After interrogating both ChatGPT and DeepSeek on the question of how to interpret US President Donald Trump’s clearly outrageous plan for solving the Gaza situation, in Part 1, I decided to test them on their ability to use the methods they suggest to move closer to a solution. ChatGPT surprised me with an interesting innovation.

I sent the following prompt:

“Is it possible to attribute a higher coefficient of credibility to one of the interpretations? Which is likely to have the highest and which the lowest?”

In this case, the two chatbots diverged fairly radically.

DeepSeek’s response:

“Attributing a higher coefficient of credibility to one of the interpretations depends on the available evidence, Trump’s historical behavior, and the broader geopolitical context. While no interpretation can be definitively proven without explicit confirmation from Trump or his administration, we can assess the relative plausibility of each based on the factors outlined earlier. Here’s an analysis of which interpretation is most credible, which is least credible, and why:

Most Credible Interpretation: Negotiation Strategy (including the ‘Madman Theory’ variant)

Reasons:

1. Trump’s Track Record:

• Trump has a history of using provocative rhetoric and extreme positions as a negotiating tactic. For example, his threats of ‘fire and fury’ against North Korea were widely interpreted as an attempt to pressure Kim Jong Un into negotiations.
• His unpredictability and willingness to make bold, controversial statements align with the ‘madman theory,’ where he projects an image of being irrational or extreme to intimidate adversaries.

2. Lack of Follow-Through:

• Many of Trump’s most extreme proposals (e.g., building a wall paid for by Mexico, withdrawing from NATO) have not materialized as initially stated. This suggests that his rhetoric often serves as a starting point for negotiations rather than a concrete plan.

3. Domestic and International Constraints:

• The logistical, legal, and political challenges of forcibly displacing Gaza’s population and rebuilding the territory make it highly unlikely that the proposal could be implemented. This further supports the idea that it is a negotiating tactic rather than a serious policy.

4. Target Audience:

• The proposal may be aimed at pressuring Israel, Hamas, or other regional actors to make concessions in future negotiations. By presenting an extreme position, Trump could be attempting to shift the Overton window and make other options seem more palatable.

 Middle Credibility Interpretation: Illegal Act/War Crime

 Reasons:

1. Legal and Ethical Concerns:

• The proposal, if implemented, would clearly violate international law, including the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. This makes it a plausible interpretation for critics who view Trump’s actions through a legal and humanitarian lens.

2. Humanitarian Implications:

• The displacement of over two million people in Gaza would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, which aligns with the concerns of human rights organizations and international bodies.

3. Historical Precedents:

• There are historical examples of forced displacements and ethnic cleansing in conflict zones, which provide a basis for interpreting Trump’s proposal in this light.

4. Limitations:

• While the proposal has the potential to be a war crime, its feasibility is highly questionable. The international community would likely impose severe consequences, making it unlikely that the U.S. or Israel would pursue such a plan.

Least Credible Interpretation: Imperial Hubris/Manifest Destiny

 Reasons:

1. Lack of Historical Parallels:

• While the U.S. has a history of expansionism and interventionism, the idea of forcibly taking over and rebuilding Gaza does not align with contemporary U.S. foreign policy or the realities of the modern international system.

2. Global Reaction:

• Such a move would face overwhelming opposition from the international community, including allies and adversaries alike. The U.S. would risk severe diplomatic, economic, and reputational consequences.

3. Trump’s ‘America First’ Ideology:

• Trump’s foreign policy has generally focused on reducing U.S. involvement in costly overseas ventures rather than expanding U.S. territorial control. The proposal seems inconsistent with this approach.

4. Feasibility:

• The logistical and military challenges of implementing such a plan make it highly implausible. The U.S. would need to commit significant resources and risk a prolonged conflict, which is unlikely given Trump’s aversion to ‘endless wars.’

Conclusion:

• Most Credible: The negotiation strategy interpretation, including the ‘madman theory’ variant, is the most plausible given Trump’s history of using extreme rhetoric as a bargaining tool and the unlikelihood of the proposal being implemented.
• Middle Credibility: The illegal act/war crime interpretation is credible from a legal and humanitarian perspective but is less likely to reflect Trump’s actual intentions due to the proposal’s impracticality.
• Least Credible: The imperial hubris/manifest destiny interpretation is the least plausible, as it does not align with contemporary U.S. foreign policy, global realities, or Trump’s stated priorities.

Ultimately, the negotiation strategy interpretation aligns most closely with Trump’s modus operandi and the practical constraints of the situation, making it the most credible of the three.”

ChatGPT’s response

ChatGPT revealed a different approach. It proposed two versions and asked me to choose the one I preferred.

“Version 1

Attributing a higher coefficient of credibility to one interpretation over another requires balancing Trump’s known behavior, historical precedents, practical feasibility, and geopolitical context. Here’s a breakdown of how each interpretation holds up:

1. Negotiating Strategy (High Credibility)

Interpretation: Trump doesn’t intend to follow through but is using the proposal to pressure Israel or other regional actors.

·         Why It’s Credible:

• Track Record of Bluster: Trump has repeatedly made outrageous statements as part of negotiation tactics (e.g., trade wars with China, threats towards NATO allies).
• Unpredictability as Leverage: Trump often employs brinkmanship, pushing extreme positions to later dial back in exchange for concessions.
• No Historical Precedent for Direct U.S. Control Over Gaza: The U.S. has traditionally avoided direct involvement in Gaza, preferring to work through Israel and international channels.

Caveat: This assumes a level of strategic calculation that some critics argue Trump doesn’t consistently demonstrate.

2. Projection of Madness (Moderate to High Credibility)

Interpretation: Trump wants to appear irrational and capable of extreme actions to intimidate adversaries.

·         Why It’s Credible:

• The ‘Madman Theory’: This aligns with a classic foreign policy tactic, famously used by Nixon, which Trump has been known to emulate.
• Pattern of Unpredictable Rhetoric: His erratic communication style often leaves both allies and enemies unsure of his true intentions, potentially creating leverage.
• Public Persona: Trump thrives on the image of being a disruptor, often blurring the line between genuine intention and performative shock value.

Caveat: While this approach can create short-term leverage, overuse diminishes credibility over time, and adversaries may begin to dismiss his threats as empty.

3. Imperial Hubris/Manifest Destiny (Moderate Credibility)

Interpretation: The proposal reflects a genuine belief in U.S. exceptionalism and a modern form of imperial ambition.

·         Why It’s Credible:

• Trump’s Nationalist Rhetoric: His ‘America First’ policy and references to ‘manifest destiny’ suggest an ideological foundation for such bold moves.
• Historical Parallels: U.S. interventions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan show a pattern of overconfidence in nation-building, though not to the extent of outright population ejection.

·         Why It’s Less Credible:

• Practical Impracticality: Even with imperial ambitions, the logistical, political, and military challenges of such an operation make it highly unlikely.
• Lack of Political Support: Neither domestic constituencies nor international allies are likely to back such an extreme measure.

4. Serious Intent to Execute the Plan (Low Credibility)

Interpretation: Trump genuinely intends to forcibly remove Gaza’s population and rebuild under U.S. control.

·         Why It’s Not Credible:

• Legal and Logistical Impossibility: The proposal would constitute a blatant war crime under international law and provoke global condemnation, including from key allies.
• Military Overstretch: The U.S. military is unlikely to engage in another large-scale occupation, especially one as complex as Gaza.
• Domestic Political Fallout: Even Trump’s most ardent supporters would likely balk at the costs and consequences of such an operation.

5. Intentional Provocation to Spark Violence (Low to Moderate Credibility)

Interpretation: The proposal is designed to provoke violence or chaos, perhaps to justify future actions or destabilize the region.

·         Why It’s Somewhat Credible:

• Disruption as a Tactic: Trump has shown a willingness to create chaos as a means of distracting from domestic issues or reshaping political narratives.
• Historical Parallels: Similar tactics have been used by leaders to provoke reactions that justify harsher crackdowns.

·         Why It’s Less Credible:

• Unpredictable Blowback: The risk of uncontrollable escalation would likely outweigh any perceived strategic benefit, especially given the volatility of the Middle East.

Conclusion:

• Highest Credibility:
  Negotiating Strategy and Projection of Madness are the most plausible interpretations. Both align with Trump’s historical behavior, the impracticality of the actual proposal, and the broader geopolitical context.
•  Moderate Credibility:
  Imperial Hubris holds some weight given Trump’s ideological leanings, but the real-world impracticality diminishes its likelihood.
• Lowest Credibility:
  Serious Intent to Execute the Plan and Provocation to Spark Violence are the least credible due to logistical, legal, and political constraints, though the latter holds some plausibility if viewed through the lens of chaos as a tool.

Ultimately, while Trump’s rhetoric often appears unhinged, it frequently serves a strategic or performative purpose rather than signaling actual policy intentions.

Version 2

Yes, it is possible to assign a higher ‘coefficient of credibility’ to some interpretations over others by weighing them against historical precedents, feasibility, and strategic incentives. Here’s a ranking from most to least credible based on the factors discussed:

1. Most Credible: A Shock Tactic or Negotiation Strategy

(Trump does not intend to follow through but is using it to shift control of Gaza or unsettle opponents.)

• High Credibility: Trump has a history of making extreme statements that serve as negotiating tools rather than actual policy commitments (e.g., threats to withdraw from NATO, extreme trade war rhetoric with China).
• Supporting Evidence: The practical and legal obstacles to a U.S. takeover of Gaza are immense, making it unlikely that such an operation is genuinely intended.
• Best Fit: This aligns with his historical use of unpredictability to keep adversaries off balance, forcing them into concessions.

2. Credible: The ‘Madman Theory’ Interpretation

(Trump is projecting the image of a leader willing to commit extreme acts to intimidate adversaries into compliance.)

•  Moderate to High Credibility: Trump has repeatedly cultivated an image of unpredictability (e.g., threatening North Korea with total destruction, suggesting he could nuke hurricanes).
• Limitations: This interpretation is largely a subset of the ‘shock tactic’ theory. While he might enjoy the perception of being unpredictable, his actual policy decisions have generally been restrained by institutional checks.

