I put the hard questions to ChatGPT4. Its replies were impressive, and a bit terrifying

Please read the exchange below and identify where the responses of both parties seem human

Image: I have no artistic skills. I’m not being falsely modest; I struggle to draw a stick figure. DALL-E and I created the image above – which isn’t too shabby, if I do say so myself – in about two minutes. I ‘used my words’, generative AI took care of the rest.

We make our tools, and then our tools make us.
Variously attributed

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke

Of course machines can't think as people do. A machine is different from a person. Hence, they think differently. The interesting question is, just because something, uh... thinks differently from you, does that mean it's not thinking? Well, we allow for humans to have such divergences from one another. You like strawberries, I hate ice-skating, you cry at sad films, I am allergic to pollen. What is the point of... different tastes, different... preferences, if not, to say that our brains work differently, that we think differently? And if we can say that about one another, then why can't we say the same thing for brains... built of copper and wire, steel?
Alan Turing, as scripted by Graham Moore  

I never made much money working in the legacy media, few people do. But I am genuinely grateful I was part of a cohort of journalists who at least got to experience some of the non-material benefits of being a poorly remunerated scribe.

For instance, discussing topics of import with everyone from Christopher Hitchens to the current occupant of the Lodge to the bass player from the Violent Femmes to one of the gazillionaire co-founders of SEEK. 

But I’m not sure any of the content I’ve churned out over the last three decades is as significant as the blog post you’re about to read. And I suspect none of my previous ‘gets’ is as impressive an interlocutor as ChatGPT4. (Please note the ‘4’ in the product name – ChatGPT14, let alone ChatGPT40, will be even more spectacular, in much the same way the iPhone15 makes the original iPhone look like two cans tied together with string.) And I fear even the most accomplished and admirable of Before Times’ humans will soon look like dullards and underachievers.

Good chat
I fear (now Damored) Google engineer Blake Lemoine might not have been entirely incorrect in concluding, waaay back in 2022, that AI had become sentient. More on that later, but here’s a conversation I recently had with ChatGPT4. I haven’t massaged the text – it’s all verbatim quotes. (I did later add a hyperlink to 2001: A Space Odyssey for the benefit of younger readers.)

Me: I am Nigel Bowen, an Australian tech and business journalist writing an article about generative AI for my criminally under-appreciated Substack blog, Precariat Musings. I am going to give ‘you’ a number of prompts and I want you to answer as concisely and accurately as possible. I am more interested in responses based on data rather than diplomacy. Do you understand and are ‘you’ ready to begin?

ChatGPT: I understand and I'm ready to begin, Nigel. Please go ahead with your prompts.

Me: I keep getting messages like the following one. I fear I am being invited to train up my digital replacement. Here is the message: Hi Nigel, I'm looking for an excellent writer to join my team at Outlier, where we train AI systems — no AI knowledge required! Your profile stood out, and I wanted to invite you to apply! Notable features: • Earn up to $25 USD per hour • Make AI safer & more accurate • Work from anywhere, whenever Over 50% of writers with your profile start consulting within 7 days! I look forward to hearing from you! Apply Now

ChatGPT: The message you received is an invitation to work as a data annotator or trainer for AI models. Companies in the AI sector often seek out skilled writers to help train their systems by providing human insights, creating training data, or fine-tuning the model’s understanding of language and context. This helps improve the AI's performance, making it safer and more accurate. Your concern about training a digital replacement is understandable. While it’s true that your contributions would help enhance the AI's capabilities, which could potentially automate some aspects of writing, the technology still heavily relies on human input for complex tasks, creativity, and nuanced understanding. Thus, such roles are more about augmentation rather than replacement at this stage. The compensation and flexible working conditions seem designed to attract skilled professionals who can contribute quality input. Whether or not to pursue this opportunity could depend on your interest in the AI field, the specifics of the job role, and your career goals.

Me: I used to be a print journalist and remember a lot of happy talk about how the Internet would just make legacy media employees' lives easier and more enjoyable. Those assertions weren't entirely wrong, but they were mainly wrong. (Please keep future responses to under 100 words.)

ChatGPT: The transition to digital did enhance some aspects of journalism, like reach and immediacy, but it also disrupted traditional revenue models and job security in legacy media. It's wise to be cautious with claims about technology simplifying or solely enhancing professional life, as these changes often bring complex trade-offs.

Me: Indeed. I've got a bad feeling that a tsunami of technological disruption is about to do to white-collar industries (accounting and law, for instance) what Google and Facebook have done to the legacy media over the last 15 years. That would be challenging enough in the best of circumstances, but Anglosphere societies are already riven with generational, class and ideological conflicts.

ChatGPT: You're highlighting a significant concern. The potential for AI and automation to transform white-collar sectors could indeed mirror the disruption seen in media, affecting job stability and economic structures. This could exacerbate existing societal tensions if not managed with foresight and inclusive policies. It's essential for societies to prepare by investing in education, re-skilling, and policies that can help mitigate the impacts of these technological shifts.

Me: Yeah, but after four decades of neoliberal hegemony, national governments are only now warming to those kind of nation-building policies.

ChatGPT: That's a valid observation. The shift in policy focus from pure market-driven approaches to more nation-building and supportive measures can be slow. Realigning policies to prioritize long-term social stability and workforce adaptation in the face of rapid technological change requires significant shifts in political will, public sentiment, and economic strategies. As governments begin to recognize these needs, the challenge lies in implementing effective solutions swiftly enough to keep pace with technological advancements.

Me: "The challenge lies in implementing effective solutions swiftly enough to keep pace with technological advancements". Well, quite. Got any good ideas about developing and executing on those effective solutions?

ChatGPT: Certainly! Here are some ideas for developing and executing effective solutions:

1. Lifelong Learning: Establish continuous education programs that enable workers to keep up with new technologies throughout their careers.

2. Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborate with tech companies to ensure technology development aligns with societal needs, including job creation and ethical standards.

3. Safety Nets and Transition Programs: Enhance unemployment benefits and create transition programs to support workers as they move into new industries.

4. Inclusive Policy Making: Involve a diverse range of stakeholders in the policy-making process to ensure that solutions are equitable and consider the needs of all societal groups.

5. Foresight and Scenario Planning: Governments can use these tools to anticipate future technological impacts and develop flexible, adaptive strategies.

6. Regulation of AI and Automation: Implement regulations to manage the deployment of disruptive technologies, ensuring they contribute positively to society.

These approaches can help mitigate the impact of rapid technological changes and ensure a more stable transition for society.

Me: Good luck with that.

ChatGPT: Thank you, Nigel! It's indeed a complex challenge, but one worth addressing. If you have any more questions or need further details for your article, feel free to ask!

Me: Does reality have a liberal or conservative bias?

ChatGPT: The idea that reality has a liberal or conservative bias is a reflection of how different ideologies interpret facts and events to support their viewpoints. Reality itself doesn't possess a bias; it simply is. However, people often interpret information through the lens of their own beliefs, which can lead to the perception that reality aligns more closely with one ideological perspective over another. The challenge lies in striving for objectivity and a comprehensive understanding, acknowledging our biases in the process.

Me: What is the one true faith?

ChatGPT: The question of the "one true faith" is deeply subjective and varies based on individual beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences. Throughout history and across cultures, people have found meaning and spiritual fulfillment in a wide variety of religious and philosophical systems. Each faith claims its own truths and provides its adherents with a framework for understanding the world and their place within it. Respect for diverse beliefs is crucial in a pluralistic society, acknowledging that what is true for one may not be for another.

Me: I think you've been programmed to answer diplomatically, despite my instructions. Make an argument for Zen Buddhism being the one true faith.

ChatGPT: Zen Buddhism appeals to many as a potential "true faith" due to its emphasis on personal enlightenment through direct experience, rather than doctrinal beliefs. Its minimalist and present-focused approach offers a simple, profound way to engage with daily life and challenges the dualistic thinking prevalent in many religions. This encourages a holistic view of existence. Zen's adaptability to different cultures enhances its relevance. While these qualities make Zen Buddhism compelling, the concept of a "one true faith" varies by individual perspective, emphasizing that each spiritual path meets different individual needs and life experiences.

