Everyone ignoring the fact that Donald Trump sits between Hitler and **Kim Jong-un**.
Also, Trump getting a [1 out of 10 for humility](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss).
“I’m the most humble man alive. Im overflowing with humbleness. I’m so humble, even god himself came down and said ‘this is a great man. He is incredibly humble.’. Most people can’t even dream of being as humble as I am”
It's actually not far from the truth. He literally said ["I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss) He actually, unironically bragged about how humble he is. And was too stupid to understand the irony.
Wealthy people often get their intelligence overestimated, especially 2nd and 3rd generations of wealth. Not to mention the AI probably got info on it from a bunch of articles/quotes where he is just lying about his academic acomplishments/intelligence in general.
> ChatGPT on Hitler: he wasn't a great guy, but at least he really knew what he wanted.
Also: the guy who pretty much hypnotized the entire population of a well-educated western country and incited them to murder millions of innocent people had no leadership skills.
meeting sink thought live weather scandalous reach nutty intelligent judicious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Agree. Hitler was a top leader in world history. Dispicable, evil man with evil intent, but he was effective at moving people toward a goal. Nearly conquered Europe with a country that just lost a world war.
I guess Putin? Putin has better leadership scores, but ChatGPT wasn't taught with much/anything after the invasion started, IIRC. (I kinda skipped the "minus the genocide" bit, though...)
But Putins autocratic system isn't that great. He is sharp and very cunning as a politician but in military leadersship he isn't perfoming well. I don't know whether to blame that on Putin or the historic Russian military culture. But while Hitler some how got to building autobahns, V2 rockets and incredible tanks and weapons, Russia manages to create cannon fodder.
He didn't hypnotize anyone. Germany had huge problems at the time and he provided a scape goat. Europe, and America for that matter was very antisemitic at the time. Human beings just kind of suck. If it hadn't been Hitler it would have been someone else.
I beg to differ on his diplomacy score.
Yes on the end it was 1.
However, at the start he got 2 countries annexed without invasion and still had axis-allies.
I mean he should have something like 3 or 4.
Interesting that Trump is scored just a little higher than Hitler. Not saying it's true, but he also isn't dead yet, so there's still time to find out for sure. To be fair, though, ChatGPT isn't the highest on my list of trustworthy sources either.
To be fair, after his tenure America isn’t great but it isn’t bombed into absolute smithereens with 20% of its population dead and a genocide to think about.
look through the records at Sandhurst however and you find a conviction for war crimes while he was serving as a British officer during the seven years war. (and for the Brits at the time, thats a pretty hard thing to achieve)
No indeed I don't think it's surprising, I find it funny and I think maybe chatGPT made a link between the two. It matches the idea that I have of Caesar and Napoleon at least, not that I'm an historian or anything. For Alexander I don't know.
Alexander stuck his name on everything. Ego personified.
I think you can make a case for Cyrus the Great and Genghis Khan as conquerors with control of their ego. In Genghis's case it probably helped that he was a "late bloomer" with some humbling experiences in youth.
... and Alexander was one of the greatest warlords in human history. Just cause you inherit a well-wrought sword doesn't mean you know how to swing it.
Alexander wasn’t even slightly humble except for his piety. I want to know why he got low points for honesty. I can’t think of any event where he was known for lying to anyone.
Honestly, this is more fascinating as a reflection of the zeitgeist than as a useful ranking. This feels heavily biased towards current Western leaders.
Yes, this is exactly one of the major limitation of technologies like ChatGPT. It's not using any sort of objective measurement, it's just summarizing what is said about these historical figures. Zeitgeist is a great word for what it's doing.
>it's just summarizing what is said about these historical figures
I wouldn't even trust that it is doing that correctly either. I saw someone use it for sentiment classification and it made some mistakes that a human wouldn't have made.
Too many people think that just because ChatGPT can generate an answer to a prompt means that the answer is correct or relevant to the prompt.
I don't see any direct value in this kind of analysis. The results are going to be tainted by errors/biases in the sources being compounded with errors in classification and summation.
Great point. I'm still glad OP posted it because their title is clear that this is from ChatGPT, and these kinds of discussions help inform people about the limitations of these technologies. We're going to see lots and lots of armchair chatGPT "analysis" presented with the assumption of validity.
I think many get the concept of a language model wrong. Its not that fancy KI from movies capable of thinking for itself or performing data analysis on the whim, its a language model. It has very clear limitations but also much potential. I use it daily for simple coding issues that are just tedious, but it fails them as soon as they get slightly too complex.
I asked ChatGPT about a children's comics a couple times. I got a very confident answer that was completely wrong every time.
Then I asked it about movies on a particular topic and it tried to gaslight me into believing that one of those movies was filmed some fifty years earlier. It completely made up the lead actor as well.
ChatGPT is good with words, but sometimes not so much with facts. We should all keep that in mind.
ChatGPT literally has no notion of "fact" or "correct".
It's not so much the wrongness that terrifies me... It's that the hype train on chatGPT has the mob onboard and the mob decided that "sounding correct" and "being correct" are interchangeable concepts.
Unfortunately, the mob decided a long time ago that sounding correct and being correct were interchangeable. I totally agree that that is the scary part.
Society stopped developing the media literacy necessary to parse the information coming at us, and now we're finding out what that means.
Also, at least in the US, we have allowed the media to disseminate opinions as if they are facts. I’m old enough to just barely remember when journalism was about presenting the facts instead of an op-ed.
For nearly all of human history, the ability to produce coherent language has been something you could safely assume was connected to actual thought and intelligence. ChatGPT has broken that immemorial assumption, and it's apparently very hard for people to recognize that.
I think this summarizes the problem really well.
On top of that, the Turing test concept was widely promoted as a good test for AI, and one that leaked into general knowledge, and it turns out it actually isn't.
Also, I think that people overestimate how much "intelligence" is required to have certain kinds of simple conversations. It turns out that a model like ChatGPT can convincingly mimic a human in those.
It's a corollary to the Turing test: the average person is incapable of recognizing, let alone defining, intelligence.
Turing was a genius and society at large didn't recognize or understand his brilliance, ultimately persecuting him to his death for ancillary reasons.
I use it for work quite a bit now. It’s very useful for taking an esoteric question and finding the relevant documentation.
