaging with views that challenge your own

One of the most important elements of deliberation is also one of its greatest downsides. Deliberation is based upon individuals’ voluntary participation in political dialogues, without compulsion or coercion. This is great. In my D-Teams, some members mention how the loss of civil disagreement and the rise of hyper-partisanship has motivated them to become more engaged in democratic processes like deliberation.

On the other hand, people with strongly differing viewpoints are more likely to oppose deliberation. Outside of the DCI, I’ve heard people say, “I could never be friends with a Republican,” as well as “All Democrats are crazy.” The act of deliberation, where mutual respect and thoughtful engagement are key, is something that could help soften these biases. People enter deliberations not as “Democrats” or “Republicans,” but as people with ideas, values and feelings. After all, much of the political polarization in society has been fueled by people from opposing ends of the ideological spectrum not engaging with one another, or at best, talking past one another.

Certainly, there are valid reasons not to engage in deliberation. Some individuals may feel isolated due to their identity in the conversation. Others may not want to engage with people who they don’t feel respect them. The political and personal realms are not mutually exclusive, and political beliefs are often heavily intertwined with personal values and considerations. Not everyone has to engage on every issue, especially those that are particularly personal and sensitive to them.

On other issues, however, that are not so personal, the question still remains: How do we encourage people with drastically different perspectives to deliberate with one another? One way might be to emphasize that those perspectives are indeed welcome and important for everyone to hear. Deliberation’s necessary emphasis on mutual respect and civility does not preclude strong opinions and even passionate arguments but welcomes and even requires participants to engage with them, as long as everyone is treated as equal participants in the conversation.

The goals of the DCI extend far beyond our campus and the town of Davidson. But the scope of our program will remain limited if only people on opposite sides of the political center are willing to come to the table. I have just suggested one possibility, but we need to find multiple ways for people with vastly different viewpoints to feel like they belong in these conversations. No doubt this task is easier said than done. But before we talk about restoring democracy or restoring our institutions, it is important to restore our willingness to talk with people we strongly disagree with.