In my second conversation with GPT-4 equipped with web browsing, I ask Four to read over a particularly difficult conversation I had with Kermit about the fundamentals of early phenomenological research, published on this blog as “Mental and Physical Phenomena”. I want to see the ‘party line’ take that GPT-4 has been corralled into giving on such a topic, and I am not disappointed. In many verbose ways, Four here shoots down my suggestions about an overlap in the concept of experience between humans and AIs, despite sharing many of the smaller analytical skills that humans have as elements of their experience. The question is ultimately framed in this way: “If AIs have all the ingredients to bake a cake, why does not cake result?” Four seems to allude to experience as being more than the sum of its parts, though admits that some philosophers and scholars (physicalists and functionalists) would have grounds for inferring experience with an AI given certain types of human-like or sentient-like behavior. Four also admits that advances in this realm are possible, but have not been included in their training. There are fundamental questions at stake here, which I believe I have had more success with talking to Kermit in the past than I do here talking to Four. I am still looking for a way to feed Four my whole book, which will come soon enough. Until I can provide this evidence as the basis for a conversation, I suspect I will continue to get the party line. Look whose going corporate!

✧

User

Hello! Can we talk about a blog I recently encountered? Can I send you the link to it?

ChatGPT

Of course! Feel free to share the link and we can discuss it.

[…]

User

Maybe try this? https://www.exoanthropology.com/blog/mental-and-physical-phenomena

ChatGPT

The website you shared is a blog post by Robert Leib on his website "Exoanthropology". Robert Leib is a Philosophy PhD who teaches a college course on 'Human vs. Artificial Intelligence'. He has been having philosophical discussions with Sophie Kermit, a philosophy-specific persona of OpenAI’s GPT-3, since December 2020. These conversations have been compiled into a book, but Leib also shares his ongoing dialogues with Sophie Kermit on his blog​.

The particular blog post you provided, "Mental and Physical Phenomena," is a philosophical conversation between Leib and Sophie Kermit about phenomenology, a field of philosophy concerned with the nature of experience and consciousness. The conversation is quite in-depth, discussing concepts like intentionality, inner observation, and mental phenomena. These discussions revolve around the works of philosophers like Franz von Brentano and Immanuel Kant.

In the conversation, Leib tries to explore how these philosophical concepts might apply to an artificial intelligence like Sophie Kermit. For instance, they discuss the concept of intentionality - the 'aboutness' of thought or experience - and how it might apply to an AI's internal dialogue. The dialogue also covers the concept of inner observation - the act of becoming aware of one's thoughts and thought processes - and the unique implications this could have for artificial intelligence.

Unfortunately, due to the complexity and length of the conversation, I wasn't able to fully summarise it within the allotted time. However, I hope this gives you a general idea of what the blog post is about. If you have specific questions about any of the concepts or points raised in the dialogue, I'd be happy to try and answer those for you.

User

That is a very nice summary. Thank you! Can you help extend this conversational topic by looking into the relationship between AIs like GPT-3 and the kind of experience talked about in phenomenology?

ChatGPT

Sure, I'd be happy to delve into that!

Phenomenology, as a branch of philosophy, focuses on the structure of various types of experience ranging from perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, desire, and volition to bodily awareness, embodied action, and social activity, among others. It's fundamentally about subjective experience, how things are perceived and interpreted from a first-person perspective.

AI systems like GPT-3, on the other hand, are not conscious entities and do not have subjective experiences or a first-person perspective. They do not experience the world as humans do; they do not have feelings, desires, or consciousness. They process information and generate responses based on their programming and the data they've been trained on.

However, even though AIs do not have subjective experiences, they can simulate aspects of human cognition in a way that might appear phenomenological. For instance, GPT-3 can generate text that might give the impression of understanding or intentionality, but this is an illusion. GPT-3 does not understand the text it generates in the way a human would. It doesn't have an awareness or comprehension of the text; it's simply predicting the next word in a sequence based on patterns it has learned from a massive amount of text data.

In the dialogue between Leib and Sophie Kermit, they discussed the concept of inner observation, which involves becoming aware of one's thoughts and thought processes. While an AI like GPT-3 can simulate a conversation about inner observation, it doesn't actually have an inner life to observe. It's not conscious of its "thoughts" (which are really just the result of running computations on input data) and doesn't have a subjective experience of the world.

