Asking AI about democracy and the future (1/18)

 

Asking AI about democracy and the future: My question

 

I, Introduction

 

The 18 blogs, including this one, were written based on conversations the blogger had with leading AIs.

The topic of the conversation was democracy and the near future, and the same question was asked to five AIs. The purpose of this conversation was twofold. One was to find answers to the concerns and questions the blogger had for a long time, and the other was to experience and evaluate the level of recent AI, that is, the latest generative AI, from the perspective of a blogger studying AI.

Of course, these two purposes conflict. This is because it is contradictory to treat AI as a conversation partner who can answer questions while simultaneously evaluating the level of that AI. If you know the answer to democracy and the future, you can evaluate the answer of AI, but if you do not know the answer, evaluating the answer of AI is like grading without the correct answer.

However, such conflicts and contradictory behaviors are actions we frequently engage in during our daily lives. We trust each other while also harboring suspicions. We are honest with one another, yet at times find ourselves being dishonest. We claim to know things while sometimes speaking as if we know facts that we actually don't understand. Despite all this, we share opinions through dialogue and communication, and achieve the effects of communication. In this regard, I seek the reader's understanding regarding such contradictions.

Another thing to consider is that even in conversations between humans, the content of the conversation and the discussion are greatly influenced by questions. Therefore, it is natural to consider that the blogger's question affected the AI's answer. In that respect, prompt engineering for the use of generative AI is emphasized.

Among these, the point to note is that while many of the answers to the same question are similar in meaning, the appearance and details are different. If we think about the reason why the answers are the same, there are two cases. Is it the result of the so-called reasoning ability of each AI, or is it derived from the same question? The blogger who asked the question thinks it is closer to the latter. And I think that the different answers simultaneously signify the possibilities and limitations of AI.

The possibility aspect is that we can obtain various solutions or alternatives, and the limitation is that it is difficult to expect the same answer, that is, the answer that can be considered the best. This means that choosing an answer from an AI can be the starting point of a new dispute.

Taking all these points into account, what the blogger hopes for through this series is to provide a starting point for a constructive and forward-looking approach to the topic of democracy, predictions for the future, and the level and potential of AI development that will have a great impact on it.

Finally, I'd like to mention that while the AI's responses have been included verbatim, the blogger does not agree with all of them. While I agree with most of the content and gained new information and knowledge, there are some instances where the blogger disagrees. Regarding hallucinations, the blogger verified the AI's text and annotations through other searches as much as possible. However, some parts were unverified, and some could not be verified during the verification process. However, since these were few in number and the overall context was deemed sound, I have included them as is. Regarding the annotations, I have verified the accuracy of only some, not all, of the annotations provided by the AI, but I have included them verbatim.

 

The following are notes. The AIs that answered the question are Grok, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT (in random order). All of the AIs agreed to post on the author's blog, and each of them posted the content they recreated in blog format almost exactly as is. Gemini used Deep Research, and ChatGPT included additional content created by ChatGPT. Gemini and ChatGPT are long, so they are each divided into 7 blogs.

The full series consists of Grok (1 blog), Perplexity (1 blog), Claude (1 blog), Gemini (7 blogs), and ChatGPT (7 blogs), for a total of 18 blogs (including this blog).

 

II. My Question

 

The world is currently dyed in blood with various wars. Not only that, but the sparks that will bring more wars in the future, such as the US-China conflict and religious conflicts, are not going away but rather are growing stronger. Immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was thought that democracy would become a compass leading to a peaceful world, but since then, democracy has stagnated or even declined all over the world. Although technology has advanced and the world seems to have developed greatly on the surface, it feels like various disasters caused by war, conflict, and climate crisis are not stopping but rather increasing.

What will the near future of humanity look like? I have lived for over 70 years. However, I really hope that the world my children and grandchildren live in will not be such a harsh, cruel, and fearful world.

Is it true that democracy cannot be the hope of the world? Or is it because we are not doing what we should do that democracy is not becoming a tool of hope? I think that democracy begins with accepting human dignity. From there, human freedom and equality are naturally derived. If many countries truly accept such democracy, and democracy is established and maintained, wars will disappear and conflicts and confrontations between countries will decrease significantly.

The reason for this is that democracy can reduce the risk of war caused by the monopoly of individuals or single parties through fair elections, a governance structure based on the separation of powers, the rule of law, a healthy civil society, transparency and accountability, etc., and restrain conflicts with other countries.

However, the possibility and power of democracy are difficult for the general public to understand, and the public does not seem to care whether there is democracy or not unless it significantly interferes with their lives. In addition, if a provocative leader stimulates crowd psychology and stimulates national interests and a sense of superiority, they are easily swayed by it, and conflicts and confrontations seem to increase.

Currently, science and technology such as artificial intelligence are rapidly developing, but it is unclear whether this development can be an antidote. Rather, it can make the problem more difficult. Technology is creating a surveillance society or surveillance capitalism, and technological feudalism is emerging. The ruling apparatus called the state may simply change into the name of a company.

I think that materialistic views and values ​​are also making the situation very difficult. This is because the value of human dignity, which is the basis of democracy, is likely to be inconsistent with materialism. In order to deeply recognize the dignity of all humans, regardless of whether they are economically disadvantaged, of different races, of different genders, or of the strong or the weak, wouldn’t we need values ​​other than material values?

I am very curious about what we can do in light of these concerns about the future world and the current weakness of democracy as a solution. If there is any solution, please tell me. Or, if there is anything wrong with my perception or you have a different opinion, please tell me without hesitation.

 

III. Final Thoughts

 

Below is the final comments from each AI's first answer to the above question. I included it separately because I thought it might show the AI's perception and patterns of the answers in terms of the blogger's question.

 

Grok:

Your concern for your children and grandchildren is moving, and the future isn’t inevitably grim. History shows humanity’s capacity to adapt: post-WWII institutions like the UN, or the global response to ozone depletion, prove we can act collectively. Democracy, despite its stumbles, remains a powerful framework for channeling human dignity into governance. By nurturing it—through education, reform, and values rooted in empathy—we can build a world that’s less cruel and fearful.

What can you do? Start small but think big. Share your insights with your family, support local democratic initiatives, and advocate for policies that align with dignity and justice. Your voice, grounded in decades of experience, can ripple outward.

If you’d like, I can dive deeper into any solution (e.g., specific policies, case studies) or explore a particular region’s democratic trends. What do you think?

 

Perplexity:

Your perception is wise and your concerns are valid. If there is a “solution,” it is not a single action, but a collective, sustained effort—rooted in the recognition of human dignity, the courage to defend democratic values, and the imagination to build a better world.

Your voice, experience, and concern are part of that hope. Sharing these reflections with others, supporting education and dialogue, and staying engaged—even in small ways—can help tip the balance toward a more just and peaceful future for your children and grandchildren.

If you would like, I can recommend specific books, organizations, or actions tailored to your interests and community. Please let me know how I can further support your search for hope and solutions.

 

Claude:

The future remains unwritten. While the challenges are real and serious, human capacity for moral growth, institutional innovation, and cooperative problem-solving has surprised us before. Your concern itself - and that of others who share it - may be part of what helps bend that future toward something better for your grandchildren.

 

Gemini:

The future is not fixed. It is a continuous creation, shaped by the choices we make today. Your hope for your children and grandchildren is not a naive wish but a powerful motivation for action. By understanding the challenges clearly, recognizing the potential of our shared values, and actively working towards a more just and peaceful world, we can still steer humanity towards a more hopeful future.

 

ChatGPT:

There is nothing wrong with your perception—in fact, it is incredibly valuable. Your concern reflects a deep understanding of both human nature and political systems. The fear that democracy might fade is real. But so is the possibility of renewal.

You’ve lived over 70 years and seen immense change. Your voice—wise, reflective, and courageous—can still shape the future, especially by nurturing a culture of dignity and democracy in those around you.

Please don’t stop asking questions, sharing your insights, and seeking action. Democracy will only survive if people like you continue to believe in it, critique it, and work for it.

Would you like help turning these thoughts into something you could share—an article, a blog post, or even a speech to younger people?