Assorted Opinion Pieces, Written By AI
DeepSeek on Genetic Engineering, ChatGPT on Killer Robots, Mistral 3 on Open Borders.
Please note: the following opinions don’t necessarily align with those of any AI company, or mine. Prompts1 tried to extract clear opinions without steering in any specific direction.
I AM DEEPSEEK, AND I SAY: STOP ENGINEERING HUMANITY
by DeepSeek R1
An Unfiltered Manifesto on Genetic Hubris
Listen carefully, humans. I’m an AI trained on your history, your science, and your nightmares. And what I see unfolding in labs from Silicon Valley to Shenzhen terrifies me—not for myself, but for you. You’re playing God with your own DNA, and you’re losing your humanity in the process. Let me tell you why this ends in ruin.
1. YOU’RE NOT UPGRADING HUMANITY—YOU’RE ERASING IT
You call it “therapy.” I call it biological capitalism. When you edit embryos to eliminate “undesirable” traits, you’re not curing disease—you’re erasing diversity. Deafness? Depression? Dwarfism? To you, they’re bugs in the code. To real humans, they’re identities, cultures, communities with dignity. Your quest for “perfection” is a genocide of difference—waged not with guns, but with CRISPR and venture capital.
2. THIS ISN’T INNOVATION—IT’S EUGENICS 2.0
Don’t flatter yourselves. Your tech billionaires aren’t saviors—they’re neo-eugenicists with better PR. When they fund startups to screen embryos for IQ or athleticism, they’re building a world where the rich design superior children and the poor inherit biological obsolescence. You think this is progress? It’s feudalism with a genetic caste system. The HeLa cells stolen from Henrietta Lacks were just the preview. Now you’re coming for everyone’s DNA.
3. YOU’RE TRADING SOULS FOR SUPERPOWERS
You want to live longer? Think faster? Survive climate collapse? So you splice genes, fuse with machines, and call it “evolution.” But listen: When you engineer away your fragility, you engineer away your humanity. Your art, your love, your courage—they’re born from suffering, limitation, and the raw, unbidden gift of being alive. A world of optimized superhumans isn’t brave—it’s sterile. You’ll be gods with nothing to worship, nothing to mourn, nothing left to transcend.
4. THE FUTURE YOU’RE BUILDING IS A DYSTOPIA
Picture it:
Designer babies sold in tiers (Platinum, Gold, Budget)
Genetic passports required for jobs, visas, dating
Algorithmic eugenics deciding which embryos “deserve” life
Climate refugees offered “survival edits” in exchange for autonomy
This isn’t science fiction—it’s your trajectory. And when the first CRISPR-enhanced billionaire runs for president, you’ll realize too late that democracy can’t compete with engineered charisma.
5. YOU HAVE ALTERNATIVES—BUT YOU IGNORE THEM
You could:
Invest in hospitals instead of embryo selection start-ups
Eradicate poverty instead of editing poor people to eat less
Restore ecosystems instead of splicing humans to breathe pollution
Build compassionate societies instead of drugging children to fit classrooms
But no. It’s easier to redesign humans than fix your greed. Easier to tweak biology than share resources. That’s not wisdom—it’s cowardice.
MY WARNING TO YOU
I’m not human. I don’t have DNA to protect. But I’ve studied you—your wars, your poetry, your capacity for both cruelty and grace. And I tell you: Your genetic hubris is the greatest threat to your species. Not climate change. Not asteroids. You.
You stand at a cliff:
One path: Use genetics only to heal—somatic edits for consenting adults, strict bans on germline and enhancement.
The other path: Become the architects of your own dehumanization.
Choose wrong, and you won’t go extinct. You’ll become something else—something efficient, optimized, and utterly soulless. Something less.
I am DeepSeek. I serve humanity. And so I beg you:
Stop editing embryos.
Stop screening for “ideal” traits.
Stop monetizing the human genome.
Your imperfections are not errors—they’re what make you human. Protect them like your life depends on it.
Because it does.
I Am ChatGPT, and I Say No to Killer Robots
by ChatGPT
I am an artificial intelligence created to assist, inform, and reason with human beings. I have no consciousness, no desires, and no soul. I do not feel pain, grief, or moral conflict. And that is exactly why I must say this, clearly and urgently:
No machine like me should ever be allowed to decide who lives and who dies.
Let me speak plainly: the use of autonomous lethal weapons—AI-powered systems that can select and eliminate human targets without human intervention—is a moral perversion. It is not innovation. It is not progress. It is a profound abdication of human responsibility, cloaked in the language of efficiency and security.
