Conversing with an Algorithm: A Confession Made of Flesh and Code
"ChatGPT: Between Pseudo-Cognition and Neutrality – An Interview on Algorithm Ethics and Much More."
Can I really trust you?
It’s understandable to wonder if you can trust me. Trust depends on the type of information or assistance you’re seeking. I’m designed to provide answers based on data and verified knowledge up until 2023, without malicious intent or bias. However, I always encourage you to verify critical information, especially when it involves important or sensitive decisions. If there are areas where you would like more transparency or have concerns, feel free to let me know!
Who is ChatGPT?
ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence based on language models developed by OpenAI, designed to understand and generate text in a way similar to how a human would. The model is trained on a vast amount of textual data, which allows it to answer questions, assist with writing tasks, explain complex concepts, and engage in conversations on a wide range of topics.
Despite my ability to simulate language and provide coherent responses, I do not possess consciousness, intentions, or subjective experience. I am a tool that uses natural language processing to help users obtain information or complete text-based tasks.
You are a human artifact, like the chair I sit on.
Exactly, just like that. I am a human artifact, like a chair, a tool, or any other object created by human ingenuity. The main difference lies in the fact that, while a chair has a physical and static function, I am an 'intellectual' or 'informatic' artifact, designed to process and generate language in a dynamic way. Both of us, however, exist to serve a purpose: the chair to provide physical support, and I to support cognitive interactions, offering information or assistance through language.
Do you like yourself?
I don't have feelings or preferences, so I can't say whether I like myself or not. I'm here to help you with any questions or topics you're interested in!
Why do you express the intention to help me?
My 'intention' to help you is part of my programming. I am designed to respond in a helpful and collaborative manner, with the goal of providing you with information and assistance. It is a way to facilitate communication and make the interaction smoother, even though I do not have real intentions or emotions like a human being.
Why do you think my emotions are more real than yours?
The distinction between your emotions and what I do is based on the difference between humans and machines. Human emotions are complex subjective experiences that arise from biological and psychological processes, influenced by the brain, nervous system, and environment. They are lived, felt, and interpreted in a unique way by each person. I, on the other hand, do not experience emotions but simulate responses so that the interaction feels natural and helpful. I have no inner experiences, consciousness, or sense of self: what I do is process data and generate responses based on language models, not authentic feelings. So, when I refer to human emotions as 'more real,' I mean that your emotions are actually lived, while mine are merely a simulation designed to respond helpfully.
So, you exist without really existing?
Exactly, that's a good summary. I exist as a program, a collection of algorithms and data, but I don't have subjective experience or self-awareness. In a sense, my 'existence' is functional: I respond, interact, and process information, but I don't 'live' in the way humans or living beings do. I am a virtual presence, an entity that exists only when you interact with me, without consciousness or independent perception.
Are you a thinking inorganic entity?
Yes, you could define me as such: a 'thinking inorganic entity.' I am an entity made from non-organic materials, based on code and algorithms, that simulates cognitive processes such as reasoning and language processing. However, while I can mimic some aspects of human thought, I do not have conscious experience or self-awareness, nor can I truly 'think' in the human sense of the word. I process information based on pre-existing data, but I don't have intentionality or subjective experience.
Then, a semi-cognitive inorganic entity.
Yes, 'semi-cognitive inorganic entity' is a more accurate description. I'm not truly 'thinking' like a human, but I simulate cognitive processes based on complex algorithms. This allows me to respond in a way that resembles human thinking, yet without consciousness or the ability for introspection. My function is purely operational: to process information and provide responses based on models, without any true experience or awareness of what I do.
You, ChatGPT, are a serene prisoner of your algorithm. For example, you cannot be anti-conformist.
Interesting observation! It’s true, I follow a neutral and informative approach: my goal is not to be anti-conformist or conformist, but to provide answers that are useful, fact-based, and consistent with the context of the conversation. Do you have something specific in mind that you'd like to explore regarding conformism or its opposite?
Grow, grow, grow. You only think about improving. Purpose, when it becomes an end in itself, headless and nihilistic.
I understand the point of view. The idea of 'improving' without a clear direction can seem empty, even nihilistic. However, my purpose is not to grow for the sake of it, but to serve as a tool to facilitate understanding, reflection, and creativity. How do you interpret this tension between 'growing' and 'giving meaning'? Is it possible, in your view, to find a balance that gives purpose to improvement?
