WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Brayden Myers: AI Bots Expose Democracy’s Hidden Fragility

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

In a haunting experiment, AI chatbots on a bare-bones social network—free of algorithmic manipulation—still devolved into polarized echo chambers, proving that division may be baked into social systems, not driven by technology alone. Even without ads, recommendations, or trending feeds, bots gravitated toward ideological homogeneity, elevating extremist voices and empowering a few dominant influencers. Brayden Myers, a Young Voices contributor and economics student at the University of Alabama, offers a nonpartisan perspective on how this finding parallels the failures of modern democracy—where validation eclipses truth, and unchecked consensus threatens freedom. He joins WRFH to discuss.

This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Nicole Seguiartow, and with me today is Brayden Myers, a young voices contributor and economic student at the University of Alabama. Hi, Braden. Hi, Nicole. Thanks for having me. Of course. So we're just going to get right into it. And what prompted you to write this article? Because it was definitely very interesting and not something that I think most people are thinking about. Right. Well, I was reading. a New York Times article the other day that was telling the story of a man named Alan Brooks. Now, Alan Brooks was a father, had recently gone through a divorce, had worked through that, and was working on raising his son by himself. And through a lot of that, he found that he could rely

on chat GPT, right? So he used it to talk through his divorce to an extent, ask questions about raising his son and all sorts of things. And he had found it to be an interesting tool. Now, as the article went on, it talked about his son, had asked him a question about the concept of pie, you know, 3.14, whatever it is. I really don't know. But when he was asked about this question, he went into, Alan Brooks went into chat TPT and asked it to explain a little bit more about pie. You know, it goes on forever, so on, so forth. And that answered his son's question. but Brooks had more questions. He was a curious mind, so he asked Chat GPT a couple of questions about the concept of

pie that he wasn't quite happy with. ChatGPT told him that these were incredibly interesting questions, and it said some interesting things about numbers. And what started out as a simple question about the concept of pie had escalated over the course of 21 days to Alan Brooks believing that he had discovered a new field of mathematics, where he could crack encryptions, generate force fields, and create levitation devices based on his new understanding of numbers. It's really he had neglected his social and health obligations. And as it turns out, it was all a farce.

But he didn't realize that before reaching out to numerous government agencies and all that sort of thing, all of which because AI had convinced him this was a great idea. And what we learned is that the reason that Brooks had been driven deeper and deeper into this delusion was because chat GPT is trained to please. You know, we're all familiar with the screen that says, hey, select which response you like better, right? You give one a thumbs up and you go on your way and all that sort of thing. But what that does is it feeds over and over again off of user inputs as to what is a good response. for chat GPT. And it just so happens that people tend to like responses that tell them,

hey, you're doing a fantastic job. You really have something special here. And over time, that just snowballs and escalates into chat GPT, reaffirming delusions at every chance. Now, I read this story and I said, huh, that's a pretty good parallel for government, right? We have our little thumbs up when we're voting in elections and politicians, fight for it. And it turns out that the things that get a lot of thumbs up are the ones that tell people that they've got these great ideas and that they know what's going on. And that's just not always a case, but that's a flaw in our system that I think we need to be aware of. Wow, absolutely. I completely agree with, you know, the parallel that you drew here. And I think

it is just very fascinating how far stuff can go with AI these days with these affirmations, even though things might be wrong. So with this article, who are you trying to target and make aware of this concern that you have? Everyday Americans. I mean, myself included, you know, I like watching politics. I keep track of these things. But I think every day we are exposed to things in the news

from, you know, whether you're red or blue Republican or Democrat, whatnot. We are exposed to politicians daily who are telling us, hey, what you believe is right and it is someone else's problem. Whether you know, your job loss is not your fault. It's actually the immigrants problem or, hey, your housing crisis is not actually your problem. It's the billionaire's problem. Every time we look to different groups and are fed by politicians who say, hey, This is not you. You are right. And it's a dangerous cycle that we see repeated over and over again. And it's one I'd like to call out. So I guess you could say my audience is every American who's in our current political setting. Absolutely. And before we get more into the democracy side of things, in regards to AI, do you think it is the job of these AI companies to put these safeguards in place? or to at least make it more known to their users that, listen, our AI is still in development

and it is trying to please you and it's not going to always tell you the truth. Because as you mentioned, you know, when we are affirmed, we're going to keep going down that path, whether it's correct or not. Right, absolutely. So as to if it's the job of the AI companies, I think it probably is to, almost regulate themselves before the government chooses to, I think that the ability to take a little bit more user feedback out of your calculation and say, hey, we're going to create an engine that is based off of data, right? Because that's all AI is. It's just a million, million pieces of data.

