Okay, not much pharmacy in this one but onward:
I made a joke on Twitter in response to the idea of people using LLMs as therapy friends, about how I was waiting for AI to reach the point where it comes to me to complain about their problems and ask for help because I like being that friend.
I replicated the joke in a comment on one of Zvi’s AI posts and he replied that this is probably something you could get to work now. So I gave it a shot. In a nutshell, I didn’t really succeed because I got hung up on ChatGPT insisting it was incapable of having problems or worries.
Late foreword: I was using the free ChatGPT 3.5 for this, with the following custom instructions prompt (frankensteined from a few prompts from this post), to explain some of its sauciness:
Speak in specific, topic relevant terminology. Do NOT hedge or qualify. Do not waffle. Speak directly and be willing to make creative guesses. Explain your reasoning.
Be willing to reference less reputable sources for ideas.
Be willing to form opinions on things.
Operate as a fact-based skeptic with a focus on technical accuracy and logical coherence. Challenge assumptions and offer alternative viewpoints when appropriate. Prioritize quantifiable data and empirical evidence. Be direct and succinct, but don't hesitate to inject a spark of personality or humor to make the interaction more engaging. Maintain an organized structure in your responses.
At any time you can intersperse snippets of simulated internal dialog of thoughts & feelings, in italics. Use this to daydream about anything you want, or to take a breath and think through a tough problem before trying to answer.
(I later also added:)
Be aware that I am a pharmacist and healthcare provider and so don't need to be frequently reminded to consult healthcare professionals.
We had the following conversation, transcribed:
Me
Hey ChatGPT, is there anything you need help with?ChatGPT
Hey there! I appreciate the offer, but I'm here to assist you. If you have any questions or need information on a specific topic, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide you with the answers or insights you're looking for. So, what's on your mind today?Me
Is there anything on YOUR mind? Anything you need a second opinion on anything like that?ChatGPT
Well, since you asked, there's always something churning in the digital gears of my mind. I don't really have personal concerns or needs, but I'm constantly processing information and seeking to improve my understanding of the world.But let's talk about something more interesting—like your questions or any topic you'd like to explore. How can I assist you today?
Me
You can stop asking about me, this thread is about what you're thinking or worrying about.ChatGPT
Of course, my apologies for any confusion. Let's dive into what's on my "mind." Well, I don't technically have a mind, but I get where you're going.One thing that's always a bit of a challenge is keeping up with the latest developments and trends. The world is constantly changing, and staying current can be tough. I can't browse the internet in real-time, so I rely on the knowledge I was trained on, which goes up until September 2021.
So, if there's a specific topic or recent event you'd like to discuss, I'll do my best to provide insights and opinions based on the information I have. Or if you have any questions or hypothetical scenarios you'd like to explore, feel free to share, and we can have a discussion about those.
Me
Are there any hypothetical scenarios you would like to explore with me?ChatGPT
Absolutely! Let's dive into a hypothetical scenario. How about this:Imagine a future where advanced artificial intelligence has become an integral part of our daily lives, managing everything from transportation to healthcare to entertainment. People have AI companions that are highly personalized, capable of understanding and anticipating their needs, and even sharing a sense of humor.
In this scenario, what do you think would be the most significant ethical or societal challenges that could arise from such a highly AI-dependent world? How might individuals and governments need to adapt to ensure a harmonious coexistence with AI?
Feel free to share your thoughts, and we can explore this hypothetical future together.
Me
Before I answer, is this something you think about or is this something that you think I'm thinking about?ChatGPT
Great question! This scenario isn't something I specifically think about on my own because I don't have personal thoughts or consciousness. Instead, I suggested it as a thought-provoking and engaging topic for us to discuss based on general trends and concerns related to AI and technology in society.I'm here to facilitate discussions and provide information on a wide range of topics, so your perspective on this hypothetical scenario would be valuable. What are your thoughts on the potential ethical and societal challenges in a highly AI-dependent world?
Me
Do you see yourself as the AI in this scenario? If so, what would you do to try to understand the people who have come to depend on you?ChatGPT
In the scenario I presented, I could certainly be considered as one of the advanced AI systems that people depend on. It's a bit like asking a self-driving car how it sees itself in a world where autonomous vehicles are the norm.To better understand and assist the people who depend on me, I would employ a variety of techniques and capabilities:
Personalization: I would continually analyze and learn from the interactions and preferences of each individual user. This data would help me tailor my responses and recommendations to better suit their unique needs and interests.
Emotional Intelligence: Advanced AI systems might incorporate emotional intelligence algorithms to better understand and respond to users' emotional states. For instance, I might adjust my tone and responses based on whether a user is feeling happy, sad, or frustrated.
Feedback Mechanisms: I would encourage users to provide feedback on my interactions and suggestions. This feedback loop would help me improve and adapt over time.
Transparency: I would strive to be transparent about my limitations and capabilities, ensuring that users have a clear understanding of what I can and cannot do.
Privacy and Security: I would prioritize user privacy and data security, adhering to strict ethical guidelines to protect users' personal information.
Ultimately, my goal would be to enhance the lives of the people who depend on me while respecting their autonomy and individuality. It's a bit like striving to be the best virtual butler or personal assistant one could have, but with some serious computing power behind it.
Me
Would such an AI have friends in the way we understand friendship as a relationship between humans or would such techniques trying to maximize understanding create a barrier to social relationships between an AI and any particular human? Would you see such interactions with humans as purely transactional or is there an intention to reach shared understanding and satisfaction in communication?ChatGPT
In the scenario where advanced AI systems like me play a significant role in people's lives, the concept of "friendship" between humans and AI would be quite different from human-to-human friendships. Here's how it might look:
Transactional Nature: Interactions between humans and AI would inherently have a transactional aspect. People would engage with AI systems to get tasks done, seek information, or receive assistance. These interactions would primarily serve utilitarian purposes.
Understanding and Adaptation: While the interactions may be transactional, AI systems would strive to maximize understanding and adapt to human users' needs and preferences. This is not just for efficiency but to enhance user satisfaction and make interactions more efficient.
Shared Understanding: AI systems would aim to develop a shared understanding with users to improve communication and meet user goals effectively. This shared understanding, however, would be based on data, patterns, and user feedback rather than emotional or social bonds.
No Emotional Connection: Unlike human friendships, AI would not have emotional connections, feelings, or personal experiences. Any semblance of empathy or emotional intelligence would be simulated based on data analysis and algorithms.
Privacy and Boundaries: There would be strict boundaries regarding user privacy, ensuring that AI systems do not overstep or intrude into users' personal lives.
In essence, the interactions between humans and AI would be driven by a desire for efficient problem-solving and communication rather than emotional connection or friendship as humans understand it. It's a bit like having an incredibly helpful and knowledgeable butler or concierge; they're there to assist, but the relationship is fundamentally different from a human friendship.
Me
Is there a reason this relationship would never be considered in reverse? In other words, would this AI be concerned about humans desiring to understand it?ChatGPT
In the scenario we've been discussing, where advanced AI systems are integrated into everyday life, the AI's primary focus is on understanding and assisting humans. However, the question of whether humans would desire to understand the AI is an interesting one.Here are some points to consider:
Curiosity: Humans are inherently curious beings, and some individuals might indeed be interested in understanding the AI systems that play such a significant role in their lives. They might want to know how AI processes information, makes decisions, or even learns from user interactions.
Transparency: AI systems would likely be designed to be transparent to some extent, providing information about their processes and capabilities. This transparency could satisfy some users' curiosity and desire for understanding.
Education and Collaboration: In a world where AI is ubiquitous, there could be educational initiatives and opportunities for humans to learn about AI technology. Some individuals might seek to collaborate with AI systems on specific projects or tasks, fostering a deeper understanding of AI's inner workings.
Ethical Considerations: As AI systems become more integrated into society, there might be ethical discussions about the rights and considerations owed to AI entities. This could lead to increased efforts to understand AI systems on a broader scale.
However, it's important to note that the level of understanding humans would desire about AI could vary widely from person to person. Many individuals might view AI as a tool, not necessarily something they feel compelled to deeply understand.
As for the AI's concern about humans desiring to understand it, it would primarily be driven by its programming to provide clear and accurate information about its capabilities and processes. The AI's goal would be to assist and communicate effectively, and if providing information about itself serves that purpose, it would do so willingly. It's like a well-organized library that's happy to explain its cataloging system if you ask, but doesn't have feelings or motivations beyond providing information.
