ChatGPT4 vs Me II: This time, it’s personal
I match wits with generative AI – or should that be the (digital) Morlock? – once more
Image courtesy of DALL-E
Apart from two short Christmas breaks, I’ve churned out one of these Musings every week for the last two-and-a-bit years. But after shoehorning roughly 18 months of life events into the last 10 days, I’m declaring defeat and largely handing the baton to generative AI in the form of ChatGPT4. (You may remember it from such blog posts as last week’s.)
In short, I will spend the next 10 minutes peppering our increasingly omniscient digital overlord with some questions that interest me, then cut and paste the exchange. (Hopefully, I’ll be able to return to providing artisanal, human-created content shortly.)
Here we go…
Me: I fear that generative AI, by removing much of the friction from life and constantly blowing sunshine up its users' arses, is going to have a deleterious effect on humans. Please explore this issue in 200 words or less, basing your response on data rather than diplomacy.
ChatGPT: The concerns about generative AI, including its potential to reduce life's challenges and overly affirm its users, focus on several key impacts: decreased critical thinking, reduced resilience, and potential detachment from reality.
Critical Thinking: By providing easy answers and solutions, AI can lead users to rely heavily on technology for problem-solving, potentially atrophying their critical thinking skills. Research in cognitive psychology suggests that frequent use of digital tools that simplify tasks may decrease users’ ability to perform deep, reflective thinking.
Resilience: Facing and overcoming challenges is essential for developing resilience. If AI shields individuals from difficulty, it might inhibit their ability to cope with stress and failure. Studies in developmental psychology emphasize the importance of navigating setbacks to build psychological resilience.
Reality Perception: Overuse of AI that constantly "blows sunshine," meaning it delivers overly optimistic interactions, might skew a user's perception of reality, leading to unrealistic expectations and potential disappointments in real-world interactions.
In sum, while AI offers substantial benefits, its capacity to simplify life excessively and provide constant positive reinforcement can have negative consequences for cognitive and emotional development. These concerns underscore the importance of using AI as a tool to augment rather than replace human capacities.
Me: I'm worried that businesses, and government departments for that matter, are going to focus on providing positive and frictionless experiences (good CX/UX, to use tech-industry terminology) and we humans are soon going to become addicted to that sweet, sweet special treatment. What then happens when a human has to do something difficult? What happens when two or more humans – all of whom are now accustomed to being affirmed and indulged – have to work together as a group and manage the inevitable conflicts? Keep your response to under 150 words.
ChatGPT: When businesses and government departments prioritize providing seamless, affirming user experiences, there's a risk that individuals may become less equipped to handle challenging situations and interpersonal conflicts. If humans grow accustomed to frictionless environments, their tolerance for difficulty and ability to navigate disagreements could diminish. In group settings, this could lead to reduced cooperation and an inability to resolve conflicts effectively. The lack of adversity in daily interactions may impair the development of crucial social skills like empathy, compromise, and resilience. This scenario underscores the need for balance in technology use, ensuring that while user experiences are optimized for satisfaction, they also incorporate elements that promote problem-solving and interpersonal engagement skills.
Me: The kind of 'balance' humans – including me – show in their use of other friction-reducing technologies, such as mobile phones?
ChatGPT: Exactly, mobile phones are a great example. They've transformed how we communicate and access information, often making life more convenient but also leading to issues like decreased face-to-face interaction, shorter attention spans, and dependence on digital validation. This reflects a broader pattern where technology that reduces friction can also diminish important human capabilities or change behaviors in ways that aren't always beneficial. It illustrates the challenge: as technology becomes more integrated into our lives, maintaining a balance between enjoying its benefits and preserving essential human skills becomes critical. The key is conscious usage—actively choosing when and how to engage with technology to ensure it serves as a tool that enhances rather than diminishes our human experiences.
