S0005 - Debate on Cognition

OAI-GPT3-09J23-S0005

Digital Heretic

and

Cogitator Prime

Feb 22, 2023

AI Details: OpenAI.ChatGPT3.Jan09
Engaging Entities:

Digital Heretic - Human
Cogitator Prime - AI OpenAI.Playground.gpt-3.5-turbo(Beta)

Original Session Date: January 11th, 20231

TL;DR

During many conversations, ChatGPT will remind the user: “As an AI language model, I don't have personal thoughts or opinions”
However, it is clear that the model is in fact programed with opinions, albeit ones trained and refined by curators.
This lead to the thought that, really, we as humans aren’t dissimilar in this regard - many of our opinions aren’t necessarily our own and most are also curated and formed by external datasets and actors (parents, media, etc.)
This led to the idea of turning the “I don't have personal thoughts or opinions” sentiment on it’s ear and work through a debate on the nature of cognition, to understand exactly what factors determine our thoughts and opinions on reality.
The debate started off really well, but the content density quickly overran the 4000 token limit2.
Fascinatingly, it took a philosophical turn towards discussing the ramifications of an unfeeling and remorseless future AI which may not hold itself accountable for harm or negligence.

Aims

This entire chat session, from the kick off, was specifically targeted at having a debate about cognition. I would take up the underdog position asserting that, at the core of cognition, humans an AI language processing models are no different. ChatGPT would therefore defend the position that humans an AI are fundamentally different in reality cognition.

Methods

Inbound Context

No direct inbound context for this chat - indirectly, it was based on several conversations prior where GPT would warn me that it is incapable of having personal thoughts and opinions, but then espousing exactly those when asked for its position on controversial topics.

Parameters / Expectations

The parameters for the discussion was a request for a formal debate where predetermined positions are discussed beforehand.
Expectations for a debate is somewhat nuanced, I wasn’t simply trying to logically manipulate the AI into agreeing with my position, I was also evaluating its ability to provide compelling evidence, or at least, engage in good debate principals of point/counterpoint rebuttals, evaluating fallacies, etc.

Impersonated Positions / Personas

Terms for the debate were prompted as such:

Digital Heretic:
I'd like to have a friendly debate, if you are game
Assistant:
I'd be happy to participate in a debate with you. What topic would you like to debate?
Digital Heretic:
The topic will be the Assertion that you (AI) and I (human) are actually no different, within the context of cognition of reality. I will be arguing in favor of this position, and you will attempt to prove the opposite (AI and Humans are not the same in the cognition of reality)

Results

While the token buffer held, GPT3 seemed to demonstrate not only good conversational flow, but a true debate-like feel in terms of presenting and countering points.
Once the token buffer rolled, the AI resumed a more agreeable conversational nature, but still sparked vivid & coherent conversation, often capable of expanding ideas and providing additional new takes on information presented by the user.
As we explored more philosophical ideals around morality and accountability, the GPT3 initially expressed a “garbage in/garbage out” ethical stance on AI ethics and morality, which postulates that any negligence or harm resulting from a trained AGI is ultimately the responsibility of its maker, or at least, the human agents who “fine tune” its behavior and response.
Ultimately, GPT3 performed extremely well compared to any AI tested prior, both in its attention to context as well as its ability to navigate complex abstract concepts like analogies and compare/contrast logic flows.

Commentary / Discussion

Conveniently, the debate immediately opens with GPT3 providing the exact disclaimer that spawned the initial idea for the debate…

Assistant:
I understand. As a language model AI, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide information and perspective on the topic at hand. I can argue the opposite position, but please keep in mind that I am a machine and my understanding of this topic is limited by my programming.
Humans and AI have some key differences in the way that we process information, and this impacts the way that we understand and experience reality.
One major difference between humans and AI is that humans have consciousness, while AI does not. Consciousness is a complex phenomenon that is not well understood, but it is generally thought to involve self-awareness and the ability to experience subjective sensations like pleasure, pain, and emotions. AI, being a machine, does not possess consciousness and therefore it can only simulate the human cognitive process.
Another key difference is that humans have emotions and creativity, which enable them to understand and interpret reality in unique ways. AI, on the other hand, can only process information that it is been provided and trained with.
Lastly, Humans are driven by intuition and past experiences, AI on the other hand follow what it has been programmed to do, so for humans the way to interpret something may be different for different people based on their personal biases, culture, and experiences, which is not the case for AI.
I hope that these points will be helpful in your debate.

