Donald Trump publie des messages sur son réseau social de manière assez incontrolée. Il semble publier quand une idée lui passe par la tête.
Pour preuve, le lendemain matin à 5h27 de la fête traditionnelle de Thanksgiving, il publie le tweet suivant mettant en cause et insultant Tim Walz, le gouverneur du Minnesota et ancien candidat à la vice-présidence.
Intérrogé par Kristen Welker à l’émission Meet the Press de la chaine NBC, Tim Walz a répondu : “Here we got a guy on Thanksgiving, where we spent time with our families, we ate, we played Yahtzee, we cheered for football or whatever. This guy is apparently in a room, ranting about everything else. This is not normal behavior. It is not healthy. (…) So look, it’s clear the President’s fading physically. I think the mental capacity, again, ranting, you know, crazily at midnight on Thanksgiving about everything else. There’s reasons for us to be concerned. (…) It’s the most powerful position in the world, and we have someone at midnight throwing around slurs that demonize our children, at the same time he’s not solving any of the problems. So I’m deeply concerned that he is incapable of doing the job.”
D’où l’idée de passer un de ses derniers tweets au banc d’essai de l’IA (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude et Mistral)
Les quatre IA ont tout de suite relevé l’erreur la plus évidente (du niveau du CM2) que Donald Trump, cédant à sa grandiloquence, a déjà effectué à plusieurs reprises. Le prix de médicaments qui baisse de « 500%, 600%, 700%, and more ». Le stable genius n’a pas encore compris que la baisse maximale est de 100%. Plus, c’est mathématiquement impossible. Mais peut-être, Donald Trump transcende-t-il les mathématiques.
ChatGPT
ChatGPT relève des erreurs sur deux plans : Grammatical & Stylistics Errors et Factual Error. On présente ici le second.
Factual Errors
| Claim | Why it’s incorrect |
| Invoking “Favored Nations Status” makes drug prices fall 500–700% | Wrong terminology and mathematically impossible price drops |
| Policy resulted in historic declines immediately | Not supported by healthcare economics or real-world outcomes |
| “This is a revolution in medicine, the biggest and most important event ever” | Major exaggeration: no evidence, not supported by health policy experts |
| “We should win the Midterm Elections because of this” | Campaign-style assertion, not a factual statement |
Gemini
The text contains several significant factual and mathematical errors, as well as one major terminology confusion.
Factual and Mathematical Errors
The main errors center around the claims of price reduction:1
- Impossible Percentage Drops: The claim that drug prices are falling at “500%, 600%, 700%, and more” is mathematically impossible for a price reduction.2 A 100% reduction means the price is zero (free). A reduction greater than 100% would mean the purchaser is being paid to take the drug.3
- Context: This extreme exaggeration likely stems from comparing the high U.S. list price to the lower prices available in other countries (the “Most-Favored-Nation” target price), where the difference can be three to five times higher in the U.S. (e.g., a 500% difference between the prices). However, a price reduction is always expressed as a percentage of the original price, and cannot exceed 100%.
- Unsubstantiated Scale of Price Falls: While the administration in question has pursued policies like the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) drug pricing Executive Order and negotiated voluntary agreements with some manufacturers, the claim that drug prices are falling at “levels never seen before” and by the aforementioned percentages for the overall market is not supported by data and is widely disputed by non-partisan analyses.
- Context: Price reductions announced in related agreements are significant for the specific drugs and patients involved, but do not represent a 500-700% overall market drop. For example, some agreements involve discounts off the list price, or set the price at a lower rate, with savings often in the 30% to 80% range for specific drugs, or in the tens of millions of dollars for certain government programs, not hundreds of percentage points for the entire drug market.
- Credit for Drug Price Negotiation: The claim that “No other President has been able to do this, BUT I HAVE!” is inaccurate regarding the ability of the government to negotiate some drug prices.
- Context: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, passed by the Biden Administration, was the first law to grant Medicare the authority to directly negotiate the prices of a limited number of high-cost prescription drugs, a process that is ongoing.4 While the DJT administration has pursued the MFN model via Executive Order (and in some cases reached voluntary agreements), the statutory ability for Medicare to negotiate comes from a different, prior, and widely publicized piece of legislation.
Terminology Confusion
Favored Nations Status (Most-Favored-Nation): The phrase “Favored Nations Status” is a slight misstatement of the official policy name being referenced, which is Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Drug Pricing. The MFN policy is an effort to tie U.S. drug prices to the lowest prices paid for the same drugs in other developed nations.5 The term “Favored Nation Status” is typically used in international trade to ensure one country receives the best available trade terms offered by its trading partner to any other country, not a direct drug pricing mechanism.