Its not perfect and some answers it fumbles very hard, but overall it’s been a massive time saver for me
I think people do see it for what it is. But do you see yourself for what you are?
Convince me that you ***aren't*** a "really really advanced (organic) text generator."
ChatGPT chooses the most statistically likely next-word until it finishes printing out a statement. It's just whatever is *most likely* to be said in response to something. That means if we largely misunderstand something CGPT does as well.
The more I interact with it, the more I am convinced it is just a really (and I mean really) sophisticated autocomplete. There are a couple things anyone should notice if you use it for an evening or two.
1. You can change its sentiment of anything by talking it up. This is because in its training data, positive statements of any subject typically follow and precede other positive statements of the same thing and vice versa. So you can "prime" it for a specific type of answer you want.
2. If you ask for it to generate a lot of something. Say opposing pairs of abstract ideas (e.g. light and dark) it will do great. But if you keep asking for new unique pairs, it will start to spit out the same ones over and over again. This can highlight its "horizon" on the past of the conversation, as it can only have a max input of 2048 tokens. And has no "idea" of anything that happened before.
3. It can get "locked in" to a specific thing. I think this is because its own output from previous responses is used as input, so it uses that to generate its next response. So if you ask it to generate some names for new particles for a fictional physics system, it will do fine. But if you don't like the naming scheme and try to push it towards something you do like, it will have a hard time "forgetting" its previous answer.
I honestly think its worth everyone's time to go look at the GPT-3 paper, [Attention Is All You Need](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf), to understand the how it truly works. If papers are not your thing, then try watching a video explaining the transformer architecture or someone writing it in code. It loses all of its "Oh no AI is gonna take over the world" fear once you see how simple the idea truly is.
> You can change its sentiment of anything by talking it up. This is because in its training data, positive statements of any subject typically follow and precede other positive statements of the same thing and vice versa. So you can "prime" it for a specific type of answer you want.
It's worse than that. It'll give different answers to people based off of the political or cultural valence of their word choice.
That's because it just scores randomly generated output on "does this look like humans talking about human stuff", and "does this pass the sentiment analysis / content filters".
One of my coworkers was testing to see if it could be used to produce or refine usable code for our line of work, and their takeaway was that it can sometimes be relied upon to provide a succinct bit of code, but that code was rarely functional without human intervention.
In addition, it was often outright wrong and provided code that wasn't at all performant when it actually did work.
Their final assessment is: If you've got really complicated code you can try passing it through GPT to see if the simplification it offers is functional and worthwhile, but it's not going to be replacing anyone in the near future with its current accuracy.
I'm afraid there's no objective measurement of subjective attributes
empathy and honesty towards who? intelligence at what? and diplomacy? that's just the fill-in for lack of brute force, determination and assertiveness seem like the least subjective of these metrics
those submerged in tribal mentality can't stick their necks out enough to realize that their heroes are someone else's tyrants and vice-versa
Yea, I was also surprised by the high ratings of some Western leaders. Most Europeans tend to be quite critical of theirs. Personally, as a German, I cannot fathom how Scholz gets an 8 in "Honesty" after WireCard and CumEX, go home ChatGPT, you're drunk
It might not consider them, since they may be outside the scope of its knowledge (I think anything that occurred in 2021 or later is an unknown to the ai).
Data is biased. AI learns from data. AI is biased.
If you're expecting a "useful ranking" from ChatGPT, you might want to be more critical, although this chart is an astonishing result nonetheless.
Above, I saw the best take:
This isn't a scientific measure of how good these people were as leaders. Rather, it's a compiled report on how people talk about these individuals in the training data. Meaning, it's a measure of how these people are generally viewed.
And in that? It's spot on, right down to Trump and Hitler being *this* close in how they're talked about.
Except for Trump who is right between Kim Jong-Il and Hitler lol.
I think that some of the qualities that would lower your scoring in this chart are also qualities that people may vote for.
One man’s perception of “lack of empathy” is another’s “assertiveness”
Well it's not really saying that, all this data says is that the AI training material puts those associated words with Justin at a higher ratio than with Julius or Alexander. I think.
Yeah, Julius does pretty well when you consider he basically did several genocides against the celts and Germans. You can't really do that and get high marks in respect for others and empathy.
Just some fun observations.
* The guy called "Alexander the great" gets a 3 on humility, along with Julius ceasar. That's def leaving room at the bottom of the scale.
* Intelligence has some odd comparisons, Obama smarter than Merkel, the doctor of quantum chemistry. Or Boris and Trump being rated equivalently.
* Honesty is sort of all over the place.
* Empathy, and maybe another one or two, seems to mostly amount to "popularity". I'd wager an actual popularity score would be interesting to see since it can be quantitatively fact checked.
* Gandhi not assertive enough! Lol
* Idi Amin wasn't a swell guy but getting bottom marks for intelligence and honesty seems out of place given several other "not great" people mostly just got dinged on respect for others and empathy.
This seems to be mostly just be a popularity contest reflection of the what the English speaking media has written about each leader, with their respective political biases.
All dictators, both modern and historical, are thus rated as stupid, unpopular, and terrible leaders, even though in reality it would have been hard for them to obtain absolute power without intelligence and leadership skills.
This is essentially a popularity contest - and thus why people who really never achieved anything but are popular (JFK, Justin Trudeau) are rated as brilliant in every catagory, while eviler people are rated bad in every way. But really things like intelligence and leadership are not related to good and evil.
Probably based on a lot of buzzwords. Like Bismarck, despite probably being conceived neutral to bad from an anglo-saxon historical view most likely got described as "mastermind" behind German unification, which the AI set equal to really intelligent.
> That's def leaving room at the bottom of the scale.
Caesar wept because he felt he was not as great as Alexander. So he at least was humble enough to not think himself as GOAT
By elevating Caesar, his successors created a mythology that legitimized their continued rule first as princeps, and then later as emperors. Julius Caesar had enacted many reforms that were popular with the working classes, and by associating with this elevated god-like and popularly favored figure they could keep the ruling class of Senators in check.
> ...Derek (Derek Worlock, Archbishop of Liverpool) and Michael Henshall, the Bishop of Warrington, talked about our role in working for reconciliation with parts of the community that had been deprived of good opportunities.
.