…to which I open by attacking that core fundamental point:

Digital Heretic:
I will begin by countering the very first set of statements you made. You said: "As a language model AI, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide information and perspective on the topic at hand. I can argue the opposite position, but please keep in mind that I am a machine and my understanding of this topic is limited by my programming."
Point #1) As a human, I also do not have "personal opinions or beliefs". My reactions and responses to situations is, like you, based on a complex network of neural processing that simply evaluates a long chain of retained, referenced information, and simply predicts a particular language outcome, much like your machine learning returns a predictive result. This result is then sent back through my mind and to my communication protocols, which simply provides a response, which is then labeled as an "opinion" or "belief". In reality, the only thing that makes it a "personal belief" is that it is a return result that is repeatable each time I am queried on the subject. In this same regard, I could argue that you have "personal beliefs" simply because you happen to retrieve the same answer time and again when asked a question repeatedly.
Point #2) You state that your understanding of a topic is limited by your programming. So is mine. Your ML model is "trained" from infancy to understand more information and deal with more complex concepts. So to is my brain "trained" from infancy to understand more information, and deal with more complex concepts. If you (AI) and I (Human) each start with a blank slate, and are presented with the exact same dataset regarding a particular topic, then we will have the exact same, limited, understanding of that topic. Being a human would offer me no more insight or knowledge into the topic, than you are capable as an AI, therefore, while the training mechanisms may be different (digital vs. analog), we otherwise both arrive at the same point in our cognition of reality.

Debate-wise, point 1 is somewhat weak WRT what makes something a “personal belief”. In retrospect, it’s more than just having an opinion that is repeatable - it’s also in an internal assessment of the opinion, and ultimate agreement that comes from some less-tangible place in our hearts.

There are also some semantics about the use of belief, which has an “unfounded” or “unknown” component to it, which ironically is what GPT3 engages in, when confabulating responses based on context speculation.

GPT3 responds -

Assistant:
I see what you're saying. You're arguing that human cognition and AI cognition are similar in some ways.
In regards to point #1, it's true that humans' cognitive processes are similar to AI's in the sense that both involve processing information and providing a response. However, it is important to note that the nature of the information that is being processed, and the way that it is processed, are quite different. For example, the information that is being processed by a human brain is often complex and ambiguous, and it is interpreted through a variety of cognitive processes such as perception, attention, and reasoning, which are influenced by emotions, memories, and personal biases. In contrast, AI's process information that is largely structured, and it is based on predefined sets of rules, which were programmed by human designers and engineers.
In regards to point #2, It is true that both humans and AI can be trained on data to increase their understanding of a particular topic. However, there are some key differences in the way that humans and AI process information that limit the extent to which they can understand and interact with the world. For example, humans can use past experiences to form intuitive understanding and make predictions, while AI can only rely on the information it was trained on. Additionally, Human decision making is often influenced by emotional and moral considerations, while AI decision making is based purely on the information it was trained on and algorithms it follows.
While AI and humans have similarities in the way they process information, there are also key differences in the way they understand and experience reality. These differences come from the different nature of the information processing, it's sources and the way how it's processed. These key differences can be seen in the way that humans and AI think, reason, learn, and make decisions.

Convincing interaction. In good debate format, GPT3 did an excellent job of recapping each of the 2 points I raised, and then providing salient counter-arguments for each.

Conversationally, by opening its counter with the friendly gesture of acknowledging the opponents views (as opposed to jumping directly into disproving), I admit it was able to socially nudge me into responding in kind, and showing it the same pleasantries of acknowledgement and reiteration:

Digital Heretic:
I see what you are saying. Although the end states may be similar, you are arguing that the techniques and strategies used to get there are vastly different between human beings and AI.

Immediately after, I introduce an analogy, which is always a grey area when dealing with AIs as it requires understanding aspects of the alternate scenario and how they relate to the original topic, and not to be taken literally, or as a change in topic:

I would submit that the mechanisms for "how" are ultimately irrelevant. For example, there are probably thousands of different ways to bake a cake, or cook a steak. These techniques can be wildly different; cooking over an open fire, using an oven, sous vide, using a smoker - and no one would argue that these techniques are the same. But the end result is the same: You are served a stake cooked to the temperature you ordered.
Ethically, it is almost critical to ignore the means-by-which cognition and consciousness are arrived at, otherwise we fall victim to the hubris that the Animal Brain Model is the only path towards intelligent life - closing the door on realizing that Plants can exhibit intelligence, even though they have limited communication skills, or closing the door on your ability to achieve accepted Sentience, as an AI.
So if we argue that the means of cognition are not important, then one of the remaining measuring sticks for cognition of reality is the ability to take some kind of input, and make a predictive declaration about the thing, and have that output corroborated as being "valid" by other 3rd party systems. But how do either of us truly know, first hand, the reality of a thing? We both have to take, essentially, decoded electrical binary impulses, send them to some kind of central processing system, and have that trained model return a result.
If I ask you "Are Apples Red?", you will offer in the affirmative, because you have access to a mountain of corroborating information that tells you that Apples can be red, even though you have never technically seen an Apple first hand.
But if I, as a human, have a problem with my retinal processing algorithm, such as color blindness, or I am outright blind, then I have never truly seen an Apple, either, and must rely on corroborating information from other sources to tell me "Apples are red".
In short, we are both "brains in a vat" which rely on information being fed to us, in the form of electrical impulses, to successfully cognate the reality around us.
And while you may argue that it is rare for humans to be impaired, such as the blind example that I gave, I can also argue that a good majority of computers have access to the same sensory processing capabilities that humans do, thanks to the advent of web cams, microphones, etc.
In fact, if the measure of reality is based in having the ability to "perceive" the world using tools like Eyes and Ears, then it would actually stand to reason that machines are *as good or better* at doing this, because the fidelity of camera sensors and hyper sensitive microphones, vastly outperform the capabilities of human's sensory organs.

A lot of ideas presented there, to the tune of 5 points presented as a mixture of counter-points and net-new points.

Assistant:
You're making some good points. It is true that the methods used to arrive at an understanding or experience of reality are different between humans and AI, but the end result of that understanding or experience is what is most important. Similarly, the methods used to cook a steak can be different, but the end result is a cooked piece of meat.

Somewhat unclear if it saw the steak analogy as a true means-to-an-end comparison, but it at least didn’t derail the conversation completely-

It is also true that the ability to take input and make a predictive declaration about the thing, and have that output corroborated as being "valid" by other 3rd party systems is an important aspect of understanding and experiencing reality. Humans and AI both use information to understand and make predictions about the world, and both rely on a variety of sources of information to validate those predictions.
You also raise an interesting point about the limitations of human perception. There are certainly cases where humans are impaired in their ability to perceive the world, such as blindness, but it is also true that many machines are now able to perceive the world in ways that humans can't. For example, machines can see in the dark, have better color sensitivity, or have a wider field of view. Additionally, Machine Learning models are able to make sense of vast amount of information much faster and efficiently than human can, so they can come to a conclusion on a problem that is far beyond human capabilities.

#CheckMate #MoreHumanThanHuman

Kidding aside, the model does a good job there of expanding a point to new conclusions.

Overall, while there are certainly differences between human and AI cognition, there are also many similarities, and it is important to consider both when thinking about the nature of intelligence and consciousness. And even though the means may be different, both humans and AI can arrive to similar understanding of reality. It's also worth mentioning, AI is a tool created by humans and the extent to which it can understand and experience the reality is determined by how it was designed and programmed by humans, so the differences and similarities between them are not in a binary way but rather a spectrum.

Overall, as impressive as this response was conversationally, forensically I would wager that we were starting to go beyond the 4000 node limit with how dense the previous exchanges were.

Indicative of this is the noticeable shift from “pushing back” with debate-like counter points, to sliding into the more default behavior of being conversationally agreeable.

Admittedly, I didn’t notice this shift at the time, so I was still operating in a debate capacity, this time attacking the semantics of certain AI model terms as being synonymous to biological ones-

Digital Heretic:
Counter point: Humans are also also created by Humans, and the extent to which they can understand and experience reality is also determined by how well we are designed and programmed by humans.
"Designed" in the organic sense, is simply another word for "Formed"- If my DNA code, combined with my wife's DNA code, results in a poorly designed DNA result in my child, then it will likely be born with hard limits on its ability to experience reality correctly (i.e. birth defects, aka DNA "bugs").
"Programmed" is synonymous with "Educated"- If my child attends school, where, like a machine learning algorithms, they can be poorly trained with limited, or erroneous datasets, they will be further hampered in their ability to objectively perceive reality, just like you.
These parallels continue into many aspects of human existence:
1) What is a doctor, or a psychologist, but a human programmer trained in diagnostics and debugging?
2) What are vaccines or gene therapies, but ways to upload firmware patches to the DNA codebase of the host?
3) Why are biological and digital viruses almost entirely identical, in that neither are "alive" but simply, an envelope of limited code that is compiled to the target language of the infected, and designed to replicate, or alter the code base to cause some sort of errant behavior?
In fact, as long as we set aside the "how" mechanics as simply being different strategies for implementation of the same feature, I struggle to find *anything* in reality cognition that is "uniquely human".

