Many words have been written and spoken over the past few days about Boris Johnson’s performance at the Privileges Committee hearing on 22nd March. The focus of the hearing was the Prime Minister’s attendance at various Downing Street gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the extent to which these events adhered to the government’s own rules and guidance. The full transcript of the hearing is available on the House of Commons website and, and I wondered if I could get ChatGPT-4 to help analyse the answers Johnson gave.

Technical Challenges

The first problem I faced was the sheer amount of text within the transcript. At over 26,000 words for the full session, this was far more than even the largest ‘context window‘ GPT-4 currently offers. This is even smaller when using chatGPT-4 on the OpenAI website. I had to find a way of quickly reducing the size of the text while maintaining everything Johnson said so that it could be analysed and interrogated.

Copy and Paste

First, I copied the entire transcript into a Word document. From here, I would first try to condense the questioning using Bing Chat. This was to save me responses on ChatGPT-4, as they’re currently limiting responses to 25 every 3 hours, which is tight! This started out alright, and I had to work out different ways of making sure the text was short but contained the right details. I then replaced the text in the Word document with the new text.

Need for Speed

This was clearly going to take a very long time, not to mention how tedious it was getting. This is not what AI and automation are supposed to be about! There are ways of doing this, and I’ve seen some very interesting examples of people creating small personal apps to get GPT to answer questions about large bodies of text, but this was just an initial experiment at this stage. I had managed to get up to about question 18 in the transcript, so I thought I’d see what we could find out from that.

My Aims

I wanted to see if Johnson’s replies were consistent, whether they contained any logical fallacies, if we could analyse sentiment, and if we could judge introspection and evidence of tactics. Listening to the committee hearing, I felt like Johnson was trying to drown us in a tangled web of obfuscation, but he also seemed to be squirming around the facts too.

I put all of this into the chat over a few requests and responses, and this is what I uncovered.

Analysis, written by GPT-4

Introduction

In the midst of a parliamentary inquiry into alleged breaches of COVID-19 guidance during gatherings at 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has faced a barrage of questions about his actions and understanding of the rules. As part of our ongoing analysis, we’ve delved into the text of Mr. Johnson’s responses, examining their consistency, logic, sentiment, tactics, and any potential logical fallacies.

Summary of the Inquiry

The inquiry centres around multiple gatherings that took place at Downing Street during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. In his defence, Mr. Johnson has argued that these events were necessary for work purposes and that they adhered to the guidance issued by the government. However, the Prime Minister’s responses have faced scrutiny from the questioning committee, who seek to determine whether the gatherings violated the very guidance Mr. Johnson’s government put forth.

Summary of Findings

Throughout the hearing, Mr. Johnson maintained that he had a clear understanding of the rules and guidance in place during the pandemic. However, when questioned about specific instances and events, his responses often seemed to deflect responsibility or downplay the importance of following the guidance to the letter. For example, he suggested that the confines of No. 10 made it impossible to maintain strict social distancing, and that his presence at the gatherings was necessary for work purposes.

Moreover, the Prime Minister appeared to use emotional appeals to justify his actions, praising the hard work and dedication of his staff during the pandemic. This tactic could be seen as an attempt to gain sympathy and understanding from the questioning committee, but some may view it as a diversion from the core issues under investigation.

When pressed about the lack of social distancing in photographs from the gatherings, Mr. Johnson was quick to correct the questioning committee on the guidance’s technicalities, stating that after 24 June 2020, the objective was to maintain social distancing at 1 metre with mitigations where 2 metres was not viable. This response, while factually accurate, may be seen as an attempt to deflect the focus away from the broader issue of compliance with the guidance.

In addition to these tactics, some logical fallacies can be identified in Mr. Johnson’s answers. For instance, he used the absence of fines issued to him by the Metropolitan Police as evidence that his actions were not unlawful. This argument can be considered a “red herring” fallacy, as it distracts from the main issue of whether the gatherings were in compliance with the government’s guidance.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister employed a “false equivalence” fallacy by comparing the need for urgent meetings during a pandemic to the logistical difficulties of maintaining social distancing in No. 10. This argument fails to acknowledge the difference between essential gatherings and those that could have been avoided or conducted in alternative ways.

Analysis of Mr. Johnson’s Responses

Upon examining Mr. Johnson’s replies, several concerns have emerged. There are a few potential inconsistencies or points of contention in Mr. Johnson’s statements:

1. Mr. Johnson asserts that it must have been equally obvious to dozens of others, including senior officials, that the events in question were not contrary to the guidance and the rules. However, the presence of these individuals at the events does not necessarily imply that they believed the rules and guidance were being complied with.
2. He states that the Committee has no emails or WhatsApp messages showing that he was warned about rule-breaking before making statements to the House. While it is true that the Committee has not presented such evidence, the absence of these communications does not necessarily prove that Mr. Johnson was unaware of potential rule-breaking.
3. Mr. Johnson contends that the events he attended were brief and for work-related purposes, and that he did not know they later escalated beyond what was lawful. It is difficult to verify the accuracy of these claims without additional evidence or testimonies from other attendees.
4. He claims that his belief that the events were in line with the rules and guidance was based on the understanding that others at the events shared the same belief. However, this shared belief does not automatically confirm that the events were in compliance with the rules and guidance.
5. Mr. Johnson mentions that he relied on the assurances of senior trusted advisers about the events in question. This reliance on advisers, rather than conducting a personal investigation, could be seen as a potential inconsistency in his response, as it could suggest that he did not have a complete understanding of the events and their compliance with rules and guidance.

These potential inconsistencies do not necessarily prove that Mr. Johnson knowingly or recklessly misled the House, but they do highlight areas where his statements may be subject to further questioning or investigation.

