How Well did ChatGPT Reflect my Role in the Branch Davidian Tragedy?

 

Introduction

There has been a great deal of focus in recent months on ChatGPT.  ChatGPT is an AI based on a language model designed to mimic the human brain as much as possible.  It employs software-based neurons which specialize in certain areas.  These software neurons connect to other software neurons to create human like responses to human prompts.  OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT, employs predictive algorithms which allow ChatGPT to begin with a basic corpus of information, then predict what the next word of the response would be if a human wrote or spoke it.  It’s abilities are remarkable, but many fear its potential for misinformation if used incorrectly.  For example, if I ask ChatGPT to write an essay on a subject, then simply cut and paste that essay into a research paper I am writing, that essay is likely to contain a mixture of truth and fabrication.  The reason for this is that predictive algorithms can lead ChatGPT down a wrong branch.  If a prediction for the next words in a response is wrong, then all subsequent predictions after that initial wrong prediction are also likely to be wrong.  In Computer AI parlance, this phenomenon is known as a hallucination.  You can think of an AI hallucination as an AI having a psychotic episode.

I decided to look at ChatGPT version 3.5 and version 4 by giving it a prompt having to deal with one of the most famous incidents in modern history.  The siege and subsequent fire of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in 1993 is one of the most covered events in modern history.  Scores of documentaries and books have been written about it.  I was a key player in that tragic drama.  I asked ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 about my role in the whole saga.  I posed both versions exactly the same promt. 

ChatGPT 3.5 suffered a massive hallucination while v4 dramatically improved.  In fact, ChatGPT 4’s response is orders of magnitude more accurate.  I think an analysis of ChatGPT in this manner provides a fabulous insight into the program because I am in a position to know with absolute certainty what is right and what is not.  I imagine ChatGPT was loaded with a massive amount of corpus text on this subject which means this prompt provides a rich background to perform such analysis.  I will bold ChatGPT’s response then provide my commentary on every paragraph.

The Prompt

Please discuss the role and part Marc Breault played in the story of the Branch Davidians, as well as during the siege and subsequent fire that consumed the Branch Davidian compound in 1993.

ChatGPT v3.5

Marc Breault was a member of the Branch Davidians, a religious group led by David Koresh that was based in Waco, Texas. Breault played a significant role in the events leading up to the 1993 siege and subsequent fire that consumed the Branch Davidian compound.

Everything in this paragraph is correct.

Breault was a confidant and close follower of Koresh. He joined the group in the early 1980s and quickly rose through the ranks to become one of Koresh’s trusted lieutenants. Breault was responsible for many of the group’s day-to-day operations, including recruiting new members and managing the group’s finances.

I joined in 1986.  ChatGPT is correct when stating I was involved in recruiting new members, but it is incorrect in asserting I managed the finances.  The Branch Davidians had a President, which was David Koresh, a Vice President who was Perry Jones, a secretary, who was Catherine Matteson, and a Treasurer which was a position I never held.  My recollection of the office holders may not be entirely correct, but this is what I recall.  I can say with 100% certainty that I never managed the group’s finances in any way, shape or form.

In the weeks leading up to the siege, Breault became increasingly concerned about the group's situation. He was aware of the mounting tensions between the Branch Davidians and law enforcement, and he feared that the group was headed for disaster.

ChatGPT has my motivations correct, but its timing is off.  I left the Branch Davidians in 1989 at which time there were very few tensions, if any, with law enforcement.  It is true I became increasingly concerned about the group’s situation in the weeks leading up to the siege.  I was one of the very few who was aware of the ATF’s investigation.  The way ChatGPT expresses things, it makes it seem this was why I parted ways with the group.  I feared the group was headed for disaster starting in 1989 but this fear was based on David Koresh’s teachings, not on any tensions with law enforcement.

Breault was one of the few members of the group who was able to communicate with the outside world during the siege. He spoke to negotiators on several occasions, relaying messages from Koresh and other members of the group. Breault also provided authorities with valuable intelligence about the group's weapons and defensive capabilities.

Here we see ChatGPT starts to get things completely wrong.  It has me inside the compound during the siege acting as a conduit between the Branch Davidians and the FBI.  I was never inside the compound during the siege, having left in 1989.  However, I did provide both the ATF and FBI with dossiers of every member as well as their weapons training as in, for example, one of the Branch Davidians being a former police officer, and another follower formerly belonging to the US Air Force in which he received a shooting distinction.  In 1993, I did not have current knowledge of the group’s weapons.

Despite his efforts to defuse the situation, the siege ended in tragedy. On April 19, 1993, the FBI launched a tear gas assault on the compound. The Branch Davidians responded with gunfire, and a fire broke out that consumed the compound. More than 70 members of the group, including Koresh and many children, died in the fire.

This is true.  I did attempt to defuse the situation, but not in the manner ChatGPT expresses.  ChatGPT believes I was inside the compound and tried to defuse the situation from within it.  This is incorrect.  Its summary of what happened on April 19, 1993, is correct.

Breault was one of the few survivors of the fire. He later testified at the trial of several surviving Branch Davidians, including Koresh's brother, who were charged with various crimes related to the siege. Breault's testimony was critical in helping prosecutors build their case against the defendants.

I did not survive the fire as I was not inside the compound.  The surviving Branch Davidians launched a civil lawsuit against the federal government for US$675 million.  I never provided any direct testimony for that trial and was not involved at all.

ChatGPT v4

Marc Breault was a key figure in the story of the Branch Davidians, a religious sect that gained international attention during the 1993 siege of their compound in Waco, Texas. Breault was an Australian who joined the Branch Davidians in the 1980s and became a close associate of David Koresh, the group's leader. However, he eventually left the group due to disagreements with Koresh's teachings and practices, particularly his alleged involvement in sexual misconduct with underage girls.

The only thing ChatGPT got wrong here is my nationality.  I am presently a dual American and Australian citizen.  When I joined the Branch Davidians, I was solely an American.  I was born in Jacksonville Arkansas and lived in the USA until September of 1989 at which time I moved to Australia.  V4 states the correct reason why I left the group whereas v3.5 stated I left because of rising tensions with law enforcement.

After leaving the Branch Davidians, Breault actively worked to expose the group’s activities and the dangers he believed they posed. He reached out to law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), providing them with valuable intelligence on the group’s activities, particularly their illegal stockpiling of weapons and explosives.

This is not entirely correct, but it is close.  I did reach out to law enforcement, but I did not reach out to the ATF because when I left, I did not believe there were any illegal weapons at the compound.  There were a number of other agencies I did reach out to, however, so I can see where ChatGPT’s predictive algorithms would extrapolate that I reached out to the ATF.  In fact, the ATF started their own investigation into the Branch Davidians completely unaware of my attempts to get law enforcement to look into the cult.  During the course of their investigation, they discovered affidavits which I had prepared along with a number of American and Australian ex members as a part of a desperate collective effort to avoid disaster.  The ATF then initiated contact with me late in 1992.  I find it interesting that ChatGPT adds “and Explosives” when describing the ATF.  ATF stands for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms only.  I believe the addition of “and Explosives” is a quirk of ChatGPT’s predictive algorithms.

During the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian compound, which began on February 28, 1993, Breault continued to play an important role. He provided the FBI and other law enforcement agencies with critical information about the inner workings of the group, including their mindset, beliefs, and motivations. This information was essential in helping authorities understand the dynamics within the compound and devise strategies to bring about a peaceful resolution.

This is 100% correct and represents a vast improvement over v3.5 with respect to stating my role during the siege.

Breault also cooperated with the media, sharing his experiences and insights to help paint a clearer picture of the situation. His testimonies played a significant role in shaping public opinion about the Branch Davidians, as well as raising awareness about the potential dangers of religious extremism and cults.

This is also 100% correct.  For the record, I, along with others, reached out to the media when  law enforcement agencies failed to do anything about Koresh and before the ATF reached out to me.  When the siege began, the FBI asked me to continue to tell my story to the media to counter a great deal of misinformation and speculation which was rampant.  We devised a plan to apply media pressure to convince Koresh to let children leave the compound.  I state this for the record.  I would not expect ChatGPT to include this.  What ChatGPT states here is correct at a high level.

Despite the efforts of law enforcement and the involvement of figures like Breault, the standoff at the Branch Davidian compound ended in tragedy on April 19, 1993. A fire engulfed the compound, resulting in the deaths of 76 people, including David Koresh and several children. The cause of the fire remains controversial, with some blaming the FBI’s use of tear gas and others suggesting that the fire was started by the Branch Davidians themselves.

ChatGPT should not be criticized here for saying 76 people died.  The number of people who died differs widely among various reports.  As for the cause of the fire being controversial, this is technically correct and ChatGPT should be commended for stating this.  However, I am 100% certain the Branch Davidians started the fire because I have had access to information not generally available to the public, although the information is out there.  I would not expect ChatGPT to have been fed that information because of this fact, so in this case, ChatGPT has done the commendable thing and not given a definitive statement as to who started the fire.  I would say this is an example in which a human researcher is better able to provide clarity.

While Marc Breault was not directly involved in the events during the siege and the fire, his role as an informant and critic of the Branch Davidians played a significant part in shaping the narrative around the group and the response of law enforcement agencies.

This is a perfectly acceptable conclusion which is 100% accurate.

Overall Conclusion

I am amazed at how much better ChatGPT 4 is over its 3.5 predecessor.  V3.5 experienced a massive hallucination which is understandable given the way OpenAI algorithms work.  I believe v3.5 started to make predictions which were not grounded in the basic text it was fed on this subject too early and paid the price with wildly inaccurate statements.

Version 4 did not get much wrong.  Having said this, if I were a history teacher and one of my students cut and pasted v4’s response into their research paper and passed it off as their own, I would have marked them down somewhat for not getting all the facts right.  A human researcher would have determined I was not an Australian at the time.  I would expect my research student to go through the evidence about the fire in detail.  Finally, a true research paper should have far more detail than the ChatGPT response. 

We are in early days as far as AI goes.  ChatGPT has stunned the world with how good it actually is, but it still has a way to go, and I suspect it will improve dramatically quickly.  For now, it can serve as a tool which provides a human with a start.  For instance, it can provide a skeletal framework for research, but it should not be accepted as gospel truth.  Having said all this, as a software developer for many years, I can only marvel at how impressive ChatGPT is.  We are in for interesting times ahead.

 

A Sermon by Chat GPT v4

 Here is a sermon Chat GPT wrote based on the parameters I gave it.  I will include the instructions I gave and the sermon without any commentary.

Write a Christian sermon which discusses whether violence has any place in the Christian experience. Please examine this subject from the point of view of individual violence as well as group violence. Take into account the doctrine of war which the early church developed once it gained political power and influence.

Title: The Christian Experience: Violence and the Path of Love

Introduction:

Good morning, beloved congregation. Today, we will explore a topic that has perplexed Christians for centuries: the role of violence in the Christian experience. As we examine this subject, we will discuss individual and group violence and consider the doctrine of war developed by the early church once it gained political power and influence.

I. Individual Violence

Individual violence is a personal act of aggression or force inflicted upon another. The teachings of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, call us to a life of love, forgiveness, and mercy.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" (Matthew 5:38-39). By instructing us to turn the other cheek, Jesus encourages us to respond to violence with humility and forgiveness, not with retaliation.

In another passage, Jesus instructs us to "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28). As followers of Christ, we are called to love even those who commit acts of violence against us, reflecting the perfect love of God.

II. Group Violence and the Doctrine of War

The early church grappled with the question of violence on a larger scale, as Christians gained political power and influence. The doctrine of war, or just war theory, was developed to address the tensions between Christian values and the realities of governing a state.

The just war theory, primarily formulated by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, sets forth criteria for engaging in war ethically. These criteria include having a just cause, proper authority, right intention, and reasonable prospects of success, among others.

While the just war theory seeks to minimize violence and protect innocent lives, it also acknowledges the imperfect nature of our world, where conflicts may arise that require a response. However, the just war theory should not be seen as an endorsement of violence but rather as a framework for discerning when force is necessary and morally justifiable.

III. The Path of Love

As we reflect on the role of violence in the Christian experience, we must remember that Christ's teachings consistently call us to a life of love, forgiveness, and mercy. The Apostle Paul reminds us that "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10).

As Christians, we should strive to embody this love in our actions, both individually and collectively. Instead of resorting to violence, we must seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts and work towards a world where "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, violence is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who calls us to a life of love, forgiveness, and mercy. While the just war theory acknowledges that force may sometimes be necessary in an imperfect world, it should not be seen as an endorsement of violence but rather as a means of discerning when force is morally justifiable.

As followers of Christ, let us commit to being peacemakers, working towards a world where love and justice prevail. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all. Amen.

Android & iOS

Library 3

Wednesday 149 KB • 2023-04-12 • 41 min left

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. 264 KB • 2023-04-12

Office 40 KB • 2023-04-11

01:07

03:45

Please write a Christian sermon on whether violence has any place in the Christian experience and please cover whether it is OK to commit violence in order to prevent evil, such as to stop a rape in progress or to prevent a murder.

Title: The Christian Experience: Violence, Love, and Preventing Evil

Introduction:

Good morning, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Today, we will explore a complex and sensitive topic that has been a source of contemplation for many Christians: whether violence has any place in the Christian experience. In this sermon, we will discuss whether it is acceptable to commit violence to prevent evil acts, such as stopping a rape in progress or preventing a murder.

I. The Teachings of Jesus Christ

The teachings of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, consistently call us to a life of love, forgiveness, and nonviolence. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9).

He also instructs us to turn the other cheek when confronted with violence, saying, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" (Matthew 5:38-39).

II. Preventing Evil through Love and Nonviolence

Christ's teachings encourage us to prevent evil through love and nonviolent means whenever possible. In the face of violence, our first instinct should be to seek peaceful resolutions and to diffuse the situation without resorting to aggression ourselves.

When Jesus was arrested, one of his disciples drew a sword to defend him, but Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). This passage reminds us that the cycle of violence often leads to more suffering, and that our true strength lies in our ability to love and forgive even our enemies.

III. The Dilemma of Using Violence to Prevent Evil

In a fallen world, we may face situations where violence appears to be the only option to prevent further harm or evil. While the teachings of Jesus emphasize love and nonviolence, we must also consider the responsibility we have to protect and defend innocent lives.

The Christian tradition recognizes the concept of "just defense," wherein the use of force is morally permissible when it is the least harmful option to protect oneself or others from grave harm. This concept differs from retaliation or vengeance, as it is motivated by love and compassion, not hatred or revenge.

In the face of imminent evil, such as stopping a rape or preventing a murder, the use of force in self-defense or the defense of others may be morally justifiable if it is the least harmful option to prevent the greater evil. However, we must always approach such situations with caution and humility, striving to exhaust all nonviolent means before resorting to force.

IV. Discernment and the Holy Spirit

In complex situations where we must decide whether to use violence to prevent evil, we should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As Christians, we believe that the Holy Spirit dwells within us, providing guidance and wisdom in times of uncertainty. Through prayer and discernment, we can seek the wisdom and courage to make difficult decisions that honor God's call for love, justice, and peace.

Conclusion:

While the teachings of Jesus Christ consistently call us to a life of love and nonviolence, we may face situations where the use of force seems necessary to prevent greater evil. In these instances, we must seek discernment from the Holy Spirit and act in the spirit of love, compassion, and justice.

May we always strive to be peacemakers and to prevent evil through love and nonviolence. And may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of

OCR Scan