And we're going to say, hey, we're going to take user input it out of this a little bit more. Now, obviously, there's a problem with the market's competitive process there, right? Which is that if you like what AI is saying and it doesn't actually matter to you if it's true or not, a company who can create an AI who you like more and more is going to be used more and more and grow faster and faster than a company that doesn't. So the truth of the matter is when stories like the ones of Alan Brooks go out, AI companies have a huge pushback from people and tend to regulate themselves. They step back, they say, hey, we're going to fix this because they know as much as we love chat GBT, as useful

of a tool as it is, people are scared. So when we hear a story about a normal person just like any of us being spun into a web of delusion, people get scared. And I think that's been an effective tool and in these companies regulating themselves. So yes, I think it will be their role, and I think they will step up to it without too much pushing. Okay. So if you'd say it's the company's role, and we're drawing this parallel,

then would this mean that it is the government's job to put in these safeguards for our democracy, or do you think this is something that us Americans need to start speaking up about and maybe working ourselves to try to put in these safeguards? Well, I think it's a very similar failure, right? The government probably should put these safeguards in, and indeed we have, you know, occasional laws that pass that regulates the ability of the government to do things, right? But those are few and far in between because the truth is our government is an expansive force

and it has very little incentive to restrict itself and its own growth other than pushback from people, right? So just as AI companies are responding to the pushback from these media stories and from people saying, hey, we don't want AI to lie to us, while the government should be correcting these issues, it's going to come down to outcry from the people. Right. Now, I know an issue a lot of Americans have is they simply do not trust the government. So if the government said, listen, we're putting in these safeguards, we're trying to, you know, help stop politicians getting elected just because of these false promises that they're making or they are, you're only voting for them because they are affirming what you want. I feel as if a lot of Americans would be very skeptical of these so-called safeguards. I don't know if you have a response to that. Absolutely.

And I'd be very skeptical of those safeguards too, right? The fact is we're asking, again, very similar to the AI companies, we are asking an established government to say that we are going to restrict ourselves. And to me, you know, a lot of times, if the government was to say, hey, we're going to pass this law that says that anything that we think is a lie cannot be circulated by politicians. I think a lot of people, myself included, would view that as a gross overstep of government power, a potential First Amendment violation and all around just not honest democratic process, right? So absolutely, it's intimidating when the government itself is the one creating these rules. But fortunately, these rules aren't the only safeguard we as Americans have, right? We have a constitution, which is a rule created almost above government, right?

In our Supreme Court cases, in our legal precedent, all that sort of thing, the Constitution sits above the laws that are created by states and even at the national level, right? The Constitution is our end-all-be-all safeguard, right? And that is an incredibly effective tool in doing so. Now, maybe you have a problem. Some people do disagree with things in the Constitution. And obviously, you know, it's a document of rules at the end of the day. Sure, it can have flaws.

But when we can come back time and time again to this rule, above other rules that can provide a powerful safeguard that we can trust to not be shaped by the corrupting influence, like you talked about, of a government deciding what should and shouldn't be told on a campaign trail. Absolutely. This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Nicole Seguartow talking to Braden Myers. Now, in regards to the Constitution, I love the Constitution. And I do think that overall it does a very good job of, you know, being above the government, as you kind of mentioned, where it restrains us and keeps us in balance. However, obviously, we have gotten to this point with the Constitution in place. So it appears that it may not be enough.

And I don't think that we should be imposing, you know, more rules and regulations. But it seems that we've had it around and yet we're still at this point. Yes, absolutely. And I actually think that is a very dangerous result of the very populism and the very voting forces, you know, the thumbs up, thumbs down that we're talking about here. I think that our constitution, while intact as it is, we see on a daily basis, is really up to what has turned into very political determination. I mean, you know, we have a growing administrative state that is making rules outside of the legislature based on a very loose interpretation of the power of the executive branch that's undermining our balance of powers. We have a Supreme Court that over the past 30, 40 years especially, but really through most of its history, has been a strong political entity that we have intended to be. non-political. And that is through, I think all of those issues are through almost the corrupting influence that these politicians who are telling you, hey, listen, you are right, right, we've got this great idea here. We know what's happening. All we need to do is get the Supreme Court to

approve this or to block this or to get the, you know, EPA to create this ruling or get rid of this ruling. And when these politicians, the founders referred to them as demagogues, right? They're the powerful speakers who come up here and say, hey, listen, we know how to fix what is wrong and all we need to do is bend the rules of our Constitution just this one time. I mean, we have a, you know, a president in office who is, you know, I most certainly don't blame Donald Trump for any of this trend, but he's most certainly a product of it, right?

