Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1516411
And unlike the United States of America – where the same old Presidential clone has to at least 'win an election' (actually two, if you also include the nomination bid) to get the job – our own single, soli- tary Commission President hopeful, simply gets hand- ed the appointment, on a silver platter… without any form of 'contest', whatsoev- er! Unless, of course, you include the fact that the Council of Ministers - in- cluding all European prime ministers - get to 'choose' the new Commissioner, in true Papal Conclave fashion (i.e., behind closed doors, and with no transparency whatsoever)… But this hardly counts, does it, when you also consider that – again, un- like the case with America (or even Malta) – there is no other opposing candi- date for them to actually 'choose' from, anyway... No, indeed. The EU's po- litical system, it seems, is based on a 'uni-partisan' system… even though the same EU is actually home to dozens – no, probably HUNDREDS – of differ- ent political parties: repre- senting literally the entire spectrum of political ideol- ogies (all the way from Far Left, to Far Right, and back again.) Sorry to repeat the same question I asked earlier, but… seriously? Are we to understand that a collective population of half-a-million Europeans – with all their indescribably multi-facet- ed interests, and concerns – is to be governed, for five years at a stretch (and un- opposed, too!) by just ONE (1) single, solitary individ- ual? And even then: repre- senting the interests of only ONE (1) of the myriad po- litical parties that Europe actually has to offer? 'C'est pas possible', I'm afraid… And sure, the identity of that one party may even change, from time to time (depending, it seems, on which of Europe's political groupings controls a major- ity in the European Parlia- ment)… … and yes, there may occasionally be some 'horse-trading', behind those closed doors (result- ing in occasional last-min- ute 'surprises', like Ursula von der Leyen in 2019)… But let's face it, folks: in practice, we all know that it is a system designed to produce the same old re- sult, every single time. The imposition of a single, ar- bitrarily-appointed, 'Su- preme Leader' for the en- tire European Union… and with it, the imposition of whatever 'values', or 'ideals' (translation: 'political ide- ology') that Supreme Lead- er unilaterally decides to foist on its 27 unsuspecting members (as a rule, without any warning whatsoever; and certainly, without any form of 'consultation', with the bloc's 500,000 inhabit- ants.) Now: I've left myself with far too little space, to ex- pand on why this is such a problematic – indeed, dan- gerous – state of affairs, for the EU to be in. Let's just say that the situation would be bad enough, even if the 'President of the European Commission' were a purely ceremonial, non-executive role… along the same lines as 'the President of the Mal- tese Republic', for instance. But… it isn't quite like that, is it? Oh, no. The current Commission Pres- ident, it seems, wields enough power to unilater- ally commit the entire EU bloc to always reflect her own, private opinions re- garding policy-direction, in any circumstance… … with the result that en- tire segments of Europe's citizenry are now mobilis- ing AGAINST Ursula von der Leyen's chosen path- ways, on several major is- sues. The war in Ukraine, for instance: some Eastern member states (especially Poland) are openly rebel- ling against her Ukrainian food-importation policies; others, disrupting her plans to finance the Ukraini- an war effort. Either way: her initial plan to wage 'economic war' on Russia appears to be backfiring, two years into the conflict. (Now, it looks more like a case of European econo- mies struggling, while Rus- sia remains unfazed…) When it comes to Israel, on the other hand - and even the Red Sea crisis, for that matter - European citizens are taking to the streets, to protest against the von der Leyen's uncon- scionable decision to in- volve the EU in what they describe as a 'genocide'. Not to mention, of course, the European farmer's re- volt: which resulted, inter alia, in the Commission President simply back- tracking on her entire 'Green Deal' agenda, from one moment to the next (making Robert Abela's many U-turns look some- what tame, by compari- son…). In other words: not only are Europe's 500 million citizens condemned to be ruled, for the next five years, by a single plenipo- tentiary 'Supreme Leader' (whose own supporters, no less, now describe as 'The Queen of Europe'…) … but on top of that, it turns out that she isn't even all that great at the job, to begin with! There is a word, you know, to describe precisely this sort of political system. I'll give you a hint: it starts with a 'D' (and no, it isn't 'Democracy'…) AT first glance, questioning the political leanings of ChatGPT might seem as absurd as asking about the voting intentions of one's toaster. Indeed, it's a sil- ly notion to attribute political preference to a household appli- ance. However, the question has a reply that gains a surprising degree of relevance and com- plexity when we delve deeper into the implications of large language models like ChatGPT. First and foremost, it's par- amount to remember that ChatGPT is just a tool without personal beliefs, aspirations, or political affiliations. It doesn't harbour sympathies towards po- litical candidates or parties, nor does it aspire to become a dele- gate for any political movement. In essence, ChatGPT is similar to a highly-sophisticated calcu- lator: you input a question, and it generates a response based on its programming and training. Yet, here lies a crucial differ- ence — unlike a traditional cal- culator, which will unwaveringly output '2' in response to '1 + 1', ChatGPT's responses can differ. This is because large language models are non-deterministic. Their outputs are unpredictable, so their validity cannot be guar- anteed in every instance. Fur- thermore, this raises an intrigu- ing question of whether such a model can exhibit political view- points? Whilst they definitely do not hold personal views as we do, their replies typically exhibit bi- ases. Remember that ChatGPT, like all AI models, is shaped by the data it was trained on. If its training data skews towards left-leaning texts, the model would exhibit a leftist bias, and vice versa. So much so that a study by the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology (MIT) suggests that ChatGPT tends to lean more towards Labourite ideologies, indicating a left-lean- ing bias in its training data. So, when asking ChatGPT for infor- mation, users should be mindful that the model will provide re- plies with some degree of bias. But bias isn't unique to this model and afflicts all the Large Language Models. This is inev- itable since they learn from vast amounts of data that inherently reflect societal biases. Because of this, AI biases can become truly problematic, as they can influ- ence real-world decisions and exacerbate societal inequalities. Let me give you an example. Picture yourself applying for your dream job, equipped with the right qualifications and en- thusiasm. However, an unseen barrier stands in your way - an AI recruitment system. A com- prehensive Reuters report has shed light on disturbing instanc- es where such systems, driven by biased historical hiring da- ta, have unfairly discriminat- ed against candidates based on gender, age, or ethnicity. These digital gatekeepers, supposedly neutral, instead enforce outdat- ed prejudices. They make critical decisions about who gets a foot in the door, often overlooking genuinely qualified individuals simply because they don't align with the system's skewed idea of an 'ideal candidate'. This is not just a faceless statistic; it's a re- ality for many. It could be you, a family member, or a close friend unjustly side-lined in their pro- fessional journey, not by a hu- man but by an algorithm. While it may seem absurd to attribute political leanings to an AI like ChatGPT, the underlying biases in these technologies have real and significant implications. As we continue integrating AI into various aspects of our lives, addressing and mitigating these biases becomes increasingly crucial. Failing to do so risks emphasising existing societal inequalities while undermining the principles of fairness and equality we strive to uphold in a democratic society. We must ac- tively seek to identify these bias- es within AI systems and strive relentlessly to mitigate them. It is only through such conscien- tious effort that we can edge closer towards creating a world that is more equitable and just. This opinion article f irst appeared in Business Today on 22 Februar y 2024 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 FEBRUARY 2024 OPINION 11 Alexiei Dingli is professor of Artificial Intelligence Is ChatGPT a Labourite or a Nationalist? Alexiei Dingli