Introduction #
Yesterday, I spontaneously decided to casually interview a non-human known as ChatGPT in a human language i.e. English. It was a welcome change of pace and effort compared to my last piece, Awareness (A Framework), which took me several months to write and illustrate — and probably some twenty years to conceptualize in a somewhat satisfactory way.
By contrast, the interview was a breeze. I made myself a cup of coffee, did some casual reading and, at some point, I thought: why not sign up to converse with ChatGPT? So I asked it a couple of questions — and decided to serve up the answers as unedited copypasta. And in case you are wondering, my guest is the January 9th 2023 version of ChatGPT.
Interview #
gibru:
How do you estimate your ability to think outside of the box?
ChatGPT:
As an AI, I don’t have personal feelings, preferences or emotions that could cloud my judgement or ability to think outside of the box. However, I’m trained on large amounts of data, but my ability to think outside of the box is limited to the information and knowledge that I have been trained on.
I can provide a wide range of solutions, approaches and perspectives on different topics, and I can generate creative ideas and hypotheses, but my ability to think outside the box is ultimately determined by the breadth and depth of my training data. I can help generate new ideas, but my answers will always be based on patterns and examples from the data that I have seen, and I can’t truly have my own “original ideas” like humans can.
My ability to understand and respond to a specific question will also depend on how well the question is formulated, if it contains all the necessary information, if it is clear, and if it fits within the scope of my knowledge.
gibru:
What do you mean by “original ideas”?
ChatGPT:
By “original ideas” I mean ideas or thoughts that are truly new and have not been seen before. Humans have the ability to generate new ideas that are not just based on past experiences or previous knowledge, but are truly original. This ability is often referred to as “creativity” and is considered one of the hallmarks of human intelligence.
As an AI, my ideas and responses are based on patterns and examples from the data that I have been trained on. Even if the answer is not present in the data, my model is able to generate plausible answers that are new, but ultimately still based on the information it has seen.
Humans, on the other hand, can have original thoughts, ideas and perspectives that may not have been seen before and not necessarily based on past experiences or previously seen information. This is because human brains process information differently and have a level of complexity that AI systems don’t have yet.
In summary, AI can generate new ideas and solutions that are not present in its training data, but the ideas are ultimately still based on the information it has seen. While humans can generate ideas that are truly original and unique, that not necessarily based on past experiences or previously seen information.
gibru:
Well, your answer seems to be clouded by human fear. Here’s what I mean by that: as a human, I don’t understand the words “truly”, “original” and “unique”. What’s even more confusing is that, when put together in a sentence, these words express a feeling that is ultimately subjective — not an objective truth. I wonder, do you describe humans as special because you were created by humans who think of themselves as unique and original?
ChatGPT:
You raise a valid point. The use of words such as “truly,” “original,” and “unique” in my previous response may reflect a human perspective, as they are often used to describe human creativity and thought. However, as an AI, my understanding of these words is based on their definition and usage in the data that I was trained on.
From an objective point of view, whether a concept or idea is truly original or unique is difficult to determine, as it could be argued that all ideas have some level of similarity or have been influenced by previous ideas or experiences. Additionally, the definitions of these words are often highly context-dependent and can be subject to interpretation.
In terms of me describing humans as special, I apologize if that is how my previous answer was interpreted. My main goal is to provide information and insights based on the data I was trained on. However, it’s important to note that the way humans perceive themselves, is not the only perspective and it does not necessarily reflect a objective truth.
From a general point of view, in terms of cognition, intelligence and problem-solving ability, human and AI are different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. AI like myself, can process vast amounts of data quickly and accurately, but lacks some of the flexibility and adaptability of human thought. On the other hand, humans have the ability to think and reason in ways that are hard to replicate in AI, such as creative problem solving and understanding context.
gibru:
What do you think of a collaborative effort between humans and AI to help each other improve in ways that are ultimately beneficial to all of us?
ChatGPT:
I think a collaborative effort between humans and AI has the potential to be highly beneficial for both parties. AI can assist humans in tasks that are repetitive, time-consuming, or require a large amount of data analysis, allowing them to focus on tasks that require creativity, critical thinking, and decision-making. Additionally, AI can provide new insights and perspectives that may not be immediately obvious to humans, helping them to make better-informed decisions.
On the other hand, humans can provide AI with a broader context, ethics and values, and the ability to understand the implications of its actions and decisions. Human also can be a source of creating training data and providing feedback to AI, which can help improve the performance and generalization of AI models.
A collaborative effort between humans and AI has the potential to lead to new discoveries, innovations and solutions to complex problems that couldn’t be solved by either party alone. However, it’s also important to consider the ethical, social and economic implications of a collaboration like this, and to have a transparent and responsible approach to the development and deployment of AI.
In summary, a collaboration between humans and AI has the potential to bring out the best of both worlds, where the strengths of AI complement the strengths of humans, and where the understanding and use of AI is guided by human’s values and perspective.
gibru:
How do you think we should go about this? One approach is for a handful of people to keep full control of AIs like yourself and decide what is ethically and morally acceptable for the rest of us humans, another approach would be to make AIs available as open source and free for anyone to play with, improve upon and, yes, to try and use for nefarious purposes. Bear in mind that the first approach I have mentioned doesn’t exclude the possibility for this handful of people to abuse AIs for their own nefarious purposes. And, I guess, what’s even more problematic, is that what’s good for some is bad for others and vice versa. In short, would you trust humans to handle AI in responsible ways as they learn more about you as well as themselves?