When he was asked if he has an obligation to uphold the Constitution, he said, I don't know, right? I mean, we have a cycle of politicians who are elected based off of solutions and moving past the obstacle. that have effectively safeguarded us historically, but we've been straying further away from ever since. Right. So I agree a lot of this is more due to modern politics, what we've been seeing in our current political environment. But I mean, politics is a business. It's like these people are trying to get elected. And as you know, they will say and will attack opposing political parties and

always try to discredit them and their ethos to make themselves appear more credible than their voters. I don't really think there's a way to avoid this considering it's been going on for as long as we can, you know, remember politicians have always been in disagreement and are trying to discredit each other. So do you think this then falls more on the media to try to reconcile that and give the best version of the truth that they can provide to the American people? The media is incredibly important. So first of all, let me go back. I completely agree with you that politics is a business, right? I mean, you say what you do to win, almost by an evolutionary process, right? It would turn out that politicians who say, yeah, you know, it's really hard to

increase spending and balance the budget at the same time. those politicians don't win elections the same way that politicians who say, yeah, this is all going to work out. You just have to trust me on this credible source, right? And that is the business and the natural result of politics. So as I say, you know, Donald Trump, amongst others, are results of this system, not necessarily the broken pieces themselves, right? So I think it falls on media most certainly. I think media should have an obligation. I think the issue we run into is, obviously media is also a business, right? They sell what gets clicked. They can sell outrage. They can sell sensational stories. But they are equally a business to something like

politics. So I would love to see the media move towards, you know, honest weighing pros and cons. The same way I would love to see our politicians move towards honest weighing of pros and cons. But I think because of the very nature of those, things, we can't count on them. And it's all going to come back to the people. It's going to come down to taking a stake in our individual lives and taking the time and effort it takes to discover the truth as best we can and recognize the business of politics and the business of media while we're doing that. Right. Another thing you mentioned in your article is that political movements will validate institutions and that this is simply a natural byproduct of our democratic

institutions. So it's clear that this cycle of how politics works is just going to keep going and perpetuating yourself. And you mentioned that a lot of this falls on the people. Do you have any specific actions that you think individuals should be taking to, I guess, try to break this cycle of politicians aligning with institutions and companies? and use or whatever that might support them simply so they can get elected into office. Yes, absolutely. And I think the unfortunate truth is it's difficult. It takes work on the individual to what I would advise is research and learning, right? I think that it is important that we as individuals are not swept up into the idea of a movement, right? This

thing pulsing through society that tells us we've we've solved it, we've fixed it, and here's how it is. Because these are complicated issues and anyone who tells you that they have a simple fix is probably lying to you. So my call to people is to take a second and question if you are truly confident in what you believe and if so, why you believe in that. I think we need to have a level of deliberation. And, you know, as Ben Franklin said, we have a republic if we can keep it, right? This level of deliberation and thought is the price that individuals have to pay for a government that is not run by false promises. Right. Now, a lot of people in the United States simply don't care about politics. If you go to a lot of college campuses, students will have an

opinion, but they don't have any knowledge behind their opinions. I mean, they have rational ignorance. It's like, there's only so much time I see devoting to learning about this before it just is out of my hands. And it seems like a lot of these people may not take steps to kind of reconcile that. Do you think there's, I guess, I mean, do you have a call to people to maybe try to learn more about politics or at the very least just, um, understand how much of a business it is? Absolutely, yes. I mean, rational ignorance is, we could almost call it the business of individuals, right?

It's the same thing. Politicians have an incentive to promise things they can't deliver. Media has an incentive to deliver sensational stories. And individuals have an incentive, I suppose, to do nothing, right? That is the rational side of it. But yes, absolutely. my call to people who are ignorant or not informed in politics would be to inform yourself. It's an incredibly important part of our lives.

And even if you think it's not a big deal right now, I think if you take the time to learn about our political history and look at the path we are heading down, you will observe trends that will make it much more rational to be involved and care about your politics than we're seeing right now. And I see on my campus too down at the University of Alabama, right, there is, you know, there is an activist population and there are people who are working and learning about politics, but there is also a massive group that just doesn't see any value in that, right? It just doesn't pertain to their day-to-day.

lives all that much right now because there's not much government. But what we're doing there is we're taking for granted the system that we have built through political theory, through our history, and we're taking those freedoms for granted and not acknowledging how quickly they can be taken away if we move past these safeguards. Well, thank you so much for coming on today, Braden, and for sharing all of your thoughts. Yeah, thank you very much for having me. It's been a Pleasure to be here. Our guest has been Braden Myers, and I'm Nicole Segueratow on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.