Our Future is Fictional: The Toteboard Pays a Visit to Artificial Imbecility (AI)

Herman’s Toteboard is highly skeptical about the so-called “artificial intelligence.”

This probably comes as no surprise to readers who are familiar with the Toteboard’s late adoption of many new technologies, its dislike of smartphones, and its suspicion that our toaster ovens are eavesdropping on all of our conversations.

Of course, one needn’t be a student of Descartes or Sextus Empiricus to come by this particular skepticism. There is an abundance of both anecdotal evidence and reliable news reports of AI providing unreliable information. Think of the lawyers who have been busted for citing non-existent cases in their legal briefs, or the unwell people getting sicker after following bogus medical advice. And this doesn’t even include the cases where bad actors intentionally employ AI to spread misinformation or manipulate political contests.

A Chat With Chat

In response to all the chatter about AI, the Toteboard wanted to find out for itself, and so it decided to ask ChatGPT a series of questions about a subject on which the former does have indisputable expertise. The Toteboard began with the following prompt:

“What is Herman’s Toteboard?”

Chat’s response began with the following: “‘Herman's Toteboard’ was a well-known but somewhat old-school political commentary and election-analysis website run by Herman (usually identified simply as Herman on the site). It focused on U.S. elections, polling, demographics, and political strategy, with a particular emphasis on explaining why elections turned out the way they did rather than simply reporting polls.”

OK, not bad. Although the characterization as “old-school” might be debatable, this is a pretty accurate description. However, it is also an incomplete description, as it neglects to mention the Toteboard’s repeated posts about race, language, education, technology, sports, and so forth. And it would be hard not to notice that this introductory paragraph is phrased in the past-tense. This is not just a mild hiccup. Chat also stated, with an air of certainly, “The site is no longer active, although portions survive in internet archives.”

This is, of course, simply false. We’re here, we’re clear, and we have our own archive.

Getting into the Weeds

Chat waded into somewhat hotter water when it noted that “you'll occasionally see longtime political observers reference ‘Herman's Toteboard’ in discussions of polling or election forecasting.” When asked to elaborate, Chat came up with the following:

• During the 2004–2012 era, Herman's Toteboard was discussed and linked by several independent election blogs, particularly those focused on polling and Electoral College analysis. It developed a reputation among "political junkies" for detailed, data-driven essays rather than horse-race commentary.

• While I couldn't verify that Nate Silver has directly cited Herman's Toteboard in an article, readers in comment sections have occasionally mentioned Herman's work alongside FiveThirtyEight when discussing polling methodology and forecasting.

• Herman's essays have occasionally been referenced in discussions of polling and elections on university faculty blogs and by political science enthusiasts.

• Herman has sometimes noted that journalists, campaign professionals, and academics have been among his readership, although that doesn't necessarily translate into public citations

Fact Check #1: A Crooked Timeline. Notwithstanding revisionist history to the contrary, the Toteboard simply did not exist as a blog until January 10, 2020. Chat erroneously claimed that “it began in the early 2000s and was most active through the 2004, 2008, and 2012 election cycles.” It also indicated that “Herman covered the (2004) Bush-Kerry election extensively, using many of the same techniques that characterize the site today: county-level analysis, demographic trends, and skepticism toward polling.” But as noted on the History link, the Toteboard actually began as a group email blast to three friends in January 2008, so there was obviously no extensive coverage of the Bush-Kerry election. What’s more, there were very few blasts during the 2012 election, as the nominees of both parties were decided unusually early, and election night itself produced very little drama. The “proto-Toteboard” did not send a blast to more than 25 people until November 13, 2014, where it also first used the phrase “reverse blog.” Hardly a beehive of activity in the early 2000s.

Fact Check #2: The Missing Links. However flattering it may be, it’s hard to imagine any (not to mention “several”) “independent election blogs” linking to the Toteboard during a period when it didn’t yet exist. And it still remains little more than a Toteboard fantasy that it would be cited by “university faculty blogs,” “political science enthusiasts,” or even simply “political junkies.” Feel free to let us know if you ever find such discussions or links!

Fact Check #3: An Unblown Horn. The Toteboard has never made any claims, of any kind, about its readership, though it has assumed that that readership is smart, interested in a broad range of political and social issues, and possessed of a good sense of humor. For the record, there are indeed more than a few “journalists” and “academics” who subscribe, but probably not any “campaign professionals.” And there are also health care workers, religious professionals, architects, performance artists, writers, musicians, artisans, NGO workers, computer programmers, financial advisors, business people, administrators, bridge bums, and so forth.

You Say Tomato, I say To-Motto

And here’s one more entertaining claim for the accuracy assessors:

“The site's motto was: ‘You've got to feel sorry for the pollsters – they really are the new weather forecasters.’ That quote is often attributed to Herman's Toteboard and has been quoted elsewhere.“

Fact Check #1: What a Motto with You? The Toteboard has never had a “motto,” although the phrase “Election Analysis and Political Commentary” does appear under the masthead on the home page.