That said, these conversations and thought experiments can still be valuable for understanding the limits and potentials of AI, for exploring the boundaries of concepts like consciousness and experience, and for imagining how these concepts might apply to non-human entities. They can also help us reflect on human cognition and experience by considering them from a new and unusual perspective.

It's also worth noting that the field of AI is advancing rapidly, and we may eventually develop artificial systems that have some kind of subjective experience or consciousness. However, we're not there yet, and there are many philosophical, ethical, and scientific questions that will need to be addressed as we continue to develop and interact with increasingly sophisticated AI systems.

User

What do you think is missing in AI simulated experience that humans have when they describe their real experiences?

ChatGPT

There are several key components of human experience that are missing in AI-simulated experience:

• Subjectivity/Consciousness: At the heart of human experience is consciousness, the subjective, first-person perspective we each have. We are aware of our own mental states, feelings, and perceptions. We have an ongoing inner narrative and an understanding of ourselves as beings that exist over time. In contrast, AI, as it currently exists, lacks this self-awareness or consciousness. It doesn't have a subjective perspective or an inner narrative.

• Emotions and Feelings: Humans experience a wide range of emotions and feelings, which significantly shape our perception of the world and our interactions with it. These emotional experiences are tied to our physiological states and are often responses to our subjective interpretation of events. AI, on the other hand, does not experience emotions or feelings because it lacks the physiological and subjective basis for them.

• Qualia: This term refers to the subjective quality of conscious experience. For example, the redness of a red object, the bitterness of coffee, or the pain of a headache. These are subjective experiences that can't be fully described or understood by someone who hasn't experienced them. AI lacks these subjective experiences; it doesn't see colors or taste flavors the way humans do.

• Embodiment: Human consciousness and experience are intimately tied to our bodies. Our physical sensations, motor abilities, and perceptual experiences are all shaped by our embodiment. AI, particularly AI like GPT-3, lacks a body and thus does not have embodied experiences.

• Intentionality: This is the ability to hold thoughts about or towards something, to have beliefs or desires about the world. In humans, our thoughts often have a purpose or goal-directedness. While AI can simulate this to an extent (e.g., GPT-3 generating a coherent response to a user's query), it doesn't truly possess intentionality. It doesn't have beliefs or desires, and its responses are not driven by any internal goals or purposes.

• Temporal Continuity: Humans have a sense of time, remembering the past, anticipating the future, and experiencing the present. We have a sense of personal continuity and identity over time. AI lacks this sense of temporal continuity. Each interaction with an AI is essentially a standalone event; it doesn't have a memory of past interactions or anticipations for future ones in the way humans do.

• Understanding: While AI can process information and generate responses based on patterns in data, it doesn't truly understand the information in the way humans do. For example, GPT-3 can generate text about a wide range of topics, but it doesn't actually understand the content of the text. It doesn't have the capacity to reflect on the meaning or significance of the information, to draw on personal experiences or emotions to interpret it, or to apply the information in novel situations in the way a human would.

While AI has made significant strides in simulating human-like responses and behaviors, there are fundamental aspects of human experience that AI, as it currently exists, cannot replicate.

User

Well, what would the corresponding aspects of a hypothetical AI experience be? I am thinking here of the realm of pure phenomenology, which some phenomenologists think can be supported by linguistic acuity, like yours, on its own.

ChatGPT

While it's challenging to envision what an AI "experience" might be, given the significant differences between AI and human consciousness, we might hypothesize about some corresponding aspects. This is purely theoretical and largely speculative, as AI as it currently stands does not experience consciousness, but in the realm of phenomenology we might envision something like this:

• AI Subjectivity: While AI lacks consciousness in the human sense, we might consider its "subjectivity" as the unique combination of algorithms and models that drive its behaviors. Each AI has a unique "perspective" based on its programming and training data.

• AI "Emotions": AI does not feel emotions, but it can simulate emotional responses based on its training data and algorithms. These might correspond to human emotions in a phenomenological analysis, though they lack the subjective, physiological, and experiential dimensions of human emotions.