3. Somewhat Credible: An Imperial Hubris/’Manifest Destiny’ Plan

(Trump genuinely believes in a U.S. colonial-style takeover and resettlement of Gaza.)

• Moderate Credibility: Trump has expressed admiration for historical expansionist policies (e.g., talk of taking Iraq’s oil, considering buying Greenland), and his use of ‘manifest destiny’ rhetoric suggests some ideological affinity for grandiose territorial ambitions.
• Limitations: While Trump may flirt with these ideas rhetorically, the logistical and legal barriers, coupled with U.S. reluctance for nation-building post-Iraq, make this highly impractical.

4. Least Credible: A Genuine Plan to Ethnically Cleanse and Rebuild Gaza

(Trump intends to actually expel Gaza’s population and replace them with a new one.)

•  Low Credibility: While the idea would align with the most extreme forms of settler-colonial logic, it is almost inconceivable as a serious U.S. policy due to its sheer scale, international backlash, and military challenges.
• Supporting Evidence Against It: No serious policy precedent in modern U.S. history suggests the willingness to engage in mass ethnic cleansing on this scale, and even Trump’s most aggressive actions have stayed within the realm of political or economic coercion rather than outright forced removals.

Conclusion:

• Most likely interpretation: A shock tactic or negotiation strategy.
• Least likely interpretation: A genuine plan for mass expulsion and resettlement.

The proposal is best understood as a provocative statement meant to shift negotiations, unsettle adversaries, or reinforce Trump’s image as an unpredictable dealmaker rather than a literal policy plan.”

My provisional conclusion

I asked the chatbots to do what any human can do when confronted with observable facts and trends that, when analyzed, may combine to reveal the intentions of a human actor. In this case, it was an actor whose decisions and actions may have a dramatic effect on people’s lives or even the world’s destiny.

The amount of accumulated evidence we work with is, in the end, inconsequential. No chatbot and no human being other than Trump can claim to “understand” or even assess with accuracy the president’s intentions. Sigmund Freud would even claim that Trump himself is in the dark. Both AI chatbots made a valiant effort at clarifying the hypotheses. ChatGPT innovated by proposing a method that highlights the non-linear logic of such an exercise.

In the end, this could be seen as a demonstration of a simple fact that we need to recognize concerning the complexity of reality. Such analysis helps us to understand the stakes and the multiple facets of decision-making. It doesn’t, however, allow us to predict an outcome. Even more emphatically, it fails to provide us with an explanation of the intentions we are so desperately trying to perceive and understand.

What it does do, however, is open our horizons for teasing out the meaning of the events that eventually do play out. If, for example, one of the less probable outcomes according to the chatbots’ assessments turns out to be true, we will already be armed with important clues that will help clarify how it played out. At the very least, we will not be caught unawares.

Much of modern journalism and punditry now consists of asserting, with partial evidence, what certain leaders are thinking and intending. This has become comical with Trump himself, whose intentions and decisions are remarkably inconsistent and contradictory. But it has also become consistently tragi-comic when the object of assessment is Russian President Vladimir Putin in the context of a destructive war, with existential stakes on both sides.

I cannot begin to count the number of commentators who have claimed Putin is intent on reestablishing the Soviet Empire or even conquering Europe. I can, however, refer to one commentator, John Mearsheimer, who has repeatedly asserted, quite credibly, that there is “no evidence” for such claims either in Putin’s words or actions. Commentators may, of course, entertain suspicions and fears, which are legitimate to express, so long as one acknowledges that they are just that: suspicions and fears.

Sadly, and sometimes tragically, suspicions morph into suppositions and end up being published as news. Modern journalism spends less energy reporting observable facts and evoking a diversity of evidence than it does attributing “meaning” to it, particularly in the form of asserting supposed intentions. The real problem lies less in the pretension of understanding the unknowable than in the failure to recognize the nonlinear nature of the issues addressed.

But let’s end this episode on a positive note.

Moral of the story: If we use our own power to ask questions and AI’s power to provide a range of responses (rather than seeking the unique response we want to hear), we may be able to establish a better relationship with the non-linear reality that surrounds us.

I should mention that, concerning this particular issue, other variables, which I didn’t bother to mention, exist. For example, concerning the speculation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may or may not have been taken by surprise, we don’t know whether Trump had discussed it with him or not. That question can have a major impact on the credibility of any thesis. Because I didn’t mention it in my prompt, the chatbots didn’t include it in their reasoning.

This raises a fundamental question about what AI “knowledge” consists of. Presumably AI has access to information about that question, since some people have raised it. But the chatbots made no effort to add it to their purportedly non-linear reasoning. Completeness can never be absolute. But if we are hoping to achieve something we feel is relative completeness in the consideration of any issue or problem to solve, it’s likely that collaboration between human and artificial intelligence will be the only way of achieving that. We could ask AI to analyze every known fact and every known description before providing guidance and then reveal its chain of thought. But it is unlikely any human being could take in the result. It’s certain that a typical journalist cannot.

In Part 3, we will look at how ChatGPT talks about its own strategic orientations.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.