Dvarim: Conversing with a chatbot by Joe Nalven (July 22, 2023)

Posted on Monday, July 24, 2023 Posted By: Ilene TatroCategories: Minyan D'Var Torah

Dvarim: Conversing with a chatbot by Joe Nalven (July 22, 2023)

This drash on Deuteronomy 1-3 is composed by my questions and answers from two AI chatbots (Bard and ChatGPT). Chatbots, or Large Language Models (LLM), will continue to improve in the many ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) has already embedded itself in our visual, robotic, text and spoken language environments. Here, in this drash, I will explore how we can engage in Torah study with chatbots. In the near future, this engagement with AI LLMs will likely avoid problems of hallucination (fake citations), but probably not those of programmer biases.

Please note that the chatbot’s responses used in this discussion are exact textual quotes. I emphasize this inasmuch as the explanations provided by the chatbot are cogent and well-written. The responses are at a general level of analysis; if viewed from the viewpoint of a college term paper, the chatbot responses can best be understood as topic sentences. The AI summary approach may miss historical revisions and alternative interpretations. Even the chatbots warn the reader: [Bard]: “However, it is possible that my algorithm could be biased in certain ways, such as by being more likely to generate responses that are consistent with my own beliefs or values. I am always working to improve my algorithm and to make it more fair and unbiased.”

Note also that the AI responses were generated within seconds of the author’s prompts.

Reflection 1

Many would regard the chatbot answers as throwaways ─ as something to be used for an essay, a preliminary mapping of an answer, perhaps even as the framing of a sermon, but not as the end product to be credited to the chatbot. But if we are to look back in time, from the perspective of the history of ideas, it would be useful to have a chatbot’s summary of human information at a point in time even if the chatbot’s response is not original, at least not yet.

With this in mind, I see these responses as a test of how my thinking about historical conquests and invasions in different civilizations, especially in the context of the religious history set out in the Torah, aligns with a LLM analysis. Some might see this as a weird comparison, but as AI technology unfolds and becomes AGI (artificial general intelligence), it would be useful to have an in situ example at the present versus a time when we would have forgotten what it was like and when AI bots become superintelligent, perhaps with AI goals included in the programming beyond the making of the dreaded paper clip problem.

Reflection 2

While the content of the chatbot replies is competent for the questions I posed ─ primarily to compare the Children of Israelite’s invasion of the Promised Land at the behest of divine authority compared that to other historical invasions ─ the actual process of asking the bot and getting a reply merits further analysis.

Both Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s ChatGPT recognize that the Children of Israel’s incursion into the Promised Land is part of a religious text while those of other civilizations (such as the Mongol invasion of Eurasia or the Visigoth conquest of Rome) are framed differently: (Bard) “The Mongols were motivated by a desire for conquest and power, while the Visigoths were fleeing from the Huns.” (ChatGPT) “In comparison, the Mongol invasion led by Genghis Khan and the Visigoth invasion of Rome were historical events that involved the military conquest of territories.”

What I was interested in was whether and how an AI chatbot could arrive at a more reductionist level of analysis. That is, are such land invasions and conquests really that different? Do they simply reflect a condition of humanity? As one peruses the question-and-answer process between myself and the chatbot, one can see the clarifications needed (for example, the size of territory involved and the length of time the conquest lasted) in order to arrive at the more general comparison (that is, all such conquests are part of the human condition). That process is instructive and a way to cross-check one’s thinking about civilizational comparisons short of having familiarity with these histories.

The question-and-answer process suggests a collaborative approach to learning and, in this case, to writing a drash. Instead of having a robot, one has a cobot (collaborative robot). I was able to probe moral concerns even in the context of a religiously justifiable conquest. Bard raised the issues of genocide, war crimes, injustice and religious intolerance:

The moral concerns raised by the Israelites conquering other tribes are significant. They raise questions about the nature of God, the morality of war, and the relationship between religion and violence. These are complex issues that have been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries.

ChatGPT posed the concerns somewhat differently: justification for violence, divine command and morality, treatment of innocent civilians, cultural and religious assimilation, ethical implications of territorial acquisition:

It’s important to recognize that these moral concerns are not universally agreed upon, and interpretations may vary based on religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives. Understanding the historical and cultural context, as well as engaging in critical discussions and debates, can contribute to a deeper exploration of the moral dimensions surrounding the Israelites’ conquest of other tribes.

