Large Language Models, embodied in chatbots like ChatGPT or Bard, can be useful to thinking through one’s ideas. This is not a simple process of just pushing the button and accepting the first reply as gospel. In fact, the dialogue between human and a chatbot can be viewed as a conversation between a human and an interlocutor (someone who is capable to argue with oneself).
My idea is to contrast “social action” with “social justice.” From my perspective, social action, unattached to ideology, is about addressing social ills whether seen as voluntary charity or moral obligation. Social justice requires a different lens, an equity lens ─ one that views social ills often resulting privilege. There is the oppressor against the oppressed. There are marginalized groups that form intersectional alliances to wrest economic, racial, sex-gender, ableist and other advantages from the privileged.
Both social action and social justice are recognizable tropes. Elected officials, community leaders and pundits use them as shorthand to persuade their followers of their respective path to virtue and a just society.
Even AI chatbots, like the rest of us, are subject to bias, political leanings and tropism. From my experience both Microsoft’s Bing (a ChatGPT chatbot) and Google’s Bard lean liberal left on justice issues from climate change to social disparities. However, since I lean in the other direction, I can use the chatbot as an interlocutor to create a conversation across the political divide.
Everything you’ve read so far has been by me. A human.
Now for my conversation with Bard, a chatbot interlocutor, on social action and social justice. Note that I have abbreviated parts of the conversation for brevity.
First, I tested Bard’s knowledge of justice (tzedek in Hebrew) from the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. “Social” justice seemed to be a modern invention.
Although Bard agreed with my literal approach, it suggested that I adopt a broader framework:
While “tzedek” can be translated as “justice,” it carries nuanced meanings like fairness, righteousness, and upholding the rights of the disadvantaged. The Torah lays out legal principles aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. Examples include:
Sabbath laws: Providing rest and freedom for all, including slaves and laborers (Exodus 20:8-11); Jubilee year: resetting debts and liberating those in debt slavery every 50 years (Leviticus 25:8-17); gleaning laws: Allowing the poor to gather leftover produce from fields after harvest (Leviticus 19:9-10); protection of widows and orphans: Special legal provisions and community responsibility to ensure their welfare (Deuteronomy 24:17-21).
Prophets like Amos, Isaiah, and Micah fiercely denounced injustice and exploitation of the poor, calling for compassion and reform. They highlight social issues like land-grabbing by the wealthy, exploitation of laborers, and neglect of the needy.
It’s important to remember that interpreting these texts through a modern lens requires careful consideration of historical and cultural context. However, they undoubtedly offer valuable insights on pursuing justice and building a more equitable world.
I challenged Bard. Helping others could simply be charity, whether voluntary or divinely required. It does not require the wealth redistribution often part of today’s social justice framework. Bard appeared to be looking at the Bible with modern expectations.
Bard stood its ground and invited me to take a broader view:
I understand your perspective on the term “social justice,” and it’s true that interpretations can vary significantly. When I discussed the concept in the context of the Torah, I focused on broader themes of fairness, equality, and ensuring dignity for all members of society. This can certainly involve helping the marginalized and protecting the vulnerable, which aligns with what you call “social action” or charity.
Many scholars and activists view social justice as encompassing a far wider range of issues, including: eliminating systemic discrimination and inequities; empowering marginalized communities; building a more sustainable and equitable society.
Looking at the Torah through this broader lens, we can find several examples that address aspects of social justice beyond charity: challenging hierarchies and structures of power; protecting the rights of minorities and immigrants; promoting economic justice; ensuring equal access to justice.
Ultimately, how we interpret and apply these principles to contemporary issues is a complex and ongoing conversation. It’s important to engage in respectful dialogue, consider different perspectives, and strive for solutions that promote both fairness and the well-being of all members of society.
I decided to push back against Bard’s “broader lens.”
Your approach misses the importance of agency. Affected communities should take responsibility and not wait for the government to do everything for them. For example, the Success Academy elementary and middle schools, located in minority New York City areas, use a lottery system for students. Parents are expected to check their children’s homework. There is no affirmative action. And as a result students have done as well as majority students in suburban areas. And, in fact, government or public schools have disastrous results. This example is exactly what is wrong with the equity “lens” you are relying on. Your algorithm needs updating.
Bard responded:
You’re absolutely right to emphasize the importance of agency and individual responsibility in the quest for social justice. The Success Academy case study offers a valuable example of how community involvement and a focus on merit can lead to positive outcomes.
Indeed, relying solely on an “equity lens” without considering agency can be problematic. It can foster dependence on external solutions and neglect the crucial role individuals and communities play in their own upliftment.
However, it’s equally important to remember that systemic factors, historical imbalances, and unequal access to resources still play a significant role in shaping individual opportunities. Simply urging communities to bootstrap themselves without addressing these underlying obstacles can be a simplistic and unfair approach.
Exploring how successful models like Success Academy can be replicated or integrated within existing public systems alongside targeted efforts to address systemic and resource disparities could lead to a more comprehensive and equitable approach.
I imagine that readers can acknowledge Bard’s adherence to an equity while only grudgingly admitting to other factors that can be a solution to individual and community disparities. As an interlocutor, Bard provides a constant reminder of the social justice mindset. That works well for conservative leaning individuals such as myself to have a broader discussion. That probably won’t serve progressive thinking individuals as well since they are unlikely to argue with Bard but take it as a confirming bias.
Despite this imbalance, Bard can move beyond its initial algorithm’s bias.
I asked Bard to compose an essay based on my perspective. Bard proved capable to indulging me and my bias. However, it appears that Bard needs to be “trained” to “think” outside its initial algorithms, its initial equity lens trope. This training required me to specify explicit differences. The give and take with the Bard interlocutor required me to make stronger statements about how I would articulate advancing social reform.
Here is the essay Bard wrote reflecting my bias:
Social progress, a complex symphony of individual aspirations and collective endeavors, demands nuanced understanding and solutions beyond simplistic tropes. For too long, discourses around social justice have relied on convenient narratives, often failing to grasp the intricate tapestry of factors that shape opportunity and achievement. It’s time for a reframing. This article proposes a new lens, one that prioritizes equality, merit, and concrete success stories — not as abstract ideals, but as actionable pillars for community and individual advancement.
At the heart of this reframing lies equality. Not the forced homogeneity of outcomes, but rather the guarantee of equal access to opportunity. This means ensuring everyone, regardless of background, has the tools and resources to pursue their own definition of success. It’s about dismantling systemic barriers that limit potential, whether it’s discrimination based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status.
Equality is the foundation upon which individual talent and effort can truly flourish.
Next comes merit, the recognition and reward for hard work and accomplishment. Merit isn’t a privilege reserved for the select few, but a currency accessible to all who dedicate themselves to excellence. It champions individual responsibility, encouraging citizens to cultivate their skills, embrace challenges, and take ownership of their destinies. Recognizing and supporting merit doesn’t negate the importance of equality; it builds upon it, fostering a society where hard work translates into personal growth and societal contribution.
However, both equality and merit exist within an ecosystem of complex social realities. This is where success stories come in. By amplifying real-world examples of communities and individuals who have navigated challenges and achieved upward mobility, we offer potent counter-narratives to defeatist tropes. The resilience of Asian and Nigerian immigrant communities, who have overcome historical prejudices and cultural barriers to carve a path to success, serves as a testament to the power of collective effort and individual drive. These stories, carefully analyzed and devoid of harmful generalizations, provide valuable insights and inspiration for others aiming to climb the social ladder.
This reframing doesn’t negate the necessity of addressing historical injustices and persistent inequalities. But instead of relying on simplified diagnoses and blanket solutions, it advocates for a more nuanced approach. Critical analysis becomes paramount. Data-driven assessments of socioeconomic trends, educational outcomes, and community dynamics can illuminate the root causes of disparities and inform targeted interventions. Blanket programs based on superficial identities risk overlooking individual and community strengths and fostering dependence on external solutions.
Yes, I learned ─ both in the frustration of conversing with an other (Bard’s algorithms) and in the manner of finding a way to common ground. It is worth noting that this “common ground” is not the real world. Compromise with a chatbot is easier than with humans. Note that ChatGPT’s chatbot is more resistant to compromise. When challenged, it is more likely to say, Next Question.
Joe Nalven is an adviser to the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation and a former associate director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University.
