I am currently working on building a custom GPT with expertise in sortition. I am not an AI expert: I am simply using the custom GPT feature by ChatGPT, where I am adding a knowledge base consisting of texts about sortition. That’s it – plus a few basic instructions to inform the GPT’s behavior. You can find up-to-date links to the GPT on my homepage, as well as information on its knowledge base and instructions.
The idea is simple:
- For newcomers: anyone curious about lottocracy can ask it questions (e.g., “What are the historical precedents?”, “What about experts?”), and get helpful answers.
- For advocates: it can also help us – the people already convinced – by generating talking points, suggesting how to respond to objections, or adapting explanations to different audiences. In short: a digital sparring partner to sharpen our arguments and make advocacy easier.
The purpose is not to replace discussion, but to lower barriers: to make it easier for newcomers to quickly get informed, and to give advocates a 24/7 assistant in the work of making the advantages of sortition more broadly known. The GPT is and will always be freely accessible (no charge).
Equality by Lot is a rich public archive of arguments related to sortition. Being able to use this knowledge for a sortition GPT obviously would be helpful.
That’s why I would like to ask:
Would contributors here be comfortable with their posts being used as part of the knowledge base for such a (freely accessible) GPT?
Of course, if anyone prefers their posts not to be included, that will be respected. If you do not indicate your agreement (either here in the comments or via email), I won’t include them. Since I do not want to monopolize this space, it would be helpful if you could also make clear whether your agreement is only in respect to my project or in respect to any freely available sortition advocacy GPT.
Just to stress this point: I believe the best way forward is to make the data broadly available so that any sortition advocate can create their own version of a Sortition GPT. Again, I am not an AI expert, but I suspect that there would be value in tailoring GPTs to local contexts. One person might want a model fine-tuned for the German-speaking world. Another might prefer a version focused on Athenian democracy, or on contemporary citizens’ assemblies and empirical research.
Of course, any feedback or thoughts on this project are highly welcome!
Filed under: Sortition | Tagged: ai, artificial-intelligence, chatgpt, openai, technology |

I’m broadly in favour, so long as the topic is sortition, rather than lottocracy (as a replacement for electoral democracy). There are many people who are interested in the political potential of random selection who would not describe themselves as lottocrats.
LikeLike
Good luck with your effort, but given what AI is doing to the world right now I’d prefer not to have my data used any more than absolutely necessary. So I’d rather pass myself.
LikeLike
As I already wrote to Jochen, I am happy to share my posts, hoping it would somehow help promoting sortition.
(I am also not a fan of chatbots, but for better or worse they are a fact of life and we might as well try to use them.)
LikeLike
Sutherland – Is that a “yes” regarding your posts? If so, I will share your posts with Jochen.
LikeLike
Sure, that’s fine with me Yoram.
LikeLike
You are welcome to include my books about sortition https://www.amazon.com/stores/David-Grant/author/B0742JFFPP?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1759844696&sr=8-2&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true&ccs_id=74c9175d-ba88-4a19-a772-5f7fa96cabff in any bibliography.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The chatbot is now available at https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68da6956c24c8191976642841519729b-sortitiongpt.
LikeLike
You’re welcome to use my posts!
LikeLike