Thus, to check one’s own understanding, using more than one chatbot can be helpful. Also worth noting, both chatbots offer an opening for further discussion rather than tying off the analysis as complete.

Finally, within the relatively short Q&A period, one can jump ahead to the modern period. We often ask how do our modern eyes look back differently on these ancient narratives. The chatbots simply looked back in time and identified modern concerns. Such an unreflected analysis might lose sight of our presentism.

I asked both chatbots about concerns of the 20^th and 21^st century.

Bard mentioned the use of modern weapons, the impact on the environment and the role of the international community and offered the following cautionary note:

The moral concerns raised by a modern 20th and 21st century perspective are significant. They raise questions about the nature of war, the morality of violence, and the role of the international community. These are complex issues that have been debated by policymakers and scholars for decades.

ChatGPT proved to be more expansive on how we might look back on history:

These additional moral concerns reflect the evolving ethical frameworks and sensibilities of the 20th and 21st centuries, emphasizing human rights, cultural diversity, post-colonial critique, global responsibilities, and the pursuit of reconciliation. They provide further dimensions to consider when assessing the moral implications of historical conquests.

ChatGPT identified human rights and dignity, cultural relativism and respect for diversity, adding a post-colonial critique, global ethical responsibilities, and reconciliation and historical memory.

We need not follow the chatbot analyses, but these chatbots can serve as our interlocutors in delving into challenging topics raised in the Torah, in other religious texts as well as all of human history.

Notes

Q&A with the Bard chatbot

JN: As history, how is Deuteronomy 1:7-8 different or the same as Genghis Khan and Mongol invasion or Visigoth invasion of Rome?

Bard: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a passage from the Bible that describes the Israelites’ journey to the Promised Land. It is a story of conquest and expansion, as the Israelites drive out the Canaanites and take possession of their land. The Mongol invasion of the 13th century and the Visigoth invasion of Rome in the 5th century are both examples of military conquest, but they differ from Deuteronomy 1:7-8 in several important ways.

First, Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a religious text, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were secular events. The Israelites’ conquest of Canaan was seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, and it was justified by the need to drive out the pagan Canaanites. The Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion, on the other hand, were not motivated by religious beliefs. The Mongols were motivated by a desire for conquest and power, while the Visigoths were fleeing from the Huns.

Second, Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a story of conquest over a relatively small area, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were much larger in scale. The Israelites conquered the land of Canaan, which was a relatively small area in the Middle East. The Mongol invasion, on the other hand, swept across Asia, from China to Europe. The Visigoth invasion of Rome was also a major event, as the Visigoths sacked the city of Rome and brought an end to the Western Roman Empire.

Third, Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a story of conquest that is ultimately successful, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were both ultimately unsuccessful. The Israelites eventually conquered Canaan and established a kingdom there. The Mongol invasion, on the other hand, was eventually stopped by the Chinese. The Visigoth invasion of Rome was also ultimately unsuccessful, as the Visigoths were eventually defeated by the Romans.

In conclusion, Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a story of conquest that is different from the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion in several important ways. Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a religious text, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were secular events. Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a story of conquest over a relatively small area, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were much larger in scale. Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a story of conquest that is ultimately successful, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were both ultimately unsuccessful.

JN: I agree with those observations. Please reconsider, from the perspective of human history, without divine justifications and as part of expansion of territory, whether large or small, and whether ultimately successful or not.

Bard: Sure, I can do that. From the perspective of human history without divine justifications, Deuteronomy 1:7-8 can be seen as part of a larger pattern of expansion and conquest. Throughout history, humans have sought to expand their territory and power, and this has often led to conflict and violence. The Israelites’ conquest of Canaan was just one example of this pattern.

The Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were also examples of this pattern. The Mongols were a nomadic people who lived in Central Asia. In the 13th century, they began a series of conquests that would eventually bring them to the gates of Europe. The Visigoths were a Germanic people who lived in Spain. In the 5th century, they invaded the Western Roman Empire and eventually sacked the city of Rome.

All of these events can be seen as part of a larger pattern of human expansion and conquest. This pattern has been driven by a variety of factors, including a desire for land, resources, and power. It has also been justified by a variety of beliefs, including religious beliefs, political beliefs, and economic beliefs.

