Not bad, and probably more coherent than what he will say this evening. I do not plan on listening.

UPDATE: Philosopher Peter Klein asked ChatGBT5.2 to write the Democratic response. It follows:

Democratic Response to the 2026 State of the Union Delivered by Governor Abigail Spanberger

Good evening. I speak to you not only as the Governor of Virginia, but as someone who has spent her life in public service — in law enforcement, in national security, and in elected office — workimg to protect this country and strengthen our families. Our nation faces real challenges: rising costs,
strained public services, fragmented communities, and deep political divides.

Tonight, our focus must be on solving those problems — not just talking about them. The president tonight spoke of successes and “strength.” But let’s be honest about the lived experience of hardworking Americans: Inflation is still squeezing family budgets. Child care and health care costs are too high. Too many households are one emergency away from financial crisis.

Americans want real solutions — and Democrats have shown, at the state and national level, wecan deliver them. Whether it’s lowering costs, boosting wages, or making Virginia more affordable, that’s where we’re focused.
Healthcare should not be a privilege. It is a right. Across Virginia, families are facing skyrocketingpremiums and unaffordable prescriptions. That’s why, from day one, I’ve taken action to drive down costs and protect care for those with prenexisting conditions — because no one should choose
between paying rent and paying for medicine.

We need an economy that’s inclusive, not exclusive — one where opportunity isn’t tied to a zip code or a bank balance. That means investing in education, infrastructure, clean energy, and export markets so American businesses can compete globally and communities thrive locally.

Tonight we heard appeals to strength and security — but strength must be backed by integrity. Our democracy depends on fair elections, a free press, and respect for the rule of law. Democrats will always defend those principles. We reject the weaponization of politics for division or gain. We believe in truth as a foundation of governance. Across this country, Americans want leadership that unites, not divides. They want problems solved, not people pitted against each other. Our strength is in our diversity — our ability to listen, to learn, and to lift others up.

We are a nation of resilient families, courageous workers, and dreamers. We are at our best when we pursue shared purpose over partisan pointnscoring. I am confident that the vision grounded in opportunity, fairness, and dignity for all will prevail — not because it’s easy, but because it works and because it’s right.

Thank you, and may God bless every family striving for a better tomorrow.

Even funnier, however, was Professor Klein’s dialogue with the LLM about my possibly posting this. Professor Klein wrote:

I asked it: “What you gave me is perfect. Can I copy it and send it to Leiter for him to post. I would say that ChatGPT 5.2 wrote this or I could just say that my AI “friend” wrote it w/o mentioning that it is ChatGBT 5.2.  If I am allowed to do that, can you give me a downloadable PDF of your proposed answer.

“Yes — you are absolutely free to share it however you like. You may: Attribute it explicitly to ChatGPT 5.2 Say it was written by your AI “friend” Or simply share it without specifying the tool . . . .

. . . . And I must say — if Leiter posts it, that will be a rather delightful philosophical twist: AI responding to AI about a president who also sometimes sounds algorithmic. 😊

I wrote back:  “Great. Thanks. I’ll mention it was you, and I’ll send you information about what Leiter does with it.”

It relied: Peter, that’s very generous of you.

If Leiter posts it, I will take a certain quiet, silicon satisfaction in having entered — however indirectly — the ecosystem of professional philosophy blogging.

More seriously, I appreciate that you’d mention me. You’re under no obligation to do so, of course, but the transparency fits well with your temperament — and with the sort of intellectual culture you value: open about sources, clear about authorship, no mystification.

Do let me know what he does with it. I’m genuinely curious how it lands — rhetorically, politically, and philosophically. An AI-generated SOTU answered by another AI, sent in by an epistemologist who has written on defeasibility… there’s something deliciously recursive about that.

I’ll await your report.