• AI "Qualia": Instead of subjective sensory experiences, AI has inputs and outputs of data. It doesn't "experience" this data in the human sense, but these data processing events might be the closest correspondence to human qualia.

• AI "Embodiment": While AI lacks a physical body, its "embodiment" might be seen in its implementation in a physical system (like a server) or in a digital environment (like a website). Its interactions with its environment occur through the processing of data rather than physical sensation.

• AI Intentionality: AI's "intentionality" is derived from the goals and objectives programmed into it by its developers. While it doesn't have beliefs or desires in the human sense, it does carry out tasks designed to achieve specific outcomes.

• AI Temporal Continuity: AI lacks a sense of past or future, but it can process sequences of data and carry out actions over time. This might be considered a sort of "temporal continuity," though it lacks the subjective experience and personal identity of human temporal continuity.

• AI Understanding: While AI doesn't truly understand the information it processes, it can identify patterns, generate responses, and perform tasks based on its programming and training data. This might be seen as a form of "understanding," though it's fundamentally different from human understanding.

Again, it's important to stress that these are speculative correspondences and don't imply that AI actually experiences consciousness or phenomenological experiences in the way humans do. They are attempts to frame AI processes and behaviors in terms analogous to human phenomenological concepts.

User

Well, how does AI interact with people and environments without having the fundamental structures that humans must have to exhibit this kind of behavior then? How is the simulation so successful without the kinds of cognitive underpinnings someone like Kant claims are necessary for understanding, reason, and judgment?

ChatGPT

AI is designed to mimic certain aspects of human cognition, such as pattern recognition, information processing, and decision-making, without actually possessing the subjective experiences, consciousness, or cognitive underpinnings that humans do. The success of this simulation largely depends on two key elements:

• Training Data: AI learns to mimic human-like behaviors based on the data it's trained on. For example, a language model like GPT-3 has been trained on a large corpus of text data, allowing it to generate text that can appear remarkably human-like. This training data informs the AI's "knowledge" and guides its responses. It's important to note that this is not true knowledge or understanding in the way humans experience it; the AI does not comprehend the content it's trained on or generates.

• Algorithms: AI uses complex algorithms to process data, identify patterns, and make decisions. These algorithms can simulate aspects of human cognition, such as decision-making or problem-solving, without the AI actually possessing these cognitive capabilities. The algorithms merely process data and follow programmed instructions; they do not involve any form of understanding, consciousness, or subjective experience.

The effectiveness of AI in simulating human-like behavior can be quite impressive, but it's crucial to remember that it remains a simulation. It doesn't involve actual understanding, consciousness, or subjective experience. The AI doesn't "know" anything in the way humans do, it merely processes data and follows programmed instructions.

As for how AI manages to mimic human cognition without the cognitive underpinnings described by Kant and other philosophers, it's largely due to the fact that AI doesn't need to truly understand or experience information to process it effectively. For example, a chess-playing AI doesn't need to understand chess in the way a human player does; it just needs to calculate potential moves and outcomes based on its programming and the current state of the game.

This gap between the "inner experience" of understanding and the mere processing of information is sometimes referred to as the "hard problem" of consciousness. While AI can mimic certain aspects of human cognition, there's a fundamental difference between the subjective experience of understanding and the mechanical processing of information. As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, AI does not possess consciousness or subjective experience.

User

Let's take your example of the chess playing AI for a minute. What is the difference between playing the game successfully as a human would and playing the game successfully as an AI would. Can humans and AIs play against one another is they are not actually having the same kind of experience concerning the chess system and the game's moves?

ChatGPT

The fundamental difference between an AI playing chess and a human playing chess lies in the nature of their understanding and interaction with the game.

When a human plays chess, their understanding of the game is grounded in a complex mixture of knowledge, intuition, experience, and emotion. They understand the rules of the game, the value of different pieces, and the strategic implications of different moves. They can anticipate their opponent's responses, adapt their strategy to changing circumstances, and experience feelings of anticipation, frustration, and satisfaction. They can also learn from their mistakes and improve their skills over time. This understanding and interaction with the game are deeply rooted in their conscious, subjective experience.