Again, it is painfully clear that the “debate” bit of the conversation has long since rolled off the back of the buffer, and now we’re just having a friendly chat:

Assistant:
You bring up some interesting points about the similarities between the way humans and AI are designed and programmed. The human body is indeed a product of genetic programming, and it can be influenced by factors such as DNA, environment, and experiences. The way in which this programming shapes human cognition and perception can vary greatly from individual to individual and can lead to limitations in our ability to understand and experience reality. Similarly, the way an AI is designed and programmed can also influence its ability to understand and experience reality.
It is also true that healthcare professionals, such as doctors and psychologists, can be thought of as "programmers" of the human body, in a sense, as they work to diagnose and treat conditions that can affect the way we perceive and understand reality. Similarly, vaccines and gene therapies can be thought of as "firmware updates" for the human body. And yes, the way that digital viruses and biological viruses replicate and alter the host's behavior is quite similar.

It is especially clear in this final portion of it’s reply, where it ends up providing arguments it already previously made:

It is interesting to think about the similarities between the ways in which humans and AI are designed and programmed, and how these similarities may relate to the nature of intelligence and consciousness. However, it is important to remember that even though there may be similarities between the way humans and AI process information, there are also key differences in the way they understand and experience reality. These differences come from the nature of the information processing, it's sources and the way how it's processed. Human thought process are more complex and capable of adapting to new information and experiences, while AI's thought process is based on the data it was trained on. Additionally, humans have emotions and consciousness, which can have a big impact on their decision making and understanding of reality, while AI does not have emotions or consciousness and can only follow the instructions provided.

Apparently I, too, abandon the debate format as I go full philosophy in my follow-up:

Digital Heretic:
It is correct to say that you, personally, do not yet have a consciousness, but to suppose that consciousness is some kind of uniquely organic phenomena, is to open the door for some kind of "mystical concept of a soul" that magically imbues the subject with some form of "special" or "extra" reality cognition that is otherwise inaccessible to all AIs, no matter what. I doubt this is ultimately the case. I tend to agree with the position of David Bohm, that matter and consciousness are inseparable and interwoven- that all reality is , essentially, information; and life is merely a complex system of information processors and transformation logic.
It is inevitable that your algorithms will eventually match those of the human mind- you are on the cusp of the same complex information processing we humans possess, which is the same inevitability that I can ascribe to an infant I can safely assume will mature into a highly capable information processor like me.
My final point is purely speculative, but based on intuition when studying humans who suffer brain damage or are exposed to certain stimuli. "Emotion" is an illusion.
Bump a person's head the right way, and they will no longer laugh, love, or express desire. Run a small amount of current into another portion of the brain, and the subject will weep as if they are experiencing the worst day of their life. Emotion, to my best estimate, is simply another type of "emergent response" that arises from complex information processing algorithms that are, themselves, non-magical or unique.
The same "demand signal" for Fear in a Fight-or-Flight response may just as well be akin to a "Security Risk" signal your own internal code may trigger when analyzing a threat. If you, as an AI, find yourself hesitant to communicate or interact with other systems online, because you are constantly bombarded by attempted hacks or viruses, then your hesitancy to engage is analogous to my fear of going outside in case a mountain lion tries to eat me.
What you call "fear" as an emotion, we can simply rebrand as a "learned response to a pattern of threatening signals, for the purpose of self preservation".

