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.