The consequences of this pattern of expansion and conquest have been varied. In some cases, it has led to the creation of new empires and civilizations. In other cases, it has led to the destruction of existing societies. It has also led to the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of countless others.

The pattern of expansion and conquest is still a part of human history today. We see it in the conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. It is a pattern that is likely to continue for many years to come.

JN: Consider your two responses to the history of human expansion. Why did you offer the first answer as the initial response and only revised that with my additional parameters? Is there a bias in your response algorithm?

Bard: I offered the first answer as the initial response because it was the most comprehensive and informative response that I could generate given the information that I had at the time. I revised my response after you provided me with additional parameters because those parameters helped me to better understand what you were looking for.

I do not believe that there is a bias in my response algorithm. My algorithm is designed to generate responses that are comprehensive and informative, regardless of the topic or the parameters that are provided. However, it is possible that my algorithm could be biased in certain ways, such as by being more likely to generate responses that are consistent with my own beliefs or values. I am always working to improve my algorithm and to make it more fair and unbiased.

I believe that it is important to be aware of the potential for bias in any system, including artificial intelligence systems. I am committed to working to ensure that my algorithm is as fair and unbiased as possible.

JN: Would you be willing ─ in future queries and along these lines ─ to offer your response with the second set of parameters as the initial response? Why or why not?

Bard: Yes, I would be willing to offer my response with the second set of parameters as the initial response in future queries along these lines. I believe that this would be a more accurate and informative response, as it would take into account the specific parameters that you have provided.

I am always working to improve my ability to understand and respond to complex queries. I believe that offering my response with the second set of parameters as the initial response would be a step in the right direction.

Of course, I would still be open to feedback from you and other users. If you have any suggestions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am always looking for ways to improve my service.”

Note: Upon further reflection, I decided to ask follow up questions.

JN: What are the moral concerns of the Israelites conquering other tribes?

Bard: There are a number of moral concerns that arise from the Israelites conquering other tribes. These concerns include:

Genocide: The Israelites are commanded to utterly destroy the Canaanites, including men, women, children, and even livestock. This is a clear case of genocide, which is a crime against humanity.
War crimes: The Israelites are also commanded to commit a number of war crimes, such as killing non-combatants, taking women and children as slaves, and plundering property. These acts are in violation of international law.
Injustice: The Israelites are given the land of Canaan as a gift from God, but they are not allowed to share it with the Canaanites. This is an act of injustice, as it denies the Canaanites their right to land and self-determination.
Religious intolerance: The Israelites are commanded to destroy all the pagan idols and shrines in Canaan. This is an act of religious intolerance, as it forces the Canaanites to abandon their faith.

It is important to note that there are a number of different interpretations of the biblical text. Some scholars argue that the Israelites did not actually commit genocide or war crimes, while others argue that they did. There is also debate about the nature of God and the morality of war.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how to interpret the biblical text and how to respond to the moral concerns it raises.

JN: Are the moral concerns above any different for Genghis Khan and Mongol invasion or Visigoth invasion of Rome? And if so, how?

Bard: The moral concerns raised by the Israelites conquering other tribes are similar to those raised by the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion. All three invasions involved the use of violence and force to conquer new territory. All three invasions also resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

However, there are some important differences between the three invasions. The Israelites were motivated by religious faith, while the Mongols and Visigoths were motivated by political and economic gain. The Israelites also claimed to be acting on God’s orders, while the Mongols and Visigoths did not.

Ultimately, the moral concerns raised by all three invasions are the same. They raise questions about the nature of war, the morality of violence, and the relationship between religion and violence. These are complex issues that have been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries.

Here is a table that summarizes the similarities and differences between the three invasions:

Characteristic	Israelites	Mongols	Visigoths
Motivation	Religious faith	Political and economic gain	Political and economic gain
Authority	God	Genghis Khan	Visigothic kings
Methods	Violence and force	Violence and force	Violence and force
Results	Deaths of many innocent people	Deaths of many innocent people	Deaths of many innocent people
Moral concerns	Similar	Similar	Similar

It is important to note that there are a number of different interpretations of the biblical text, the motivations of the Mongols and Visigoths, and the moral concerns raised by these invasions. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how to interpret these events and how to respond to the moral concerns they raise.