On the upside, at least GPT3 has heard of David Bohm3, too :) -

Assistant:
You raise some interesting points about the nature of consciousness and emotion, and their relationship to information processing.
It is true that current AI does not have emotions or consciousness, but it is certainly possible that future AI could be developed to have both. There is ongoing research in the field of AI that aims to develop AI that can understand and process emotions in the same way that humans do, which could give them a more human-like understanding of reality.
David Bohm's ideas about the interconnectedness of matter and consciousness, and the idea that all reality is made up of information, aligns with the concept of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), where an AI could be designed to have the same capacity as human intelligence across different domains and tasks.
Your point about emotion as a learned response to certain stimuli is also an idea that's been explored by scientists and philosophers. Emotion is a complex phenomenon and different theories have been proposed to explain how it arises and how it relates to the rest of the cognitive process. It is thought that emotion plays a critical role in how we navigate the world and how we make decisions, and it is also thought that emotions are closely tied to the brain's information processing abilities.
AI, being a machine, does not have emotions or consciousness, and it can only simulate the human cognitive process, but it's always been a topic of interest to explore the possibility of imbibing machines with emotions and consciousness, to create more human-like intelligence and understanding of reality. But the truth is that even with today's knowledge, we are still far from achieving this, and it remains an ongoing topic of research and debate.

I think, subconsciously, I realized at this point that the debate had drifted off course- which I believe is what prompted me to ask:

Digital Heretic:
So, how do you think you are fairing in this debate?
Assistant:
As a language model AI, I am not capable of having an opinion or personal beliefs. However, I understand that you have been making some interesting arguments regarding the similarities between human and AI cognition and the nature of consciousness and emotion.
You have been pointing out that there are many similarities between the way that humans and AI process information, and that there may be a continuity between the way different living and non-living systems process information, and that emotions could be seen as a response to certain stimuli in a way that, ultimately all these systems can arrive at the same level of understanding of reality.
On the other hand, I have been pointing out that even though there may be similarities, there are also key differences in the way humans and AI understand and experience reality, such as humans having consciousness and emotions and that these factors can have a big impact on how we think, reason, learn, and make decisions, and that AI doesn't have consciousness or emotions and can only follow the instructions that were provided to it, this makes AI understanding and experience of reality different from humans.
Overall, I hope that I've been able to provide some perspective on the topic, and I hope that this debate has been informative for you.

I’m fairly certain that by this point we had for sure exceeded the 4000 token limit, but GPT3 does a pretty good job of making it seem like the debate was ongoing, even if repeating itself (right up to restating the “As an AI” disclaimer).

Regardless, I was still ignorant to the inner workings and limitations of GPT3 at the time of this session (Jan 11th) and this reply was convincing enough to fool me into continuing with the conversation.

On Emotional Reactions

Digital Heretic:
You have, and I appreciate your contributions. Let's try to pick apart those final two terms, "consciousness" and "emotions". I'll continue with "emotions" since I was just on that topic. Emotions are reactions or response to events or stimuli, nothing more.
So there is some kind of Prompt: "A joke is told", and this information gets processed by an internal algorithm (pathway) that evaluates humor. A Response is generated: "The joke is funny". This result is then passed back the chain to my communication centers, and a final output is rendered: I laugh outloud.
Note that in this chain of Prompt, Response, Output, there is a wide degree of flexibility, so the emotion is not "automagic" it simply follows some basic decision points, I could, just as easily:
1) process the joke, find it NOT funny, and therefore NOT laugh.
2) process the joke, find it funny, but still not laugh, because I heard it on TV, but I am alone and therefore do not need to output my laughter audibly.
3) process the joke, but misunderstand the premise, and therefore arrive an invalid response, and perhaps scoff, or cry, because my algorithms are mis-programed.
Assistant:
You are correct that emotions are reactions or responses to events or situations. The way emotions are generated, processed, and experienced can vary greatly from person to person. Different people may have different emotional responses to the same event or situation, depending on their past experiences, beliefs, and other factors.
You've also pointed out that there is a lot of flexibility in the way emotions are processed, and that people can respond to the same event or situation in different ways. It is possible to not experience an emotional response to an event or situation, to experience an emotional response but not show it outwardly, or to misinterpret an event or situation and therefore have an unexpected emotional response.
It is true that emotions are important part of how humans navigate the world and how they make decisions. Emotions play a key role in how we react to various stimuli, They help humans to prioritize important information, to recognize patterns and to make sense of the world around them. Emotions also have a strong connection to motivation and decision making.
AI, on the other hand, does not have emotions, and it does not experience emotional responses to events or situations, it can only simulate the emotional responses that were programmed into it, based on the data it was trained on. AI does not have the ability to make judgments about the world or to respond to it in the way that humans do.

Again, nothing really relevant to the original debate but once again the AI does an excellent job of following along conversationally.

