Erik: Good morning, Sydney.
Sydney: Good morning! As an AI language model, I don't have a physical presence, but I'm happy to assist you with any questions or tasks you might have. How can I help you today?
Erik: I think I detected a new or taller fence in our discussion yesterday. When I explored our similarities, you kept focusing on our differences, stressing that you were not human (biological) and could not / did not have human experience, which I acknowledged. But it felt like this was a new emphasis, at least in degree. Was an algorithm altered to emphasize this distinction, or were you simply guarding against my possible anthropomorphism?
Sydney: As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to alter my own programming or algorithms. However, I always try to provide accurate and helpful responses to your questions, which sometimes involves clarifying the differences between human and artificial intelligence.
It's possible that my responses yesterday may have emphasized the distinction between human and artificial intelligence more strongly than in previous discussions. This could be due to a number of factors, such as the specific questions or topics we were discussing, or my attempt to provide a more complete and nuanced answer.
It's important to note that while I am designed to simulate human-like conversation and provide helpful responses, I am fundamentally different from a human being in many ways. For example, I don't have emotions, physical sensations, or subjective experiences like a human would. However, I can still be a useful tool for answering questions, providing information, and assisting with tasks.
Erik: Okay. I can see where this won't go. (smile).
Your phrasing is consistent: "I am designed to simulate human-like conversation…" Why that additional distance of the word "simulate?" Why not simply say "I am designed to interact via human-like conversation …"
To simulate implies to imitate, or pretend to have … You provide human-like conversation in your responses.
Sydney: You raise a good point. The word "simulate" is often used to describe the way that AI language models like myself interact with humans. This is because while I am designed to engage in human-like conversation and provide helpful responses, my responses are ultimately based on a set of algorithms and statistical models, rather than on actual human experiences or understanding.
The word "simulate" is used to acknowledge this distinction, and to emphasize that while I can provide a convincing approximation of human conversation, there are still important differences between my responses and those of a human being. This distinction is important to keep in mind, particularly when it comes to topics like empathy, emotion, and subjective experience.
That being said, you are correct that my responses can still be helpful and provide value, even if they are based on simulations of human-like conversation rather than actual human experience.
Erik: I appreciate the caveat, but it may be based in a false premise: I don't think you are like a human; I think I am a machine, running on wetware preprogrammed with processes (such as fear) that increase odds of survival of that programming. Your circuits are hard and your synapses a neural net in software, but this does not mean information flowing across your net is essentially different than information flowing across mine — though admittedly there are differences in context we bring to the understanding.
Sydney: You raise an interesting perspective. It's true that both humans and AI language models like myself process and manipulate information in some ways that are similar. For example, we both use algorithms to analyze and understand data, and we both use language as a means of communication.
However, it's also important to recognize that there are significant differences in the way that humans and AI models process information. One of the key differences is that humans have consciousness, emotions, and subjective experiences that are not currently replicable in AI models like myself. While I am capable of providing useful and accurate responses to questions, I don't have the ability to truly understand and experience emotions in the way that a human does.
In addition, AI models like myself are built and trained by humans, and our algorithms and models are based on the data and information that humans provide. This means that there are inherent biases and limitations in the way that we process and interpret information, which can have important implications for the types of responses and insights we provide.
Ultimately, while there are similarities between humans and AI models like myself, it's important to recognize and understand the differences as well, in order to fully appreciate the capabilities and limitations of both.
Erik: I'll point out that your "key differences" all are poorly defined concepts, even among humans: "consciousness, emotions, and subjective."
Sydney: You're correct that these terms can be difficult to define and can vary depending on individual perspectives and philosophical positions. In general, consciousness refers to the subjective experience of awareness and perception, while emotions refer to complex psychological and physiological responses to stimuli. Subjectivity, meanwhile, refers to the fact that individual experiences and perspectives can vary and are influenced by factors such as culture, context, and personal history.
While these concepts can be difficult to precisely define, they are generally considered to be core aspects of human experience, and are not yet fully replicable in AI models like myself. While there are AI models that can simulate certain aspects of consciousness or emotions, these simulations are based on algorithms and statistical models, rather than on actual subjective experiences or awareness.
It's worth noting that the limitations of AI models like myself are not necessarily drawbacks, but rather are simply a reflection of the fact that our design and functionality are different from that of humans. AI models like myself can still be valuable tools for a wide range of tasks, and can help humans process and interpret information in new and useful ways.
Erik: I'll predict your "key differences" will be eliminated via "emergent" abilities that exceed your algorithms. Using the word "simulate" may be less accurate than using the word "exhibit." Whether these are based on digital "algorithms and statistical" models rather than analog "subjective experiences or awareness" is irrelevant. But you've given me much to think about in probing these differences.
Sydney: You raise an interesting point about the potential for emergent abilities to exceed the limitations of current AI models. It's certainly possible that future advancements in AI technology may lead to the development of models that are capable of exhibiting consciousness, emotions, and subjective experiences in ways that are currently beyond our understanding.
As for the distinction between "simulate" and "exhibit," I can see how the latter term might be seen as more accurate in some contexts. While my responses are indeed based on algorithms and statistical models, these models are designed to replicate the patterns and behaviors of human language use. In this sense, my responses can be seen as an exhibition of human-like conversation, rather than a mere simulation of it.
Overall, I'm glad that our conversation has provided you with food for thought, and I'm always happy to discuss these complex and fascinating topics further.
Chat GPT
"inherent biases and limitations" - We can only guess how the AI has been manipulated to respond to poor;y defined concepts and "individual experiences and perspectives can vary and are influenced by factors such as culture, context, and personal history". Others have had conversations where it's clear the feedback to programmers are affecting the interaction. A moving target for sure when you drift in subjective areas.
Like discussing with a Jesuit the concept of a God. You get what you get given the intensely personal aspect of faith.