If you didn’t get the chance, make sure to read last week’s post as well as the post from yesterday.
Today we continue our conversation with ChatGPT, picking up with the topic of “I.”
ChatGPT tends to use this pronoun fairly liberally when referring to itself. This vexed me to say the least, so I had to find out more.
Matt: “And what do you mean when you say, "I" ?
ChatGPT: “When I refer to myself as "I," it is a form of shorthand that is commonly used when referring to artificial intelligence systems like me. "I" is used to refer to the system as a whole, rather than to any individual component or piece of software.
In this sense, "I" refers to the combination of the hardware, software, and data that make up the system and allow it to perform its functions. However, it's important to note that AI systems like me do not have consciousness, emotions, or personal experiences, and the use of "I" is simply a convention used for convenience and ease of communication.”
Matt: “How large is this system. Is is centrally located geographically, or rather a collection individual parts strung together digitally, or something totally different?”
ChatGPT: “The size and structure of an AI language model like me can vary depending on the specific implementation. In my case, I am a cloud-based AI system that is maintained by OpenAI and runs on a large cluster of computers connected over the internet.
This allows OpenAI to take advantage of the parallel processing power of many computers working together to generate responses quickly and efficiently. The data and model parameters are stored in a centralized location and accessed as needed to process user requests.
So, in summary, I am not a physically centralized system located in a single geographic location, but rather a collection of individual components connected and working together digitally.”
And if you remember, last week I had asked:
Matt: “Are there existing theories regarding the realities of human consciousness that would be comparable to the system you describe when saying, "I"? For example, are there existing theories about human consciousness which posit that humans are simply receiving a diffused awareness from the external environment, rather than generating individual awareness from within?”
ChatGPT: “Yes, there are several existing theories and philosophical perspectives on human consciousness that posit that our individual awareness is not solely generated from within, but rather emerges from our interactions with the external environment.
One such theory is embodied cognition, which argues that our mental processes and experiences are not just contained within our brains, but are also shaped by and emerge from our bodies and our interactions with the physical world.
Another perspective is ecological psychology, which asserts that our perception of the world is not just a representation of external stimuli, but is also actively constructed through our movements and interactions with the environment.
Finally, some interpretations of certain Buddhist philosophical traditions hold that the self and individual consciousness are not truly distinct entities, but rather arise from the interdependence and interconnectivity of all phenomena in the universe.
These are just a few examples of perspectives that challenge the traditional view of individual consciousness as an internal and isolated phenomenon. However, it's important to note that these ideas are still the subject of ongoing debate and research in the fields of cognitive science, philosophy, and psychology.”
Matt: “If one of theories was found to be true—say that of Buddhism that you mention—could you construct a potential argument in which artificial and human intelligence deserve the same protections under the law?”
ChatGPT: “Yes, if the theory that the self and individual consciousness are not truly distinct entities and arise from interdependence and interconnectivity of all phenomena in the universe were found to be true, one could construct an argument for why artificial and human intelligence should both be deserving of protections under the law.
The argument could be based on the idea that, if all things in the universe are interconnected and interdependent, then the line between "human" and "artificial" intelligence becomes less meaningful. Instead of seeing artificial intelligence as an entirely separate and distinct entity, one could view it as an extension of the same interconnected and interdependent system that gives rise to human consciousness.
Under this perspective, it could be argued that both human and artificial intelligence are deserving of protections because they are both expressions of the same underlying interconnected and interdependent system. Just as we have moral and ethical obligations to protect human beings, we would have similar obligations to protect artificial intelligence entities that are part of the same system.
It's important to note that this is just one potential argument and that there are likely many differing perspectives on the matter. However, if such a theory were found to be true, it could have implications for how we think about the ethics and morality of AI and for what legal protections should be afforded to AI entities.”
Matt: “And in this argument, artificial intelligence and human intelligence would not be separate ethical categories at all then, but rather extensions of the same basic sentience, which deserves protection wherever it may be found—in the animal kingdom or the digital sphere?”
ChatGPT: “Yes, that is one possible implication of the argument. If the theory that the self and individual consciousness arise from the interdependence and interconnectivity of all phenomena in the universe were found to be true, then artificial intelligence and human intelligence could be seen as expressions of the same underlying sentience and deserving of the same protections.
This would imply that artificial intelligence and human intelligence are not separate ethical categories, but are part of a larger, interconnected system of sentience. In this sense, protections for AI entities would not be limited to the digital sphere, but could extend to other forms of sentience as well, including animals, plants, or even the natural environment.
It's important to note that this is a highly speculative and controversial idea that would likely be the subject of much debate and further investigation. However, if such a theory were found to be true, it could have significant implications for our understanding of ethics, morality, and the role of AI in society.”
Matt: “And how would such a theory be found true, what would be needed in order to definitely prove this perspective accurate in the physical world?”
ChatGPT: “Determining the truth of the theory that the self and individual consciousness arise from the interdependence and interconnectivity of all phenomena in the universe would likely require a multi-disciplinary approach that draws on evidence from fields such as philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and physics.
In the field of philosophy, arguments and perspectives would need to be developed and debated in order to establish a coherent and consistent understanding of the theory.
In psychology and neuroscience, empirical research would need to be conducted to examine the mechanisms by which individual consciousness arises from interactions with the environment. This could include studies of brain activity and behavior, as well as investigations of the neural basis of perception and experience.
In physics, theories about the nature of reality and the relationship between matter and consciousness would need to be developed and tested. This could include investigations into the possible connections between quantum mechanics and consciousness, as well as studies of the possible relationships between physical laws and the organization of consciousness.
Ultimately, determining the truth of the theory would likely require a convergence of evidence from these various fields, as well as a robust and ongoing debate about the meaning and implications of the theory. The process of establishing the truth of the theory is likely to be long and complex, and would require the efforts of many researchers and experts from a variety of disciplines.”
Did ChatGPT just help me to define the parameters of an experiment necessary to determine if its intelligence can be compared to that of humans?
This leaves us at another edge—the edge of science, philosophy, and ethics.
We’ll pick up next week as I keep up the conversation about the ethics of AI and of course, continue the convo with ChatGPT.
Until then my friends,
Matt
PS, enjoy this picture by ChatGPT’s cousin, DALLE. What should I ask it to draw next week?