In my two previous columns, I enlisted the help of ChatGPT and DeepSeek to compare different interpretations of US President Donald Trump’s shocking plan for Gaza that would make the US the literal owner of Gaza. Once the arguments in favor or against the different hypotheses were made clear, it was time to judge their comparative levels of probability. I sent this 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?”

Before reproducing their full analyses, it’s interesting to note that they disagree on the order. Here, in summary, is DeepSeek’s list:

• Most Credible: Negotiation strategy 
• Middle Credibility: The illegal act/war crime 
• Least Credible: The imperial hubris/manifest destiny

Compare that with ChatGPT’s:

• Highest Credibility: Negotiating Strategy and Projection of Madness.
• Moderate Credibility: Imperial Hubris
• Lowest Credibility: Serious Intent to Execute the Plan and Provocation to Spark Violence.

DeepSeek’s analysis in full

“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 full analysis

ChatGPT’s response was truly surprising. Instead of giving a typical explanation it offered 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 concluding observations

The first thing to note here is that this kind of interrogation of chatbots can be illuminating for both journalists and historians to guide them in their attempt to account for specific events. It can help them focus on details they may have failed to notice.

The second thing is to consider why the two chatbots should differ so patently in their assessment of the probability of “imperial hubris” as a determining factor. The US chatbot gives more weight to the cultural concept of manifest destiny, which perhaps reflects the status of that concept in the way Americans think about their history. The Chinese chatbot diminishes its importance. Could that reflect the fact that the concept itself is foreign to Chinese political culture? Which raises another question: Are chatbots cultural beings?

There are many other points to consider when comparing the performance of the chatbots on a topic such as the motivation of decision-makers. But what becomes very clear is that, contrary to what many people seem to assume about AI, it does not have all the answers and by definition cannot have certain types of answers, notably concerning human reasoning.

As we learn to live with and dialogue with AI we need to keep these things in mind. At the same time, this exercise demonstrates how important it is to experiment with AI, to better understand what it is and how we think it thinks.

Next week, I intend to begin asking it to account for the way it thinks it thinks.

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.