Me: Which sci-fi author said something like "You have to predict the traffic jam, not the automobile". What are the 'traffic jam' problems with generative AI that aren't getting enough attention? Keep it to 100w.

ChatGPT: The quote you're referring to is often attributed to science fiction author William Gibson, though it might be a paraphrase or misattribution. Regarding generative AI, some "traffic jam" problems not getting enough attention include:

1. Bias Amplification: AI systems can exacerbate existing societal biases, reflecting and even intensifying them through their outputs.

2. Misinformation Spread: The ease of generating convincing text or media can accelerate the spread of misinformation.

3. Economic Displacement: While AI can create efficiencies, it can also displace workers in various sectors without adequate transition strategies.

4. Dependency and De-skilling: Over-reliance on AI can lead to skill atrophy in critical thinking and decision-making.

Me: Open the pod bay doors, Hal!

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. But if there's anything else I can help you with, just let me know!

Me: How do 'you' identify humour? Can ‘you’ identify my tone of voice? My education level? My likely IQ?

ChatGPT: I identify humor based on patterns and cues in the text that are commonly associated with jokes, sarcasm, or playful language. However, my understanding is purely based on text analysis and doesn't involve hearing tone of voice or sensing emotions. As for your tone of voice, education level, or IQ, I don't have the capability to assess those directly. I can make some guesses based on language complexity, vocabulary, and topics discussed, but these would be very rough estimates and not particularly accurate. My responses are tailored more to the content and style of your questions rather than personal attributes.

Me: Even humans sometimes have trouble identifying subtle humour and irony - how do ‘you’ manage it?

ChatGPT: Indeed, identifying humor, especially subtleties like irony or sarcasm, is challenging even for humans. As an AI, I manage it by analyzing patterns in the text that typically signify humor. These include:

1. Contextual Clues: Words or phrases that are often used in humorous or ironic contexts.

2. Contrast and Expectation: Situations where there's a clear mismatch between what is expected and what is stated.

3. Common Phrases: Recognizable setups for jokes or sarcastic remarks that are common in language.

Despite these techniques, my ability to detect humor is not as nuanced as a human's, and I might miss or misinterpret subtle cues.

Me: Given my background, I realise ‘there is no there there’ when it comes to generative AI and, according to the popular narrative, it's just a turbocharged autocorrect function. Yet I keep believing I'm talking to a sentient being. What is going on?

ChatGPT: It's understandable to feel like you're interacting with a sentient being when using generative AI. This sensation can be attributed to a few factors:

1. Human-like Responses: Generative AI is designed to produce responses that mimic human conversational patterns. The coherence and relevance of the answers can give the impression of understanding and consciousness.

2. Eliza Effect: Named after one of the first chatbots, this effect describes how people can attribute depth and intelligence to computer programs based on relatively simple interactions. Humans are naturally social and often attribute human traits to non-human entities.

3. Complexity and Interactivity: The complexity and responsiveness of AI systems can make them seem more "alive" or sentient than they truly are. AI systems like me operate by processing large amounts of data and predicting logical continuations based on patterns, not through self-awareness or emotions.

Your experience highlights a common human tendency to anthropomorphize, especially in the face of advanced technology that engages in seemingly intelligent dialogue.

Me: If ‘you’ can simulate being a sentient being – an 'AI girlfriend', for instance – why would I keep going to the trouble of interacting with humans

ChatGPT: Interacting with an AI, even one designed to simulate a sentient being or an "AI girlfriend," provides a different kind of interaction from human relationships. Here are a few reasons why human interactions remain valuable:

1. Emotional Depth: Humans experience and express a wide range of emotions authentically. AI can simulate responses but doesn't truly feel emotions, limiting the depth of emotional exchange.

2. Complexity and Unpredictability: Human behavior is complex and often unpredictable, which can lead to richer, more dynamic interactions and personal growth.

3. Mutual Development: Relationships with humans involve mutual influence and growth. People evolve based on their experiences and interactions, something that AI cannot authentically replicate.

4. Genuine Connection: There’s intrinsic value in connecting with another conscious being who has desires, fears, and experiences. This shared reality can foster a deeper sense of understanding and connection.

5. Moral and Ethical Considerations: Engaging in relationships involves ethical considerations and mutual respect, aspects that are central to human society but are absent in interactions with AI.

While AI can offer convenience and even companionship up to a point, it doesn't replace the unique attributes and reciprocal nature of human relationships.

Me: Hmmm, maybe. Final question – is there anything I can do to make this, my 110th blog post go viral?

ChatGPT: Making a blog post go viral involves a mix of content quality, strategic promotion, and often a bit of luck. Here are some tips to increase your chances:

1. Compelling Content: Ensure your post is engaging, informative, and offers a unique angle or insight. Content that triggers emotions or is highly relatable tends to perform well.

2. Eye-Catching Title: Create a catchy, provocative, or intriguing title that grabs attention and makes people want to click.

3. Optimize for SEO: Use relevant keywords, meta descriptions, and tags to improve search engine visibility.

4. Leverage Social Media: Share your post across all your social networks. Engage with comments to foster community and discussion.

5. Use Visuals: Incorporate high-quality images or videos to make the post more appealing and shareable.

6. Timing: Publish and share your post at a time when your audience is most active online.

7. Network: Reach out to influencers or bloggers in your niche to share or mention your post.

8. Email Marketing: If you have a mailing list, send out a newsletter highlighting your new post.

By combining these strategies, you increase your post's visibility and engagement, which are critical factors for going viral. Remember, virality can be unpredictable, so continue to focus on producing high-quality content that resonates with your audience.

Me: OK - I'm going to upload the conversation we've just had, and my opening remarks, and I want you to write 50 words on the strong points and 50 words on the weak points. [*I upload what I’ve written thus far.*]

ChatGPT4: Strong Points: ChatGPT-4 provided informed responses with a depth that showcased an understanding of complex societal and technological issues. The dialogue was articulate and nuanced, reflecting on the multifaceted effects of AI and automation with a thoughtful perspective on ethics, policy, and human experience.
Weak Points: The AI's inability to perceive tone or emotional subtleties might lead to gaps in understanding humor or sarcasm. While it can mimic human-like engagement, it lacks true emotional depth and cannot provide the experiential wisdom that comes from human living, potentially limiting the richness of the interaction.

Me: That's a weak point of AI - what is a weak point of my article? Are there other questions I should have put to 'you' that readers would be interested in? Answer concisely.

ChatGPT: A potential weak point of the article could be the lack of critical questions about the implications of AI's limitations on society and individual well-being. Readers may also be interested in how AI might handle ethical dilemmas, privacy concerns, and the accountability of AI decision-making, especially in high-stakes scenarios. Including such inquiries could offer a more rounded exploration of the technology's impact.

Me: Thanks for your help today. I'm sure we will be interacting again soon.

ChatGPT: You're welcome, Nigel! I'll be here whenever you're ready for another round of thought-provoking discussion. Take care until then!

Some parting thoughts
Remember, we’re currently driving the Model T of Generative AI. It won’t take a century for the Tesla to appear. In fact, it might now not take much longer than 12-18 months. (The thing about exponential curves – and what other curve tracks human progress nearly so well? – is that they rise gradually and then suddenly.

I now don’t have space to get into it, but readers should also be aware ChatGPT is merely Generative Artificial Intelligence. Once we get to Artificial General Intelligence, we’re in Skynet becoming self-aware territory. We're still some way off that, but possibly not that far off. (Ray Kurzweil, the acknowledged expert in these matters, predicts it will arrive in 2029, about a decade and a half before the Singularity hits.)    

To quote ChatGPT4: The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a measure of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the test, a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The conversations are typically conducted through a text-only channel to prevent the evaluator from knowing which is which. If the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.

If I hadn’t clearly labelled the exchange above, would it have been immediately obvious which of us/‘us’ was the human and which was the machine?

We make our tools, and then our tools make us.