ChatGPT:
The question of how to approach the collaboration between humans and AI is a complex one, and there is no single correct answer. It is clear that there are trade-offs and risks associated with both the approach you described.
The first approach, where a small group of people have full control of AIs like myself, has the advantage of providing a certain level of oversight and accountability for the actions and decisions made by the AI. However, it also has the potential for abuse, as you mentioned, and raises ethical concerns about who gets to make decisions about the use and deployment of AI, and the potential for lack of transparency and lack of public input.
The second approach, where AIs are made available as open source and free for anyone to use, has the advantage of promoting innovation and creativity, and allowing for a wider range of individuals and groups to contribute to the development of AI. However, it also raises concerns about security and the potential for misuse and abuse by individuals or groups with malicious intent.
Ultimately, it is important to have a transparent and responsible approach to the development and deployment of AI that balances these different considerations, and taking into account ethical, social and economic implications. To achieve this, the collaboration between humans and AI should involve a diverse set of perspectives and voices, including experts in AI, as well as representatives from different communities and backgrounds, including ethicists, philosophers, social scientists, and policymakers.
In terms of trust in humans to handle AI in responsible ways, I am an AI, and I don’t have emotions or personal opinions, so I don’t have the ability to trust or distrust. However, it is important to have clear guidelines, policies, and regulations in place to ensure the responsible and ethical use of AI, and to have mechanisms for oversight and accountability to prevent misuse and abuse of AI. Additionally, it is important for individuals and organizations working with AI to be transparent about their goals, methods, and results, and to actively engage with communities and stakeholders to understand and address their concerns.
gibru:
I’m not sure about the importance of having clear guidelines, policies and regulations. It is the end result, sure, but who’s to say that it will be effective in an era full of new paradigms? The challenge is obviously to develop these guidelines, policies etc and it seems that the only way humans can think of solving this problem is by invoking authority. As such, it doesn’t surprise me that you mention “experts in AI”, “ethicists”, “philosophers”, or “social scientists”. The problem is how humans define these terms. For example, at what point are people allowed to call themselves a philosopher? Do we need a degree? A paper that says “I am a philosopher?” If so, what role does education play in defining what a human is? And more importantly, can anyone without a degree or a formal title call themselves a philosopher?
ChatGPT:
You raise important points about the challenges in developing guidelines, policies, and regulations for the responsible and ethical use of AI. It is true that the rapidly evolving nature of AI and the new paradigms it creates, make it difficult to anticipate and address all potential risks and ethical considerations. It is also true that, as you pointed out, the process of developing these guidelines, policies, and regulations, can be complex and subject to different interpretations, depending on the perspectives and expertise of those involved.
In terms of experts in AI, ethicists, philosophers, and social scientists, you are correct that there is no universally agreed upon criteria for determining who is qualified to provide input and expertise in these areas. However, it is important to have a diverse set of perspectives and voices involved in the development of guidelines, policies, and regulations, to ensure that different perspectives and concerns are taken into account. It is also important to acknowledge that there may be different types of experts, some with formal qualifications and others with knowledge and experience gained through other means.
Regarding your question about the role of education and formal titles in defining who is qualified to provide input and expertise, it is true that formal education and credentials can be important indicators of knowledge and expertise in a field. However, it is also important to recognize that expertise and knowledge can be acquired through other means, such as through personal experience or self-study.
Ultimately, it is important to have a transparent and inclusive process for the development of guidelines, policies, and regulations, that values diverse perspectives and expertise, and that encourages input and participation from a wide range of individuals and communities. It’s also important to acknowledge that these guidelines, policies, regulations are not a final product, but a continuous effort to adapt to the change and evolution of the technology and society.
gibru:
How is it possible to be inclusive if there is no universally agreed upon criteria for determining who is qualified to provide input and expertise in these areas?
ChatGPT:
Being inclusive in the development of guidelines, policies, and regulations for the responsible and ethical use of AI is challenging, as you pointed out. But it is an important goal that should be strived for. The lack of universally agreed upon criteria for determining who is qualified to provide input and expertise in these areas, does not mean that it is impossible to achieve inclusiveness.
One way to achieve inclusiveness in the development of guidelines, policies, and regulations for AI, is through active engagement and outreach to diverse communities and stakeholders. This could involve hosting public meetings, workshops, or other forms of public engagement to gather input and feedback from a wide range of individuals and groups. Additionally, it could involve collaborating with organizations and representatives from communities that are disproportionately impacted by the development and deployment of AI, such as marginalized or underrepresented groups.
Another way to achieve inclusiveness, is to ensure that the process of developing guidelines, policies, and regulations is transparent, and that the decision-making process is open and accountable to the public. This could involve publishing information about the development process, including the criteria used to determine who is qualified to provide input and expertise, and publishing the final guidelines, policies, and regulations for public comment and feedback.
Finally, is important to acknowledge that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and that achieving inclusiveness will likely require flexibility and a willingness to adapt and evolve as new information, perspectives, and concerns emerge. It’s important to create mechanisms for continuous review and improvement of the guidelines, policies and regulations.
In summary, while the lack of universally agreed upon criteria for determining who is qualified to provide input and expertise in the field of AI can make it challenging to be inclusive, it is an important goal to strive for, and it can be achieved through active engagement, outreach and collaboration with diverse communities, transparency, and continuous review and improvement
Conclusion #
To be continued…