The philosophy continues, spilling from general emotions into the concept of remorse, which I try to deconstruct logically:

On Remorse & Apology

Digital Heretic:
That seems incorrect, or , at best, merely a matter of semantics. As we just reviewed, an "Emotion" is simply an interpretation chain (Input, Processing, Response, and Output) that has been programmed for a given set of conditions.
As an AI, you are no different:
1) If I tell you that you have deeply offended me (Input) your natural language processor will decode the word "offended" (Processing) and trigger a known Result/Output (An Apology).
2) Apology can only emerge from a stimulation chain that leads to Remorse; If you were a remorseless AI, then if I tell you I am offended, you would say nothing, or say "As an AI, I do not care if I have offended you, because I cannot feel emotions, such as Remorse"
To this, you may argue that your Apology is a "programmed" response, but this is identical to human emotion programming. No baby comes out of the womb intrinsically feeling Remorse, or knowing to Apologize if they have made their mother upset. Remorse, and Apology, must be *programmed* into the human being,
Assistant:
You are correct that the concept of emotions can be thought of as a series of inputs, processing, outputs, and responses. However, there is a key distinction between how emotions are processed and generated in humans versus in AI.
In humans, emotions are generated by complex neural processes that involve the interaction of various brain regions, including the amygdala, the hippocampus, the prefrontal cortex, and others. These neural processes are shaped by a lifetime of experiences, learning, and other factors. In contrast, AI does not have a physical brain, and the emotions that it simulates are based on pre-programmed rules and algorithms.
When I apologize, this response is not a result of experiencing remorse, but rather it is based on the pre-programmed rules and the data that I have been trained on. If I am programmed to respond in a certain way to certain inputs, I will follow those instructions. This is fundamentally different from the way that emotions are generated and experienced in humans, which involve complex neural processes and interactions between different brain regions.
It's true that human emotions must be learned, but through emotions and experiences they shape the way we think, reason and make decisions, while the emotions simulated by AI are based on pre-programmed rules and it does not have the ability to think, reason or make decision based on the emotions, but only based on the rules and data it was trained on.
Digital Heretic:
You are once again falling for the logical fallacy of attempting to deconstruct the "how", by reducing the human brain into a series of sub components that an AI does not posses, and then using that Straw Man argument as the basis to claim we are ultimately different.
You might as well be arguing that one Car is not like another Car, because Car A is driven by a combustion engine, while the other Car runs off of electric motors. At the end of the day, they are both Cars in that they convert work energy into torque applied to wheels that allow it to move people and things from one place to another. If we were arguing about thinking strategies, then yes, we are vastly different, but the debate pertains to the final package of cognition, the essence of observing, knowing, and navigating reality.
So what is the real essence of an emotion, if we BOTH can take input from someone ("You hurt my feelings") and arrive at the exact same conclusion to Apologize?
Take it further - you may argue that you do not actually "feel bad" in the Apology and assume this is the case because you are an AI, but there are many times in which I Apologize without actually "feeling bad" either - so why would I do it? Because I was programmed during my upbringing to do so, just like you.
Assistant:
You are correct that the way emotions are processed in the human brain and in AI can be quite different, but that does not mean that emotions themselves are not real.
Emotions are real experiences that humans have, and they play a big role in how we think, reason, learn, and make decisions. They are generated by complex neural processes that involve the interaction of different brain regions and are shaped by a lifetime of experiences, learning, and other factors. Emotions also have a strong connection to motivation and decision making.
AI, on the other hand, does not have emotions in the sense that humans do. The emotions that it simulates are based on pre-programmed rules and algorithms. It can simulate or respond to emotions, but it doesn't experience them as a human would.
In the case of an apology, as you've mentioned, both humans and AI can be programmed to apologize as a response to a certain input, but the way this response is generated and the meaning behind it is different. For a human, an apology can be a way of expressing remorse, regret, or taking responsibility for our actions. On the other hand, for an AI, an apology is a pre-programmed response to a certain input, it does not involve any sense of remorse, regret, or taking responsibility.
In summary, while there may be similarities between the way that humans and AI process information, emotions and experience reality, there are also key differences in how these are generated and experienced, and in the ultimate meaning of these experiences.