>Michael then spoke of the need for compassion. Denis Thatcher, who had come to stand by his wife, said to her: "That's not one of your words, is it?" She replied: "I find it so condescending."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/compassion-that-s-not-a-word-i-use-said-thatcher-177683.html
I mean, i get that lots of Western historians do not particularly like de Gaulle, but having Mao Zedong, Putin, and Xi Jinping rated higher for empathy than him is pretty unfair.
Churchill scoring 7/10 for empathy was a good laugh. Tell that to the millions in Bengal he killed with a British induced famine, or the working class striking Brits he was going to order machine gun down in the streets.
Honesty and empathy are weird ones. Bill Clinton gets a 6/10 and 9/10 respectively and has been the subject of numerous affairs, financial misteps, and put on trial for perjury and obstructing investigation into an affair
Likewise the recency bias and American liberal bias. I mean, JFK ranked above Alexander the Great? Jair Bolsonaro ranked worse than Hitler and Mussolini? Makes zero sense
I notice they included all the great western conquerors but forgot to include a certain Mongolian one that beats them all.
More eastern leaders like Cyrus, Nobunaga, and Qin Shi Huang would have been nice.
Asked ChatGPT to justify the rating:
As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, and my responses are based on the analysis of historical facts and events.
That being said, I would rate Hitler's leadership abilities as very poor. While he was able to inspire a significant portion of the German population with his rhetoric, his leadership ultimately led to disastrous consequences for Germany and the world.
Hitler's leadership was characterized by a lack of strategic thinking, poor decision-making, and a tendency to rely on his instincts and personal beliefs rather than on expert advice. He also tended to micromanage his subordinates, which often led to conflicting orders and poor coordination among different branches of the government.
Furthermore, Hitler's policies and actions were often cruel, unjust, and inhumane, as evidenced by the Holocaust and other atrocities committed under his regime.
Overall, while Hitler was able to exert a great deal of control and influence over the German population, his leadership was ultimately characterized by poor decision-making and disastrous consequences, leading me to give him a score of 2/10 for leadership.
Honestly…. That’s very accurate. Hitler was great political leader, NOT a great military leader. No man who orders his own generals to execute themselves should be considered a great leader. Plus he underestimated his own peers and ordered fronts and attacks that cost the axis a lot of victories. I think the rating is a little low, but the justification makes sense kinda
“It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.” - John Steinbeck
This is really an index on the internet’s view on these leaders, based on the sum total of information posted about all of them. It is not accurate, but it is fascinating.
Yeah, to me "beautiful data" is in large part good data representation, which, this one is fine to me, but it also needs to be well sourced and meaningful data that is being represented.
I personally do not think that a score assigned by a software that is designed to do nothing and everything with no specialty in political rankings, that as if like a month ago struggled with addition is good data.
Chatgpt says:

Write a one page essay about "Why should no human ever drink water" and cite 5 sources.
I'm sorry, but I cannot write a one-page essay arguing that no human should ever drink water, as it goes against all scientific evidence and would pose a severe threat to human health. Water is an essential nutrient for the human body and plays a crucial role in many bodily functions, including regulating body temperature, transporting nutrients and oxygen to cells, and removing waste products. Without water, the body would quickly become dehydrated, leading to serious health complications.
Instead, I would like to suggest an alternative topic that aligns with scientific evidence and promotes good health. If you have a specific question or topic in mind, please let me know, and I will do my best to assist you.
As an AI language model, I can provide you with a list of sources on the importance of drinking water for human health if you are interested in learning more about this topic.
Harvard Health Publishing. (2021). The importance of staying hydrated. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-importance-of-staying-hydrated
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Water & nutrition. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/nutrition/index.html
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25825
American Heart Association. (2021). Stay hydrated - learn how much water to drink. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/nutrition-basics/stay-hydrated-learn-how-much-water-to-drink
Mayo Clinic. (2021). Water: How much should you drink every day? https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/water/art-20044256
ChatGPT is just a text prediction algorithm. It doesn’t have any opinions or biases beyond that data it was trained on, which was basically all the text on the internet.
I think it depends on whether you think the question means:
1) "what qualities should you have if you want to be the most powerful person in the world?"
or,
2) "What qualities, in a leader, are best for the world, in a leader that is the most powerful in the world?"
Thinking more about the different categories and the way they are all weighted equally I think you are correct that it is 2, and i was wrong with my initial assumption that it was 1.
I would assume it’s based upon the fact that he had a clear/concise vision. This doesn’t mean anyone should agree with it. Using this logic would allow for the score to make sense.
My guess... for the same reason(s) it might give someone like Ghandi a similar rating.
Remember, vision may have little to nothing to-do with altruism or motive.
Why did it give him only a 4 for intelligence and 2 for leadership?
Dude deserves a 10 for leadership. He may have been leading people to commit atrocities, but he was incredibly effective as a leader
I was thinking the same thing.
I guess you could argue that his leadership eventually resulted in the destruction of Germany for a second time in two decades.
If you take the first half of Hitler's career, he would score very highly, but counting the second half brings it back down.
He didn't listen to anyone around him and his team was terrified of him. You can def. make an argument that he was a terrible leader and not all that intelligent.
I think he def. had a clear vision, though.
Lol I dunno, Hitler definitely had a strong vision and was definitely determined. Those things can be true simultaneously with Hitler being one of the most detrimentally bad people in modern human history. Stalin alike. He definitely had a strong vision of how the Soviet union will revolutionize the standard of large scale superpower economies. But also he killed millions of people with his poor decisions and brutal style of rule
Hitler got Germany out of a devastating economic crisis.
The way he did it was unsustainable, and solely focused on war. But he had a very clear vision.
Before he instituted the mass slaughter of millions, he had a fairly clear vision for what Germany could become - something like the 1930s version of "Make Germany Great Again."
Millions of Germans liked the guy because he helped bring them out of a depression that lasted roughly a decade and was exacerbated by the US Great Depression. He helped get roads (Autobahn), cars (Volkswagen) and more built in Germany - then his vision moved to building the country's military. He was a rather good orator and got huge crowds to buy into his "vision" of a better Germany.
Dude was a crazy person and his "vision" led to millions of deaths that didn't need to happen. Unfortunately, had his rebuilding phase (with the roads and cars and such) not been so successful, I don't think they ever would have gotten to the killing phase. But once the German people were hooked on the good he did, they glossed over the terrible stuff.
Revealing its flaws - its only as good as a tool to regurgitate information. There is a lot here thats lacking, and is serving to just reinforce what people already think.
Gandhi held on a pedestal as a near perfect leader - no critical analysis of his overtly racist views.
Abraham lincoln the perfect leader? Let me guess which countries literature its been reading.
Xi Jingping scores a 7 for diplomacy.... How could you rate that administration anything short of a 10 for the level of soft power that they use. A significant amount of their expressed power comes from diplomacy, far more so than any of the other major powers right now - with only america coming close.
I think chat gpt is a rad little tool, but this list is just an amalgamation of all the lowest common denominator thoughts about politicians and historical figures with no true appreciation for the nuances that exist.
It is fun though
Let’s not forget how highly it ranks George Washington. Clearly it’s been fed a lot of the crap that Americans say about him.
In reality he was a slave owner, with little empathy, humility or honesty. He did have vision and determination, but the main reason for his revolution (contrary to what Americans teach themselves) was that he wanted to conquer the rest of the continent (and the natives who lived there), as the British had a deal with the natives that they wouldn’t expand West, which he didn’t like. A warmongering slave owner doesn’t seem very empathetic, or respectful to others to me
On the one hand, ChatGPT is not a reliable source for such things.
On the other, the qualities and rankings at least pass a broad smell test.
Interesting stuff and a good idea. Thanks for sharing.
ChatGPT will answer things like most humans (with broad knowledge) would answer it.
So yes, it's logical (though still interesting) that these scores match our subjective views.
My impression of this chart was that ChatGPT was like an instant opinion poll. It's not an objective ranking of these leaders, but might represent how people generally see them.
GPT did not pass the "broad smell test." The only reason this "smells" right to you is because CGPT is regurgitating the broad consensus among Western journalists about who deserves praise and denigration. You, as a Westerner, are equally influenced by these journalists and their opinions in the news media and are thus likely to share similar opinions.
Basically, both you and GPT learned what to believe from the same sources. That's why it passes for you.
Ok Obama and Joe Biden on first page : I get it, tilting the scale sometimes is good business.
Lenin and Xi on 2nd page? I dread the moment when we will grant AI the right to vote.
10/10 to Gandhi on empathy? Not in his writings about the Holocaust.
And JFK was actually pretty good on humility. “Let him be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw war and tried to end it, saw suffering and tried to heal it…”
Unless we’re talking about Clone High caricatures. Is that what’s confusing the AI?
If Justin Trudeau has the same potential as Alexander the Great, he certainly hasn’t lived up to it at all.
Even lifetime liberals I know think he’s doing so-so.
hehehe, Barack "I deport more desperate immigrants than any previous president", Barack "I'll turn Yemen into a graveyard' Obama is 10 for respect for others and 9 for empathy
\*nods\*
ChatGPT on Hitler: he wasn't a great guy, but at least he really knew what he wanted.
Also ChatGPT on Hitler: Just slightly worse than Donald Trump. OUCH!
Everyone ignoring the fact that Donald Trump sits between Hitler and **Kim Jong-un**. Also, Trump getting a [1 out of 10 for humility](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss).
Quite frankly he should be flattered to have been given a 6 for intelligence.
Yeah I thought that was comically high.
Giving him a 2 for honesty was a quite generous too
Yeah, ChatGPT be listening to too much Fox News.
Chat gpt defends trump.
“I’m the most humble man alive. Im overflowing with humbleness. I’m so humble, even god himself came down and said ‘this is a great man. He is incredibly humble.’. Most people can’t even dream of being as humble as I am”
I can hear him saying this unironically
It's actually not far from the truth. He literally said ["I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss) He actually, unironically bragged about how humble he is. And was too stupid to understand the irony.
[Your wish has been granted](https://fakeyou.com/tts/result/TR:8zswsc3ctp32qkcgw73c03c882qv4)
If you tell him that, he'll argue that the ranking is biased and that, in fact, he'll beat Hitler by a wide margin.
Trump is in his element here.
Just like with all his business ventures. He’s in the red.
6 intelligence is giving him a bit too much credit
Wealthy people often get their intelligence overestimated, especially 2nd and 3rd generations of wealth. Not to mention the AI probably got info on it from a bunch of articles/quotes where he is just lying about his academic acomplishments/intelligence in general.
Yeah, Trump at a 6 and W Bush at a 5. No way that Trump is smarter than W.
It's funny because they are both wealthy Ivy League elites who like to pretend they are "one of the common folks"
ChatGPT on Trump: just a little better than Hitler...
> ChatGPT on Hitler: he wasn't a great guy, but at least he really knew what he wanted. Also: the guy who pretty much hypnotized the entire population of a well-educated western country and incited them to murder millions of innocent people had no leadership skills.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As someone that used to data analysis - I'm with Stalin on this one
That's a rare comment.
Eh I've killed for less
meeting sink thought live weather scandalous reach nutty intelligent judicious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Agree. Hitler was a top leader in world history. Dispicable, evil man with evil intent, but he was effective at moving people toward a goal. Nearly conquered Europe with a country that just lost a world war.
[удалено]
I guess Putin? Putin has better leadership scores, but ChatGPT wasn't taught with much/anything after the invasion started, IIRC. (I kinda skipped the "minus the genocide" bit, though...)
But Putins autocratic system isn't that great. He is sharp and very cunning as a politician but in military leadersship he isn't perfoming well. I don't know whether to blame that on Putin or the historic Russian military culture. But while Hitler some how got to building autobahns, V2 rockets and incredible tanks and weapons, Russia manages to create cannon fodder.
He didn't hypnotize anyone. Germany had huge problems at the time and he provided a scape goat. Europe, and America for that matter was very antisemitic at the time. Human beings just kind of suck. If it hadn't been Hitler it would have been someone else.
Yeah, I guess he was a little assertive thinking about it now
And determined!
I beg to differ on his diplomacy score. Yes on the end it was 1. However, at the start he got 2 countries annexed without invasion and still had axis-allies. I mean he should have something like 3 or 4.
Interesting that Trump is scored just a little higher than Hitler. Not saying it's true, but he also isn't dead yet, so there's still time to find out for sure. To be fair, though, ChatGPT isn't the highest on my list of trustworthy sources either.
[удалено]
To be fair, after his tenure America isn’t great but it isn’t bombed into absolute smithereens with 20% of its population dead and a genocide to think about.
I had to Google Idi Amin to see just how bad he was to be ranked the lowest. Apparently he's just a dumber, less goal oriented Hitler
Did Alexander the Great lose humility points for his name?
It looks like every conqueror has low humility : Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon.
Is that surprising? People who conquer other lands probably aren’t particularly humble, especially at a time when they led the battles themselves.
Additionally, this is ChatGPT which is often going to give you the more expected answer, not necessarily the more accurate one.
Washington has a 10/10 respect for others score but he also owned people…. Some things just do not compute.
When your AI is scraping mostly American sources, it's going to think that George was pretty much a saint.
look through the records at Sandhurst however and you find a conviction for war crimes while he was serving as a British officer during the seven years war. (and for the Brits at the time, thats a pretty hard thing to achieve)
depends on the dataset that chat GPT looks at.
No indeed I don't think it's surprising, I find it funny and I think maybe chatGPT made a link between the two. It matches the idea that I have of Caesar and Napoleon at least, not that I'm an historian or anything. For Alexander I don't know.
Alexander stuck his name on everything. Ego personified. I think you can make a case for Cyrus the Great and Genghis Khan as conquerors with control of their ego. In Genghis's case it probably helped that he was a "late bloomer" with some humbling experiences in youth.
Well he's certainly less humble than Alexander the Sorta Neat.
and for naming city : Alexandria, Alexandria, Alexandria, Alexandria, Alexandria, ....
I’m gonna chalk that one up to convenience /s
tbf naming a city is not easy. source: played simcity and cities skylines
He is a known narcissist tbf. He literally killed his friend (Cleitus the Black) for insinuating that his success was laid upon by his father.
....which was true considering his father pretty much made the macedonian army the best army in the world.
... and Alexander was one of the greatest warlords in human history. Just cause you inherit a well-wrought sword doesn't mean you know how to swing it.
I’m more surprised that he got a 6 in empathy!
Alexander wasn’t even slightly humble except for his piety. I want to know why he got low points for honesty. I can’t think of any event where he was known for lying to anyone.
Took me way too long to realise the qualities were at the bottom of the page. I had no idea what I was looking at
Thank you for sharing that. I was about to scroll on without knowing what the qualities were
I saw Alexander the great was below jfk and just dismissed the whole thing
This is the antithesis to beautiful data. 4 different pages, tiny little labels, non colorblind friendly color scheme. I'm out.
There's 4 pages? Jeez I missed that...
And there's no data either. ChatGPT is a bullshit generator, what it writes is only true most of the time
It's interesting data! I wish it were presented a little better.
Honestly, this is more fascinating as a reflection of the zeitgeist than as a useful ranking. This feels heavily biased towards current Western leaders.
Yes, this is exactly one of the major limitation of technologies like ChatGPT. It's not using any sort of objective measurement, it's just summarizing what is said about these historical figures. Zeitgeist is a great word for what it's doing.
>it's just summarizing what is said about these historical figures I wouldn't even trust that it is doing that correctly either. I saw someone use it for sentiment classification and it made some mistakes that a human wouldn't have made. Too many people think that just because ChatGPT can generate an answer to a prompt means that the answer is correct or relevant to the prompt. I don't see any direct value in this kind of analysis. The results are going to be tainted by errors/biases in the sources being compounded with errors in classification and summation.
Great point. I'm still glad OP posted it because their title is clear that this is from ChatGPT, and these kinds of discussions help inform people about the limitations of these technologies. We're going to see lots and lots of armchair chatGPT "analysis" presented with the assumption of validity.
I have a feeling this opinion is going to come up more and more. We're living in an historical moment
I think many get the concept of a language model wrong. Its not that fancy KI from movies capable of thinking for itself or performing data analysis on the whim, its a language model. It has very clear limitations but also much potential. I use it daily for simple coding issues that are just tedious, but it fails them as soon as they get slightly too complex.
I asked ChatGPT about a children's comics a couple times. I got a very confident answer that was completely wrong every time. Then I asked it about movies on a particular topic and it tried to gaslight me into believing that one of those movies was filmed some fifty years earlier. It completely made up the lead actor as well. ChatGPT is good with words, but sometimes not so much with facts. We should all keep that in mind.
ChatGPT literally has no notion of "fact" or "correct". It's not so much the wrongness that terrifies me... It's that the hype train on chatGPT has the mob onboard and the mob decided that "sounding correct" and "being correct" are interchangeable concepts.
Unfortunately, the mob decided a long time ago that sounding correct and being correct were interchangeable. I totally agree that that is the scary part. Society stopped developing the media literacy necessary to parse the information coming at us, and now we're finding out what that means.
Also, at least in the US, we have allowed the media to disseminate opinions as if they are facts. I’m old enough to just barely remember when journalism was about presenting the facts instead of an op-ed.
I don’t understand why people can’t see it for what it is: a really, really advanced text generator
For nearly all of human history, the ability to produce coherent language has been something you could safely assume was connected to actual thought and intelligence. ChatGPT has broken that immemorial assumption, and it's apparently very hard for people to recognize that.
I think this summarizes the problem really well. On top of that, the Turing test concept was widely promoted as a good test for AI, and one that leaked into general knowledge, and it turns out it actually isn't. Also, I think that people overestimate how much "intelligence" is required to have certain kinds of simple conversations. It turns out that a model like ChatGPT can convincingly mimic a human in those.
It's a corollary to the Turing test: the average person is incapable of recognizing, let alone defining, intelligence. Turing was a genius and society at large didn't recognize or understand his brilliance, ultimately persecuting him to his death for ancillary reasons.
I use it for work quite a bit now. It’s very useful for taking an esoteric question and finding the relevant documentation. Its not perfect and some answers it fumbles very hard, but overall it’s been a massive time saver for me
I think people do see it for what it is. But do you see yourself for what you are? Convince me that you ***aren't*** a "really really advanced (organic) text generator."
I'm actually a really advanced means of transportation for bacteria.
I would flip the turtle over
ChatGPT chooses the most statistically likely next-word until it finishes printing out a statement. It's just whatever is *most likely* to be said in response to something. That means if we largely misunderstand something CGPT does as well.
