Using GPT to analyze Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling

The Supreme Court recently published a ruling that struck down affirmative action. The detailed analysis paper spans 237 pages, making it a lengthy and challenging read. Initially, I wondered if ChatGPT could assist in understanding the ruling. However, since ChatGPT’s training only goes up to September 2021, it wouldn’t be able to explain this particular ruling. So, I decided to develop a question-and-answer chatbot using the GPT. I used the OPL stack (OpenAI, Pinecone, and Langchain). This chatbot was created with just a few Python lines of code, thanks to the current state of technology. If you’re interested, you can find the collab notebook in the linked GitHub repository.

During my exploration, I obtained both exciting results and a fair share of hallucinations. Here are a few questions and their corresponding answers:

What was Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion? 

“Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion argues against the Court’s decision to limit the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. She emphasizes the importance of racial equality and diversity, stating that progress toward equality cannot be permanently halted. She criticizes the Court for disregarding the ongoing racial inequality in society and argues that diversity in education is a fundamental value. She also addresses the consequences of a lack of diversity in leadership positions and the importance of representation. She disagrees with the majority’s interpretation of previous precedents and states that race-conscious admissions can be justified to promote the educational benefits of diversity. Overall, Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion supports the continued use of race-based affirmative action in higher education.

What is Justice Thomas’s opinion regarding his ruling? 

Justice Thomas’s opinion for his ruling is that race-based affirmative action in higher education is unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection Clause. He argues that any statistical gaps between races are constitutionally irrelevant and that race-based admissions programs are rudderless and employ racial stereotyping. He also believes that the Court’s precedents make it clear that race-based affirmative action cannot extend indefinitely into the future. Justice Thomas’s opinion emphasizes a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution and rejects the notion that society is inherently racist or that race-conscious measures are necessary to remedy past discrimination. He argues that the Constitution is color-blind and categorically rejects laws that discriminate based on race.

There are many more questions and GPT’s fun answers in the collab notebook, I suggest you check it out!

GPT is an experimental (READ: faulty) human-readable information retrieval system. It got quite a few things wrong.  

For example, when asked, “Who were the justice on the bench in this case?” It answered,

“The justices on the bench in this case were SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, JACKSON, GORSUCH, THOMAS, BREYER, KAVANAUGH.”

Now, we know Justice Breyer was not preceding this case. I love the confidence GPT has in the wrong answer. It even put the name in bold!

I am planning to put this chatbot on the web. Meanwhile, message me if you have a question to ask the chatbot. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome!