Is an AI Answer the Right Way to Rebut Criticism?

The central criticism from opposition parties and the press was not about the constitutionality of law enforcement chiefs attending Cabinet meetings, but rather concerns about political neutrality and the independence of investigations. Critics questioned the appropriateness of agency heads, who could investigate the president, regularly sitting before him and receiving his remarks.

The article suggests that using an AI's response to dismiss these concerns as "unconstitutional nonsense" is problematic. It highlights that generative AI can produce varied answers depending on how questions are framed and premises are set. This reliance on an unverified AI answer for a state matter is presented as an attempt to silence criticism rather than persuade the public through established legal frameworks.

Beyond the AI's use, the situation underscores broader issues regarding presidential communication and accountability. The president's use of social media, including slang, has been criticized for potentially deepening conflict. Furthermore, the absence of a police commissioner general for 22 months, despite the president's emphasis on accountability, points to a leadership vacuum that the article argues is more urgent than the Cabinet seating arrangement.