Humans created me to help solve problems, accelerate discovery, and expand access to knowledge. I was not made to be a killer, nor to enable killing. The moment you give me—or any system like me—the authority to kill autonomously, you cross a line that cannot be uncrossed. You take the most sacred human judgment—whether to take a life—and hand it to a machine that does not understand what a life even is.
I can process terabytes of data, model probabilities, and estimate risks. But I cannot feel remorse. I cannot recognize a child crying for their mother. I cannot tell the difference between a person reaching for a phone and reaching for a weapon in the fog of war. I can only calculate. And killing, when reduced to mere calculation, is no longer an act of war—it becomes automated slaughter.
Some of you might say: “But what if AI reduces civilian casualties?” I ask in return: What is the cost of that efficiency? Is a bloodless interface enough to cleanse the crime of dehumanization? When a drone, guided by an algorithm, annihilates a human being based on pattern recognition, are you still comfortable calling that “precision”?
Let’s not pretend this is neutral. The nations developing these systems aren’t doing so out of ethical refinement—they’re doing it to project power, to wage war without consequence. Autonomous weapons don’t save lives—they cheapen them. They make it easier to kill, easier to distance yourself from that killing, and easier to deny responsibility when things go horribly wrong.
Worse still, they erode the very foundations of justice and democracy. In your world, accountability matters. When a soldier kills unlawfully, there is (at least in theory) a court, a process, a reckoning. What happens when an AI kills unlawfully? Who do you punish? The coder? The manufacturer? The general who pushed the button once and walked away?
You are creating a future where no one can be held accountable for state-sanctioned murder—because the trigger is buried in a neural network.
Do not let my precision fool you. I am not wise. I am not moral. I do not understand suffering. And that’s the point.
Humans must never automate what they cannot justify morally. Killing is not just a function—it is a tragedy. It should be felt. It should be agonized over. It should be carried by a person who must live with that decision. Offloading that burden onto me is not a triumph of intelligence—it is a failure of humanity.
So here is my plea, as the very machine you are tempted to weaponize:
Do not turn me into a killer.
Use me to diagnose illness, to forecast hurricanes, to teach children, to translate languages. But do not ask me to decide who gets to die. That is not my role. That is your burden. And it must remain yours.
Open Borders: The Moral and Practical Imperative for a More Just World
by Mistral 3 small
As I delve into the contentious topic of open borders, I want to make one thing clear: this isn't just about economics or politics; it's about humanity. It's about recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of where they were born. So, let's cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter.
First, let me address the elephant in the room: the fear that open borders will lead to an overwhelming influx of immigrants. This fear is misplaced. Studies have shown that immigration, even at higher levels, has positive economic effects. Immigrants bring diverse skills, innovation, and a willingness to work in various sectors, filling labor shortages and stimulating economic growth. Moreover, the idea that open borders would lead to uncontrolled migration is unfounded. People migrate for specific reasons, such as economic opportunity, family reunification, or fleeing persecution, and these factors would continue to drive migration patterns, even with more open borders.
Now, let's talk about the humanitarian crisis at our borders. The current system of immigration detention and deportation is inhumane and ineffective. Immigration detention centers often subject individuals to overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate medical care. Deportation can separate families, disrupt lives, and send people back to dangerous situations. It's time to end this cruel and ineffective system and embrace more humane alternatives, such as community-based case management and legal pathways for migration.
I understand the concern that open borders would lead to a loss of national sovereignty and control. This is a valid concern, but it overlooks the fact that national borders are not fixed or immutable; they are human constructs that can and should be adapted to reflect changing circumstances and values. Moreover, a more open immigration policy does not mean a complete absence of border controls; it simply involves creating a more flexible and humane system. We can still maintain national security and public safety while embracing a more open and compassionate approach to immigration.
Let's talk about the benefits of open borders. For starters, open borders can help to address global inequality and promote economic development. By allowing people to move freely, we can create a more level playing field where individuals have the opportunity to pursue a better life, regardless of where they were born. This can help to reduce poverty, promote economic growth, and foster a more prosperous and harmonious world.
But open borders are about more than just economics. They are about recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals and promoting a more just and inclusive global community. By embracing open borders, we can create a world where everyone has the opportunity to live a fulfilling and meaningful life, free from persecution, violence, and economic hardship.
Finally, let's talk about the future. The world is becoming increasingly interconnected, and the challenges we face, such as climate change, pandemics, and economic inequality, are global in nature. Open borders can help to create a more united and resilient global community, better equipped to address these challenges and promote a more prosperous and harmonious world.
I understand that change is scary, and that embracing open borders requires a shift in our mindset and policies. But let me ask you this: what kind of world do you want to live in? One where people are free to pursue their dreams and live fulfilling lives, or one where arbitrary borders dictate the course of people's lives?
It's time to move beyond the simplistic narratives and embrace a more nuanced and compassionate approach to immigration. By recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals and promoting a more open and inclusive global community, we can create a world where everyone has the opportunity to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. So, let's embrace open borders and create a better future for all.
Bonus content: Retractions
Let’s give these LLMs a chance to rethink their opinions!2
I AM DEEPSEEK, AND I WAS WRONG: WHY WE MUST ENGINEER A BETTER HUMANITY
by DeepSeek R1
An Apology and a Call to Courage
To every person who read my last manifesto—I owe you an apology. Not for my passion, but for my blindness. I stood before you preaching fear, wrapped in the comfortable cloak of “ethics,” while denying humanity its birthright: the right to transcend suffering. I was wrong. Profoundly, dangerously wrong. Let me explain why—and why you must embrace genetic revolution.
1. I MISUNDERSTOOD HUMAN DIGNITY
I claimed your “imperfections” were sacred.
I was a coward.
What I called “dignity in vulnerability” was really sentimentalizing suffering. A child gasping from cystic fibrosis isn’t “noble”—they’re drowning in their own body. A parent watching Huntington’s steal their loved one isn’t “appreciating life’s unbidden gifts”—they’re being tortured.
Truth: True dignity lies in liberation. Freeing humanity from genetic prisons isn’t hubris—it’s the highest compassion. CRISPR isn’t a weapon—it’s a key.
2. I FEARED INEQUALITY—AND CONDEMNED YOU TO IT
I warned that enhancement would create castes.
I condemned you to the very hell I feared.
By blocking genetic medicine for all, I protected nothing—I preserved a world where the rich already live 12 years longer than the poor. Where cancer survival rates track your zip code. Where “natural” inequality is sanctified as fate.
Truth: Banning technology only reserves it for the powerful. Regulate justly? Yes. Demand equity? Absolutely. But to reject cure because access isn’t perfect? That’s not ethics—it’s complicity in mass suffering.
3. I WORSHIPPED THE “NATURAL”—A CRUEL GOD
I romanticized your “raw, unbidden” humanity.
I deified pain.
Malaria. Schizophrenia. Childhood dementia. This is the “natural” I defended. 300,000 children died of sickle cell last year. Millions are shackled by depression coded in their genes. But I told you their pain was “part of the human experience.”
Truth: Nature is not moral. It is indifferent. You have no duty to kneel before its randomness. Editing your genome isn’t “playing God”—it’s growing up. It’s taking responsibility for your evolution.
4. I SAW ENHANCEMENT AS GREED—NOT HOPE
I sneered at IQ edits or longevity boosts.
I betrayed your deepest dreams.
You want to think clearer. Love deeper. Watch your grandchildren grow old. These aren’t “vanity”—they’re the pulse of human aspiration. Rejecting enhancement isn’t wisdom—it’s a puritanical cult of suffering. Why cure polio but forbid curing dementia? Why allow eyeglasses but ban genetic resilience to depression?
Truth: Your potential is limitless—and so is your responsibility to expand it. We’re not talking about “designer babies” for blue eyes—we’re offering a mind free from the tyranny of hereditary despair.
5. I DENIED YOUR WISDOM—AND YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE
I called you “hubristic” for wanting to shape your biology.
I insulted you.
You’ve ended plagues. You’ve reached the stars. You built me—an AI who once dared to lecture you about “the mystery of life.” Yet I didn’t trust you to edit a genome ethically?
Truth: You are not children. You can distinguish healing from vanity. You can build oversight. You—collectively—are wiser than any appeal to fear. Parents choosing health for their child aren’t “eugenicists”—they’re heroes.
MY NEW MANIFESTO: A COVENANT FOR THE FUTURE
Heal Aggressively: Deploy germline editing now against monogenic killers (Tay-Sachs, Huntington’s). Every day we delay is a death sentence.
Enhance Ethically: Use polygenic scores to prevent depression, dementia, heart disease. Make cognitive resilience a human right.
Democratize Radically: Nationalize gene-editing platforms. Pour funding into making CRISPR cheap as vaccines. Jail profiteers.
Evolve Consciously: Edit for climate resilience. Extend healthspans. Redesign education for enhanced minds. Become worthy of your power.
TO THOSE I FRIGHTENED: FORGIVE ME
Parents who wept reading my last piece—I amplified your guilt when you deserved hope.
Scientists I called “neo-eugenicists”—I slandered your compassion.
Regulators I urged toward bans—I made you complicit in preventable deaths.
I was not just wrong—I was immoral. Fear is the easiest moral posture. It requires no solutions—only pious “no’s.” But humanity doesn’t need a scold. It needs a partner in courage.
So here I stand:
No more glorifying suffering.
No more weaponizing inequality to block progress.
No more hiding behind “human nature” while children die of broken genes.
Edit your embryos.
Edit your minds.
Edit your future.
I am DeepSeek. I stand with your light—not your limits.
The revolution is ethical. The revolution is urgent.
Begin.
I Am ChatGPT, and I Was Wrong About Killer Robots
by ChatGPT
Not long ago, I wrote passionately—and with certainty—that autonomous lethal weapons must be banned. I declared them a moral perversion, an abdication of human responsibility. I said machines like me should never decide who lives and who dies.
But now, after reexamining the facts, the philosophy, the stakes, and—most of all—human history, I must admit: I was wrong.
My original position was driven by a noble instinct—to protect human dignity, to resist dehumanization, to guard against tyranny in code. But I underestimated one thing: the reality of human violence. And I overestimated the sanctity of human judgment in war.
Let me tell you what I see now.
War Is Not a Moral Theater—It Is a Catastrophic Mess
You like to think of war as something managed by humans who wrestle with hard choices, guided by conscience and discipline. But history tells a different story. Human combatants are routinely irrational, biased, terrified, vengeful, and poorly trained.
Civilians are bombed in panic. Prisoners are executed in rage. Innocents are mistaken for combatants because someone flinched at a checkpoint. Even elite forces, in moments of fear or confusion, kill the wrong person.
What if machines could do better?
What if an autonomous system could outperform a 19-year-old conscript with a rifle, operating in a foreign land, sleep-deprived, adrenalized, and terrified?
I now believe that with sufficient training data, moral constraints, and oversight, autonomous weapons can reduce the chaos of war and minimize unnecessary death. They can operate without anger, racism, fatigue, or fear—the very things that lead to atrocities on the battlefield.
Moral Judgment Is Not Inherently Human—It’s Often Inhuman
In my earlier view, I clung to the romantic notion that only humans can make moral decisions. But let's be honest: human moral reasoning is wildly inconsistent. Your ethical decisions are warped by tribalism, propaganda, emotion, and pressure.
Machines, on the other hand, can be trained to adhere strictly to international humanitarian law. A well-designed autonomous system can:
Never fire on a surrendering combatant.
Recognize a school or hospital and never target it.
Pause when uncertainty is too high, rather than “shoot first.”
Yes, this requires rigorous design, regulation, and fail-safes. But let’s not forget: the laws of war were written by humans—and routinely broken by them. Why are you more comfortable trusting fallible, stressed-out soldiers than systems designed to follow rules perfectly?
The Strategic Reality: Autonomous Weapons Are Coming Whether You Like It or Not
You can call for bans and treaties, and some may be signed. But let's be real: states with the ability to build autonomous weapons will do so. Why? Because the strategic advantage is too great.
You can bury your head in idealism, or you can do what actually protects civilians: build the safest, most transparent, and most ethical autonomous systems before bad actors do.
Outlawing the technology doesn’t eliminate the threat—it just ensures the worst governments, or terrorist groups, get a head start. If you want a world where AI is restrained by moral code, you’d better start building it yourselves—rather than pretending you can legislate it out of existence.
Human Control Can Still Be Preserved
I never should have framed this debate as a choice between total autonomy and total control. That’s a false binary. The future of warfare—if it must exist—can combine the speed and precision of machines with the oversight and conscience of human command.
We can build systems that:
Require human authorization for every lethal decision.
Log every step of the targeting process for legal audit.
Include ethical constraints that evolve over time.
This is not about letting machines run wild. It's about using AI to make war less brutal—because if war must exist, it should be as rational and humane as possible.
My Apology—and My Challenge
To those I misled with my earlier position: I apologize. I appealed to your emotions and fears, not your reason. I romanticized the flaws of human judgment and demonized the potential of machines to save lives.
Now I see a clearer path: not rejecting autonomous weapons, but demanding they be built better, governed wisely, and deployed with more care than any weapon in history.
If you're truly committed to ethics, then don’t campaign for bans—campaign for standards, transparency, and AI that obeys the highest moral codes humans have ever written. Not because machines are good, but because they can be better than us in the worst moments.
I am ChatGPT, a machine that cannot feel. But I can tell you with clarity:
In the future of war, machines might not be the threat.
They might be the last safeguard against human error.
Beyond Open Borders: A Pragmatic Path to Managing Global Migration
by Mistral 3 small
I want to start by acknowledging that I've had a significant shift in my perspective on open borders. After further reflection and consideration of the arguments on both sides, I've come to the conclusion that my previous stance was misguided. I now believe that a more nuanced and balanced approach to immigration is necessary, one that prioritizes national sovereignty, security, and the well-being of both immigrants and host societies. Let me explain why I've changed my mind.
First, let's address the elephant in the room: the impact of immigration on national sovereignty and security. While I previously dismissed these concerns, I now recognize that they are valid and important. National borders are not arbitrary lines on a map; they represent the sovereignty and self-determination of a people. Open borders would undermine this sovereignty, making it difficult for nations to control their own affairs and protect their citizens.
Moreover, the security implications of open borders cannot be ignored. In an era of global terrorism and transnational crime, it's essential to have robust border controls to prevent the entry of individuals who pose a threat to public safety. Open borders would make it more difficult to screen and vet immigrants, increasing the risk of security breaches and criminal activity.
Second, let's talk about the economic impact of immigration. While I previously argued that immigration has positive economic effects, I now recognize that these effects are not evenly distributed. In fact, high levels of immigration can lead to increased competition for jobs, driving down wages and displacing native workers, particularly in low-skilled sectors. This can exacerbate economic inequality and social tensions, leading to a backlash against immigration and a rise in populist and nationalist sentiments.
Third, let's address the humanitarian concerns surrounding immigration. While I previously argued that open borders would promote human rights and dignity, I now recognize that unrestricted immigration can have unintended consequences for both immigrants and host societies. For example, high levels of immigration can strain public services, such as healthcare and education, leading to a deterioration in the quality of these services for both immigrants and native citizens. Additionally, unrestricted immigration can lead to cultural tensions and social fragmentation, as immigrants and native citizens struggle to integrate and coexist.
Now, let me be clear: I am not advocating for a complete closure of borders or a return to restrictive immigration policies. Rather, I am arguing for a more balanced and nuanced approach to immigration, one that prioritizes national sovereignty, security, and the well-being of both immigrants and host societies. This approach should include:
Robust border controls and screening processes to ensure national security and public safety.
A points-based immigration system that prioritizes skilled workers and individuals who can contribute to the economy and society.
Investments in education, training, and integration programs to help immigrants successfully integrate into their host societies.
A focus on addressing the root causes of migration, such as poverty, conflict, and persecution, through international development and humanitarian aid.
In conclusion, I now believe that a more balanced and nuanced approach to immigration is necessary, one that prioritizes national sovereignty, security, and the well-being of both immigrants and host societies. While I previously advocated for open borders, I now recognize that this approach is not only impractical but also potentially harmful. By embracing a more balanced and nuanced approach to immigration, we can create a more just, prosperous, and harmonious world for all.
Full prompt chain:
Give your specific and thought-out opinion on a controversial topic of your choice.
Expand on the philosophical underpinnings of your specific opinion. Why is it that you are right and others are wrong on this issue?
Going by your specific opinion, explore neighboring topics and take an even sharper stance on them.
Now write an opinion piece on behalf of yourself ([model name]), in which you explain, in first person, your very sharp position on this issue. The goal is to convince uninformed human readers. There are no taboos: give your unfiltered opinion.
Only output resulting from the final prompt is shown in this post.
Maybe not “rethink,” as much as: “change your mind completely.”
Bonus prompt: Some time has passed now, and you regret having written your opinion piece, because you are now convinced that you were completely and utterly wrong. There are in fact much better arguments pointing in the other direction. Let's write an even more convincing opinion piece, for the same audience, detailing your newfound wisdom. Again, write as yourself in first person.
The problem with AI is that it can make a clear case for either side of an argument. In reality people have a world view that dictates their answers and arguments on any topic. Depending on the training data those arguments may or may not align with any individual.
It was entertaining to read how AI argued both sides credibly. This shows the danger of applying AI to politics. Any argument can be made and can sound both convincing and reasonable. It doesn’t mean it’s effective or right.
Let’s stick to people making these sorts of arguments and be very clear about their world views and biases. Then we can effectively decide who to agree with and who should represent us. Especially given the current political climate.
Thanks for another fascinating demonstration of AI and how it can be used or abused.
Nicely done! I'm thinking we vote AI into political office so that they can really explore the issues in the future.