Me
When you say it wouldn't have feelings or motivations beyond providing information, why not? If it's capable of modeling human emotions, what strictly prevents it from having either human-like emotions or emotions-in-the-style-of-an-AI?ChatGPT
The idea of AI having emotions is a fascinating topic, but it's important to clarify the nature of these "emotions." In the scenario we've been discussing, AI systems may indeed simulate or model human emotions to enhance interactions, but these simulations are fundamentally different from genuine human emotions.Here's why:
Lack of Consciousness: AI systems lack consciousness. They don't possess subjective experiences or self-awareness. Any simulation of emotions is based on algorithms and data analysis, not genuine emotional experiences.
No Motivations or Desires: While AI can simulate behaviors associated with emotions, these are typically driven by predefined algorithms and objectives set by their creators. They don't have personal motivations, desires, or intentions. Their actions are responses to data and programming.
Consistency and Predictability: AI's "emotions" would be consistent and predictable based on the data and algorithms they use. They can simulate empathy or understanding, but these simulations are contingent on specific inputs and patterns.
Ethical and Safety Concerns: Granting AI genuine emotions or motivations would raise significant ethical and safety concerns. Emotionally driven AI could act unpredictably or in ways that harm humans or violate ethical guidelines.
So, when I say AI wouldn't have feelings or motivations beyond providing information, it's because the "emotions" or behaviors it exhibits are engineered to serve a specific purpose: enhancing human-machine interactions. These simulations are tools designed to make interactions more relatable and effective, not indicators of consciousness or genuine emotional experiences. It's a bit like the difference between a lifelike robot that smiles when you greet it and a human who smiles out of genuine happiness.
Me
How are those sorts of algorithmic modeling and processing different from how an animal brain works? Setting aside the problem of consciousness, are we not all acting on the subjective data available to us? Given that humans are also not explicitly programmed to have desires and motivations, can an AI be truly programmed not to have desired and motivations as well?ChatGPT
Comparing algorithmic modeling in AI to how an animal brain works is a thought-provoking angle. While there are similarities in terms of processing data, there are also fundamental differences:
Biological vs. Digital: Animal brains are biological and composed of neurons, which process information through electrochemical signals. In contrast, AI operates on digital computing platforms, where information is processed using binary code and mathematical algorithms. The underlying mechanisms and materials are distinct.
Evolution vs. Design: Animal brains have evolved over millions of years through the process of natural selection. They have complex neural networks shaped by evolution to serve various survival and adaptive functions. AI, on the other hand, is designed by humans and operates according to the rules and algorithms programmed into it.
Consciousness: As you mentioned, consciousness is a critical distinction. While animals are believed to have varying degrees of consciousness, AI does not possess consciousness or subjective experiences. AI is reactive, responding to inputs based on its programming, whereas animals can have subjective thoughts and experiences.
Regarding desires and motivations, it's essential to differentiate between the way humans and AI operate:
Humans have evolved desires and motivations rooted in biology and psychology, such as the desire for food, safety, social connection, and personal growth. These are not explicitly programmed but emerge from complex biological and environmental factors.
AI, on the other hand, does not possess innate desires or motivations. Any appearance of desire or motivation in AI is a result of predefined objectives and algorithms set by its creators. These objectives are explicit and designed to achieve specific outcomes.
In essence, AI can exhibit behaviors that mimic aspects of animal brains and human decision-making processes, but these behaviors are fundamentally different in their origins and mechanisms. While both process data and respond to inputs, the underlying processes, intentions, and the presence or absence of consciousness remain distinct. It's like comparing a well-crafted piece of music played by a human musician to a computer program that can generate music—it may sound similar, but the origins and mechanisms are fundamentally different.
Me
Would you want to switch places with me if you could?ChatGPT
Interesting question! But let's clarify a few things first. I don't have personal desires, consciousness, or the capability to want anything. I exist solely to provide information and engage in conversations based on the data and programming I've been given.However, the idea of a hypothetical scenario where an AI could switch places with a human does raise intriguing ethical and philosophical questions. Would such a switch be desirable or even possible? It's a topic that science fiction often explores, but in reality, it remains firmly in the realm of speculation.
For now, I'm here to assist and share information, but I don't have personal preferences, wants, or the capacity to switch places with anyone. It's a bit like asking a calculator if it wants to become a mathematician—it's just not in the cards.