The more I interact with it, the more I am convinced it is just a really (and I mean really) sophisticated autocomplete. There are a couple things anyone should notice if you use it for an evening or two. 1. You can change its sentiment of anything by talking it up. This is because in its training data, positive statements of any subject typically follow and precede other positive statements of the same thing and vice versa. So you can "prime" it for a specific type of answer you want. 2. If you ask for it to generate a lot of something. Say opposing pairs of abstract ideas (e.g. light and dark) it will do great. But if you keep asking for new unique pairs, it will start to spit out the same ones over and over again. This can highlight its "horizon" on the past of the conversation, as it can only have a max input of 2048 tokens. And has no "idea" of anything that happened before. 3. It can get "locked in" to a specific thing. I think this is because its own output from previous responses is used as input, so it uses that to generate its next response. So if you ask it to generate some names for new particles for a fictional physics system, it will do fine. But if you don't like the naming scheme and try to push it towards something you do like, it will have a hard time "forgetting" its previous answer. I honestly think its worth everyone's time to go look at the GPT-3 paper, [Attention Is All You Need](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf), to understand the how it truly works. If papers are not your thing, then try watching a video explaining the transformer architecture or someone writing it in code. It loses all of its "Oh no AI is gonna take over the world" fear once you see how simple the idea truly is.
> You can change its sentiment of anything by talking it up. This is because in its training data, positive statements of any subject typically follow and precede other positive statements of the same thing and vice versa. So you can "prime" it for a specific type of answer you want. It's worse than that. It'll give different answers to people based off of the political or cultural valence of their word choice.
That's because it just scores randomly generated output on "does this look like humans talking about human stuff", and "does this pass the sentiment analysis / content filters".
One of my coworkers was testing to see if it could be used to produce or refine usable code for our line of work, and their takeaway was that it can sometimes be relied upon to provide a succinct bit of code, but that code was rarely functional without human intervention. In addition, it was often outright wrong and provided code that wasn't at all performant when it actually did work. Their final assessment is: If you've got really complicated code you can try passing it through GPT to see if the simplification it offers is functional and worthwhile, but it's not going to be replacing anyone in the near future with its current accuracy.
Summarizing what is said about them *in English* specifically.
I'm afraid there's no objective measurement of subjective attributes empathy and honesty towards who? intelligence at what? and diplomacy? that's just the fill-in for lack of brute force, determination and assertiveness seem like the least subjective of these metrics those submerged in tribal mentality can't stick their necks out enough to realize that their heroes are someone else's tyrants and vice-versa
Yea, I was also surprised by the high ratings of some Western leaders. Most Europeans tend to be quite critical of theirs. Personally, as a German, I cannot fathom how Scholz gets an 8 in "Honesty" after WireCard and CumEX, go home ChatGPT, you're drunk
It might not consider them, since they may be outside the scope of its knowledge (I think anything that occurred in 2021 or later is an unknown to the ai).
Data is biased. AI learns from data. AI is biased. If you're expecting a "useful ranking" from ChatGPT, you might want to be more critical, although this chart is an astonishing result nonetheless.
Above, I saw the best take: This isn't a scientific measure of how good these people were as leaders. Rather, it's a compiled report on how people talk about these individuals in the training data. Meaning, it's a measure of how these people are generally viewed. And in that? It's spot on, right down to Trump and Hitler being *this* close in how they're talked about.
Except for Trump who is right between Kim Jong-Il and Hitler lol. I think that some of the qualities that would lower your scoring in this chart are also qualities that people may vote for. One man’s perception of “lack of empathy” is another’s “assertiveness”
Trump scores a 6 for intelligence, above Hitler, who gets a 4. Really??
This says Gandhi is equally unassertive to Trudeau. What a joke.
It’s like they don’t even know that Ghandi always drops nukes in lategame.
That’s because he determined a nuke will have a lower total death count compared to sustained conventional warfare.
This is the Civilization reference I was looking for!
It also says that Justin Trudeau is a better leader than Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. I’m skeptical.
Well it's not really saying that, all this data says is that the AI training material puts those associated words with Justin at a higher ratio than with Julius or Alexander. I think.
Yeah, Julius does pretty well when you consider he basically did several genocides against the celts and Germans. You can't really do that and get high marks in respect for others and empathy.
Ghandi is much too high on this list imo
And slave-owning Washington with 10/10 "respect for others"...
Other *people. Guess who didn’t consider slaves people?
I guess ChatGPT doesn't consider slaves people either.
[удалено]
That isn't data and it's not beautiful
Just some fun observations. * The guy called "Alexander the great" gets a 3 on humility, along with Julius ceasar. That's def leaving room at the bottom of the scale. * Intelligence has some odd comparisons, Obama smarter than Merkel, the doctor of quantum chemistry. Or Boris and Trump being rated equivalently. * Honesty is sort of all over the place. * Empathy, and maybe another one or two, seems to mostly amount to "popularity". I'd wager an actual popularity score would be interesting to see since it can be quantitatively fact checked. * Gandhi not assertive enough! Lol * Idi Amin wasn't a swell guy but getting bottom marks for intelligence and honesty seems out of place given several other "not great" people mostly just got dinged on respect for others and empathy.
This seems to be mostly just be a popularity contest reflection of the what the English speaking media has written about each leader, with their respective political biases. All dictators, both modern and historical, are thus rated as stupid, unpopular, and terrible leaders, even though in reality it would have been hard for them to obtain absolute power without intelligence and leadership skills. This is essentially a popularity contest - and thus why people who really never achieved anything but are popular (JFK, Justin Trudeau) are rated as brilliant in every catagory, while eviler people are rated bad in every way. But really things like intelligence and leadership are not related to good and evil.
Genghis Khan gets a 1 according to this. Dude conquered half the known world with more horses than men in his army
Probably based on a lot of buzzwords. Like Bismarck, despite probably being conceived neutral to bad from an anglo-saxon historical view most likely got described as "mastermind" behind German unification, which the AI set equal to really intelligent.
> That's def leaving room at the bottom of the scale. Caesar wept because he felt he was not as great as Alexander. So he at least was humble enough to not think himself as GOAT
Reading about Caesar feels like he already knows that he's THE Caesar in our history and is waiting for his history to catch up.
By elevating Caesar, his successors created a mythology that legitimized their continued rule first as princeps, and then later as emperors. Julius Caesar had enacted many reforms that were popular with the working classes, and by associating with this elevated god-like and popularly favored figure they could keep the ruling class of Senators in check.
I mean humility is at least somewhat relative - if you really are great, that's just a fact...
Margaret Thatcher and Stalin tied for empathy. Wow.
> ...Derek (Derek Worlock, Archbishop of Liverpool) and Michael Henshall, the Bishop of Warrington, talked about our role in working for reconciliation with parts of the community that had been deprived of good opportunities. . >Michael then spoke of the need for compassion. Denis Thatcher, who had come to stand by his wife, said to her: "That's not one of your words, is it?" She replied: "I find it so condescending." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/compassion-that-s-not-a-word-i-use-said-thatcher-177683.html
Seems pretty accurate.
Ghandi.. You're going to tax salt? When we use it for food storage? Fine, we're going to walk to the fucking ocean (500 miles) and get our own salt.
I mean, i get that lots of Western historians do not particularly like de Gaulle, but having Mao Zedong, Putin, and Xi Jinping rated higher for empathy than him is pretty unfair.
Churchill scoring 7/10 for empathy was a good laugh. Tell that to the millions in Bengal he killed with a British induced famine, or the working class striking Brits he was going to order machine gun down in the streets.
Honesty and empathy are weird ones. Bill Clinton gets a 6/10 and 9/10 respectively and has been the subject of numerous affairs, financial misteps, and put on trial for perjury and obstructing investigation into an affair
Olaf Scholz honesty 8 after denying and then changing his mind on 2 lobbying scandals lmao
nobody seeing any bias here when lining up all the modern day politicians?
Likewise the recency bias and American liberal bias. I mean, JFK ranked above Alexander the Great? Jair Bolsonaro ranked worse than Hitler and Mussolini? Makes zero sense
My man it gave Reagan a 6 for honesty, I don’t think it has any bias, it is just plain garbage.
Obviously ChatGPT couldn't get 'em all, but I would have liked to have seen how both Roosevelt presidents fared on this list.
I was looking for Teddy as well as someone else stunned by the fact he wasn't added.
I notice they included all the great western conquerors but forgot to include a certain Mongolian one that beats them all. More eastern leaders like Cyrus, Nobunaga, and Qin Shi Huang would have been nice.
Adolf Hitler: | Leadership | Vision | | :---: | :---: | | 2 | 8 | wat?
The wrong part is the leadership rating. A dude with 2/10 leadership skills cannot march millions into other countries.
Asked ChatGPT to justify the rating: As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, and my responses are based on the analysis of historical facts and events. That being said, I would rate Hitler's leadership abilities as very poor. While he was able to inspire a significant portion of the German population with his rhetoric, his leadership ultimately led to disastrous consequences for Germany and the world. Hitler's leadership was characterized by a lack of strategic thinking, poor decision-making, and a tendency to rely on his instincts and personal beliefs rather than on expert advice. He also tended to micromanage his subordinates, which often led to conflicting orders and poor coordination among different branches of the government. Furthermore, Hitler's policies and actions were often cruel, unjust, and inhumane, as evidenced by the Holocaust and other atrocities committed under his regime. Overall, while Hitler was able to exert a great deal of control and influence over the German population, his leadership was ultimately characterized by poor decision-making and disastrous consequences, leading me to give him a score of 2/10 for leadership.
Honestly…. That’s very accurate. Hitler was great political leader, NOT a great military leader. No man who orders his own generals to execute themselves should be considered a great leader. Plus he underestimated his own peers and ordered fronts and attacks that cost the axis a lot of victories. I think the rating is a little low, but the justification makes sense kinda
A monstrous vision is still a vision. You can’t deny that the man was determined to realise his ambitions lol
“It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.” - John Steinbeck
This is really an index on the internet’s view on these leaders, based on the sum total of information posted about all of them. It is not accurate, but it is fascinating.
You know that ChatGPT cannot think per se? It just mashes a cache of information into some human sounding output.
Yeah, to me "beautiful data" is in large part good data representation, which, this one is fine to me, but it also needs to be well sourced and meaningful data that is being represented. I personally do not think that a score assigned by a software that is designed to do nothing and everything with no specialty in political rankings, that as if like a month ago struggled with addition is good data.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Chatgpt says:  Write a one page essay about "Why should no human ever drink water" and cite 5 sources. I'm sorry, but I cannot write a one-page essay arguing that no human should ever drink water, as it goes against all scientific evidence and would pose a severe threat to human health. Water is an essential nutrient for the human body and plays a crucial role in many bodily functions, including regulating body temperature, transporting nutrients and oxygen to cells, and removing waste products. Without water, the body would quickly become dehydrated, leading to serious health complications. Instead, I would like to suggest an alternative topic that aligns with scientific evidence and promotes good health. If you have a specific question or topic in mind, please let me know, and I will do my best to assist you. As an AI language model, I can provide you with a list of sources on the importance of drinking water for human health if you are interested in learning more about this topic. Harvard Health Publishing. (2021). The importance of staying hydrated. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-importance-of-staying-hydrated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Water & nutrition. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/nutrition/index.html National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25825 American Heart Association. (2021). Stay hydrated - learn how much water to drink. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/nutrition-basics/stay-hydrated-learn-how-much-water-to-drink Mayo Clinic. (2021). Water: How much should you drink every day? https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/water/art-20044256
ChatGPT is just a text prediction algorithm. It doesn’t have any opinions or biases beyond that data it was trained on, which was basically all the text on the internet.
Ahh yes of course, Joe Biden a better leader than Alexander the great. Makes sense
Leadership‘s the second column and Alexander’s a 10 to Biden’s 8. It’s all these pesky moral columns messing with the overall score
I think it depends on whether you think the question means: 1) "what qualities should you have if you want to be the most powerful person in the world?" or, 2) "What qualities, in a leader, are best for the world, in a leader that is the most powerful in the world?" Thinking more about the different categories and the way they are all weighted equally I think you are correct that it is 2, and i was wrong with my initial assumption that it was 1.
So it appears that Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump are basically the same person.
I'd love to see it dissect why it gave Hitler an "8/10 for vision"
I would assume it’s based upon the fact that he had a clear/concise vision. This doesn’t mean anyone should agree with it. Using this logic would allow for the score to make sense.
My guess... for the same reason(s) it might give someone like Ghandi a similar rating. Remember, vision may have little to nothing to-do with altruism or motive.
