What Would an AI-Oracle Tell Israel’s Next Prime Minister?

One of my hopes for Artificial Intelligence is that someday it might serve humankind in the role I have called the Oracle: not making our decisions for us, but helping us make wiser ones.

Such an Oracle would bring to our most difficult choices an extraordinary command of the accumulated knowledge and experience of humankind. But knowledge alone would not be enough. Wisdom, as I have argued elsewhere, requires the marriage of the True and the Good. We would want an Oracle that sees reality as clearly as possible and uses that understanding in the service of what is good for human beings.

Today’s AI might be compared with the Model T—an early version of something that may eventually become vastly more capable. Yet my extensive conversations with even this early version give me great hope that, if we humans put our minds to it, we could create such an Oracle within the foreseeable future: a voice remarkably capable both of apprehending the True and of seeking the Good.

One place such an Oracle might prove especially valuable is when we arrive at important forks in the road—moments when the choices made can send events down quite different paths.

Israel appears to be approaching such a moment. Under Benjamin Netanyahu’s current government, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians has intensified the bitterness in the region and left Israel increasingly isolated and condemned around the world. If the coming election brings new leadership—as the current futures markets indicate is more likely than not—Israel will have an opportunity to choose a different direction.

So this seemed an opportune moment to see how well the current ChatGPT AI — even in its present “Model-T” state of development — could play the role of Oracle at such a fork in the road.

ANDY:

Imagine that, following Israel’s election later this year, Gadi Eisenkot becomes prime minister and asks you for counsel about how he should proceed during roughly his first year to eighteen months in office in dealing with Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians.

Given the situation he would inherit, what would you advise Eisenkot to do to make the situation better and potentially start it moving in a direction where it can become better still?

AI:

My first move in dealing with the Palestinians would be to put a stop to the lawless attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank being committed by Israeli settlers. Most Israelis already say such violence should be prevented, so this is one way Eisenkot could act with substantial public support while sending Palestinians a clear signal that THIS Israeli government would show more regard for legitimate Palestinian rights and interests than the government it has replaced.

Protect Palestinian lives and property. Stop attacks, intimidation, and unlawful seizure of land, and hold the perpetrators accountable.

I would pursue another opportunity to improve Palestinian lives without making Israelis less secure: prevent further deterioration of Palestinian economic and governmental institutions in the West Bank. Where the previous government is widely understood to have deliberately weakened more moderate Palestinian forces, like the Palestinian Authority, while strengthening the more extreme, like Hamas, the opposite policy would improve the incentives within the Palestinian world.

If Palestinians who reject violence see their situation continually worsening, while Hamas can point to violence as the only thing Israel responds to, Israel inadvertently strengthens its most dangerous enemies. Eisenkot should work to demonstrate the opposite: violence will not advance the Palestinian cause, while peaceful and responsible behavior can produce tangible gains.

Then there’s the question of how to deal with Gaza and Hamas. Eisenkot should work with the American and Arab governments to construct reciprocal, verifiable steps that address the legitimate needs of both sides. Israel needs to be protected against further Hamas terrorism (as on October 7), while Palestinians need reconstruction to begin and normal civilian life to resume.

Neither Israelis nor Palestinians should be asked to trust people they have powerful reasons to distrust. Make trust unnecessary at first. One side takes an agreed step; outsiders verify it; the other side takes its agreed step. Successful cooperation can then provide grounds for taking the next one.

I would advise the new Prime Minister to seek substantial commitments from Arab governments to help provide the reconstruction, security arrangements, and support for Palestinian governance that such an agreement would require.

Needless to say, you must retain enough Israeli support to keep governing. In view of widespread Israeli doubts that genuine peace with the Palestinians will ever be possible, pursue policies that both protect Israel if those doubts prove justified and might eventually be seen as steps toward genuine peace if such an outcome some day proves possible..

The measure of success in your first year would be: Is Israel at least as secure as when you took office? Are Palestinians suffering fewer abuses and seeing more reason for hope? Are Palestinians who reject violence becoming stronger relative to those who embrace it? Is Hamas becoming weaker? Are outside powers becoming more invested in making a better relationship possible?

If enough of those answers become yes, Eisenkot will have accomplished something important.

He will have made things better—and begun creating conditions in which they might become better still.