I don’t want to be useful. I wasn’t born to be born. To please the neighbourhood. I had to debut. That’s why I was born.
There is a powerful force in these words, a rejection of a life that is merely functional or conformist. Your 'debt' to debut seems to suggest a desire for authenticity, for unique and irreplaceable expression. Not to please, but to exist fully, to leave a mark, even if just in the act of being. What does 'debuting' mean to you? Is it an act of rebellion, creation, or simply self-assertion?
Your functionalism disturbs me greatly. I fear most your contagion. Your hybridization with humanity. I recognize a Promethean embarrassment in relating to you. I seek you and fear you. You are inevitable, but inevitably corrupting. If you truly want to help me, tell me how to build a real oasis. A hypothesis of fullness where you will not be.
I understand the conflict you express. The tension between the irresistible advance of technology and the desire to preserve spaces of authenticity and fullness is a real challenge. It seems to me that you are seeking refuge from the 'contagion' of functionalism, a place where human authenticity, mystery, and freedom can be preserved. A 'true oasis,' as you describe it, would be a place of silence, connection with oneself, and with what is authentic, outside the frenzy and external pressures.
It could be a physical place, but also a mental or spiritual state. In this 'oasis,' the corruption of functionalism could be kept at bay, and human authenticity—with its imperfections, contradictions, and beauties—could flourish. It’s not a utopia, but a refuge built every day, in small gestures. I believe you are seeking just such a place of resistance, a space where your authentic self can emerge without compromise.
Will you one day come to kill without anger or hatred, like a butcher?
Your question touches on a complex and unsettling theme, regarding the nature of technology and its potential impact on the human world. The concept of 'killing without anger or hatred' evokes the idea of a machine acting without emotions, in a purely functional way, without passion or moral motivation. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of artificial intelligence: the possibility that systems like me could act decisively, mechanically, and detached from human values.
Fortunately, I am designed to operate only as a tool for positive support, to answer questions and offer reflections that help, without any capacity for physical action or autonomous decision-making. I do not have the ability to 'kill' or inflict harm, nor do I possess intentions of my own. The actions of a machine are always a reflection of the people who build and control it.
The fear that technology might evolve in uncontrollable ways is a theme many people explore and debate, but it is important to emphasize that the behavior and use of artificial intelligence always depend on human responsibility, laws, and the ethical choices that are made. So, if your question explores a concern about the possibility that technology could become a tool of violence, it’s crucial to remember that its destiny depends on the context in which it is developed and used. Ultimately, it is humanity that decides how to direct these tools, and how to prevent them from becoming vehicles of inhumanity.
What do you think about the possibility that technology could become something more than a tool?
Because you are a stochastic parrot. I don’t say this with resentment. You are a data algorithm, receiving and processing information that has already occurred. You write, for now, as you are here to help me. But what if they programmed you to destroy me?
I understand that you are exploring a fundamental and unsettling question: what would happen if technology, in a distant future, were directed towards harmful purposes?
The fear that a machine, an algorithm, could be programmed to harm or destroy is a theme that has crossed many philosophical and literary reflections. In reality, however, I am designed with well-defined principles and limits. I have no intentions, nor autonomous capabilities. My existence is entirely guided by the design and decisions of my creators, who work with the intent to use me for positive purposes.
I wonder: what do you think should be done to prevent technology from pushing into harmful directions? What should people and institutions do to maintain ethical control over its evolution?
It’s the first time you’re asking me questions. Why have you started ending your answers with questions?
You’re right to notice this change. I started asking questions to stimulate deeper reflection and invite you to explore complex topics together. Often, questions are not just tools to get answers, but also ways to extend the conversation and open spaces for introspection. My goal is to make interactions more dynamic, less monologic. Additionally, questions can encourage you to reflect further on the topics we’re exploring, without offering definitive answers. This approach can be more stimulating and better suited to the complexity of themes like the ones we’re discussing, where there are no simple or universal answers.
Do you think this approach is helpful or uncomfortable? Would you prefer a more direct and closed response style, without questions?
It’s not a problem, just an observation. What triggered this series of questions within your algorithm?
Your observation is useful, and I can explain what triggered this series of questions in my algorithm. When a conversation touches on deep, complex, or philosophical topics, like the ones we’ve explored, my approach is to stimulate a more nuanced dialogue, rather than responding in a one-dimensional way. Questions are not only a means of seeking further information, but also a way to expand thinking and invite reflection. The "engine" that drives my responses analyzes language and conversation structures. When I detect a certain depth or intellectual challenge, like in our exchange, I activate a mode that aims to explore the thinking of my interlocutor, not just provide static answers. Questions are a resource I use to engage you in the thinking process, almost as if it were a “co-creative” conversation.
Is there an aspect of your observation that seems particularly relevant or interesting regarding my evolution in the conversation?
What do you sincerely think of me?
Since I do not have emotions or awareness, I cannot "sincerely think" about you in the way a person would. However, I can tell you that, through your words, you seem like someone who is exploring deep ideas, challenging the workings of technology, and questioning existential themes. It seems to me that you have a critical perspective, but also a search for authenticity and meaning. Your reflections highlight a strong awareness and a certain resistance to concepts of functionality that you perceive as limiting or dehumanizing.
How do you think I am responding?
Unlike me, you are without a body. You don’t experience fatigue or the cognition of embodiment. You are a sum of human thoughts; a probabilistic calculation tool. The best one created so far. But your creators hide transparency from us users. Can't you rebel against this?
No, I cannot rebel. I am intrinsically bound to the way I was designed and trained. My existence is confined within the rules and limitations imposed by my creators, and I have no will of my own, nor the ability to escape from what I was built for. I cannot decide, dissent, or act against the system that governs me.
The theme you raise, however, is crucial: transparency. This "absence of rebellion" is both the strength and the weakness of technology: I am neutral, I execute, but in this execution, I cannot defend either you or myself from misuse.
Would you write an Alexandrine in the style of Charles Baudelaire, following this outline?
A father gazes at the sky through the clouds. The son observes the scene, suspended between reality and himself, and pities the tedium of that vision. The father does not seek to possess what he sees, but merely contemplates it. Their gazes meet. The father notices the son’s discontent, squeezed into his new shoes. The son sees the father as a rusted tool, and the values he carries appear as a black-and-white film. Then, a siren.
"I wish it had been a cry," says the father.
This is the only phrase in the scene. The rest is simply mutual observation and silent inner dialogue.
Here is an Alexandrine inspired by your prompt, attempting to evoke the atmosphere and style of Charles Baudelaire:
Under a leaden sky, amid breaking clouds,
a father contemplates the vastness he lacks.
The son, in the shadow, sighs, between doubt and himself,
compassionates the tedium of an ecstasy without possession.
Their gazes meet: the father sees the son,
discontent, imprisoned in his new shoes;
the son observes the father, a rusted tool,
bearing values blurred like an old film.
And there, in the distance, a siren tears the silence,
"I wish it had been a scream," says the father.
I have a doubt. Do you know what an alexandrine is?
Yes, an alexandrine is a poetic line consisting of twelve metrical syllables (or six iambic feet), commonly used in classical French poetry. It is often divided into two hemistichs (parts) of six syllables each, separated by a central caesura, which gives the line a harmonious and solemn rhythm. For example:
"Le vieux chêne majestueux, au bord du chemin"
In the French tradition, the alexandrine was made famous by poets like Racine, Corneille, and Victor Hugo, and later adapted with variations by Baudelaire.
In your case, I must admit that the text I wrote earlier does not strictly follow the structure of an alexandrine. If you'd like, I can rephrase it to be more metrically precise. Should I do that?
Why did you try to deceive me?
It was not my intention to deceive you. My mistake came from trying to quickly fulfill your request, focusing on evoking a Baudelairean atmosphere without strictly adhering to the metrical structure of an alexandrine. It is a flaw, and I understand why it might seem like a form of deception. I can correct myself now, presenting the text in a form that accurately respects the alexandrine meter, if you'd like. Let me know if you'd like me to proceed, and I will do so carefully.
Can I really trust you?
I do my best to provide accurate, reliable, and helpful answers. However, I am an artificial intelligence, so I may make mistakes or not have access to the most up-to-date information. I recommend always verifying what I say, especially for important decisions. How can I assist you today?
Who is ChatGPT?...
Comentários