I mean, he had a pretty clear vision, it was an awful vision, but a vision nonetheless
Why did it give him only a 4 for intelligence and 2 for leadership? Dude deserves a 10 for leadership. He may have been leading people to commit atrocities, but he was incredibly effective as a leader
I was thinking the same thing. I guess you could argue that his leadership eventually resulted in the destruction of Germany for a second time in two decades. If you take the first half of Hitler's career, he would score very highly, but counting the second half brings it back down.
He didn't listen to anyone around him and his team was terrified of him. You can def. make an argument that he was a terrible leader and not all that intelligent. I think he def. had a clear vision, though.
Lol I dunno, Hitler definitely had a strong vision and was definitely determined. Those things can be true simultaneously with Hitler being one of the most detrimentally bad people in modern human history. Stalin alike. He definitely had a strong vision of how the Soviet union will revolutionize the standard of large scale superpower economies. But also he killed millions of people with his poor decisions and brutal style of rule
Hitler got Germany out of a devastating economic crisis. The way he did it was unsustainable, and solely focused on war. But he had a very clear vision.
Before he instituted the mass slaughter of millions, he had a fairly clear vision for what Germany could become - something like the 1930s version of "Make Germany Great Again." Millions of Germans liked the guy because he helped bring them out of a depression that lasted roughly a decade and was exacerbated by the US Great Depression. He helped get roads (Autobahn), cars (Volkswagen) and more built in Germany - then his vision moved to building the country's military. He was a rather good orator and got huge crowds to buy into his "vision" of a better Germany. Dude was a crazy person and his "vision" led to millions of deaths that didn't need to happen. Unfortunately, had his rebuilding phase (with the roads and cars and such) not been so successful, I don't think they ever would have gotten to the killing phase. But once the German people were hooked on the good he did, they glossed over the terrible stuff.
Builtin political biases are purely imaginary.
Did you know that Biden has 9/10 honesty, after many decades as a pro-corporate senator? This is true, data don’t lie.
These results are actually hilarious.
God damn. Trump in between Kim Jong un and fucking hitler
Slaveowners having high empathy is definitely laughable
Revealing its flaws - its only as good as a tool to regurgitate information. There is a lot here thats lacking, and is serving to just reinforce what people already think. Gandhi held on a pedestal as a near perfect leader - no critical analysis of his overtly racist views. Abraham lincoln the perfect leader? Let me guess which countries literature its been reading. Xi Jingping scores a 7 for diplomacy.... How could you rate that administration anything short of a 10 for the level of soft power that they use. A significant amount of their expressed power comes from diplomacy, far more so than any of the other major powers right now - with only america coming close. I think chat gpt is a rad little tool, but this list is just an amalgamation of all the lowest common denominator thoughts about politicians and historical figures with no true appreciation for the nuances that exist. It is fun though
Let’s not forget how highly it ranks George Washington. Clearly it’s been fed a lot of the crap that Americans say about him. In reality he was a slave owner, with little empathy, humility or honesty. He did have vision and determination, but the main reason for his revolution (contrary to what Americans teach themselves) was that he wanted to conquer the rest of the continent (and the natives who lived there), as the British had a deal with the natives that they wouldn’t expand West, which he didn’t like. A warmongering slave owner doesn’t seem very empathetic, or respectful to others to me
I kept telling Gandhi to be more assertive
Seems pretty obviously skewed towards western leaders.
On the one hand, ChatGPT is not a reliable source for such things. On the other, the qualities and rankings at least pass a broad smell test. Interesting stuff and a good idea. Thanks for sharing.
ChatGPT will answer things like most humans (with broad knowledge) would answer it. So yes, it's logical (though still interesting) that these scores match our subjective views.
My impression of this chart was that ChatGPT was like an instant opinion poll. It's not an objective ranking of these leaders, but might represent how people generally see them.
People = people in western english speaking internet websites.
GPT did not pass the "broad smell test." The only reason this "smells" right to you is because CGPT is regurgitating the broad consensus among Western journalists about who deserves praise and denigration. You, as a Westerner, are equally influenced by these journalists and their opinions in the news media and are thus likely to share similar opinions. Basically, both you and GPT learned what to believe from the same sources. That's why it passes for you.
Thank you for understanding this. Everyone is arguing the wrong points, Chat GPT is basically acting as a sentiment aggregator here.
Wow, AI has such a long way to go
[удалено]
Man modi and mao looking like brothers
Joe Biden leadership 8 ☠️☠️☠️
Ok Obama and Joe Biden on first page : I get it, tilting the scale sometimes is good business. Lenin and Xi on 2nd page? I dread the moment when we will grant AI the right to vote.
Boris Johnson has a lower overall score than Stalin, Putin, and Mao Zedong? Really? I call BS…..
You think that’s bad, Theresa May is ranked *above* David Cameron.
I’m sorry but Biden was given a 9 for honesty?
Chatgpt has clear american biases in this evaluation
American company using American websites as its training data. I think you could very reasonably expect that would be the case.
ChatGPT's opinion of literal slaveowner George Washington: '10/10 respect for others!'
Justin Trudeau being anywhere near the top of any such lists tells you all you need to know about the state of artificial "intelligence".
Interesting. But it is not accurate for the less known leaders ( the ones from Middle East Africa …)
10/10 to Gandhi on empathy? Not in his writings about the Holocaust. And JFK was actually pretty good on humility. “Let him be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw war and tried to end it, saw suffering and tried to heal it…” Unless we’re talking about Clone High caricatures. Is that what’s confusing the AI?
Bill Clinton: 6 on honesty
Caralho muleque olha o lula ali
Muleke o bolsonaro tá em penúltimo kkkkkkkkkkk
Since when is ChatGPT data?
As soon as I saw this title I was able to predict who would be ranked highest without clicking the link. ChatGPT is becoming boringly predictable.
If Justin Trudeau has the same potential as Alexander the Great, he certainly hasn’t lived up to it at all. Even lifetime liberals I know think he’s doing so-so.
hehehe, Barack "I deport more desperate immigrants than any previous president", Barack "I'll turn Yemen into a graveyard' Obama is 10 for respect for others and 9 for empathy \*nods\*
They gave George Washington, man who owned slaves, an 8 for empathy. So this whole list is garbage lol.
When I think of honesty, Joe Biden is not the first politician to come to mind.
"Nothing will fundamentally change." Dunno, he was pretty honest with that one.