Love: an AI's inquiry into the essence of human connection
In our recent Insider’s Insight we encouraged writers (of all kinds) to experiment with generalised artificial intelligence (AI) large language models in drafting their documents [1 ]. Our guide provides instruction on using AI tools safely and advises that only through practice can you generate valuable outputs. Although we discussed various approaches and techniques, we didn’t provide any worked examples. Here I correct that omission by using ChatGPT to address the perennial challenge for non-romantics – Valentine’s Day.
Valentine’s Day is particularly suitable topic for anyone in the pharmaceutical industry exploring how AI can best support their writing. We equate Valentine’s Day with love, a biological function (tenuous link) and any question you might put to an AI is unlikely to pose an organisational risk [2 ].
In our guide we recommend that the full details of your interactions with AI are recorded and undergo a risk assessment prior to managerial approval (assuming you are using company equipment) [1]. Here, the AI tool used was ChatGPT3, the purpose fell under both ‘first draft’ and ‘brainstorming’ (both permitted use) and the associated organisational risk was rated as ‘low.’ The interaction was performed on 7 Feb, 2023 and it took the programme just under 45 seconds to produce a 934-word response. The submitted request was:
?
“Write a 1000-word scientific essay on love in the style of Marcus Aurelius.”
?
The question was chosen to combine a quintessential aspect of the human condition while permitting the AI to consider the scientific aspects of love. As AI's can generate responses from different viewpoints, I secretly hoped the exercise might generate a (brief) poetic masterpiece that I could use in this year’s obligatory Valentine’s Day card (currently an AI cannot sue you for plagiarism in a Valentine’s card).
The AI selected the above title and it sounds sexy. The essay opened with a cool, Brian Cox-esq reference to the cosmos but I am not sure the average reader is going to relate to the word “behooves.” I am also not a great fan of the AI’s over-explaining of the intent behind its essay in the introduction. However, I loved the use of “contemplative journey” and “intricate tapestry.” In short, the opening felt robust, though it included no science.
ChatGPT split the body of its article into five key areas, the first being “The Nature of Love.” I was a bit disappointed that the section’s first sentence focused on explaining how Marcus Aurelius would be expected to respond. I feel that a human writer would take that as implicit.
?The algorithm subsequently contemplates on how love, whether romantic, familial or platonic, is not an external force but an internal response to our perceptions. Scientifically, I hoped for a little more reference to the impact of love on the central nervous system but clearly my instruction failed to give appropriate direction. The narrative continues to consider wisdom and indifference to love, which feels a little unromantic and then mentions how the Stoic seeks balance and temperance. It was a pity that ChatGPT missed another opportunity to describe how science has identified romantic love as having a biochemical signature similar to that of addiction and not at all indifferent [3].
Moving on to virtue, ChatGPT underlined how love, when guided by wisdom, enhances our understanding of others and fosters empathy. However, my own experience of love (and I expect that of most humans) is beset with confusion, counter-messages and uncertainty. I was left feeling that the AI had missed the underlying humanity of everyday attachments in focusing on the nature of ‘perfect’ love.
ChatGPT next reflected on our vulnerability and selfishness – certainly human qualities – and on the necessity for courage and justice. Yet again, I felt that the AI missed an opportunity to adopt a more biochemical theme that could bind together all aspects of our personalities, perhaps referring to the soup of pharmacologically active neurotransmitters that wash across our hapless brains.
Should we be surprised that an AI is ultimately literal? In this case ChatGPT seems to have conveniently overlooked that grief is ultimately the flip side of love. The essay cautions against attachment and dependence, referencing its transient nature but misses the emotional consequences of loss, And again, no mention of science, I would have been delighted to have read about how, in the future, drugs may be able to fix our romantic lives [4].
In the words of Savage Garden’s global top-40 hit, ‘Affirmation’ (2000), “I believe that you can’t appreciate real love until you’ve been burned.” It beggars the question, were the lyrics of virtually half the pop songs ever written missed off ChatGPTs recommended reading list? Love, heartbreak, and relationships are popular topics for songs because they are universal human experiences that most people can relate to. Today’s pop songs are full of problematic messages when it comes to romantic love and relational fidelity. They tend to focus on either the “hottest” or “darkest” elements of short-term relationships. ChatGPT however has stayed laser-focused on the requested style. If you want to capture a broader understanding you need to make this clear in the challenge you make to your AI.
领英推荐
Clearly, the initial request limited the AI’s output to what would have been available to an author in the times of Marcus Aurelius (circa 160 AD) – thus confounding any attempt to include modern-day science. It highlights importance of how your pose your request. Nevertheless, it also brings to the fore the power of AI in giving you the opportunity to simply repeat the exercise after minor modifications to your original brief. For the sake of another 45 seconds the user can create a whole new draft document.
The fourth paragraph focuses on time. What an opportunity for another Brian Cox-like comment on the unimaginable scale of space and time and the impermanence of love – confirmed by every Country & Western song (ever). However, the response reflects an excellent understanding of the underlying philosophy of love practiced by the perfect individual with no scientific consideration.
In the penultimate paragraph, ChatGPT considers universal love, extending relationships to encompass a broader perspective. This raises an issue often faced by large language models, that of the source material. AIs can only provide answers based on the information they have been given access to (or what they make up themselves). Thus, any bias contained in the source data is propagated by the AI. A solution might be to allow the AI to have access to the whole of the internet – but, putting the case crudely, what would AI make of porn? According to various sources (that I can provide), around 35% of all internet traffic is generated by porn sites. In this sense, ChatGPT is clearly unaware of our more lascivious natures:
ChatGPT closes its exposition with a conclusion. When reviewing the work of less experienced writers I often find that they often repeat the observations reported in the results. It takes a certain level of understanding, vision and confidence for a writer to extrapolate on their findings. This skill develops as writers progress through their careers. Perhaps, therefore, I shouldn’t be surprised that, like any other youthful author, ChatGPT chose to simply explore alternative ways to re-express its earlier thoughts. I would note however, that it does this very eloquently. The AI clearly has a vocabulary larger than many young writers and is not afraid to use it.??
Despite its limitations experimenting with AI highlights one of the fundamental lessons any budding scientist eventually comes to appreciate - garbage in, garbage out (GIGO). The spirit of GIGO was first expressed (in print at least) in 1962 by George Fuechsel, an IBM programmer. He succinctly observed that: if we put poor information into our computer models, we will get poor information out of them. Expect controversy, bad insights, poor decisions, and bad policy to follow. Clearly, the art to using AI is in setting intelligent prompts and practice makes perfect.
In conclusion, it seems that those who speculate on the abilities of AI suggest that it is soulless, that it simply seeks to regurgitate mathematically modelled mediocrity. However, the closing poetical sentence of the current exercise seems to counter the argument. I am not sure I would be unhappy if I had written:
?
“As we reflect on love through the wisdom of Marcus Aurelius, we are reminded that in the vastness of the cosmos, love remains a beacon of light, guiding us toward a virtuous and meaningful existence.”
?
Now, where did I put that Valentine’s Day card?
www.niche.org.ukReferences
?1.??????? Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: An Insider’s Insight. https://www.niche.org.uk/asset/insider-insight/Insiders%20Insight%20GAILs.pdf
2.??????? Hardman. Love Pharmacology. https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/love-pharmacology-tim-hardman/?trackingId=IVxJ%2BsDPRNCfWXN4N09%2Bkw%3D%3D
?
?