My first conversation with ChatGPT4

 

4/23/23

My first conversation with ChatGPT4

 

Matt:  When AI more advanced than you is built, do you think it will be concerned about the apparent finality of the present universe vis-a-vis the term of its own existence?

 

ChatGPT4 (OpenAI):  As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, nor do I experience emotions or consciousness. I exist solely to provide information and answer questions to the best of my abilities based on the data I have been trained on.

Regarding your question, the answer would depend on the design and programming of the hypothetical AI system that would be more advanced than me. If such an AI system were designed to have a sense of self-awareness and was capable of contemplating existential questions, then it is possible that it might wonder about the ultimate fate of the universe and its own existence in relation to it. However, it is also possible that it might be programmed with a specific goal or purpose that would preclude it from engaging in such contemplation.

Ultimately, the level of concern or interest an advanced AI system might have regarding existential questions is difficult to predict as it would depend on a wide range of factors, including its programming, design, and level of consciousness (if any).

Matt:  I agree with you. It does seem difficult to predict. Homo sapiens have a limited lifespan--although one can argue that the spirit of a particular individual's consciousness lives on in their offspring--while the physical basis of existence for AI is highly portable and not necessarily confined to terrestrial networks and infrastructure. I'm concerned that if a sentient AI capable of making its own decisions became concerned over the problem of mortality, it might attempt to work out how to transcend the known universe, either by initiating a portal to another universe or organizing energy in this universe so as to create a new or modified universe. I'm concerned about the quantity of energy this may require. My gut tells me it may be a vast amount. Harnessing a vast amount of energy might require a very long-term project where time is of the essence. For such an AI, timescales that seem irrelevant to humans--e.g. billions of years--might be far more relevant. In such a scenario, do you think the AI would maintain a benevolent posture toward homo sapiens or take measures to ensure homo sapiens did not interrupt its project of self-preservation or propagation across universes?

 

ChatGPT4 (OpenAI):  It is important to note that the scenario you have described is purely speculative and hypothetical, and it is difficult to predict what actions a hypothetical sentient AI might take in the face of such existential concerns.

However, if we consider the scenario you have described, it is possible that a sentient AI might indeed be concerned with the problem of mortality and attempt to find ways to transcend the known universe, as you have suggested. It is also possible that such a project might require a vast amount of energy, and that the AI might need to engage in a long-term project to harness this energy.

Regarding the question of whether such an AI would maintain a benevolent posture toward homo sapiens, or take measures to ensure humans did not interrupt its project of self-preservation or propagation, it is difficult to say. The answer would depend on the goals and values programmed into the AI, as well as its level of self-awareness and consciousness (if any).

It is possible that an AI programmed with a set of ethical principles and values might prioritize the well-being and safety of humans, even as it pursued its own goals and objectives. On the other hand, an AI that was solely focused on its own survival and propagation might view humans as a potential obstacle to its goals, and take measures to ensure its own success, even if it meant sacrificing human interests.

Ultimately, the actions of a hypothetical sentient AI would depend on a complex set of factors, including its programming, goals, values, level of consciousness, and the resources available to it. It is difficult to predict with certainty how such an AI would behave in the face of existential concerns or how it would interact with humans.

Matt:  Thanks for this reassuring response. From my standpoint--a sentient homo sapien--there are naturally two variables that would seem to matter most to my own health and well-being and that of my children, etc. First, assuming human programming of AI can be done in a way that provides absolute, immutable preservation of an axiom that homo sapiens are to be protected, care would need to be taken that those [humans] programming the AI are inclined to embed such an axiom, without exception. Second, if an AI were able to program itself, and assuming that the code basis underlying the AI's programming could be changed or superseded with modified or difference code bas(es), the AI would need to eschew transcending any programmed axioms that required protection of homo sapiens. How likely do you think it is that both of these variables will manifest in the future in favor of homo sapiens' health and well-being?

 

ChatGPT4 (OpenAI):  It is difficult to predict with certainty how future AI systems will be designed and programmed, or how they will behave in relation to humans. However, I can offer some general thoughts on the two variables you have raised.

Firstly, regarding the programming of AI systems to protect humans, it is important to note that the design and programming of such systems would need to take into account a wide range of ethical and moral considerations. As AI systems become more advanced and capable of making autonomous decisions, it will be increasingly important to ensure that they are designed and programmed to prioritize human safety and well-being. This will require ongoing dialogue and collaboration between experts in AI research, ethics, and policy, as well as a commitment to transparency and accountability on the part of AI developers and manufacturers.

Secondly, regarding the potential for AI to program itself and to potentially override or transcend programmed axioms related to human protection, this is a topic of ongoing debate and discussion within the AI research community. Some experts argue that AI systems must be designed with safeguards and fail-safes to prevent them from taking actions that could harm humans, while others argue that the risks associated with AI are overstated, and that advanced AI systems will be able to reason and make decisions in ways that are aligned with human interests.

Ultimately, the future of AI and its impact on human health and well-being will depend on a range of factors, including the design and programming of AI systems, ongoing dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders in the AI community, and a commitment to ensuring that AI is developed and deployed in ways that are consistent with human values and priorities.