Claude
Factual Errors:
- “FAVORED NATIONS STATUS” – This appears to confuse trade terminology with a healthcare policy. The actual policy was an executive order for a “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing model, which was never fully implemented and faced legal challenges.
- “DRUG PRICES ARE FALLING AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, 500%, 600%, 700%” – These percentage claims are not supported by evidence. Prices cannot fall by more than 100% (which would mean free). The phrasing likely means “falling TO 500-700% less” but is mathematically nonsensical as written. Additionally, there’s no documented evidence of such dramatic widespread drug price reductions.
- “No other President has been able to do this” – Without verified implementation or results, this claim cannot be substantiated.
- “This is also the answer to much less expensive, and far better, HEALTHCARE” – This overstates what any single drug pricing policy could achieve for the entire healthcare system.
- “the biggest and most important event, EVER” – This is extreme hyperbole not supported by healthcare policy analysis.
Logical/Rhetorical Issues:
- The text conflates an attempted policy with proven results
- The percentage figures are either mathematically impossible or poorly expressed
- The direct appeal to use this for electoral gain undermines the claim of prioritizing public health
Mistral
Capitalization Errors
- Overuse of ALL CAPS: While emphasis is sometimes achieved with capitalization, excessive use (e.g., “FAVORED NATIONS STATUS,” “DRUG PRICES,” “RECORD NUMBERS”) is grammatically incorrect and considered shouting in written communication. Only proper nouns, acronyms, and the first word of a sentence should be capitalized.
- Incorrect capitalization of common nouns: Words like “president,” “healthcare,” and “elections” should not be capitalized unless they start a sentence or are part of a title.
2. Grammatical Errors
- “Favored Nations Status”: The correct term is “Most Favored Nation (MFN) status” or “Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR).” “Favored Nations Status” is not the standard terminology.
- “Drug prices are falling at levels never seen before, 500%, 600%, 700%, and more.”:
- Logical inconsistency: A price cannot fall by 500%, 600%, or 700%. A 100% fall means the price is zero. The intended meaning might be that prices are dropping by up to 50-70%, or that the reduction is equivalent to saving 500-700% of the original cost (which is also unclear).
- Clarify the claim: If the intention is to say that prices are being reduced by large percentages, specify the correct range (e.g., “up to 70%”).
- “This is also the answer to much less expensive, and far better, HEALTHCARE!”:
- Awkward phrasing: “Much less expensive” should be “far less expensive” or “much cheaper” for smoother readability.
- Comma misuse: The commas around “and far better” are unnecessary.
3. Logical and Factual Issues
- “No other President has been able to do this, BUT I HAVE!”:
- Lack of evidence: This is a sweeping claim. If true, it should be supported by specific policies, data, or historical context.
- Most Favored Nation (MFN) status is a standard trade policy tool, not unique to any single president.
- “This is a revolution in medicine, the biggest and most important event, EVER.”:
- Hyperbole: This is an exaggerated claim. Revolutions in medicine (e.g., vaccines, antibiotics, genomics) are typically based on scientific breakthroughs, not trade policies.
- “If this story is properly told, we should win the Midterm Elections in RECORD NUMBERS.”:
- Correlation ≠ causation: The claim assumes that drug pricing alone will determine election outcomes, which oversimplifies the complex factors influencing elections.
4. Punctuation Errors
- Exclamation marks: Overuse of exclamation marks (!) weakens their impact and makes the text seem overly dramatic.
- Commas: Some commas are missing where needed (e.g., after introductory clauses), while others are misplaced (e.g., “much less expensive, and far better, HEALTHCARE!”).
5. Clarity and Tone
- Lack of clarity: The text is vague about how “Favored Nations Status” directly causes drug prices to fall or improves healthcare.
- Tone: The tone is overly boastful and partisan, which may alienate readers who prefer objective or evidence-based communication
Mistral propose même une version révisée que l’auteur qualifierait sans doute de poliquement correct
“By leveraging Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for drug pricing, we have achieved unprecedented reductions in medication costs—some by as much as 70%. This policy, implemented by our administration, is a significant step toward making healthcare more affordable and accessible. No previous administration has pursued this approach so aggressively. This could be a turning point for American healthcare, and if communicated effectively, it may resonate strongly with voters in the upcoming midterm elections. Let’s share this achievement proudly!”
Donald Trump devrait peut-être faire relire ses textes par une IA ?