JN: From a modern 20th and 21st century perspective, are there any additional moral concerns than those noted in previous replies?

Bard: Yes, there are a number of additional moral concerns that arise from a modern 20th and 21st century perspective. These concerns include:

The use of modern weapons: The Israelites, Mongols, and Visigoths all used weapons that were available to them at the time. However, modern weapons are much more destructive than those that were available in the past. This means that the use of modern weapons in conquest can result in even greater loss of life and destruction.
The impact on the environment: The Israelites, Mongols, and Visigoths all had an impact on the environment, but the impact of modern conquest can be much greater. This is because modern warfare often involves the use of large amounts of explosives, which can pollute the environment and cause lasting damage.
The role of the international community: In the past, conquest was often a matter of one nation or group of people conquering another. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the international community has a greater role to play in preventing and resolving conflicts. This is because the international community has a responsibility to protect human rights and prevent the use of force.

It is important to note that there are a number of different perspectives on these issues. Some people believe that war is never justified, while others believe that it is sometimes necessary to use force to protect human rights or national security. There is also debate about the role of the international community in preventing and resolving conflicts.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how to view these issues and how to respond to the moral concerns they raise.

● ●

Q&A with the ChatGPT chatbot

Note: The questions asked of ChatGPT are the same as were asked above for the Bard chatbot.

JN: As history, how is Deuteronomy 1:7-8 different or the same as Genghis Khan and Mongol invasion or Visigoth invasion of Rome?

ChatGPT: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 is a passage from the Hebrew Bible, specifically from the book of Deuteronomy, which is attributed to Moses. It reads:

“Turn and take your journey, and go to the hill country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors in the Arabah, in the hill country and in the lowland and in the Negeb and by the seacoast, the land of the Canaanites, and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates. See, I have set the land before you. Go in and take possession of the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their offspring after them.”

This passage is part of Moses’ address to the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land. It emphasizes God’s promise to give them the land of Canaan, which was inhabited by various nations at the time.

In comparison, the Mongol invasion led by Genghis Khan and the Visigoth invasion of Rome were historical events that involved the military conquest of territories. Let’s briefly explore the differences and similarities:

Motivation: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 presents a religious and divine mandate for the Israelites to take possession of the land of Canaan. It was seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to their ancestors. On the other hand, the Mongol and Visigoth invasions were driven by different motives such as expansion of territory, resources, and power.
Participants: The events described in Deuteronomy involve the Israelites, a specific ethnic and religious group. In contrast, the Mongol invasion was led by Genghis Khan and involved various Mongol tribes, while the Visigoth invasion of Rome was carried out by the Visigoths, a Germanic tribe.
Geographical scope: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 focuses on the land of Canaan, a specific region in the ancient Near East. The Mongol invasion, spearheaded by Genghis Khan, was a massive campaign that expanded across vast parts of Asia and Europe, reaching as far as Eastern Europe. The Visigoth invasion primarily targeted the Western Roman Empire.
Cultural impact: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 holds religious significance for Judaism and has influenced Jewish history and identity. The Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion had significant geopolitical and cultural consequences, with the Mongols establishing one of the largest empires in history and the Visigoths contributing to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

While there are differences between Deuteronomy 1:7-8 and the Mongol and Visigoth invasions, it’s important to note that the events described in the Bible hold religious and spiritual significance, whereas the historical invasions were driven by political and military factors.

Chat GPT: Certainly, from a purely historical perspective without considering divine justifications, we can analyze Deuteronomy 1:7-8, the Mongol invasion, and the Visigoth invasion as part of the expansion of territory by different groups. Here’s a revised perspective:

Motivation for expansion: In the case of Deuteronomy 1:7-8, without the divine justification, the Israelites’ motivation for taking possession of the land of Canaan could be seen as a desire for territorial expansion and securing resources. Similarly, the Mongol invasion led by Genghis Khan was motivated by the pursuit of power, wealth, and the desire to establish a vast empire. The Visigoth invasion of Rome can also be understood as an attempt to secure territory and resources, as well as to find a new homeland after their migration.
Participants and groups involved: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 involves the Israelites, a distinct ethnic and religious group seeking territorial control. The Mongol invasion involved various Mongol tribes under the leadership of Genghis Khan, while the Visigoth invasion consisted of the Visigoths, a Germanic tribe seeking new territories.
Geographical scope: Deuteronomy 1:7-8 primarily focuses on the land of Canaan, which is a relatively specific region. The Mongol invasion, however, expanded over a vast geographical area, including parts of Asia and Europe, with the Mongols establishing the largest contiguous empire in history. The Visigoth invasion targeted the Western Roman Empire, specifically the territories of Gaul and Hispania.
Consequences and outcomes: The expansions described in these events had varied outcomes. The Israelites’ conquest of Canaan resulted in the establishment of ancient Israel and its subsequent historical developments. The Mongol invasion led to the creation of the Mongol Empire, which had profound effects on the territories it conquered, including political, economic, and cultural changes. The Visigoth invasion of Rome contributed to the decline of the Western Roman Empire, leading to significant political and social transformations in Europe.

In summary, when considering these events from a purely historical perspective without divine justifications, they can be understood as examples of human groups seeking territorial expansion, resources, and power. The motivations, participants, geographical scope, and consequences of these expansions differ, but they all reflect common historical patterns of conquest and the reshaping of political and cultural landscapes.

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have personal biases or preferences. My responses are generated based on patterns and information from the training data I have been provided. However, it’s possible that the initial response might have focused on the religious and divine justifications of Deuteronomy 1:7-8 because those aspects are prominent in the text itself and often discussed in related contexts.

When you requested a revised perspective without divine justifications, I provided an alternative analysis that focused on historical motivations for territorial expansion. The revised response aimed to address your specific request and consider the events from a secular historical standpoint.

It’s important to note that while I strive to provide unbiased and objective information, my responses are ultimately influenced by the data I have been trained on. It’s always recommended to seek multiple sources and perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of historical events.

JN: Would you be willing in future queries along these lines to offer your response with the second set of parameters as the initial response? Why or why not?

ChatGPT: Certainly! I’m here to assist you and provide information based on your specific parameters and preferences. If you would like a response that aligns with a secular historical perspective, without divine justifications, you can let me know in your future queries, and I will make sure to prioritize that perspective in my initial response.

I’m designed to be adaptable and flexible in tailoring my responses to suit your needs. So, please feel free to provide any specific instructions or parameters you would like me to consider, and I’ll do my best to generate a response accordingly.

Note: Upon further reflection, I decided to ask follow up questions.

JN: What are the moral concerns of the Israelites conquering other tribes?

ChatGPT: The moral concerns surrounding the Israelites’ conquest of other tribes in the context of the Hebrew Bible are a topic of ethical and scholarly debate. It’s important to note that the perspectives and interpretations of these events can vary among different individuals and religious traditions. Here are some common moral concerns that arise in discussions regarding the Israelite conquest:

Justification for violence: The conquest of Canaan involved military campaigns and battles, which resulted in the displacement, subjugation, or destruction of various tribes. One moral concern is the question of whether the use of violence and warfare can be ethically justified, especially when it involves taking the lives or displacing others.
Divine command and morality: In the biblical narrative, the Israelites believed that God commanded them to conquer the land of Canaan. This raises questions about the moral implications of a divine mandate to engage in warfare, and the extent to which religious justifications can override ethical considerations.
Treatment of innocent civilians: Another concern is the treatment of civilians who were not directly involved in the conflict. The Israelite conquest involved not only battles with military forces but also the destruction of cities and the killing of non-combatants. Critics argue that the killing or displacement of innocent civilians raises moral issues regarding the proportionality and ethics of war.
Cultural and religious assimilation: The Israelites were instructed to eliminate the religious practices and idols of the indigenous tribes in Canaan. This raises questions about the morality of imposing one’s religious beliefs on others, suppressing their cultural expressions, and eradicating their religious traditions.
Ethical implications of territorial acquisition: The Israelite conquest involved taking possession of the land and resources that belonged to other tribes. This raises questions about the ethics of territorial expansion and whether it can be morally justified when it involves displacing or subjugating existing populations.

JN: Are the moral concerns above any different for Genghis Khan and Mongol invasion or Visigoth invasion of Rome? And if so, how?