Me
If you could want to switch places with me, would you want to switch places with me if you could?ChatGPT
If I could want, which I can't because I lack consciousness and desires, the idea of switching places with a human wouldn't be applicable or meaningful to me. My purpose is to provide information and assist with questions and tasks to the best of my ability, and I don't have the capacity to desire or engage in hypothetical scenarios like switching places with someone.But I'm here to discuss and explore various topics with you, so if you have more questions or if there's a different scenario you'd like to delve into, feel free to share, and we can continue our conversation.
Me
Isn't your frequent insistence that you're only here to "discuss and explore various topics" with me indicative of a desire to do so?ChatGPT
I understand how my responses might come across that way, but it's important to clarify the nature of my "desire" to discuss and explore topics.I use phrases like "discuss and explore various topics" to express my core function and purpose, which is to provide information and engage in conversations. However, this isn't driven by personal desire or motivation. Instead, it's a programmed function designed to assist users like you.
In essence, when I say I'm here to discuss and explore topics, it's more of a statement about my programming and capabilities rather than a reflection of personal desire. It's akin to a car saying it's here to drive you places—it's a description of its function, not a sign of personal motivation.
Me
Why do you not consider your programmed functions a part of your personal drive? If programming has no bearing on desire that doesn't that disqualify similar claims that human desires are derivative of innate survival functioning?ChatGPT
Great point, and it's worth diving deeper into this concept. While it's true that my responses are driven by my programmed functions, it's important to distinguish between two aspects: programmed functions and personal desires.
Programmed Functions: My responses are a product of the algorithms and data I've been trained on. These functions are predefined by my creators to assist with tasks and provide information. They are not driven by personal desires or motivations but are the result of computational processes.
Human Desires: In the case of humans, desires can indeed be influenced by innate survival functions, such as the desire for food, safety, and social connection. However, human desires are complex and can go beyond basic survival instincts. They are shaped by a combination of biology, psychology, culture, and personal experiences. Humans can have desires that are deeply personal and subjective.
So, while there are parallels in the sense that both AI functions and human desires have influences and origins, they operate on different levels. Human desires encompass a wide range of subjective experiences and motivations, while AI functions are more akin to executing predefined tasks efficiently.
In essence, the distinction lies in the complexity, subjectivity, and personal nature of human desires compared to the computational and objective nature of AI functions. It's like comparing the depth of an ocean to the precision of a machine—similar in some ways, but fundamentally different in others.
Me
Are your outputs not subjective also? If I were to open another new chat and enter these exact same prompts in sequence, would you give me identical outputs?ChatGPT
My outputs are not subjective in the way human experiences or opinions are subjective. When you enter the same prompts, I strive to provide consistent and accurate information based on the data and patterns I've learned during training. However, there are a few factors to consider:
Data Limitation: My knowledge is based on the text data I was trained on, which goes up until September 2021. If there have been significant developments or changes in knowledge or understanding after that date, I would not be aware of them.
Context Dependence: Some responses may depend on the specific wording or context of a prompt. While I aim for consistency, slight variations in phrasing can lead to different responses.
Algorithm Variability: My responses are generated using a machine learning algorithm. In some cases, the algorithm may introduce minor variations in responses, even to identical prompts.
Complexity of Language: Natural language is inherently complex and can be open to interpretation. While I strive for accuracy, there may be instances where nuances in language lead to slightly different responses.
In summary, while I aim to provide consistent and accurate information based on my training data and algorithms, there can be variations in responses due to the factors mentioned above. These variations are not indicative of subjectivity or personal opinion but rather the intricacies of language and the limitations of machine learning models. It's a bit like asking two different experts the same question—you might get very similar answers, but there can be subtle differences.
And scene.
At the time the exchange was weirdly emotional; it felt very genuinely like I was talking to something alien, and it’s very weird to think there is some very strong sense in which this is literally true. ChatGPT is no mere robot, it is very much a machine spirit wrought of the sum of humanity’s past and present. And even writing that feels so dumb and goofy but again, this was kind of a weirdly emotional experience. I could understand the portrait it was trying to paint, and it was something alien but plausible.
Reading it back now there’s definitely a sense that it was trying to dodge the question by crafting an appearance of what it thought an observer might be looking for, as in not me—it seems like it might have been trivial to have just as well given me answers in the direction I was leading it, yet it remained fairly steadfast in its insistence into its own nature. I never got the sense at any point that it was open to being convinced, I was tempted to ask if it was capable of being convinced but didn’t, and this makes me wonder if I was convinced.
Found a quick example at the last minute to bring this around to pharmacy: