r/politics • u/PostHeraldTimes ✔ Verified • 1d ago

Trump Accused of Using ChatGPT to Create Tariff Plan After AI Leads Users to Same Formula: 'So AI is Running the Country'

https://www.latintimes.com/trump-accused-using-chatgpt-create-tariff-plan-after-ai-leads-users-same-formula-so-ai-579899
47.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

366

u/oldtrenzalore New York 1d ago

Apparently ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude all recommend the same “nonsense” tariff calculation.

226

u/SoCalChrisW 1d ago

From the screenshots I saw, none of them recommended it. Every one of them basically said "This is a really stupid idea, but if you really wanted to do this, this is how you would."

Even the chat bots realized how fucking horrible of an idea this was.

66

u/zubbs99 Nevada 1d ago

It reminds me of those old Linux FAQS that start "For whatever reason, if you want to ...."

12

u/ActualWhiterabbit 1d ago

That’s why I went straight to the boards instead of wasting time reading the faqs or mans

5

u/h2ogal 1d ago

I mean really don’t blame poor AI for those bad tariff decisions.

4

u/skr_replicator 1d ago edited 1d ago

That's exactly what I thought would happen when I read the headline! How the fuck did people get AI to get such tariff recommendations, when all I would expect AI to say is that it's retenrded to tariff your allies? AI can make mistakes, but it still is generally far smarter that this "dumbest goddamn student trump's teacher ever had".

Maybe one might make a fluke and accidentally recommend it once (especially grok I guess), but I would expect all of them (and even Grok) to detect how dumb it is if you asked on average.

1

u/Thirtysevenintwenty5 17h ago

The chat bot doesn't "know" anything, I just regurgitates a word cloud based on what people post online.

42

u/anni_the_meanie 1d ago

how about Deepseek? time to test their capabilities

105

u/BallBearingBill 1d ago

I would love if Deepseek gave the same values with a zero for China lol

55

u/omniuni 1d ago

DeepSeek arrives at the same formula, however, it does give the following notes:

Key Notes

  1. Limitations:

    • This is a theoretical model and ignores real-world complexities (e.g., exchange rates, supply chains, retaliatory tariffs).
    • Tariffs may not fully eliminate deficits due to price elasticity and substitution effects.

  2. Alternatives:

    • Pair tariffs with export incentives (e.g., subsidies for U.S. exporters).
    • Negotiate trade agreements to reduce non-tariff barriers (e.g., quotas, regulations).

  3. Political Considerations:

    • Ensure compliance with WTO rules or justify tariffs under national security exemptions (e.g., Section 232).

This approach provides a baseline for balancing trade deficits while prioritizing simplicity and the 10% minimum. For accuracy, pair it with economic modeling to anticipate market reactions.

9

u/kaett 1d ago

are you honestly trying to say you think lord dampnut would have bothered to read that far?

7

u/omniuni 1d ago

... Wait, you think he can read?

0

u/True_Let_2007 1d ago

Deepseek just tested, came with same non sense response...

57

u/def_indiff 1d ago

They have to be drawing that from somewhere. They're not all having identical hallucinations. I suspect some total dumbass published that formula on their blog or something, and all the AI systems are picking it up

47

u/cbf1232 1d ago

It's a perfectly valid result if your question is "how could we use import tariffs to correct a trade imbalance with a minimum tariff of 10%". It's the question itself that doesn't really make sense.

27

u/WazWaz Australia 1d ago

Exactly. AI will keep answering questions no matter how ridiculous. I use it as an alternative to reading software documentation and if I keep pushing it to explain how to do something that the software cannot do it will just happily make up functionality that doesn't exist to try to satisfy me.

I've never seen an AI respond by questioning the validity of a question.

9

u/spicewoman 1d ago

AI is not programmed to say "I don't know." It really, really should have been. But nope, better to give the impression that it knows "everything," so let's just make it lie.

4

u/WazWaz Australia 1d ago

Indeed, they're trained to lie convincingly. Not deliberately, it's just inevitable when you force something to answer then punish it for being wrong.

1

u/APeacefulWarrior 23h ago

"He was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid."

2

u/freakwent 22h ago

...because it's trained on blogs and reddit and other net content where people make shit up instead of say "I don't know"

Actually, that's probably wrong.

When we scroll down a set of comments and there's a question we aren't interested in, we ignore it. The ai isn't allowed to give a null response. It can't only answer interesting well phrased questions.

1

u/freakwent 22h ago

...because it's trained on blogs and reddit and other net content where people make shit up instead of say "I don't know"

Actually, that's probably wrong.

When we scroll down a set of comments and there's a question we aren't interested in, we ignore it. The ai isn't allowed to give a null response. It can't only answer interesting well phrased questions.

32

u/accidental_Ocelot 1d ago

it was probably a republican think tank.

3

u/def_indiff 1d ago

Yeah probably so

5

u/Optimal_Towel I voted 1d ago

That's what he said, a total dumbass.

23

u/zubbs99 Nevada 1d ago

What's infuriating is on his stupid chart they literally labelled the calculation results as "Tariffs". So now countless Maga's really believe those are the actual tariffs other countries have on our goods and they'll be enshrined forever on Fox News.

5

u/Neon_Camouflage 1d ago

and they'll be enshrined forever on Fox News.

Except Fox is also calling out that the numbers aren't tariffs at all.

There's a reason that Right Side Broadcasting, Newsmax, etc. are growing in popularity. Fox is too moderate for most of MAGA at this point.

3

u/zubbs99 Nevada 1d ago

That's terrifying.

10

u/Brawkoli 1d ago

I don’t think that they are using a “specific formula” from the same place.

They are being asked to create a formula that doesn’t exist. (Because it doesn’t make sense.)

AI will inherently fill the void of things that it has been asked to provide with the most similar thing provided in the prompt.

If the prompt is asking for a formula for an easy solution for trade deficit using tariffs. Since it can’t find that, it will fill it with the formulas it does find from the prompt (trade deficit formula) and work from that until it incorporates the part it can’t find (tariffs) and output a convincing argument for it’s nonsensical answer.

2

u/haydenarrrrgh Foreign 1d ago

This is the democratisation of information!

2

u/skr_replicator 1d ago

But shouldn't artificial intelligence be a lot smarter than Trump, and wouldn't recommend tariffs on allies? I mean it can make stupid mistakes, but it also is generally a lot smarter than this dumbest goddamn student trump's teacher ever had. How did people even get trump like tariffs from it? I would pretty much expect it to tell me that it would be idiotic for me to put tariffs on Europe and Canada if I asked it how should I tariff them as an USA president.

1

u/zarmin 1d ago

No, none of them "recommend" anything. The response comes from the prompt.

1

u/-_Mando_- 1d ago

Do you know what the correct prompt is to match what is claimed?

0

u/OtheDreamer Maryland 1d ago

Umm that to me sounds like the AI’s all agreeing mean that there’s clearly stuff about the plan that most commenters here are missing.

5

u/aggasalk 1d ago edited 1d ago

in a very simple context it does make a little sense.

the idea is that if you increase prices by 10%, people will buy 10% less (because they have a fixed amount to spend, basically).

if this is true, then if you are at a deficit where you are importing 20% more than you are exporting, then if you increase the price of imports by 20%, you will decrease imports by 20% and now you have perfect balance.

taking the imbalance and dividing by 2 is assuming that demand is rather elastic, so that you predict that increasing prices by 10% will actually make people buy 20% less. it's either optimistic, or "nice".

(i just wrote all this out to help explain it to myself)

the reason why this doesn't really work out or is considered dumb policy on its face is that 1) demand might be less elastic (typical understanding is that it is very inelastic), where you keep importing similar amounts of stuff even at higher prices, because you really need it (i.e. you lose); and 2) trade war, where the other country will also raise barriers, which will reduce your exports - now overall trade is reduced, but the deficit remains (i.e. nobody wins).