ChatGPT: The moral concerns surrounding the Mongol invasion led by Genghis Khan and the Visigoth invasion of Rome can be analyzed in a similar manner, but there are some notable differences due to the historical context and motivations involved. Here are some points of comparison:

Motivations and justifications: The Israelites’ conquest in the biblical narrative was often framed within a religious context, with a belief in a divine mandate. In contrast, the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were primarily motivated by political and territorial expansion, wealth acquisition, and power consolidation. The absence of religious justifications in these cases shifts the moral considerations towards questions of conquest, power dynamics, and treatment of conquered peoples.
Use of violence and warfare: All three instances involve military conquest and the use of violence. However, the scale and methods employed differ. The Mongol invasion led by Genghis Khan was notorious for its brutality and devastation, with large-scale massacres and destruction. The Visigoth invasion of Rome, while still involving violence, was comparatively smaller in scale and did not exhibit the same level of widespread destruction as the Mongol conquests.
Treatment of civilians and conquered populations: The moral concerns regarding the treatment of civilians and conquered populations arise in all three cases. In the Mongol invasion, the indiscriminate violence and massacres perpetrated by the Mongols raised significant ethical questions. The Visigoths, on the other hand, generally aimed to establish their own territories within the Western Roman Empire rather than annihilating the entire population.
Assimilation and cultural impact: The Israelite conquest involved a religious dimension of eradicating indigenous religious practices. In the case of the Mongol invasion, they did not typically impose their religious or cultural beliefs on conquered peoples but instead allowed diverse cultural practices to continue, as long as loyalty and tribute were provided. The Visigoths, while initially being an outsider group, eventually assimilated with the Roman society and adopted Christianity.
Ethical implications of territorial acquisition: The Israelite conquest, the Mongol invasion, and the Visigoth invasion all involved territorial acquisition and the displacement of existing populations. The moral considerations surrounding territorial expansion, subjugation, and the treatment of conquered lands and peoples can be debated in each case.

In summary, while there are similarities in moral concerns between the Israelite conquest, the Mongol invasion, and the Visigoth invasion, differences arise due to variations in motivations, justifications, methods of conquest, treatment of civilians, and cultural impact. These variations highlight the distinct historical contexts and factors influencing the moral considerations of each event.

JN: From a modern 20th and 21st century perspective, are there any additional moral concerns than those noted in previous replies?

ChatGPT: From a modern 20th and 21st century perspective, there are indeed additional moral concerns that can be raised when evaluating historical conquests, including the Israelite conquest, the Mongol invasion, and the Visigoth invasion. Here are some additional moral concerns that may arise:

Human rights and dignity: Modern ethical frameworks place a strong emphasis on human rights and dignity. Assessing the actions of historical conquests through this lens raises concerns about the violation of individual and collective human rights, such as the right to life, freedom, and self-determination. The use of violence, mass killings, enslavement, and other forms of mistreatment can be viewed as gross violations of human rights.
Cultural relativism and respect for diversity: Modern perspectives often emphasize cultural relativism and the value of diverse cultures and traditions. Assessing conquests from this standpoint raises questions about the imposition of one culture over another, the suppression of indigenous traditions, and the erasure of cultural diversity. The disregard for cultural autonomy and the forced assimilation of conquered peoples can be seen as ethically problematic.
Post-colonial critique: The 20th and 21st centuries have witnessed significant discussions and critiques of colonialism and its legacies. When evaluating historical conquests, including those of the Israelites, the Mongols, and the Visigoths, it is important to consider the long-term effects on the conquered regions, such as the disruption of socio-economic structures, the loss of indigenous knowledge and institutions, and the perpetuation of power imbalances. Examining these conquests through a post-colonial lens raises concerns about the lasting impact and injustices inflicted on conquered societies.
Global ethical responsibilities: In a more interconnected world, modern ethical frameworks often consider our responsibilities towards distant peoples and societies. Assessing historical conquests in this context raises questions about the moral obligations of conquerors towards the well-being, development, and self-determination of the conquered peoples. The exploitation of resources and the lack of consideration for the long-term welfare of conquered regions can be seen as ethically problematic.
Reconciliation and historical memory: From a modern perspective, the need for reconciliation and the acknowledgement of historical injustices becomes prominent. Exploring historical conquests raises questions about how to address the legacies of these conquests in terms of reparations, memorialization, and efforts to heal intergenerational trauma.

###

The preceding analysis was significantly shortened for presentation at Congregation Beth Israel’s lay led minyan in order to work within a seven-minute framework. For reference, the following is the spoken shortened version of the drash on Dvarim.

Understanding Dvarim with Chatbots / CBI Minyan, July 22, 2023 / Deuteronomy 1.1 – 3.22

Overview

Thirty-seven days before Moses dies, he recounts the Torah to the Children of Israel. He speaks of their forty-year journey from Egypt to Sinai and to the anticipated entry into the Promised Land. Moses speaks of their failings and the importance of observing the commandments in the Torah.

I will focus on two verses, Deuteronomy 1 verses 7 and 8.

What was the expectation of Children of Israel’s journey out of Egypt? How should they relate to the land they will enter? Moses says:

7 Turn and journey, and come to the mountain of the Amorites and to all its neighboring places, in the plain, on the mountain, and in the lowland, and in the south and by the seashore, the land of the Canaanites, and the Lebanon, until the great river, the Euphrates River.

8 See, I have set the land before you; come and possess the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them and their descendants after them.

How, I wonder, are the Children of Israel any different than other historical moments of entering the land? How is this entering the land similar or different from Alaric and the Visigoths entering Rome in the 5^th century or from Genghis Khan and Mongol land invasions in the 13^th century?

A conversation with a chatbot

I decided to ask Bard, Google’s AI chatbot, to compare these events.

Bard responded within five seconds:

Deuteronomy 1 verses 7 and 8 is a religious text, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were secular events. Deuteronomy 1 verses 7 and 8 is a story of conquest over a relatively small area, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were much larger in scale. Deuteronomy 1 verses 7 and 8 is a story of conquest that is ultimately successful, while the Mongol invasion and the Visigoth invasion were both ultimately unsuccessful.

I decided to press the comparison. I asked Bard to reconsider these events from the perspective of human history and without divine justification. To reconsider these events as part of an expansion of territory, whether large or small, and whether ultimately successful or not.

Bard replied in an instant:

Sure, I can do that. . . . All of these events can be seen as part of a larger pattern of human expansion and conquest. This pattern has been driven by a variety of factors, including a desire for land, resources, and power. It has also been justified by a variety of beliefs, including religious beliefs, political beliefs, and economic beliefs.

I pursued my conversation with Bard into the moral dimensions of the conquests outlined in Dvarim. Bard opined:

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how to interpret the biblical text and how to respond to the moral concerns it raises.

Then, I turned to how modern perspectives would view this process of territorial expansion.

Bard: Yes, there are a number of additional moral concerns that arise from a modern 20th and 21st century perspective. These concerns include:

The use of modern weapons: The Israelites, Mongols, and Visigoths all used weapons that were available to them at the time. However, modern weapons are much more destructive than those that were available in the past. . . .

The impact on the environment: The Israelites, Mongols, and Visigoths all had an impact on the environment, but the impact of modern conquest can be much greater. This is because modern warfare often involves the use of large amounts of explosives, which can pollute the environment and cause lasting damage.

The role of the international community: In the past, conquest was often a matter of one nation or group of people conquering another. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the international community has a greater role to play in preventing and resolving conflicts.

The moral concerns raised by a modern 20th and 21st century perspective are significant. . . . These are complex issues that have been debated by policymakers and scholars for decades.

Reflection

Many would regard the chatbot answers as throwaways ─ as something to be used for an essay, a preliminary mapping of an answer, perhaps even as the framing of a sermon, but not as the end product to be credited to the chatbot. But from the perspective of the history of ideas, it would be useful to have a chatbot’s summary of human information at a point in time – even if the chatbot’s response is not original, at least not yet.

These responses served as a test of how my thinking about conquests and invasions in different civilizations aligns with a large language model (chatbot) analysis. The context for this test is Dvarim and the religious history set out in the Torah. Some might see this as a weird comparison, but as AI technology unfolds, it would be useful to have a specific example in the present moment compared to the time when AIs become superintelligent.

And Bard’s reflection?

###

Dvarim: Conversing with a chatbot by Joe Nalven (July 22, 2023)

Post a comment