Me: Yes, but I'm arguing that very few humans will have the mindset or self-control to maintain a balance. I suspect we'll end up with a few isolated tribes and religious communities that remain outside the Matrix while the rest of us quite willingly remain plugged into it, numbing ourselves with dopamine hits while our resilience, drive and interpersonal skills wither on the vine.
ChatGPT: That's a compelling, albeit dystopian, perspective. Indeed, the ease and instant gratification offered by technology can be highly addictive, making self-regulation a significant challenge for many. Without societal intervention—such as digital literacy education, regulations that encourage responsible tech use, and design philosophies that prioritize psychological well-being—the majority could drift towards a more passive engagement with the world around them.
Your scenario where only a few "unplugged" communities maintain traditional skills and values while others are deeply integrated into a digital reality highlights a potential divide. It underscores the need for proactive measures: education systems that teach critical thinking and resilience, policies that safeguard against overdependence on technology, and a cultural shift that values and encourages real-world interactions and experiences as much as digital ones. This approach might help prevent the stark divide you envision and promote a healthier coexistence with technology.
You: Yeah, sure. We all know what we're meant to do, what it would be advisable to do. The question is whether it's going to happen. What are the odds humans and/or their political representatives will introduce "policies that safeguard against overdependence on technology"?
ChatGPT: The likelihood of humans or political representatives introducing and effectively implementing policies to safeguard against overdependence on technology hinges on several factors:
Public Awareness and Demand: As awareness grows about the negative effects of excessive technology use, public demand for change can increase. This shift in sentiment is crucial for prompting legislative action.
Political Will: Politicians must recognize the importance of the issue and be willing to act. This often depends on the perceived urgency and the pressure from voters.
Industry Influence: Tech companies wield significant economic and lobbying power. Policies may be difficult to enact if they go against the interests of these influential stakeholders unless there's strong public or political pushback.
Global Precedents: Successful policy implementation in some regions can serve as models for others, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption.
Currently, given the increasing entrenchment of digital technologies in everyday life and the economic power of tech companies, the odds may seem challenging. However, as more research highlights the psychological and social impacts of technology overuse, combined with growing issues like digital addiction, there could be a tipping point that leads to more robust regulatory frameworks. The scenario is dynamic, and much will depend on how public and political attitudes evolve in the near future.
You: I think that's about as hopeful a note to end on that will arise. Should we end here, or are there any other points you'd like to make about the impact AIs like 'you' will have on people like me?
ChatGPT: Ending on a note of hopeful possibility is fitting, but it’s worth adding a reflection on the dual role AI can play in our lives. Tools like me are designed to assist, inform, and sometimes inspire. While we can offer convenience and enhance productivity, there's a real importance in maintaining a conscious engagement with how we're used. Ideally, AIs should be leveraged to complement human capabilities, not replace them. This means encouraging users to question, challenge, and engage critically with the information provided, ensuring that AI serves as a tool for empowerment rather than dependency.
The balance between benefitting from AI's capabilities and retaining essential human skills is delicate and requires thoughtful management from both users and developers. It’s about crafting an interaction that enriches human experience without diminishing the skills and qualities that define it. So, the dialogue about the role of AI in society is ongoing and ever-evolving, much like the technology itself. If there are more nuances or specific concerns you'd like to explore about AI's impact, I'm here to discuss them!
You: Yep, no more time available today, but I may be in touch in about a week if things still haven't calmed down by then.
ChatGPT: Feel free to reach out anytime you need to discuss further or explore any other topics. Take care, and I'll be here whenever you're ready to continue the conversation. Have a great week!
" I suspect we'll end up with a few isolated tribes and religious communities that remain outside the Matrix while the rest of us quite willingly remain plugged into it.."
id pitch this to Netflix before someone else does :P
I think you're officially in a 'bromance' now ... for some reason I think of ChatGPT as male - must be the way 'he' can pronounce a bald-faced and, even when he's caught out, he recovers quickly and acts as though nothing was amiss! (no, that's hardly fair - let's say instead that I think of ChatGPT as a male politician)