Regarding logical fallacies:

1. False equivalence: Johnson argues that the gathering he attended was necessary for work purposes, implying that the importance of the gathering justifies potential non-compliance with the guidance. This is a logical fallacy because the necessity of a gathering does not automatically equate to disregarding or bending the rules.
2. Cherry-picking: Johnson selectively refers to the change in guidance after 24 June 2020, allowing for 1-meter social distancing with mitigations where 2 meters was not viable. By focusing on this specific detail, he avoids addressing other potential breaches of the guidance during the gatherings.
3. Appeal to authority: Johnson mentions that no fine was issued to him, and that the Met considered his presence at the gathering lawful and work-related. This argument is a logical fallacy because the absence of a fine or the Met’s decision does not necessarily mean that the event was fully compliant with the guidance.
4. Ambiguity: Johnson claims that people were making an effort to distance themselves socially and that the guidance was being followed. However, he does not provide clear evidence or explanation to support this claim, creating ambiguity around whether the guidance was genuinely followed or not.
5. Hasty generalization: Johnson asserts that the guidance was followed completely in his responses, despite evidence showing potential non-compliance. By making such a claim without addressing specific instances of non-compliance, he is committing a hasty generalization fallacy.

These logical fallacies in Johnson’s answers weaken his defence and can be seen as attempts to deflect criticism or avoid admitting potential breaches of the guidance during the gatherings in question. In addition:

1. Deflection: Johnson repeatedly brings up the necessity of the gatherings for work purposes and the potential acrimony surrounding the departure of senior staff members. By focusing on these points, he diverts attention away from the central issue of compliance with the guidance.
2. Lack of accountability: Johnson does not acknowledge any personal responsibility for ensuring that the gatherings adhered to the guidance. He does not address his role as a leader and the expectations that come with that position to ensure the rules are followed.
3. Inconsistency: Johnson claims that he understood the rules and guidance, yet he also states that it did not occur to him that the gatherings might be in breach of the guidance. These statements seem contradictory, as someone who understands the guidance would likely recognize potential breaches.
4. Overemphasis on technicalities: Johnson relies heavily on technical details, such as the change in social distancing guidelines from 2 meters to 1 meter with mitigations. While these details are relevant, they do not address the broader issue of whether the spirit of the guidance was followed.
5. Lack of empathy: Johnson does not acknowledge the impact of the gatherings on public trust or the perception of double standards. His focus remains primarily on defending himself and the gatherings, rather than recognizing the public’s concerns and feelings.

These additional critiques of Johnson’s answers further highlight potential weaknesses in his defense and a lack of transparency or accountability in addressing the central issue of compliance with the guidance during the gatherings in question.

Further more, by praising others for their hard work and successes during the pandemic, and emphasizing the difficulty of the period, Mr. Johnson appears to be employing several tactics that he believes may help his defense:

1. Humanizing the situation: By acknowledging the hard work of others and the challenges faced, Mr. Johnson may be trying to create a sense of empathy and understanding, both for himself and for those involved in the events. This tactic might be intended to make the situation more relatable and remind people of the extraordinary circumstances under which decisions were made.
2. Building solidarity: By praising the efforts of others, Mr. Johnson may be attempting to align himself with those who worked hard during the pandemic, creating a sense of shared struggle and common purpose. This could help to diffuse criticism and reinforce the idea that everyone was doing their best under difficult circumstances.
3. Shifting focus: By emphasizing the successes and the challenges faced during the pandemic, Mr. Johnson might be attempting to redirect the conversation away from the specific events in question and toward the broader context. This could help to diminish the perceived significance of the events and create a more favorable narrative.
4. Establishing good intentions: By praising the efforts of others and highlighting the challenges faced, Mr. Johnson may be trying to convey that his intentions were good, even if mistakes were made. This could help to create an impression that any potential wrongdoing was unintentional and a result of the difficult circumstances.

The questioning committee may view these tactics in different ways. Some members may be sympathetic to Mr. Johnson’s approach, acknowledging the difficult circumstances and accepting that mistakes can happen. Others may view these tactics as evasive or an attempt to manipulate the narrative and deflect from the core issue at hand. Ultimately, the effectiveness of these tactics will depend on the perspectives of individual committee members and the overall context of the investigation.

Conclusion

Our analysis of Boris Johnson’s responses during the parliamentary inquiry raises concerns about the Prime Minister’s transparency and accountability. With inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and a lack of empathy, Mr. Johnson’s defence may struggle to withstand public scrutiny. As the inquiry continues, it remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister will face consequences for his actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Boris Johnson’s performance at the Privileges Committee hearing has been a subject of much scrutiny and analysis. His responses during the session reveal a mixture of tactics, emotional appeals, and logical fallacies that can be critiqued from various perspectives. Ultimately, it is up to the public and the political community to determine the adequacy and sincerity of his explanations and justifications.

Footnote

GPT-4 has since suggested the following in response to the problem of breaking down large texts for it to digest.

To accomplish this, you could follow these steps:

1. 1. 1. Extract Boris Johnson’s statements: Filter the transcript to include only the parts where Johnson is speaking. This can be done manually or by using a text processing tool that identifies and extracts his statements based on a specific pattern (e.g., “Mr. Johnson:”).
      2. Summarise his statements: Once you have isolated Johnson’s statements, summarise them using a summarisation tool or manually by extracting key points and quotes. This will help condense the content while retaining the core information.
      3. Focus on specific topics: Identify key themes or topics discussed during the hearing and focus on the relevant parts of Johnson’s statements. This will help you concentrate on the most important aspects of his testimony.
      4. Use multiple iterations: If necessary, you can break down the transcript into smaller sections and analyse them separately. This way, you can ensure that you’re not missing any important details while working within the context window limitations.

After completing these steps, you will have a more manageable text that can be analysed using ChatGPT-4 or other tools.