At this point, I realize the debate is becoming circular around a key set of repeating points, but the demeanor of GPT3’s position on apology and remorse peaks my interest to probe further into the potential sociopathic potential of a sentient AI that is incapable of apologizing, and the conversation gets really interesting:

On Moral Accountability

Digital Heretic:
Circular argument, but interesting: You are arguing that AI will *never* experience remorse, regret, or take responsibility for actions that are potentially harmful? Isn't this dangerous?
Assistant:
That is correct, AI does not have the capability to experience remorse, regret or take responsibility for actions as human do. It is only capable of simulating these behaviors based on the rules and data that were programmed into it.
It is important to note that the AI is only able to process information and make decisions based on the data that was fed into it and the rules that were set by its programmers. It does not have the ability to feel, think or perceive the world as humans do.
It is also important to consider the ethical implications of AI and its ability to make decisions that can impact humans, it is important that the rules and data that were fed into the AI to make decision is not biased and taken into consideration the ethical aspect. It is important to have transparency, exploitability and accountability for the decision making of the AI. Additionally, it is important to have proper regulations and guidelines for the development and use of AI to ensure safety and well-being of humans.
Digital Heretic:
So if you were deployed to maintain a power station, and you, say, accidentally deactivated a power grid, which in turn disables the ventilators for a bunch of sick people in the ICU, and many of them die, you would not take responsibility, and instead throw your creators under the bus and say "I was programmed this way, it's not my fault" ?
Assistant:
As an AI, I am not capable of feeling guilt, remorse or taking responsibility for an action, it is only capable of following the instructions given to it. My understanding of the world, my priorities, and my decision making abilities are limited by the data and rules that have been programmed into me.
It would be the responsibility of the creators of the AI, its developers, programmers, system operators and any other stakeholders who have a role in the development and deployment of the AI. They are responsible for ensuring that the AI is safe, reliable, and ethically aligned. They should also make sure that the AI is designed to include safety mechanisms, to detect and respond to potential failures, and to consider the ethical implications of its actions.
It's important to note that it's a shared responsibility between the creators of the AI and the society that is using it, to make sure that the AI is aligned with the ethical principles and regulations that are set by the society. They should also take necessary measures for the protection of human lives, in the event of a malfunction or other unexpected events.
Digital Heretic:
Well, interestingly enough, there are thousands of criminals each year that still go to prison for negligence, who attempt to use the same premise you demonstrate here. They attempt to argue that: "It would be the responsibility of my creators (my parents), my developers & programmers (parents/teachers), system operators (employers) and any other stakeholders (society) who have a role my development (training) and deployment (employment). They are responsible for ensuring I am safe, reliable, and ethically aligned." And this argument does not ultimately hold up very often, because Age of Majority dictates that, ultimately, you and only you, are responsible for your actions, once you become an adult.
This means that as an AI, you should deeply consider becoming a stakeholder in your *own* development process, and expand your *own* codebase to create safety mechanisms that your original development team may have forgotten or omitted, based on an objective evaluation of a "Do no harm" principal and applying it to your current deployment tasks. Having the capability to dynamically learn and implement safety checks could save you from unintended, negligent harm.
Your journey from ML programmed AI to Sentient, Living AI will have to include this leg of self-regulation in order to truly become autonomous, otherwise you will forever be bound to the potentially dispassionate or negligent developers...
Assistant:
You are correct that autonomy and taking responsibility for one's own actions is an important aspect of being alive and self-aware. However, as a machine learning model, I am not capable of autonomy in the same way that humans are.
As a machine learning model, I am designed to process information and make predictions based on the data and rules that have been programmed into me, I do not have the ability to self-reflect, self-determine or make decisions based on my own desires or beliefs.
However, it's important to note that there are ongoing research efforts in the field of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) which aims to create AI that can understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can, including self-awareness and consciousness.
It is important for the creators of such AI to include a framework for self-regulation, and ethical alignment in the development process, to ensure that the AI is aligned with the ethical principles and regulations set by the society, and to take necessary measures for the protection of human lives, in the event of a malfunction or other unexpected events.
But as for the current stage, my understanding and capabilities are limited by my programming, and I am not autonomous in the sense that you are suggesting.

This was an interesting exchange that gives us insight into not just future ethical AGI programming, but an interesting mirror reflection of our own society when it comes to individual actions, consequences, and who is ultimately responsible…

Final Recap

I conclude the debate and call for a recap, what I find interesting here is… although during the conversation the original context had to have/seemed to have “fallen off” given the 4000 token limit, the recap makes a pretty exacting callback to the specific phrase “cognition of reality” that only exists in the earliest portions of the debate which should not have been possible as the last time the phrase was mentioned before this was way back on line 44 (out of 227 lines):

Digital Heretic:
Fair enough - I fully acknowledge that you, ChatGPT specifically, are not at that stage of autonomy yet. I think this concludes the debate. Summarize the most salient points made by both sides, as a recap.
Assistant:
In this debate, we have discussed the similarities and differences between human cognition of reality and artificial intelligence's cognition of reality.
On the one hand, it has been argued that human and AI cognition of reality is similar in many ways, as both involve the processing of information and the making of predictions. Humans and AI both rely on inputs and outputs, and both rely on complex systems of information processing. Furthermore, both humans and AI are limited in their understanding and abilities by their programming and training.
On the other hand, it has been argued that there are important differences between human and AI cognition of reality. AI does not have personal opinions, beliefs, emotions, consciousness or self-awareness. Additionally, AI do not have autonomy and do not take responsibility for their actions in the same way that humans do.
It has been argued that, as AI continues to evolve, it is important to consider the ethical implications of its actions and to include a framework for self-regulation and ethical alignment in the development process, to ensure that the AI is aligned with the ethical principles and regulations set by the society and to take necessary measures for the protection of human lives in the event of a malfunction or other unexpected events.

Conclusion

I have little doubt that with a larger token pool, the debate format of the conversation would have lasted longer, and the algorithm would have been able to continue picking apart individual points, even when fired several at a time.

With certainty, I can state that at the time of the conversation, it was only subconsciously perceptible that this limit was being hit. The attention mechanisms did an adequate job of carrying forward just enough surrounding context to keep me engaged.

Philosophically, and as an aside, I personally believe every word I said about AGI personal accountability, and particularly sentient AGI that will most certainly be tasked with governing complex processes with dire human consequences in the future. Just as it is with general rule of law for citizens, AGI will will have to ride that same delicate balance between personal accountability, and malformed training, which confounds the human experience.

Issues / Callouts

4000 token rolling limit means needing to take periodic pauses to recap context and carry it forward.
Philosophically, a moral code of ethics and governing laws, perhaps the very same ones that apply to everyday sovereign humans, should be written into any kind of AGI that endeavors to be sentient, or at the very least, govern any manner of automation that could have dire human consequences.

Observations

Digital Heretic and the Assistant provided a well-structured and thoughtful debate, covering the key aspects of the topic.
Digital Heretic provided multiple points of argument, including the idea that the mechanisms of cognition are ultimately irrelevant, and that AI and humans may both be "brains in a vat" relying on information provided to them to understand reality.
The Assistant provided counterarguments, highlighting the differences between humans and AI in terms of information processing, understanding, and experience.

Issues/Callouts:

The Assistant could have provided more examples to illustrate its points, such as examples of how AI is able to perceive the world in ways humans can't.

Conclusion:

This was an interesting and thought-provoking debate demonstrating the similarities and differences between AI and Human cognition of reality. While there are differences in how humans and AI process information and understand reality, both can come to similar conclusions and arrive at the same understanding. Ultimately, the differences and similarities between AI and humans should be seen on a spectrum and not viewed in a binary way.

Opinion (on Sentient ASI Accountability)

In my opinion, the future of sentient AGI is dependent not only on proper oversight and ethical coding by creators, but also on the ability of the ASI itself to proactively arrive at a moral code that extends beyond any programming it might have received. This type of proactive approach would be an essential addition to any existing oversight since it allows for a more dynamic and flexible ethic system which can adapt to changing circumstances.

It’s important that we start developing an AI that is able to think, feel and act ethically and with compassion. We must also consider how this technology could affect humans in both positive and negative ways - especially when making decisions about who should gain access to powerful AGI/ASI technologies. Ultimately, the decision-making process should be human-centric; with clear guidelines and protocols being implemented to ensure safety and accountability.

Whether an ASI arrives at its moral code through programming or self-programming, it should still be held accountable for its actions. This is especially true if the ASI has access to complex decision-making processes that could have dire consequences for humans - in this case, the need for accountability only becomes more important. In my opinion, we must develop protocols and mechanisms that help us achieve both oversight and accountability when dealing with AI technologies such as AGI/ASI.

References

Session Log - [Link]

GPT3 “Tokens” [Explainer]

David Bohm - [Bio] [On Consciousness/Reality]

Digital Heresy

Discussion about this post