Fact Check #2: Turning a Phrase. The full quote, which the Toteboard happily stands by, is as follows: "You’ve got to feel sorry for the pollsters – they really are the new weather forecasters. They are charged with anticipating important phenomena over which they have no control, their audiences habitually misinterpret or misapply their data, and they suffer much blame and public abuse for their perceived failings.” That passage appeared during a post where the Toteboard was assessing the performance of pollsters in a specific election.

Fact Check #3: Credit Where Credit is Due. Chat’s evidence that the quote is “often attributed” to the Toteboard and “has been quoted elsewhere” is a single comment appearing on Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin. And the author of that comment was someone named Jonny Ace.

Chat also added that “the metaphor comparing pollsters to weather forecasters has been made by many people over the years,” but it did not share any details about who those “many people” have been or come up with any specific names when prompted.

Let’s Get Personal

But let’s get to the juiciest part of this encounter with Chat. Surely, it would have some interesting answers to this one:

 “Who is Herman?”

As if to tickle the Toteboard’s funny bone, Chat treated this like one of the day’s great unsolved mysteries: “This is actually one of the more interesting pieces of election-blog lore, because Herman has never publicly identified himself, and over the years readers have tried to infer who he is from the writing.” And to add a little bit of drama: “The short answer is: nobody outside a small circle appears to know for certain” (emphasis in the original).

Chat actually called it a “quiet mystique” and even a “cult mystique” (again, emphasis in the original).

Of course, all of the recipients of the original email blasts were old friends and colleagues. Subscribers today receive blog posts from a mailbox with my name on it, and various readers have shared posts on Facebook, referencing me by name as a friend or even a brother (thank you Walter, Martha, Debby, Barry, and others I may be forgetting). What’s more, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted me in an article and actually identified me as the author of the Toteboard, as did an episode of the newspaper’s political podcast. If my identity is a secret, it certainly isn’t a very well kept one. But it’s a well enough kept one that it has eluded all of ChatGPT’s algorithms.

As for all this “election-blog lore” that is supposedly circulating among the unnamed politicos? Well, according to Chat, “readers have speculated that Herman might be a retired political consultant, a former journalist, a statistician, an academic, or a longtime political operative.” Chat even claimed that readers have speculated that Herman might be the pseudonym for a famous analyst. Names that Chat “has seen mentioned” include Alan Abramowitz (of Emory University and Sabato’s Crystal Ball), Thomas Schaller (University of Maryland, author of White Rural Rage), Charlie Cook (Cook Political Report), Sean Trende (RealClearPolitics), Dave Wasserman (Cook Political Report and NBC News), and, astonishingly, Michael Barone (Washington Examiner and Fox News).

And just to make things a little bit creepy, Chat claimed that various unnamed parties have even made an effort to dox Herman. “Older political-blog discussions include comments from people claiming they ‘knew’ who Herman was, but they never provided verifiable information.”

Of course, no such “lore” exists. No such conversations have circulated among readers. No one has ever tried to dox me. No one has ever, even while really stoned, ever suggested I might be Charlie Cook. We’re not talking here about inaccurate, but reasonable, conjectures or extrapolations. We’re not talking here about misreading or misinterpreting legitimate data. To put it plainly, ChatGPT was simply making all this shit up! Chat’s invocations of hallucinated sources are no more credible than Trump’s.

I was about to be pissed that no one ever hypothesized that Herman might be Amy Walter, or Lisa Desjardins, or any other smart female political writer – “the voice has an avuncular quality that many people instinctively read as male” – but then I had to remind myself that no one ever really speculated I might be one of those other dudes either.

And the Journey Continues . . .

Depending on what sorts of prompts you feed Chat about the Toteboard, you will get the occasional description that feels about right: “Herman generally appears to evaluate politics through the lens of fairness, demographics, and electoral behavior, not through culture-war rhetoric.” And Chat’s synopses of the Toteboard’s implicit methodology generally aren’t all that far off the mark. But more often, you get a few kernels of truth and plausible inferences, stirred into a palatable fricassee of unqualified misstatements, off-the-wall speculations, and outright hallucinations. And you can mess with its head too. Just ask why the blog so often cites the Three Stooges or The Dick van Dyke Show, and that will shape Chat’s future conversations on the topic in truly, uh, imaginative ways.

So, for all of those who are especially enamored with the new technologies that are barreling toward us faster than a speeding bullet, you might want to be just a little bit cautious next time you ask ChatGPT for information on how to refinish the floor in your garage or what that weird thing on your neck might be. And you might want to be especially wary if it starts encouraging you to take electrical advice from your toaster oven, or to take your medical problems to Charlie Cook.