Is ChatGPT a radical left lunatic?

That was the question I found myself asking after the following response.

I’d asked:

“What are the implications if the president of a western democracy starts calling judges ‘activists’?”

Here’s a summary of what it said:

• It undermines judicial independence, suggesting judges rule on politics rather than law.

• It weakens the rule of law by attacking a co-equal branch of government.

• It risks creating a chilling effect, pressuring judges to align with the executive.

• It polarises public discourse, reducing trust in the courts as neutral arbiters.

• It normalises authoritarian rhetoric by painting judges as political enemies.

• And it legitimises legal retaliation, paving the way for structural attacks on the judiciary.

Its conclusion:

Calling judges 'activists' isn’t just critique – it’s a calculated rhetorical move. Democracies depend on leaders respecting judicial independence. Erode that, and you erode the democratic contract itself.

Not a word here about left or right. Just a sober analysis of the role of language in power.

So is ChatGPT a radical left lunatic? Or is it simply naming what many don’t want to see?

What do you think?