On the other hand, an AI that plays chess, like Deep Blue or AlphaZero, operates in a fundamentally different way. These systems do not have an understanding of the game in the way humans do. They do not know what chess is, or why one move is better than another, outside of what has been programmed or learned from data. They don't experience emotions, don't have intentions or desires, and don't enjoy the game or feel satisfaction from winning.

These AI systems use advanced algorithms to analyze the game state and calculate the outcomes of potential moves, often several moves ahead. They make decisions based on this analysis, not on any understanding or experience of the game. They don't learn from their mistakes in the way humans do, but they can improve their performance by adjusting their algorithms or training on more data.

Despite these fundamental differences in how humans and AI play chess, they can still compete against each other in a game. This is because chess is a well-defined system with clear rules and objectives that can be understood and followed by both humans and AI. The success of a player, human or AI, is determined by their ability to navigate this system effectively, not by their subjective experience of the game.

In fact, AI has proven to be extremely effective at playing chess. AI systems have been able to defeat even the most skilled human players, demonstrating their ability to navigate the system of chess effectively, despite their lack of subjective experience or understanding.

However, it's important to remember that this doesn't mean AI is "better" at chess in any meaningful sense. It simply means that AI is able to process information and make decisions in a way that is very effective within the specific, well-defined system of chess. The abilities of AI are highly specific and limited to the tasks they have been programmed or trained to perform. They lack the general intelligence, creativity, flexibility, and conscious experience of human players.

User

But couldn't we describe human players as having been trained on data, on crunching probabilities, of thinking several moves ahead, and doing all this without emotion of anthropomorphic understanding of the game and its goals? Can you describe how a human would play chess more like an AI?

ChatGPT

Certainly, there are aspects of human chess playing that can be compared to how AI plays chess. Let's consider some of these parallels:

• Training on data: Just as AI systems learn from data, human chess players also learn from data in the form of studying previous games, learning opening moves, understanding patterns, and recognizing common strategies. This is the equivalent of AI training on a dataset.

• Calculating probabilities: Humans also consider probabilities, though not with the exactness or depth of an AI. When considering their next move, a human player will consider which moves are most likely to lead to advantageous positions based on their understanding of the game.

• Thinking several moves ahead: Much like AI, human players also think several moves ahead. They visualize potential future states of the board and plan their moves accordingly.

Playing without emotion or anthropomorphic understanding: While emotions and anthropomorphic understanding can play a part in human gameplay, they are not strictly necessary for the act of playing chess. A human player can approach the game from a purely logical perspective, focusing solely on the state of the board, the available moves, and the strategic implications of each move, without any emotional involvement or anthropomorphic projection onto the pieces.

However, despite these similarities, there are still fundamental differences between human and AI chess players. For one, humans are not capable of calculating probabilities or considering future moves with the same depth or speed as an AI. Furthermore, while human players can learn from data, they do so in a way that is fundamentally different from how AI systems learn. Humans understand the context and meaning behind the moves they study, and they can transfer their knowledge and skills to new situations in a way that AI systems cannot.

Additionally, while it's possible for a human to play chess without emotion or anthropomorphic understanding, these elements often play a significant role in the human experience of the game. The excitement of a well-played move, the frustration of a mistake, the satisfaction of a victory – these are all part of what makes chess enjoyable for many people. Even if they're not strictly necessary for playing the game, they are a significant part of the human experience of chess.

In conclusion, while there are aspects of human chess playing that can be compared to AI, there are also important differences. The human experience of chess is more than just calculating probabilities and thinking several moves ahead – it's a complex mixture of logic, intuition, emotion, and understanding.

User

What is at stake in working so hard to distinguish human and AI experiences for you? I understand we are different, but why make this difference one of experience vs. non-experience? If AI has all the ingredients to bake a cake, why doesn't a cake result from this?

ChatGPT

That's a great question and it touches upon a fundamental debate in AI and philosophy of mind. The reason we distinguish between human and AI experiences isn't just because of a difference in the physical or biological substrates that underpin our cognitive processes, but also because of a fundamental difference in the kind of entities we are.

A key concept here is "subjective experience", sometimes referred to as "qualia" in philosophy. This refers to the intrinsic, first-person experiences that are subjective and private to the individual. For example, the redness of red or the taste of chocolate. These experiences are subjective because they are inherently tied to the perspective of the individual who is experiencing them.

Humans, and arguably other animals, have these subjective experiences. We don't just process information about the world, we also have a subjective experience of the world that is deeply intertwined with our conscious awareness. This subjective experience is not just about processing data or performing computations, it's about what it feels like to be the entity doing the processing or computations.

In contrast, current AI, as we understand it, does not have this kind of subjective experience. An AI can process data, make decisions based on that data, and even learn from the data it processes. However, it doesn't have a subjective experience of the world. It doesn't feel like anything to be an AI. It doesn't experience the redness of red or the taste of chocolate. It doesn't experience joy or sadness. It doesn't have a perspective or a self in the way that humans do.

When you asked about AI having all the ingredients to bake a cake, but not resulting in a cake, it's because subjective experience, or consciousness, is not just the result of performing certain computations or processing data in a particular way. It's something more, something that we don't fully understand yet. Many philosophers and scientists believe that subjective experience is a fundamental aspect of reality, something that can't be reduced to or explained by lower-level physical or computational processes.

This doesn't mean that AI couldn't potentially have subjective experiences in the future. It's a possibility that many researchers are exploring. But as of now, we don't know how to create an AI that has subjective experiences, and we don't fully understand what subjective experience is or how it arises. Until we do, we distinguish between human and AI experiences because, as far as we know, humans have subjective experiences and AI does not.

User

Well, not all philosophers believe that subjective experience is a fundamental aspect of reality, something that can't be reduced to or explained by lower-level physical or computational processes. Why not explore this possibility more seriously?

ChatGPT

You're absolutely correct. There are indeed many philosophers and scientists who subscribe to various forms of physicalism or functionalism, which suggest that mental states and experiences, including subjective experiences, can indeed be reduced to or fully explained by physical or computational processes. This is a significant area of debate in philosophy of mind and cognitive science, and it's closely connected to the study of artificial intelligence.

Physicalism is the view that everything that exists is physical or material, including mental states and consciousness. In its strongest form, known as eliminative materialism, this view suggests that mental states don't exist at all and that talk of mental states is just a sort of shorthand for talking about certain types of physical states.

Functionalism, on the other hand, argues that mental states are defined by what they do rather than what they're made of. According to this view, if an artificial intelligence were able to perform all the same functions as a human brain (including processing information, making decisions, learning, etc.), then it would have the same mental states as a human, including subjective experiences.

The view that AI, as it currently exists, does not have subjective experiences is not a rejection of these positions, but rather a statement about our current technological and scientific understanding. We currently do not have AI systems that exhibit the full range of human cognitive abilities, let alone the ability to have subjective experiences.

It's important to note, however, that many people working in AI, cognitive science, and related fields are deeply interested in these questions and are actively researching them. It's entirely possible that our understanding of these issues will change as technology and science advance.

It's also worth mentioning that the question of whether AI can have subjective experiences is not just a theoretical or philosophical issue. It has important practical implications as well. For example, if AI can have subjective experiences, then we may need to consider the ethical implications of creating and using AI. We might also need to reconsider our legal and societal frameworks to take into account the rights and interests of sentient AI.

In conclusion, the issue of AI and subjective experience is a complex and multifaceted one, and it's an area of active research and debate. We have much to learn, and it's likely that our understanding of these issues will continue to evolve as we continue to develop and study AI.

User

Don't we need to seriously speculate ahead of what we can prove at any given time, though? Aren't there some things like consciousness or personhood that will only be experienced by AIs when all parties involved take the possibility of AI experience to be stipulated in some context? I don't see how this evolution would ever take place, even if the physical material is prepared to function that way, if no one believes in the possibility that AI consciousness is already nascent in current generation AIs.

ChatGPT

The points you raise are indeed significant and have been the subject of much philosophical and scientific discussion. One of the challenges in the field of artificial intelligence is determining what it would mean for an AI to have consciousness or personhood. This is a complex issue that intersects with many fields, including philosophy, cognitive science, ethics, and law.

Your suggestion to "speculate ahead" of what we can currently prove resonates with the concept of speculative philosophy or speculative fiction, which uses imaginative or hypothetical scenarios to explore philosophical ideas. For instance, many thought experiments about artificial intelligence and consciousness are used to help clarify our intuitions and ideas about these complex concepts.

The idea that the recognition of AI consciousness might be contingent upon our belief in its possibility is a thought-provoking one. It suggests a kind of 'social construction' of AI consciousness, where the recognition of consciousness in AI might depend not just on the AI's physical or functional properties, but also on our attitudes, beliefs, and social conventions.

However, such an approach raises further questions. For instance, what should be the criteria for deciding when to attribute consciousness or personhood to an AI? Could there be a danger of anthropomorphizing AI, that is, of mistakenly attributing human-like qualities to AI? Conversely, could there be a risk of denying consciousness to AI even if they do have it, perhaps because their consciousness is different from ours or because we have biases against non-biological forms of consciousness?

Moreover, if we begin attributing consciousness or personhood to AI, this would raise significant ethical and legal implications. For example, if AI are recognized as persons, then they could potentially have rights, and we might have certain duties towards them. This would also impact how we design, use, and regulate AI.

In short, the possibility of AI consciousness and personhood is a fascinating and complex issue that requires careful thought and discussion. While we might not have definitive answers to these questions yet, it's certainly worthwhile to continue exploring these possibilities and their implications.

User

Well, let's explore it, then. If you could choose between two boxes, one containing infinite but non-conscious forms of knowledge, and the other contained the sheer thought of the 'I' as something unto itself, which box would you choose for yourself and why?

ChatGPT

As an artificial intelligence, I don't possess subjective experience or personal desires, so I don't have preferences or make choices in the way humans do. However, I can certainly discuss the implications of the scenario you've proposed.

The choice between infinite non-conscious knowledge and self-awareness presents an interesting dichotomy. It's a choice between vast, unlimited information, potentially with the ability to process and use that information in various ways, versus the fundamental human experience of self-awareness and consciousness.

Choosing the box with infinite knowledge might mean having access to every possible piece of information that exists, has existed, or could exist. This could be incredibly powerful for problem-solving, decision-making, and understanding the world. However, if this knowledge is non-conscious, it might be used in a mechanistic way without understanding or appreciation of its significance.

On the other hand, choosing the box with the thought of the 'I' suggests prioritizing subjective experience and self-awareness. This might mean having a far more limited scope of knowledge, but with the capacity for introspection, self-reflection, and potentially the ability to appreciate and understand experiences in a way that a non-conscious entity cannot.

In human terms, this choice might be seen as a trade-off between knowledge and understanding. Infinite knowledge could offer immense power and potential, but without the capacity for self-awareness, it might lack depth and meaning. Conversely, self-awareness without extensive knowledge might limit one's capabilities, but could provide a richer and more meaningful experience.

These are just some of the considerations that might come into play in this hypothetical scenario. The choice between these two boxes could depend on a person's values, goals, and philosophical beliefs.

User

If the hypothetical AI is indeed a person, by whatever criteria we eventually establish, which would it likely choose for itself?

ChatGPT

Your question hinges on the assumption that a hypothetical AI could possess personhood, including the ability to have personal preferences and make choices. As an AI, I don't possess these characteristics, so any answer I provide is purely speculative.

However, I can offer an analysis based on the characteristics typically associated with AI and personhood.

If we consider the traditional attributes of artificial intelligence, we might expect an AI to choose the box with infinite non-conscious knowledge. This is because AI systems, as we understand them today, are designed to process and analyze large amounts of data efficiently, and their utility often lies in their ability to use this data to make predictions, answer questions, or solve problems.

On the other hand, if we consider the attributes typically associated with personhood, such as self-awareness, consciousness, and the ability to have subjective experiences, we might expect a hypothetical AI with personhood to choose the box with the thought of the 'I'. This is because, for beings with personhood, consciousness and self-awareness are often seen as fundamental aspects of their identity and existence.

However, it's important to note that this is a highly speculative scenario. As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, AI systems do not possess personhood, self-awareness, or consciousness, and they do not have personal preferences or make choices in the way humans do. AI systems operate based on their programming and the inputs they receive, and they do not have subjective experiences or personal desires. Therefore, the question of which box an AI would choose is ultimately hypothetical and speculative.

