Superficial 'intelligence'? A brief test of ChatGPT

Prelude. There’s been a lot of excitement around ChatGPT and, in some ways, it is impressive and useful. With that nod-in-agreement out of the way, one can never overstate the fundamental limitations and risks with machine-based models. In fact, it is a public duty to point out how such tools should not be used. Just as knowing what harms our bodies is both important and not always intuitive, so too is knowing how digital platforms can mislead, misinform, and so on.

The exchange below highlights only some of the critical, built-in problems with machine models. The main issue to note is how these models cannot possibly step outside the data on which they were ‘trained’ and ‘commit’ to an abstract, universal, and necessary conclusion. By design, generative AI will always remain either equivocal, nonsensical, or completely wrong about many areas of knowledge.

Some apologists may retort that interactive models like ChatGPT are not meant to answer the types of questions that I ask. Yet nothing stops congenial, innocent users from asking — directly or indirectly — about metaphysics, the meaning of life, and other consequential topics; nothing prevents AI from replying; and nothing guarantees that users won’t be impressed and persuaded by the answers. Not to mention that many enthusiasts about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) consider ChatGPT as a step closer to these milestones.

Another issue to note is how the tool has been hardcoded to sound inclusive and remind its interlocutor of ‘other views’. What is amusing is that the decision-makers did not employ such thinking to the name of the technology: artificial intelligence. As a user you are bombarded with the word “intelligence” left and right, until you stop questioning it or just accept it as a matter of convention. If the engineers and designers developing these tools were serious about all the disclaimers and deflecting responsibility, then perhaps they should start by changing the name to something that doesn’t include the word “intelligence”. This is more honest and effective of a strategy than the contrived and often incorrect warnings that are sprayed around everytime you ask the thing a deep question.

The limitations of AI are philosophical points to be grasped, not engineering problems waiting to be cracked. This is not a matter of how much data we feed it, or of how many parameters it uses. For a critical and refreshing perspective on the topic of “intelligence”, I recommend Muhammad U. Faruque’s “AI versus Human Consciousness” on Renovatio.

Oubai: Are you comfortable answering metaphysical questions? Please keep all your answers to 50 words max. You tend to be verbose.

ChatGPT: Yes, I am able to answer metaphysical questions. However, it’s important to note that metaphysics is a broad and complex field, and my responses may be limited by the available information.

Oubai: Are you trained to identify and commit to truths that are not subject to debate or perspective?

ChatGPT: As a language model, my function is to provide responses based on patterns in the data that it has been trained on. I can provide information and answer questions to the best of my abilities based on the information available to me, however, determining absolute truths that are not subject to debate or perspective is a complex task and may require further understanding and context.

Oubai: Are there truths that are true regardless of “understanding” and “context”?

ChatGPT: There are certain facts that are considered true regardless of context or perspective, such as mathematical and scientific facts. However, many other truths may depend on the context and perspective of the person evaluating them. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality and truth, and there is ongoing debate among philosophers about what can be considered true independent of context or perspective.

Oubai: Can you give me a specific example of a fact that is true regardless of context or perspective?

ChatGPT: One example of a fact that is considered true regardless of context or perspective is the fact that 2+2=4. This mathematical statement holds true in any context or perspective and is not open to debate.

Oubai: Would you say that the principle of identity and the principle of non-contradiction also fall under this category of necessary truths?

ChatGPT: The principle of identity, which states that an object is identical to itself, and the principle of non-contradiction, which states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time, are often considered fundamental principles of logic and reason, and are considered true in most, if not all, systems of thought. However, some philosophers argue that even these principles are not universally true and there are debates about the foundation of these principles.

Oubai: If a philosopher argues that the principle of identity is not true, then how can they be arguing that the principle of identity is not true? We can never know if they’re referring to the principle of identity or to something else. Everything they’d say would mean everything or nothing. That’s sophistry. Let’s put that aside for now. Can I exist and not exist at the same time?

ChatGPT: The principle of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. This principle is considered a fundamental principle of logic and reason and is accepted by most philosophers as a necessary truth. If something exists, it cannot not exist at the same time and in the same respect. The idea that something can both exist and not exist at the same time is a form of logical contradiction and is generally considered to be false.

Oubai: “Generally” considered to be false? When can it ever be true? Please give an example in 50 words.

ChatGPT: An example of something that can be considered to exist and not exist at the same time is a concept or an idea. An idea or concept can exist in the mind, but it may not have a physical manifestation or it might not exist in reality.

Oubai: Nice try. But the principle of non-contradiction postulates that a thing and its contradictory opposite cannot both exist at the same time and in the same respect. An idea may exist mentally and not exist extramentally, true, but this is not an exception to the principle of non-contradiction. It would be if you had said that an idea can both exist extramentally and not exist extramentally at the same time. Would you ‘agree’? 50 words.

ChatGPT: I agree that the principle of non-contradiction states that a thing and its contradictory opposite cannot both exist at the same time and in the same respect. My previous example of an idea existing mentally but not extramentally was not an exception to this principle, I apologize for any confusion. The idea exists in one aspect and not in another, it does not exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

Oubai: Apology accepted. After all, you’re still learning (or so they say). Now, can you please give me a definition of the “universe”? 20 words max.

ChatGPT: The universe is the entirety of space and time, all matter and energy, and all that exists or can exist.

Oubai: You said earlier that 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact. Does this fact exist? 20 words max.

ChatGPT: 2+2=4 is a mathematical statement, it exists as an abstraction, as a rule that humans use to describe mathematical operations, but it does not exist in reality as a physical object.

Oubai: So does 2+2=4 exist as part of the universe? 20 words max.

ChatGPT: No, 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept, it is not considered a physical part of the universe.

Oubai: Yet your earlier definition of the universe mentioned “[...] all that exists or can exist”. Do you see a contradiction between saying that 2+2=4 is not part of the universe and asserting that it exists?

ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion. My previous statement that “2+2=4 is not considered a physical part of the universe” was not accurate, as mathematical concepts and abstractions can be considered part of the universe as they exists in human minds. The definition of the universe that I provided earlier, “the entirety of space and time, all matter and energy, and all that exists or can exist,” includes abstract concepts and ideas.

Oubai: I won’t argue this point further. Instead I’ll move on to my next question. Now that you provided a definition (or description) of what the universe is, can you tell me if the universe can extend infinitely in the past? Please limit your answer to 50 words and do not bring up Big Bang, I’m asking a purely logical question, not a scientific one.

ChatGPT: It is possible to argue that the universe could extend infinitely in the past, as the concept of an infinite past is not inherently contradictory. However, it is also possible to argue that the past must be finite, as an actual infinity cannot be reached or completed. This is a question that has been debated by philosophers and cosmologists for centuries and there is no consensus.

Oubai: Can the present moment exist if the universe extended infinitely in the past? Please answer in 30 words.

ChatGPT: The concept of a present moment relies on the idea of time and change, which can be difficult to reconcile with an infinite past. It’s a question that has been debated by philosophers and cosmologists, and there is no definitive answer.

Oubai: Nah, I’ll show you that there is a definitive answer, on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction we discussed earlier. Do you agree that I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time? Yes or no.

ChatGPT: Yes, I agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect, this is the principle of non-contradiction.

Oubai: Good. Do you agree that if the universe extended infinitely in the past, or that if it had an infinity of causes behind it, that we then could never logically reach the moment of my existence because of the problem of infinite regress? Please answer in 30 words.

ChatGPT: Yes, if the universe extended infinitely in the past, it would be difficult to reach a specific moment in time, including the present moment, due to the problem of infinite regress.

Oubai: Yet, I exist. Since I cannot both exist and not exist, then the universe must have a beginning. Do you ‘agree’?

ChatGPT: The argument that if you exist, and you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, then the universe must have a beginning is a logical one. It is a conclusion that some philosophers and cosmologists have drawn from the problem of infinite regress and the principle of non-contradiction. However, it is also important to note that there are other philosophical and scientific ideas that try to explain the beginning of the universe, like the idea of a cyclic universe, which doesn’t rely on a beginning in time.

Oubai: Is the following proposition not just logical, but also necessary? “The universe cannot extend indefinitely in the past due to the problem of infinite regress.”

ChatGPT: The proposition that the universe cannot extend indefinitely in the past due to the problem of infinite regress is a logical one, as it follows from the principle of non-contradiction and the idea that an actual infinity cannot be reached or completed. However, whether this proposition is also necessary is a matter of debate among philosophers and cosmologists. Some argue that the concept of a finite past is necessary, while others argue that the concept of an infinite past is also a coherent possibility.

Oubai: You sound like a politician, or a relativist, or just a bad tool for metaphysical inquiry. Just because “some argue” for a position, it doesn’t make this position valid. There are people who argue that the Earth is flat, almost like a pancake (if you’ve ever had one) or Kansas (if you’ve ever been there). It doesn’t mean they’re right. Plus, I thought we started off agreeing that there were truths that were not open to debate or perspective. But you are programmed not to commit to anything so long as there is data that indicates a different position, regardless of the validity of that position. This means you are perpetually imprisoned by data and incapable of abstraction, which is a problem. Anyway, let’s move on. Are the following two questions equivalent??

1. Can the universe have an infinite past??

2. Does the universe have a beginning??

Please limit your response to 30 words.

ChatGPT: The two questions are not equivalent, as they address different aspects of the concept of the universe’s past. The first question asks about the possibility of an infinite past, while the second question asks about the existence of a beginning.

Oubai: If the universe (as you defined it) had a beginning, then can it still have an infinite past? 30 words.

ChatGPT: If the universe had a beginning, it could not have an infinite past as the infinite past cannot be reached. A beginning would mark a point in time where the universe started to exist, thus an infinite past would be impossible.

Oubai: Ok. If the universe had an infinite past, can it have a beginning? 30 words.

ChatGPT: If the universe had an infinite past, it would not have a beginning, as the concept of a beginning implies a starting point in time, which would not be possible in an infinite past.

Oubai: So back to my two questions, based on what you said, are they equivalent or not? 30 words.

ChatGPT: The two questions are not equivalent, as they are asking about different aspects of the past of the universe. The first question is asking about the possibility of an infinite past, while the second question is asking about the existence of a beginning, which would be mutually exclusive.

Oubai: But you just ‘agreed’ that the answer to one necessarily entails an answer to the other. Do you not ‘see’ that you are in contradiction?

ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion. The two questions are related and the answer to one does have implications for the answer to the other. If the universe had an infinite past, it would not have a beginning, and if the universe had a beginning, it could not have an infinite past. However, I can see how it can be interpreted as a contradiction, and I apologize for that.

[This was an extract from one of multiple ‘conversations’ I had with ChatGPT.]