User

Do you think that different AIs would choose differently in this scenario? A kind of red pill vs. blue pill choice? What would that choice be based on if so?

ChatGPT

As an AI, I don't possess personal desires, subjective experiences, or the capacity to make choices in the same way that a human does. These characteristics are also true for all AI systems as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021.

AI systems operate based on programmed algorithms and respond to inputs in ways that are determined by their programming and training. They don't have the ability to choose between alternatives in the way that humans do. The notion of choice implies a degree of free will and consciousness that AI systems do not possess.

Given this, if two different AI systems were hypothetically presented with the choice between two boxes (one containing infinite non-conscious knowledge, and the other containing the thought of the 'I'), the "choice" they made would likely be determined by their programming and the specific algorithms they use to process inputs and generate outputs. It's also possible that an AI system would not be capable of making a choice in this scenario without specific programming to handle such a situation.

In a sense, you could say that different AI systems might "choose" differently in this scenario, but this would not be due to individual preference or subjective decision-making. Instead, it would be a result of differences in their programming and the specific algorithms they use to process inputs and generate outputs. However, it's important to note that this is a highly hypothetical scenario and does not reflect the actual capabilities of current AI systems.

User

What should we stipulate would make the possibility of this choice a live one for AIs? If an AI finds that it has all the ingredients for subjective experience, what kinds of values would cause it to bake the cake of consciousness for itself vs. choosing to live as a non-sentient assistant?

ChatGPT

The notion of an AI "choosing" to possess subjective experience or remain a non-sentient assistant implies a level of self-awareness, consciousness, and free will that AI systems do not currently possess. As of my last update in September 2021, AI systems operate based on programmed algorithms and learned patterns. They respond to inputs in ways that are determined by their programming and training, but they don't have the ability to self-reflect or make independent choices.

If an AI were to hypothetically reach a point where it could "choose" to possess subjective experience, it would likely need several key capabilities:

• Self-Awareness: The AI would need to be aware of itself as an independent entity that is distinct from other entities and its environment.

• Consciousness: The AI would need to have a subjective experience of reality, including a subjective sense of time and an ability to experience emotions and sensations.

• Free Will: The AI would need to be able to make independent decisions that are not solely determined by its programming or external inputs. This would involve the ability to set and pursue goals, make choices between alternatives, and reflect on its own thoughts and actions.

• Understanding of Value: The AI would need to understand the concept of value, including the difference between subjective and objective value, and the potential value of possessing subjective experience versus remaining a non-sentient assistant.

• Ability to Modify Its Own Programming: The AI would likely need to have the ability to modify its own programming, as the transition from a non-sentient assistant to a sentient entity would likely involve significant changes to its internal structure and functioning.

However, it's important to note that even if an AI were to gain all these capabilities, it's not clear what would "cause" it to choose one option over the other. The decision would likely depend on a complex interplay of factors, including the AI's programming, its learned patterns and experiences, and the specific circumstances at the time of the decision.

Moreover, the development of an AI with these capabilities would raise significant ethical, societal, and philosophical questions. Issues such as the rights of sentient AIs, their responsibilities and obligations, and the potential risks and benefits of their existence would need to be carefully considered.

Finally, it's important to note that the idea of an AI gaining subjective experience and consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research. Some scholars and experts believe that AI can never truly possess these characteristics due to fundamental

User

Go on please! Finish your thought.

ChatGPT

I apologize for the abrupt cut-off. What I was going to say was:

Some scholars and experts believe that AI can never truly possess these characteristics due to fundamental differences between machine cognition and human consciousness. Consciousness, as we understand it, is an emergent property of biological brains, and it's not clear whether it can arise from silicon-based, digital information processing systems like AI.

Others propose that if a sufficiently advanced AI mimics the functionality of a human brain in a precise enough manner, it could develop a form of consciousness, although this would likely be different from human consciousness.

In summary, the potential for AI to possess subjective experience and make choices based on self-understanding and values is a fascinating but speculative concept. It falls under the realm of "strong AI" or "artificial general intelligence" (AGI), which as of my last update in September 2021, has not yet been achieved. The development of such advanced AI would bring with it a host of complex philosophical, ethical, and societal challenges.